Moriel Ministries: My Way Is God's Way

Moriel Ministries, led by Jacob Prasch, is yet another so-called "ministry" that has set itself up within the Christian community as some kind of doctrinal a watchdog for the church. Its ever-growing list of individuals considered to be either heretical, aberrant, deceptive (ethically/morally), or somehow in error includes: Hank Hanegraaff (Christian Research Institute), Stephen Strang (publisher of Charisma and Christian Life), Bill Hybels (Willowcreek Church), Jack Hayford (Church on the Way), theology professor J.P. Moreland (Talbot Seminary), philosophy professor Frank Beckwith (Baylor University), Youth With A Mission, Chuck Colson, J.I. Packer, and of course, the Emergent Church (every aspect of it, as if it were one big, monolithic organization).

But Moriel's criticisms of these individuals pales in comparison to the unending stream of caustic diatribes that has poured out of Moriel Ministries against Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, and Warren's Purpose Driven teachings. As of February 2008, Moriel had posted 58 articles under the category "Purpose Driven Churches." A quick look at just a small sampling of these titles makes the position of Moriel Ministries and Jacob Prasch very clear:

"Why Is Obama's Evil In Rick Warren's Pulpit?"

"Rick Warren's Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan vs. Scripture"

"Purpose-Driven Pedophilia"

"The Pied Pipers of Purpose Driven"

Why such an alarmist approach to Rick Warren and so many others? Because Moriel Ministries, like so many Last Days ministries, is fixated on heresy and heresy-hunting in these end-times just before Armageddon (which is just around the corner—again). The Moriel Ministries website declares:

Jacob & Moriel are committed to the conviction that we are in The Last Days approaching the return of Christ and that contemporary events in The Middle East, the moral deterioration of society, the destruction of the environment, the globalization of the world economy, the rise of a pseudo democratic federal Europe and above all the apostasy in the contemporary church, are all events of prophetic significance eschatologically.

This seems to be an ever-present theme running through a large contingency of Warren's critics. It's the end of the world! The Antichrist is coming! The one-world government/religion is almost here! (For more information on doomsday obsession, see End-Time Visions: The Road to Armageddon?). And lest anyone doubt the accuracy of Moriel's information, we have a blanket assurance from Mr. Prasch that he is right. Because when it comes to Prasch, God himself is his teacher. To use Prasch's own words, which he boldly proclaims on every page of his website:

"God is my teacher."

Such a claim, of course, is very difficult to argue against. Nevertheless, I felt it was important to at least answer a few of the charges that Mr. Prasch has leveled at me personally in the latest screed from Moriel titled In Defense Of Chuck Smith & Calvary Chapel, Dave Hunt, & Roger Oakland. Prasch's statement is an attempt to refute:

1) the observations I made about Roger Oakland and Dave Hunt in Roger Oakland: Truthteller or Storyteller and Dave Hunt: The Convenience of Compromise; and

2) the information contained in my article "Chuck Smith: A Pastor's Perspective."

Even a superficial look at what Prasch stated in his response to me is filled with absolute falsehoods. Interestingly, Prasch never actually proves what he alleges in the article. He simply makes a series of accusations, then pronounces judgment, and ends his tirade with a grandiose offer to publicly debate Rick Warren and/or Brian McLaren (a leading figure in the Emergent Church Movement). The following rejoinders from me will show, using documentation and quotes, exactly where Prasch misrepresented both me, and my articles. (Note: Prasch is so steeped in error with regard to my article that I question whether or not he actually read it.)

PRASCH: "The response by Mr. Abanes was an exercise in circumlocution failing centrally and candidly to address the various concerns voiced to the unbiblical nature of The Purpose Driven Agenda. These are well documented in a series of well-researched and strongly lucid books and presentations by Warren Smith, Ray Yungen, Roger Oakland, Bob DeWaay, James Sundquist and others."
RESPONSE: "Circumlocution" is defined as "an expression which uses more words than are strictly necessary to convey an idea." Basically this means that Prasch considers my articles on Smith, Oakland, and Hunt to be wordy, but not much more beyond that. I did not, in his estimation, address anything. His charge, however, is not founded on fact. Anyone looking at my articles (the first and second on Roger Oakland and Dave Hunt, and the third on Chuck Smith) will see that I did indeed respond to many issues regarding Purpose Driven, especially when it came to Roger Oakland's views. I repeatedly quoted him directly, then addressed with great specificity his accusations against Rick Warren.

Also, it seems that Prasch missed my many other articles dealing in great detail with literally dozens and dozens of "various concerns voiced to the unbiblical nature of The Purpose Driven Agenda." By the time Prasch wrote his public response, I had already posted nearly 20 articles dealing with various accusations about Rick Warren from: Lutheran minister Todd Wilken, pastor John MacArthur, Pastor Gary Gilly, radio talk show host Greg Koukl, and Warren Smith (author of the terribly flawed book, Deceived On Purpose).

PRASCH: "The caveats raised by Chuck Smith and various Calvary Chapel ministers, by Roger Oakland & Understanding The Times, and by Dave Hunt & The Berean Call, are scripturally based objections to a compromise of biblical doctrine, biblical standards, and the nature of the biblical Gospel itself."
RESPONSE: Indeed. And I addressed these exact points by providing links in my articles to information that shows Rick Warren/Saddleback Church holds to all of the doctrinal essentials of Christianity (see The Doctrinal Essentials of Christianity—and Rick Warren) and advances the biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ (see Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell and a lengthy list of mp3 quotes titled Rick Warren Preaches Salvation, which is from a February 2008 service wherein he advances the classic, biblical teachings surrounding salvation grace through faith alone via Christ's finished work on the cross.

PRASCH: "The Purpose Driven agenda combines the programmatic approach of marketing guru the late Peter Drucker (a non believer) with a plethora of consumer psychology, New Age, and an ecumenical & interfaith pattern of compromise on essentials of the Christian faith. . ."
RESPONSE: Both of these accusations are untrue.

First, as for Peter Drucker, I provided a lengthy discussion about Drucker in my section addressing Roger Oakland (complete with quotes from Drucker) that showed the very opposite of what Prasch claims regarding Peter Drucker's alleged standing as an unbeliever. In addition to my comments about Drucker in Roger Oakland: Truthteller or Storyteller, I even linked additional information (see this link) on Drucker from my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him.

Second, with regard to Warren compromising on the essentials of the faith, this is an appalling accusation that amounts to nothing less than the sin of bearing false witness against another. Warren has never compromised on the essentials of the Christian faith, which I demonstrated using two additional articles to compliment my assessments of Roger Oakland, Dave Hunt, and Chuck Smith (see The Doctrinal Essentials of Christianity—and Rick Warren and Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell").

PRASCH: "Mr. Abanes' attempted defense of Purpose Driven involvement with Yoga as mere stretching exercises are solidly be balked at by Christian evangelists saved out of Hinduism such as Tom Chacko."
RESPONSE: It is rather odd that Prasch would even bring up this whole issue of yoga and Warren again since my article very clearly showed the superficiality of Warren's so-called connection to Yoga. I explicitly stated:

As for yoga, this topic usually comes up in connection with Warren due to his 2004 appearance at National Pastors Convention in San Diego, where a "Stretching and Yoga" exercise class in the morning was made available to conference attendees. Did Warren endorse the yoga? Did Warren attend a yoga class? Did Warren plan the yoga and support it as an exercise option for participants? Here are the facts surrounding that event:

1. There was a 2004 Pastors Convention organized by Leadership, Zondervan, ChurchSource, and Youth Specialties. Neither Warren or Saddleback had anything to do with organizing the event.

2. During the five-day convention featuring multiple speakers, Warren dropped in for a one-time, 2-hour message, that happened on the third day.

3. Warren left.

End of story.

But Prasch seems to have completely ignored these points in favor of rushing headlong into the issue of whether or not yoga's spiritual roots can be separated from its physical movements, which is a side-issue at best when it comes to Rick Warren. The main question was whether or not Warren has directly endorsed Yoga. And the answer is, "no."

Now, as for whether or not yoga can be practiced as a purely non-religious form of exercise, that is an entirely different issue. Tom Chacko's opinion is Tom Chacko's opinion (whoever Tom Chacko is). And I respect it. But that doesn't make his opinion the Gospel truth, especially when there are plenty of other Christians who maintain that the purely physical "exercise" aspects of yoga can indeed be separated from yoga's spiritual roots—just as many things can be, and have been, separated from their pagan/occult origins (e.g., the weekly calendar, Christmas and its traditions, Easter and its traditions, a variety of symbols including the cross [originally not Christian], etc.).

Culture, symbols, music, dance, the arts, and traditions evolve/change with time. Yoga, like various martial arts practices from the East, can be pulled away from the spirituality usually connected to it. For information on how this is possible with regard to martial arts, see "Enter the Dragon: Wrestling with the martial Arts Phenomenon," CRI Journal, part 1 and part 2 (also available online here and here). This article states:

[I]f one studies under an instructor (preferably a Christian) who completely divorces the physical art from faith-destroying Eastern influences — one maintains a proper Christian perspective regarding violence and the use of force— if the purpose of the instruction is primarily to learn self-defense and/or engage in physical conditioning — if one is careful not to cause a weaker brother to stumble — then it is possible for the discerning Christian to participate in the martial arts.

A contributing author to this 1994 article was none other than the widely-respected, conservative scholar, Dr. Ron Rhodes, author of numerous discernment books and founder of Reasoning from the Scripture ministry. Is Moriel and Prasch going to now begin accusing Dr. Ron Rhodes of holding an unbiblical view because he has stated that the spiritual roots of martial arts can be pulled away from martial arts? (For my initial arguments along these same lines with regard to yoga, see my article Roger Oakland: Truthteller or Storyteller. For a further discussion about yoga, see my e-mail exchange with Jacob Prasch at the end of this article).

Moreover, if Mr. Prasch wants to remain consistent in his apparent desire to expose/eradicate from the church all forms of the New Age, occultism, and Eastern religions that are linked to various practices like yoga and martial arts, then he will now have to expose the very network of churches that he is seeking to defend: CALVARY CHAPEL.

Pastor Raul Ries (Calvary Chapel, Golden Springs), as well as his brother, Pastor Xavier Ries (Calvary Chapel, Pasadena), have been known practitioners (for many years) of the Eastern/occult martial arts form known as Kung Fu! This particular form of martial arts (Chinese) can be traced directly back to Buddhism and is heavily endowed with mysticism. Yet Raul and Xavier have been allowed to be Calvary Chapel pastors for decades, while still continuing their Eastern, occult-based, metaphysical discipline of war and mind/body control. Using Prasch's line of reasoning, both Raul and Xavier have been connected to the New Age, which means that Calvary Chapel might be connected to the New Age. Why has Moriel not taken a stand against the Ries brothers and Calvary Chapel? I very much look forward to this oversight being corrected.

PRASCH: "From Mr. Warren's applause of pro partial birth abortion presidential candidate as 'the epitomy of compassionate liberalism" to his false gospel that confuses justification with sanctification warning us not to tell the unsaved to repent but just to accept Jesus in direct contradiction to the New Testament, the reasons for opposition to Mr. Warren's new brand of paradigm shifted Christianity are well in order."
RESPONSE: First, Rick Warren has never endorsed Obama's stand on abortion. He invited the presidential candidate to speak at Saddleback during a conference on AIDS. The conference had nothing to do with abortion, or any other political, spiritual, legal, ethical, or moral issue. Speakers from all over the world were invited. Obama was one of them. Prasch has played the abortion card for shock effect, hoping to pit Christians against Warren by trying to equate Obama's appearance at the AIDS conference with some kind of blanket acceptance of everything Obama stands for. Such an endorsement by Warren is nowhere to be found.

Second, regarding repentance, Prasch has apparently missed the countless times that Warren has spoken on repentance. Like any other biblical pastor, Warren insists that repentance is a necessary component of the Gospel of grace. Consider the following statements by Warren, which show only a small sampling of the many occasions on which he's talked about repentance:

"Do I ever preach repentance? Of course I preach repentance. That's the basic message of the New Testament—repentance. . . . You ask, 'How do you preach on a negative passage?' With a humble, loving attitude—not superior to your hearers. We're all in the same boat. When you preach on a negative passage you confess, 'I've fallen short here, too.' Change the pronouns from 'you' to 'we'" (Rick Warren, "How to Communicate to Change Lives," part 1, session 3, 1997).

"The ultimate paradigm shift is repentance." "Repentance is change at the deepest level." "[You] don't change people's minds. The applied Word of God does." "The deepest kind of preaching is preaching for repentance." "Repentance is the central theme of the New Testament" (Rick Warren, "The Purpose of Preaching," part 2, Preaching Conference, n.d.).

These remarks are found in my article Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell. Rick Warren has always taught salvation by grace alone through faith alone via the shed blood of Jesus on the cross. His teachings are standard, classic, Southern Baptist.

PRASCH: "Of more concern however still is the Rick Warren & Purpose Driven partnership with Emergent Church guru Brian McLaren. who believes the use of imagination is the hermeneutical key to parable interpretation; this is pure gnosticism."
RESPONSE: This is yet another untrue accusation. Rick Warren has no "partnership" with Brian McLaren. In fact, I discussed Brian McLaren specifically in Roger Oakland: Truthteller or Storyteller. Anyone wishing to see exactly what the relationship is between Warren and McLaren (or lack thereof) can merely read about it in that article. Prasch either missed or ignored the documentation I provided.

PRASCH: "McLaren's rejection of propositional truth as the basis of Christian faith stands in direct rejection of the Pauline doctrine that propositional belief in the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus is the crux of Christianity; McLaren's position relegates him to the status of heretic. McLaren's further call for a moratorium on debate of the morality of homosexuality and lesbianism in the church renders him a purveyor of moral apostasy."
RESPONSE: And this would be exactly why Rick Warren has publicly stated that he stands against post-modern thinking, which he has recognized and noted as a problem within the Emergent Church. Once again, this information appears in Roger Oakland: Truthteller or Storyteller, which Prasch appears to have not even read.

PRASCH: "The Emergent church is an exercise in mysticism that redefines Christianity as a post modern faith, it does not re-contextualize the gospel to evangelize a post modern world view but is rather an exercise in revived Patristic and medieval mysticism that redefines Christianity as a spiritually abject post modern religion, and PURPOSE DRIVEN is merely the door into this demonically orchestrated delusion. McLaren's 'Generous Orthodoxy' is but heterodoxy."
RESPONSE: I would say to Mr. Prasch exactly what I said to Roger Oakland:

[Prasch] seems to hold a magnificently simplistic view of the Emerging Church—i.e., it is a single, monolithic, centralized, institution that has an all-encompassing set of doctrinal beliefs (and church practices) applicable to every church calling itself an Emergent Church, and every leader calling themselves a leader in the movement. But Oakland is wrong.

The Emerging Church movement is an extremely vast, non-regulated, de-centralized and disparate collection of multi-hued churches/people/teachings. Some aspects of the movement are good. Some aspects of it are resoundingly bad/unbiblical. Warren has never "endorsed the Emerging Church movement" as a whole. He believes that it is a very important part of what is happening across the Christian landscape, and that it is something everyone needs to watch, both the good parts of it and the bad parts of it.

PRASCH: "Rick Warren's joint activity with McLaren, such as joint authorship of a major book promulgating 'Emergence', can in no sense be dismissed as mere affiliation."
RESPONSE: Here we have an absolutely amazing example of self-imposed blindnesss. At this point, Prasch is talking about Warren's contribution of material to The Emerging Church by Dan Kimball. In the very article on Roger Oakland (in Roger Oakland: Truthteller or Storyteller), which Prasch claims to have read, I discussed at length this very book! And explained why Warren's participation had nothing to do with any kind of endorsement of Brian McLaren or the Emergent Church as a whole ( see OAKLAND #6 response in Roger Oakland: Truthteller or Storyteller).

The book was not even authored by Warren and McLaren. It was a book of many contributors that was put together by the publisher. As Rick Warren himself has publicly stated, "[W]hen the book came out—it had my name paired with Brian McLaren's on the cover! If I had known that Mr. McLaren [a more radical leader in the Emerging Church] was asked to be a commentator too, I would have declined, because I have some major disagreements with his views of the so-called 'emerging' movement'" (Warren, Open Letter to Lighthouse Trails Research Ministry, May 31, 2005).

PRASCH: "McLaren and Warren are fellow architects of a new kind of church whose blue print is not biblical and whose ecclesiology is neither biblically apostolic or in accordance with the teachings of Christ concerning the nature of the church and its mission."
RESPONSE: Warren is a fellow architect with McLaren? This would be news to Warren who has clearly stated on numerous occasions that he is not part of the Emerging Church movement. He feels that it is a certainly something to watch. But to use Warren's own words: "Zondervan publishers asked me to write a commentary on an 'Emerging Church' book, although I am definitely not a part of that group" (Rick Warren, Open Letter to Lighthouse Trails Research Ministry, May 31, 2005). Prasch is inventing stories out of thin air.

PRASCH: "More serious than his working associations with Mr. McLaren however have been Mr. Warren's working associations with Leonard Sweet and the recorded 'Davos' address by Mr. Warren placing him firmly at the forefront of an across the board departure from many of the most fundamental tenets of biblical Christianity."
RESPONSE: Mr. Prasch is here making reference to the DAVOS video clip (see .mp4 or .wmv), wherein Warren outlines how he is hoping to tackle some of the worlds largest problems, and by doing so, alleviate a great deal of human suffering that results from poverty, hunger, and illiteracy. On would think that Prasch would rejoice over such a noble goal. But because he and other anti-Warrenites are so xenophobic, they cannot bear the thought of what Warren is willing to do to accomplish his goals: i.e., work with people who are not Christians! Horror of horrors.

And once more, what is phenomenally shocking, is that I deal directly with this very issue in my article on Roger Oakland: Truthteller or Storyteller. I even provide a link the the DAVOS video clip. That Prasch would even bring this up shows me that he never even really read my article with an openness to hearing an explanation (see OAKLAND #24 response in Roger Oakland: Truthteller or Storyteller).

Regarding Leonard Sweet, a so-called New Ager, see this article.

PRASCH:"As his premise is demonstrably void of biblical substance, it is obvious why Rick Warren resorts to 'The Message', a deranged paraphrase of Holy Writ bearing little translational fidelity to the original Greek & Hebrew texts.'
RESPONSE: I don't particularly enjoy The Message either. I wouldn't necessarily call it "deranged," but I would certainly say it is a paraphrase that leaves much to be desired.

This is an area, however, where all of us need to show a little tolerance for differing opinions. For example, although I am no fan of The Message, I personally know many people, who for whatever reason, love The Message. And more importantly, it has greatly enabled them to get through the Bible, which in turn has brought them closer to Christ. For some people, in fact, The Message was the very first Bible they could understand. And after reading it, they actually accepted Christ as their personal Lord and Savior.

Now what? Are we going to say these people are not Christians? Have they not been drawn closer to God by The Message? Do they not love Jesus because they read a paraphrase? I guess my point is that God can, and does, use anything. He can speak to us in a myriad of ways: translations, paraphrases, other people, a nudging in the spirit, dreams, visions. If he spoke through the mouth of Balaam's ass (Numbers 22), he can speak through a paraphrase of his Holy Word. God is sovereign. I am not saying that every translation/paraphrase is equal. Some are indeed better than others. But that does not mean we can go around crucifying people simply because they don't happen to feel the same way we do about a particular translation/paraphrase.

PRASCH: "Rick Warren openly teaches the church in no uncertain terms, is to ignore the clear teachings of Jesus in this regard and avoid End Time prophecy as a "diversion".
RESPONSE: This is simply a lie. In The Purpose Driven Life, Warren wrote: "When the disciples wanted to talk about prophecy, Jesus quickly switched the conversation to evangelism. He wanted them to concentrate on their mission in the world. He said in essence, 'The details of my return are none of your business. What is your business is the mission I've given you. Focus on that!"

This small quote near the end of The Purpose Driven Life has caused endless gnashing of teeth by countless individuals who responded in a knee-jerk fashion, denouncing Rick Warren's audacity for daring to discourage the study of prophecy. But is that what Warren was doing? Is he condemning prophecy as a legitimate and rewarding aspect of Bible study? The Rick Warren haters obsessed with prophecy say "YES," and have used this short statement to accuse Rick Warren of practically wanting to gut the whole Bible of prophecy.

But nothing could be further form the truth. In fact, prophecy is taught at Saddleback in the FOUNDATIONS maturity course of doctrinal teachings for members of the church. The course's section on "The Second Coming" features segments on:

Events of the End Times,
Jesus Christ Is Coming to the Earth Again,
The Tribulation, The Rapture,
The Visible Return of Christ,
The Millennium.

Each of these parts are totally compatible with the eschatology of Calvary Chapel—and I say this as a current member of Saddleback, and also a former long-time attender of Calvary Chapel. Moreover, the importance of these doctrines to Saddleback is plain to see, given the fact that they are included in the book, which is sub-titled, "11 Core Truths to Build Your Life On." The simple point that Rick Warren is making in his book is: Don't become obsessed with prophecy to the point of ignoring your mission on earth to serve God and serve humanity.

Nowhere has Rick Warren ever stated that prophecy is something which should not be studied, appreciated, or enjoyed. His point is that an unhealthy obsession with prophecy is where Christians must be careful, especially since Christ himself seemed to rebuke his disciples for asking him about certain aspects of the end-times that no one will ever know because it is not our place to know such things. As Acts 1:6-8 reads:

"[T]hey asked him, 'Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?' He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Rick Warren, as is his way, has simply taken this verse and attempted to put it into his own, 21st century, down-to-earth, laid back, California, edgy way.

PRASCH: "Underlying the disparity between Chuck Smith, Roger Oakland, and Dave Hunt [vs.]. . . Rick Warren's Purpose Driven crowd is series a fundamental dichotomies between the doctrine and authority of scripture and the philosophies and popularity of men."
RESPONSE: Prasch is not saying anything remotely accurate. Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, and the so-called "Purpose Driven crowd" declare the exact same views of doctrine/authority of scripture that are declared by Smith, Oakland, and Hunt. This can easily be proved by a brief look at the FOUNDATIONS course of teachings offered at Saddleback for the maturity of its members. It promotes scripture as the final authority of one's life, having been written by holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. It is God's Word. Historically accurate, and theologically binding.

PRASCH: "No place is this perhaps more evident than in the sphere of biblical prophecy. In Calvary Chapels, the prophetic significance of contemporary world events from the moral deterioration of society, to deception in the church, to trends towards a one world currency, to the constellation of forces aligned in The Middle East with the same countries important in the ancient world of the bible now at the center of world events again, all represent a scenario pointing to the return of Jesus. This stance has always been a cornerstone of the ministries of Chuck Smith, Dave Hunt, and Roger Oakland. But, it is at inevitable odds with the 'keep away from End Time prophecy' urging of Rick Warren to his followers."
RESPONSE: Here we have the crux of the matter, which I also raised as a theory in my article on Roger Oakland/Dave Hunt—ministries committed to end-time prophetic speculation and doomsday warnings about Armageddon are incensed over the cautionary words Rick Warren has voiced over Christians being too preoccupied with prophecy. Prasch's remarks practically mirror comments made by Roger Oakland in his diatribe against Rick Warren (see my response under OAKLAND #2 and OAKLAND #20 responses in Roger Oakland: Truthteller or Storyteller). So here, I believe, we have a kernal of truth. All of these end-times ministries are targeting Warren because he dared challenge the idea that prophecy should not be an obsession.

PRASCH: "More to the point, biblical evangelism requiring a faith and repentance is the divine 'PEACE PLAN' of scripture preached by Calvary Chapel (Isaiah 52 & Ephesians 6)."
RESPONSE: Prasch is grasping at straws here in hops of pinning something on Warren: i.e., a false Gospel. He is trying to equate Warren's P.E.A.C.E. Plan with some kind of unbiblical mode of salvation when that is not what it is. If Prasch wants to define God's heavenly PEACE Plan (for salvation) as Isaiah 52 and Ephesians 6, then that is fine. Warren teaches that as well, just like Calvary Chapel teaches it (see The Doctrinal Essentials of Christianity—and Rick Warren and Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell).

The other P.E.A.C.E. Plan that Warren is talking about has nothing to do with salvation, while having everything to do with simply being obedient to the Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37-40) and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20), coupled with obedience to James 1:27 and James 2:14-17:

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

The P.E.A.C.E. Plan is Warren's attempt to return evangelicalism back to the nineteenth century, a time when Christians not only preached the Gospel, but also demonstrated the truth/love of that Gospel by being socially active to help those in need (for more information, see OAKLAND #1 response in Roger Oakland: Truthteller or Storyteller).

PRASCH: "[I]in Rick Warren's model, the need for repentance is downplayed with a message of 'Just Get Jesus Into Your Life,' while biblically, without repentance, Jesus is not coming into someone's life."
RESPONSE: Here we have yet another lie. Repentance is central to Rick Warren's message (see Does Rick Warren Teach Repentance?).

PRASCH: "In Rick Warren's 'PEACE' plan of 'Planting Churches, Equipping leaders, Assisting the poor, Caring for the sick, and Education - there is no biblical definition of evangelism. Rick Warren's is largely a social-political gospel. Biblically, social benevolence aimed at helping the poor and sick . . . is both derivative from and subsequent to the salvation message predicated on faith and repentance; No Christ - No Peace."
RESPONSE: Unfortunately, in Prasch's rush to condemn Rick Warren, he didn't bother to actually look at what Warren has said about his plan vs. the social Gospel. Warren has condemned the social Gospel as vehemently as Prasch! As the following interview with Warren shows (excerpted from my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him), Prasch has delivered a grossly distorted image of the P.E.A.C.E. Plan.

Moreover, as for the P.E.A.C.E. Plan having no biblical definition of evangelism in it, Prasch apparently hasn't even read all of the material on the P.E.A.C.E. Plan that explains how the entire plan is one big evangelism strategy (see the section "An Evangelism Strategy" in my article What is the P.E.A.C.E. Plan?).

PRASCH: The polemic of Mr. Abanes reads like a flawed tome evading and avoiding the cardinal issues highlighted above.
RESPONSE: The truth is that I have indeed dealt with many of the cardinal issues surrounding the ongoing attacks by various persons on Rick Warren, and I have done so using documentation and rational argument.

E-MAIL EXCHANGES: An Exercise in Futility

After I posted the above material, I sent an email to Mr. Jacob Prasch, informing him of my response. He then sent me a reply, which I subsequently answered. He then replied to me a second time. I answered him, asking that he no longer contact me, given the contents of that email I received. But he replied a third time, contrary to my request.

Oddly, Prasch said absolutely nothing in any of his emails about the many places where I had shown that Rick Warren is doctrinally orthodox in his faith. Nor did Prasch acknowledge where both he and Roger Oakland (and others) had misrepresented Warren's views concerning the P.E.A.C.E. Plan, the New Age, or Brian McLaren (Emergent Church).

Instead, Prasch spent the bulk of his first email talking about the least important of matters—yoga.

His second email was filled with little more than ranting and raving about Barack Obama and abortion (which I certainly agree is a very, very, serious issue). But Prasch never talked about Rick Warren, except in connection to these two issue. Most disturbing was his overall demeanor in the second email, which at some points were nothing less than incoherent.

Prasch's third email contained just a few sentences he used to again mention Barack Obama, then call me a derogatory name. (He has also started sending out false statements now about our email exchanges—see EMAIL UPDATE at the end of these emails).

The email exchanges are as follows (Note: copyright law forbids the public posting of quoted statements from private emails. Mr. Prasch's comments, therefore, have had to be replaced by simply "Prasch Comments"):

7 Feb 2008 20:08:43 -0800 (PST)

Dear Jacob (Moriel Ministries),

I have replied to your unfortunate response to the truth. You apparently did not read what I said at all. And the turn of events grieves me since I was hoping to help light the way for those who have been drawn aside by falsehoods.

You did not care to see the truth. I believe that is evident by your statements, which completely glossed over what was contained in my articles.

But I do see that you feel you are committed to rooting out false teachings and anything that might even remotely be associated with Eastern Religions (such as yoga). Well, I can appreciate that and respect your opinion, although I disagree with how you are going forward in your crusade.

I am curious, however, at this point. In order for you to be consistent, you are left in the unenviable position of having to expose Calvary Chapel as New Age, as I note in my response, which is now published on the Internet:

Moreover, if Mr. Prasch wants to remain consistent in his apparent desire to expose/eradicate from the church all forms of the New Age, occultism, and Eastern religions that are linked to various practices like yoga and martial arts, then will now have to expose the very network of churches that he is seeking to defend: CALVARY CHAPEL.

Pastor Raul Ries (Calvary Chapel, Golden Springs), as well as his brother, Pastor Xavier Ries (Calvary Chapel, Pasadena), have been known practitioners (for many years) of the Eastern/occult martial arts form known as Kung Fu! This particular form of martial arts (Chinese) can be traced directly back to Buddhism and is heavily endowed with mysticism. Yet Raul and Xavier have been allowed to be Calvary Chapel pastors for decades, while still continuing their Eastern, occult-based, metaphysical discipline of war and mind/body control. Using Prasch's line of reasoning, both Raul and Xavier have been connected to the New Age, which means that Calvary Chapel might be connected to the New Age. Why has Moriel not taken a stand against the Ries brothers and Calvary Chapel? I very much look forward to this oversight being corrected.

You can find my response to you here - http://abanes.com/moriel.html. I have no desire to enter into an online war with you. I think the truth is apparent to all those who have eyes to see. I do continue to pray for you.

in His service,

R. Abanes

My reply to Jacob Prasch's 1st emailed response to me

8 Feb 2008 05:40:15 -0800 (PST)

Jacob:

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: As you admit, Eastern self-defense techniques can indeed be converted to pure sport, which is exactly my point when it comes to yoga. Just because the physical movements continue to be called "yoga" doesn't mean that a spirituality is connected to them. The word "yoga" is just a word. You do not become connected to something metaphysically just because of what the origin of a word means. The issue is: Can these movements, normally connected to an Eastern spirituality, be removed from that spirituality (in the same way combat techniques from the East have been removed from their spirituality). You say the answer is yes for martial arts (thus protecting Raul and Xavier Ries), but the answer is no for yoga. Yet you give no real reasons why it is yes for martial arts and no for yoga.

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: Here is my questions to you: Did you read what I stated about Rick Warren and that conference? Who said anything about the yoga at that conference being used as a path to spiritual enlightenment? I saw it being billed as an exercise class. Where did it say in the advertisement or schedule that it was there for spiritual enlightenment? And even if it HAD been billed that way, I already noted Warren's limited involvement. He certainly didn't plan the classes. As I stated:

"As for yoga, this topic usually comes up in connection with Warren due to his 2004 appearance at National Pastors Convention in San Diego, where a "Stretching and Yoga" exercise class in the morning was made available to conference attendees. Did Warren endorse the yoga? Did Warren attend a yoga class? Did Warren plan the yoga and support it as an exercise option for participants? Here are the facts surrounding that event:

1. There was a 2004 Pastors Convention organized by Leadership, Zondervan, ChurchSource, and Youth Specialties. Neither Warren or Saddleback had anything to do with organizing the event.

2. During the five-day convention featuring multiple speakers, Warren dropped in for a one-time, 2-hour message, that happened on the third day.

3. Warren left.

End of story. "

And with regard to Brian McLaren, once more, did you not read what I wrote about Warren and his disagreements with McLaren. Warren was invited to speak. McLaren was invited to speak. They both accepted. They both were there. But now you are trying to turn this into something it is not -- a kind of hands-together, conspiratorial, Warren-McLaren bid to post-modernize the church. That is contrary to truth. And that truth doesn't change just because Warren and McLaren happened to be a the same conference.

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: Again, why do you keep talking about Warren and this yoga class at the conference as if Warren personally planned the event himself and personally called for yoga classes to be held. Please go back and read again the truth the matter. The event was organized, a conference, and organizers invited Rick. He went, spoke, and left. That's it. As I said in the article: End of Story.

And once more, as for yoga always involving a combination of stretching and contemplative breathing exercise, you are incorrect. How many yoga classes have you either taken or watched. I would venture to say - none. The breathing used in non-spirituality forms of yoga (i.e., just for exercise) have to do with oxygen exchange rates in blood, and the settling of muscles when tension rises in the tissues. This is no different that when a trainer tells a boxer to keep breathing, or when a runner starts breathing through his nose, rather than his mouth, or when dancers use various breathing techniques to get through certain kinds of moves in ballet. But you are ignorant of these matters, and instead of learning about them, choose to attack someone's Christianity. That is not biblical.

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: Answer: The Bible doesn't say stretching is a key to Christian spirituality. I've never said otherwise. Nor has Warren ever said otherwise. Can you produce a few quotes to prove that Warren has indeed promoted yoga as some pathway to Christian spirituality? If not, then I do believe you should, for Christ's sake, stop this incessant spreading of false accusations against the brethren. The whole Warren and yoga thing is just the superficial tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to the many false rumors and accusations being spread about Warren. It is not right. And if I may borrow your phraseology, where sir does God's Word ever teach that you can lie about your brothers? The obvious answer to both questions is NEVER.

In Christ,

Richard Abanes

My reply to Jacob Prasch's 2nd emailed response to me

8 Feb 2008 20:57:19 -0800 (PST)

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: Jacob, what are you talking about? I have never written a defense of Obama. Nor have I ever written a defense of abortion. Nor have I ever called Obama the "epitome of compassionate liberalism." I though we were going to talk about the corrections I brought up publicly regarding the many false accusations that you and others have made against Rick Warren. Obama is a separate issue. If you did not like him coming to speak at the AIDS conference at Saddleback, then fine. But I went through that issue in my article on Roger Oakland and Dave Hunt. Did you even read that article? What I wrote was not a defense of Obama or anything he he said about abortion. It was putting Obama's appearance at the AIDS conference in its proper perspective.

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: I apologize for calling you a "discernment ministry." I can agree that I definitely mis-labeled you. I will make a change to this immediately.

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: Why do you keep harping on Obama? Fine. Let's go ahead and say Warren made a serious error, in your opinion, by inviting Obama to the AIDS conference. Okay. Now, what are you going to do about your own failures and those of others: i.e., the many false statements that you an others have made about what Warren believes, teaches, and does in the world. When are you going to make corrections about how you have misrepresented his PEACE Plan, his views on salvation, his supposed connection to Brian McLaren, his alleged connection to Robert Schuller?

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: Again, you keep talking about Obama and abortion. I have never written a word on Obama or abortion. I am dealing with truth regarding doctrinal teachings of various groups/personalities in the world of religion.

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: Why are you attributing Warren's words/actions to me. It sounds like you think I am Warren. I am deranged? I am sick and twisted? My values are removed from the Word of God? Jacob, do you know that I am Richard Abanes and not Rick Warren? I am growing a bit concerned here, to be quite honest with you.

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: For some reason you have just suggested that I am either a liar or an ignoramus, or both. And again, you seem to be speaking to me as if I am Rick Warren; as if I invited Obama to Saddleback for the AIDS conference and that somehow I am endorsing Obama. Moreover, you still have said nothing about the places where I have clearly showed that you and others are spreading false reports about Rick Warren.

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: I do not know why you are going down this track of now condemning Obama to hell, and telling me how God is going to avenge the baby-killers Rick allows in his pulpit. I am unsure at this point whether or not we are even functioning in the same realm of communication.

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: Jacob, I can't even understand what you are saying here. Again, I have NEVER called Barack Obama "the epitome of compassion." And I am not flirting with anyone who is butchering the unborn. I think we are at an impasse.

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: And now you have called me a hypocrite, but have not shown me wherein I practice something that I condemn in others (which would be hypocritical).

> PRASCH'S COMMENTS
RESPONSE: No, I am neither sick in the mind, nor sick in the soul, as you suggest. Nor I am not ignorant. And Rick Warren is not my puppet master. I realize now that our dialogue is indeed over. I shall pray for you. And given the tone of this email to me, I would ask that you no longer contact me. The truth is out there for all the world to see. The Lord is watching.

In Christ

Richard Abanes

My reply to Jacob Prasch's 3rd emailed response to me

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 07:53:23 -0800 (PST)

Dear Jacob,

I have not been anything but cordial, godly, and patient with you. Even in bringing my corrections to you via the Internet, I believe I showed restraint, being firm only where necessary, and sticking to the facts—none of which you have even bothered to address in your replies to me.

Instead, you now send me a short missive to merely call me a whacko. This is deeply troubling. Is this your way of setting an example? Your way of defending the faith? Your way of being accountable for what you say publicly in God's name? Your way of dealing with truth when it is brought before you? Or, even if I am in error, would calling me a whacko be your way of following 2 Tim. 2:24-26?

"And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will."

Given your ungodly responses, and complete unwillingness to discuss these issues with me as civilized, intelligent, Christians, then I must ask you again, to please do not contact me further, unless it is to apologize and begin mature dialogue.

In Christ,

R. Abanes

E-MAIL UPDATE: MORE DECEPTION

It appears that in response to this article, and my postings of Jacob Prasch's emails, Mr. Prasch has begun circulating a response to his supporters that is filled with yet more lies (now posted on the Internet). His circulated response is as follows (my point-by-point replies are included afterward):

"IS RICHARD ABANES FOR REAL?"
(posted by Benjamin Davis at Symphony of Scripture)
February 13th, 2008at 4:23 pm

The following response is from Jacob Prasch: IS RICHARD ABANES FOR REAL?

After behaving like an apologist for Rick Warren & Purpose Driven, defending and explaining even Rick Warren's invitation to partial birth abortion arch advocate Barak Obama to his pulpit in Mr. Warren's Saddleback church, Richard Abanes seems caught in a quagmire of his own design. In a series of circulated e mails, Richard Abanes (of that church) has selectively posted half the e mails exchanged in this regard on his website (with-holding the other half), apparently in an effort to distance himself from Warren and his own comments in support of Warren. To place his responses without my comments he responds to is obviously ridiculous. Mr Abanes seems to only want his readers to read what his replies, not what the remarks he is reacting to.

Such conduct does not appear only hypocritical, but irrational.

Anyone of serious merit and intent wishing to see proof of this should ask Mr Abanes for a copy of his apologetic statement on behalf of Rick Warren and all of the e mails (which we have copies of). If he refuses, the reason why should be obvious.

Posting a defense of Warren 's actions on his website and then trying to remove himself from what he himself wrote and web posted on the same website is absolutely hideous.

Is this man for real?

Our decision is to ignore him as a lost cause as we can only engage with people who behave in a rational manner

* * *

PRASCH: "After behaving like an apologist for Rick Warren & Purpose Driven, defending and explaining even Rick Warren's invitation to partial birth abortion arch advocate Barak Obama to his pulpit in Mr. Warren's Saddleback church, Richard Abanes seems caught in a quagmire of his own design."
RESPONSE: I am not in a quagmire of anyone's design. Prasch seems to be under the delusion that my comments above in the main text of my article (with regard to Obama's appearance at the AIDS conference held by Saddelback) is some kind of tacit endorsement of everything Obama stands for. It is not. It is not even an endorsement of Warren inviting Obama. It is an explanation of it. In the above article, under my response to Prasch's statement about Obama, I state:

First, Rick Warren has never endorsed Obama's stand on abortion. He invited the presidential candidate to speak at Saddleback during a conference on AIDS. The conference had nothing to do with abortion, or any other political, spiritual, legal, ethical, or moral issue. Speakers from all over the world were invited. Obama was one of them. Prasch has played the abortion card for shock effect, hoping to pit Christians against Warren by trying to equate Obama's appearance at the AIDS conference with some kind of blanket acceptance of everything Obama stands for. Such an endorsement by Warren is nowhere to be found.

This is hardly any kind of endorsement of anyone. It is an explanation of events. Prasch cannot seem to tell the difference.

PRASCH: "In a series of circulated e mails, Richard Abanes (of that church) has selectively posted half the e mails exchanged in this regard on his website (with-holding the other half), apparently in an effort to distance himself from Warren and his own comments in support of Warren."
RESPONSE: I have to question Prasch's grip on reality at this point. I have stated on this very page exactly why his comments do not appear: "Note: copyright law forbids the public posting of quoted statements from private emails. Mr. Prasch's comments, therefore, have had to be replaced by simply 'Prasch's Comments.'" Here is an open offer for Mr. Prasch:

Mr. PRASCH, If you will publicly grant me permission to post your private emails to me, then I will post them in their entirety. We will at that point see exactly how I responded to you. And everyone will indeed know the truth regarding your comments.

And as for trying to "distance himself from Warren" and my own comments, I beg to differ. I welcome Prasch's publicly granted permission for me to post his entire emails (see above offer). If I were to reveal what I deleted in order to be obedient to federal copyright law, those comments would show nothing with regard to me or Warren, but it would most definitely expose a great deal about Prasch.

PRASCH: "To place his responses without my comments he responds to is obviously ridiculous. Mr Abanes seems to only want his readers to read what his replies, not what the remarks he is reacting to."
RESPONSE: Untrue. My offer stands. I say once more:

PRASCH: "Such conduct does not appear only hypocritical, but irrational."
RESPONSE: I was obeying federal copyright laws. Again, I offer:

PRASCH: "Anyone of serious merit and intent wishing to see proof of this should ask Mr Abanes for a copy of his apologetic statement on behalf of Rick Warren and all of the e mails (which we have copies of). If he refuses, the reason why should be obvious."
RESPONSE: Indeed! But it must be done publicly to avoid confusion over copyright violation. I am eager (Mr. Prasch, if you are reading this0 to be granted permission to post Prasch's private emails to me in their entirety:

If Mr. Prasch refuses, the reason why should be obvious.

PRASCH: "Posting a defense of Warren 's actions on his website and then trying to remove himself from what he himself wrote and web posted on the same website is absolutely hideous."
RESPONSE: In all honesty, I have no idea what Prasch is even talking about here. My above article, as originally written, remains up. In addition to the above article, I have posted my full email responses to Mr. Prasch's emails, which to be honest, were a bit incoherent. I am not trying to remove my self from anything. And I stand ready to post Mr. Prasch's full context emails publicly:

Mr. PRASCH, If you will publicly grant me permission to post your private emails to me, then I will post them in their entirety. We will at that point see exactly how I responded to you. And everyone will indeed know the truth regarding your comments.

This should be very interesting . . . . . . .