I should clarify, I suppose... my comments can be vague.
I have nothing at all against them, per se. They've all responded to God's call on their lives, and have led tremendously effective ministries that have brought thousands of people into closer relationship with Christ.
My comment before was something along the lines of how I didn't necessarily agree with their methodology. What does that mean in plain terms?
Well, with Rick Warren's church there's a large element of corporate America in the implementation. As in, you can be someone faithfully serving there for years on staff, and without notice just get your "job" cut from budget cuts, just like in corporate America. I've been through that sort of ministry garbage before at a different ministry, and I take exception to it. Christianity should be different from the world. A ministry that is looked to as a leader in ministry success should create precedents, not follow those implemented by the secular business world. So... I think Rick has done an amazing job responding to the call on his life and helping others respond to the call on theirs, but I don't agree with the way he runs his church like a secular company.
Of course, A.W. Tozer said that the ability to point out a problem without proposing a solution is a cheap gift... and I'll just have to admit I don't have a good suggestion for how Rick could do it differently. I've never been employed by Saddleback, though I do have friends were are/were, so I'm from the outside looking in. I've only seen the problems and felt their effects as a ministry worker, through the domino effect. But there are other major churches that follow his example of how to do it, and it seems like corporate America just isn't the ideal model for running a biblical church, albeit a huge one.
With Rob Bell and Erwin McManus, the thing I disagree with is the boundaries they cross for the sake of being culturally relevant. Now in this case, I definitely need to call myself out as a hypocrite first and just announce that yes, I need to work on removing the plank in my own eye. But here's what I'm talking about: Many ministries, and theirs are simply two very publicly known examples, cross that line between what is a stumbling block for some and not for others. It's the fuzzy gray line between what is okay for someone and not okay for another. I *know* that I cross that line in my own ministry in ways, so I can't be too heavy handed in saying that I'm in total disagreement with how Rob and Erwin go about their ministries. All I'm saying is that I'm not down with casually dropping the F-bomb in the middle of a sermon and acting like it's no big deal, or pretending moral standards don't exist for the sake of attracting those who hold to postmodern relativist philosophies. That's a line I'm not comfortable with crossing, though there are those who will call me out for dancing on the same boundary in different ways, such as being involved with the leadership committee of Comic-Con, various Star Wars clubs, motorsports clubs, or stuff like that.
As I said earlier, I'll just admit I'm a hypocrite in that area and need work in it. Maybe the boundary line isn't a straight one, but jagged and uneven, like on a map. They're a little more forward into certain areas of worldly territory than I am along those lines of longitude, and perhaps I'm a little more forward in different areas where others remain safely back in Godly territory. When it's all said and done, it's a dynamic mixture and the main thing is that Christ's name is preached... at least, that's what the apostle Paul would say.