A Tale of Three Churches

Disclaimer: In calling this presentation A Tale of Three Churches, the term church as used here denotes that each of these fellowships calls themselves a church. It is not the acknowledgment of all of them as true churches in the biblical sense.

This is the examination of three high profile churches and their approaches to ministry in three key areas—leadership, preaching, and mission/evangelism. All three churches are large in size and globally influential.

The Churches

A church in the land without the Spirit is rather a curse than a blessing. If you have not the Spirit of God, Christian worker, remember that you stand in somebody else's way; you are a fruitless tree standing where a fruitful tree might grow. — Charles Spurgeon

Hillsong Church originated in Sydney Australia and has its roots in the Australian arm of the Assemblies of God denomination (which is Pentecostal). It has now franchised itself to many major cities all over the world including London, Moscow, Capetown, Paris, Amsterdam, and New York.

A major reason that I have included Hillsong as one of the churches to profile is because of my long history interacting with them during my time in Australia, and because they are about to open their latest franchise in our own Los Angeles backyard.

You may have noticed that I am using the term franchise for describing Hillsong's strategy of reproducing themselves around the world. It is not meant to sound derogatory ... no, actually it is meant to sound derogatory. I should be up front from the outset that I am a staunch critic of this organization and as we examine them in the areas of leadership, preaching, and mission/evangelism you will get to see a lot of major reasons for that criticism.

The major thrust of Hillsong's global impact has been their music. Their choruses are sung around the world in multiple languages and produced with world leading musicianship and production values. Their music has been a massive magnet in drawing people from all over the world to their many conferences which are equal in scale to anything that happens in the USA. Their youth band, Hillsong United, had their last album make the top ten on Billboard's secular charts. The music is a very big deal and has provided an enormous platform for the preaching ministries of Brian and Bobbie Houston (yes his wife is a "pastor") as well as their books.

Saddleback Church is a multi-site church with its mother ship located in Orange County, California. Originally affiliated with the Southern Baptist movement, Saddleback has risen to massive global prominence through their pastor Rick Warren who is possibly the world's leading proponent of church growth methodology. Warren's status now goes well beyond the role of pastor and he sees himself as a global statesman and activist in transforming the world. And no, I am not describing another episode of Pinky and the Brain.

Undoubtedly, Saddleback's major catalyst for growth in size and influence has been Warren's phenomenally popular books—The Purpose Driven Life and The Purpose Driven Church. Purpose Driven Life has sold over 32 million copies and is the bestselling non-fiction hardback in history. Did I mention that Purpose Driven Life is the bestselling non-fiction hardback in history? The book essentially is Warren's philosophy for life and has gained widespread acceptance even among business organizations and sporting teams. Warren has now actually placed a patent on the word purpose which is why this presentation has cost me $5.00 thus far (five mentions of the word at $1 apiece).


Grace Community Church in Sun Valley California is the third church we will be looking at in this presentation. It is a suburban church that experienced significant growth through the "Jesus movement" of the sixties and seventies.

Though not as large as Saddleback or Hillsong, GCC is a burgeoning mega-church with a major global impact through it's Master's Seminary, Shepherd's Conferences, and the radio ministry of its pastor John MacArthur. On the modern evangelical landscape, GCC is seen as a stick in the mud church with doctrinal rigidity and an aloofness from the various trends that have swept through churches over recent decades.

The Leadership

I exhort the elders among you ... shepherd the flock of God ... exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not for sordid gain, but with eagerness; nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. — 1 Peter 5:1–4

Leadership: Hillsong Church

The pastor of Hillsong's founding church is Brian Houston. He also oversees all the other Hillsong churches as well as being the National President of the Australian Christian Churches denomination (an amalgamation of Pentecostal and Charismatic churches including those formerly known as the Assemblies of God). He is actually the Senior Pastor of every Hillsong church around the world which must certainly make matters of church discipline and visitations very challenging.

Due to my rather lengthy history of correspondence, investigation, and articles on the Hillsong empire I was not able to ask specific questions regarding their philosophy of leadership and model of church government. While the inner workings cannot be precisely known, due to their high international profile and the mass marketing of their material, a fairly accurate picture can be assembled quite easily.

The pictured book title gives an excellent synopsis of Brian Houston's philosophy of leadership. While he carries the title of senior pastor, he really functions much more as the CEO of a vast organization and marketing machine where mentors his people as a life-coach and motivational speaker. Tony Robbins with some Bible verses for window dressing.

Since his wife Bobbie is his fellow senior pastor it is clear that his philosophy of church leadership is not informed by 1 Timothy 2–3 and Titus 1. Brian is seen very much as the visionary pastor and his staff and congregation are to be zealously protective of that vision. Any criticism is very poorly received. Brian and Bobbie's consuming desire, according to their website bios, is to place value on humanity. Their approach to building the church is very much pragmatic and based upon the various models they have tried and then sticking with the ones that achieve the best numerical results. That is why I used the term franchising earlier. Because there models of success in church growth are the blueprints for every other Hillsong franchise around the world. Listen to Brian long enough and the pragmatism always shines through. He is very slick at not taking sides and not alienating any demographics in what he says. When interviewed on abortion, Houston said:

On the subject of abortion I'm pro-life. But in a way I'm pro-choice as well, because I believe in the sanctity of life and I believe that life begins at conception. But I also believe that ultimately human beings have to make their own choices, and I ultimately can't tell you what you should do.

Attitudes towards money are also an important issue for church leaders as Paul says that those who are elders must not be "a lover of money (1 Timothy 3:3). Although Brian Houston bristles at the suggestion that he is a prosperity preacher, he lays out his financial theology quite clearly in his book titled You Need More Money. In it he encourages us to "become comfortable around money" by "putting on your best clothes and ordering coffee in a fancy restaurant or hotel lobby. Even though you could make the coffee for half the price at home, the total experience may enlarge your thinking. You may even feel better about yourself and life." 

Hillsong is now a very marketable brand and carries a strong allure with it. I can guarantee that outstanding music and musicianship will be an essential part of the new Hillsong that opens soon in Orange County. And the musician's caliber always trumps his character when it comes to selecting the right team. 

Key Quotes:

"I appoint the elders and then the rest of the elders vote on that." — Brian Houston

"When you are doing what is correct in God there is a protection over your life. Like—hello—it is just there. So it is a very powerful thing. Amen. Yeah, fully." — Bobbie Houston

Leadership: Saddleback Church

Saddleback's senior pastor is Rick Warren. I was unable to get any answers regarding Saddleback's leadership philosophy and model of church government. What we do know is that Warren's big picture initiatives do give us a window into his philosophy of ministry.

His approach is very ecumenical when it comes to interfaith dialogue but heavy handed when dealing with Purpose Driven dissenters. Joseph Farah of World Net Daily has pointed out:

While mega-pastor Rick Warren has joined a group of 100 church leaders calling for interfaith dialogue and the building of "common ground" with Muslims, he has a slightly different outlook toward Christians with whom he disagrees. In his latest missive to fellow pastors, he writes: "You've got to protect the unity of your church. If that means getting rid of troublemakers, do it." 

Perhaps this hints at Warren's leadership Modus Operandi. 

Tellingly, Warren had absolutely nothing to say about eldership and church government in an article he wrote on his church leadership website, pastors.com. His article was called Organize Your Church on Purpose and Giftedness. And that is pretty much all he talked about concerning church structure. There was no information I could find on the Saddleback website regarding other pastors or elders. Perhaps the revelation of being complementarian or egalitarian would put a major dent in the breadth of his appeal. Though Warren is seemingly silent on that issue, the fact that women have filled his pulpit during weekend services on a number of occasions shows his hand in that regard.

Concerning how much power he wields on Saddleback's elder board remains a mystery. But time has borne out the reality that those churches who buy into the Purpose Driven program are counseled to remove dissenters or wait for them to leave.

With phenomenal book sales, Rick Warren has become a bankable brand. And he clearly has an army of spin doctors constantly working to purge the internet of criticism as well as contradictory statements he has made. I personally know of people who have had their web servers pressured to remove their websites by Rick Warren's defenders. One individual had his blog shut down. There do seem to be some sacred untouchable cows in what Janet Mefford has referred to as the Evangelical Industrial Complex and Rick Warren certainly looks like one of those protected species. One cannot help but think that he would be difficult to overrule at the eldership level in Saddleback church.

Leadership: Grace Community Church

Grace Community Church is a church ruled by a plurality of forty elders. John MacArthur may be the elder most recognized for his preaching and teaching gift, but that does not translate to veto power at the eldership level. He does not always get his way and neither do any of the other elders. Votes must be unanimous to pass and forty elders means a tremendous safety buffer of checks and balances. it would be near impossible for a pope or dictator to rise up within such a leadership structure. 

John MacArthur has a 45 year track record of leadership informed by Scripture, applied consistently in all spheres of life, and lived by example in the leadership of his family before the members of GCC for all of those years. 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 are the filters through which every elder candidate passes. The evidence is overwhelmingly demonstrative of this high view of Scripture. For example, elders with children who apostatize or live in constant rebellion normally step down from eldership both in obedience to 1 Timothy 3:4 and Titus 1:6, and a desire to prioritize the evangelism of their own immediate family. GCC's commitment to male eldership and male preachers again speaks volumes for their unwavering subservience to the dictates of Scripture rather than the whims of the world.

John MacArthur's leadership has also been a bastion of biblically understanding when separation is necessary. MacArthur has four decades of refusing to buy into ecumenism, capitulating to Rome, nor associating with false teachers and apostates. Sadly, MacArthur's sterling example on this front has been emulated by scant few.

Bonus Material:
Book Review — The Master's Plan for the Church by John MacArthur

The Preaching

The preacher's job is to deliver the goods, not to manufacture them. — Dr. Irv Busenitz

Forty Days of Your Best Prayer of Jabez Now — Cameron Buettel

Preaching: Hillsong and Saddleback Church

Probably the most critical question that congregants need to ask about the preaching they sit under concerns whether the text drives the sermon or the sermon drives the text. Hillsong and Saddleback preaching overwhelmingly falls into the latter category. It does not take long for a discerning listener to realize that both of these churches churn out sermon after sermon where a pre-determined idea gets married to a biblical passage deemed as a suitable partner. Furthermore, the suitable text is often ripped wildly from its proper context in order to make that square peg fit in their round hole.

Hillsong have also brazenly displayed their contempt for biblical authority by their willingness to edit Bible verses in accordance with their own agenda. Tragically, they are a sacred cow in Australia and have escaped any public rebuke from any prominent Christian leaders. Their willingness to make Hillsong altered Bible verses for their Hillsong adjusted gospel presentations is nothing short of disgraceful. Their conflicting excuses for doing this would be laughable if they weren't so tragic.

Both Brian Houston and Rick Warren approach the task of preaching from the starting point of their own chosen topic. That is not always a problem, but it is if that is the totality of what they feed their members. An even greater problem is when you start with a patently unbiblical idea. But perhaps the ultimate tragedy is when an essential soteriological truth gets buried beneath the weight of their own agenda. And that is precisely what happened when Brian Houston preached at Rick Warren's church out of 2 Corinthians 7:8–10.

Bonus Material:

A Review of Brian Houston's Sermon at Saddleback Church

Is There No Repentance in the Gospel of John?

Key Quote: 

"The Bible's a big book, and you're never going to get people to have total agreement on that big book." — Brian Houston

Rick Warren has committed the same crimes on numerous occasions. Most of us were shocked when John Piper invited him to be a keynote speaker at the Desiring God conference. What Warren delivered was some shambolic handling of Scripture. Among the many problems was his redefining of repentance in non-lordship terms; Warren described Jesus' words concerning his yoke and his burden as a discussion on felt needs; and also demonstrated that he is the master of the humble boast—a difficult manouvre that can only be performed by those most expert in promoting their own humility: 

(Watch this video from 43:30 to 44:25, warning: video may induce vomiting)

Bonus Material:

Blow by Blow Analysis of Rick Warren's Sermon at Desiring God

John Piper's interview with Rick Warren was also very revealing in a very unrevealing sort of way. We all know Rick Warren is a smart operator. His MO is always to adapt to his audience and Piper is no exception. It is bizarre that Piper recognizes Warren as a pragmatist, and Warren's pragmatism demands that he gives Piper the answers he wants. Trying to understand Warren doctrinally is like shooting at moving goalposts, and yet Piper just doesn't see the pointlessness of this exercise. Warren tells Piper he believes in the doctrines of Grace and then tells an inter-faith forum (made up of Hindus Muslims etc) that he has no interest in seeing them converted but wants to work together with them. He said on national TV that "God's not mad at you, He's mad about you" and then tells Piper his hero is Jonathan Edwards (who preached Sinners in the Hands of an angry God). And then tells Larry King his hero is Ghandi, tells Barack Obama his hero is Martin Luther King, and tells the Catholics his hero is Mother Theresa. The man is a chameleon. Warren told his church he is opposed to homosexual marriage and then denied it on Larry King. He positively commended the President of Syria (in person) for his treatment of Christians and then told Syrian Christian refugees who live in America that he never did such a thing. He can talk to Muslims for an hour without ever mentioning the Lord Jesus Christ and then tell Piper it's his central focus. Warren can tell Piper that penal substitutionary atonement must always be there in Gospel preaching, but I cannot find a single sermon with him talking about it. If I sound upset it is because I am. Warren needs to be taken to task over these inconsistencies and if John Piper will not do it, then who will?

Bonus Material:

Analysis of the John Piper - Rick Warren Interview (Featuring Phil Johnson, Tim Challies, Frank Turk, and Chris Rosebrough) 

Both Hillsong and Saddleback profess submission to the authority of God's Word. But I fail to see how they can possibly do that when they continually preach Scripture as the servant of their own sermonic thrusts.

Preaching: Grace Community Church

John MacArthur's preaching legacy is already well established. Having pastored the same church for 45 years and preaching through the entire New Testament verse by verse, MacArthur is a preacher who has continually been enamored with God's Word. I once heard him say that he does not read the Bible to find a sermon, he reads the Bible to know the mind of Christ. This represents a clear reversal of the approach practiced at both Saddleback and Hillsong. I am convinced that the greatest treasure chest on the world wide web is John MacArthur's entire sermon archive available for free download.

Try downloading a sermon of MacArthur's from the seventies, eighties, nineties, and noughties and you will be struck by the textually driven nature of the preaching. Even the illustrations are overwhelmingly drawn from biblical cross-references. The lack of engagement in cultural matters of that time only serves to give an aura of timelessness and current relevance to the listener. How ironic, that so many in their quest for relevance actually make themselves irrelevant. Mark Driscoll's sermonic illustrations connected with the movie Talladega Nights are only a few years old and already most people have no clue about those illustrations.

MacArthur's suit and the big pulpit he stands behind also speaks volumes regarding his desire to point his people towards God's Word. The large pulpit makes the preacher look smaller and the Bible ever in front of him takes pre-eminence. Though not legalistic about it, MacArthur believes that wearing a suit helps represent the seriousness of the task of handling and proclaiming God's Word.

I generally do not buy the mega-church pastor claims that they are being edgy and contextual and relevant by wearing their street wear or casual clothes. Personally I don't take offense at Rick Warren's Hawaiian shirts, but I think it speaks volumes about his heirarchy of importance when he wears a suit to the White House and jeans in the Lord's house.

It also needs to be said (pause for a moment and check for a log in my own eye) that there is something decidedly lame about middle aged men trying to dress like their teenage sons. Petra tried to do it in the nineties somehow thinking that spandex is a viable fashion option for men in their fifties. Brian Houston works hard on his fitness and likes to wear skinny jeans. Rick Warren sits on a stool in the middle of a vast stadium because he thinks it is a way of connecting with his audience ... and probably because he doesn't fit a pair of skinny jeans. But God's Word endures when our coolness fades into oblivion. There is nothing more relevant than pointing all people away from ourselves and towards its own timeless truths of God and man, sin and death, judgment and eternity. It's why young people who are concerned about those things flock to hear the silver haired man in the suit with his Bible always before him.

Bonus Material:
Book Review — Rediscovering Expository Preaching by John MacArthur and The Master's Seminary Faculty

Missions and Evangelism

Preach always, if necessary use words — Rick Warren

Wash always, if necessary use water — Cameron Buettel

There are only two times you should preach the gospel; in season and out of season — Ray Comfort

Mission/Evangelism: Hillsong Church

An extensive examination of Hillsong's mission endeavors will expose you to a lot of social justice programs. They certainly do many helpful projects both locally and internationally, but they are driven by humanitarian goals rather than adorning the preaching of the gospel. It is also noticeable that their aid projects are not prioritized towards suffering believers, but rather among the community at large where great effort is made to raise their community profile. In fact among the myriad of Hillsong outreaches I was unable to find anything that involved any form of evangelism and witnessing. This stems from two major problems:

1. The evangelism is done during the main church service; and
2. The main church service fails to do any evangelism.

My background is in the AOG movement of Australia and I personally lived through the rise of Hillsong to where it has become the overwhelmingly dominant force in Australian charismaticism and evangelicalism. During that time I have personally challenged them repeatedly over the discrepancies between their doctrine statement and what they preach. The most glaring example is their doctrine statement which has always insisted on repentance as a necessary part of conversion and yet I have never heard repentance preached from any of their preachers or articles in more than two decades. In January 2010, after being affronted once more with their false gospel and continually obstructed and ignored by their leadership, I went public and called them out (see also bonus material below).

The gospel that is preached would best be described as a hybrid word-faith message of success, sensuality, and self-esteem. There is no preaching of God's character, man's depravity, the danger of judgment, Christ's person and work, and the call on all men everywhere to repent and believe the gospel.

Key Quote: 
"Doctrine Statement, Shmoctrine Statement!" — Cameron Buettel

Bonus Material: 
My recent interview on Worldview Weekend Radio concerning the gospel according to Hillsong
My entire correspondence with Hillsong's chief theologian, Ps. Robert Fergusson
My online discussion with Hillsong's Executive Pastor, Ps. Joel A'Bell



Mission/Evangelism: Saddleback Church

The only global mission work being promoted on the Saddleback website is Rick Warren's PEACE plan. Here is their own description:

The vision of the PEACE PLAN is to mobilize Christians around the world to address five GIANT PROBLEMS:

Spiritual Emptiness
Self-Serving Leadership
Poverty
Disease
Illiteracy

The Christian Church was designed by God to take the lead in this effort. It has the world's largest distribution network, the most people ready and to serve, and the greatest motivation of all—the LOVE of Jesus Christ. Since responding to these five global giants through the local church is what Jesus says Christians must do, that’s where the PEACE Plan focuses. We have committed ourselves to fulfilling these five expressions of God’s love:

Promote Reconciliation
Equip Servant leaders
Assist The Poor
Care For The Sick
Educate The Next Generation

That sounds more like a UN charter than an evangelism strategy. To quote from the Saddleback website:

The bottom line is that we intend to reinvent mission strategy in the 21st century. This will be a new Reformation. The First Reformation returned us to the message of the original church. It was a reformation of doctrine - what the church BELIEVES. This Second Reformation will return us to the mission of the original church. It will be a reformation of purpose- what the church DOES in the world.

Attention Pastor Warren - why not try preaching that "message" that the first reformers recovered before we even start talking about doing anything. This "second reformation" Warren is fantasizing about only reflects poorly on his understanding of the biblical Gospel and the nature of true conversion. The heart of the human problem is the problem of the human heart, not purpose driven education. 

Warren's second reformation mantra of "deeds not creeds" is a giant red flag. He really believes that the church has got its doctrine right but are not living in accordance with it. Michael Horton, however, would beg to differ. In reality, the problem is the exact opposite of Warren's assessment—he is actually preaching the wrong doctrines and they are living it.

Rick Warren's massive selling book, The Purpose Driven Life, has some major weaknesses. These include the use of many different, and sometimes bizarre, Bible translations to somehow give a Scriptural rationale for Warren's agenda. He also fails to differentiate between believers and unbelievers when applying biblical promises. But worst of all, his gospel presentation is just a complete crash and burn: 

Bonus Material:

John MacArthur explains what is wrong with The Purpose Driven Life ...

It may be politically incorrect but it needs to be said—Rick Warren is an epic failure as an evangelist. I cannot see any good reason why I should believe that most of Saddleback's tens of thousands of members are truly regenerate.


Mission/Evangelism: Grace Community Church

The gospel permeates every arm of GCC's mission arms. Rather than their social work being the heartbeat of their mission program, it is the kindness that accompanies their gospel preaching. Whether door to door in the local area, the annual Christmas concert, or their foreign missionaries and seminaries, all of these are done for the express purpose of reaching out to hell-bound people with the message of eternal life. John Pipers article below explains why true societal transformation only happens as an indirect byproduct of missionaries who evangelize rather than a team of social workers.

Bonus Material:
Missions: Rescuing from Hell and Renewing the World by John Piper


Conclusion

The differences are stark between GCC and Hillsong/Saddleback. Am I biased? I am very biased towards biblical alignment and GCC has that in spades. I am not foolish enough to believe that I can put an end to the violence done to the gospel by churches like Hillsong and Saddleback. But I do believe that we should make a concerted effort to pressure these churches into either conforming their teaching to their doctrine statements or conforming their doctrine statements to their teaching. It is time to put their cards on the table.

Bonus Material:
My recent interview on Tony Miano's radio show — When Doctrine Statements are Used to Deceive




Bonus Material:
You Might Be a False Teacher If ...

When Not To Be Divisive

There's a lot of heat out there in the evangelical world right now over the centuries old debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. So much could be said about this and how foolish would I be to think that I could resolve the conflict. If you want to hear a strong case for each side of the debate then I recommend Robert Shanks's book Life In The Son for the Arminian case and John Macarthur's teaching series The Doctrines Of Grace for an overview of Calvinistic theology.

My post today is intended to be of a more conciliatory nature. The assaults on the Gospel in this present day demand that true believers don't end up shooting at the wrong targets. Consider the following conversation (paraphrased by John Piper) that occurred in the 18th century between Calvinist Charles Simeon and Arminian John Wesley. The conversation is instructive about how we should deal with people we disagree with, and about how sometimes moderates from both sides of a theological debate are closer than we realise.

Charles Simeon - Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers. But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions. Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

John Wesley - Yes, I do indeed.

Charles Simeon - And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

John Wesley - Yes, solely through Christ.

Charles Simeon - But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

John Wesley - No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Charles Simeon - Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

John Wesley - No.

Charles Simeon - What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother’s arms?

John Wesley - Yes, altogether.

Charles Simeon - And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

John Wesley - Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Charles Simeon - Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election, my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things wherein we agree.

Now this conciliatory approach in no way suggests compromising the Gospel. The Gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ. The good news is that the Holy Just, Righteous, and Loving God created man. Man rebelled and all of humanity has the sin nature. People are radically depraved and exceedingly sinful. They hate God and are deserving of His wrath and eternal condemnation. God's character demands that he must judge and punish all sin to meet the requirements of His justice. But to demonstrate His great love He sent His Son, fully God/fully man to fulfill the requirements of His law and then die under the punishment of God's Holy Wrath in the place of sinners. That the sins of the sinner would be imputed to Christ's account, and the rightoeusness of Christ would be imputed to the sinner's account. God now calls on all men everywhere to repent from sin and put their trust in Christ that they might be saved from the wrath to come. This is the major theme woven throughout the whole of Scripture - God's plan of redemption and being glorified by saving sinners. Many Arminians and Calvinists would preach this Gospel side by side.

I have been mailed by the odd angry Arminian and the odd hyper Calvinist only to hear them rail about the twisting of Scripture in the "opposing camp". But church history is littered with genuine Christian scholars who practised sound hermeneutical principles and yet arrived at different conclusions on difficult points of theology. Good theology involves harmonizing all of God's Word and that has proven difficult throughout church history on the issue of Calvinism v Arminianism. God speaks of predestining every soul and knows all the names written in the Lamb's book of life, yet He takes no delight in the destruction of the wicked desiring that he would repent. Repentance is a gift from God and yet God holds all men accountable to repent of their wickedness. These truths coexist in Scripture. We should be comforted in the knowledge that God can resolve what is beyond our grasp. All who are saved see the scarlet thread of redemption woven through the entirity of Scripture, but to scale the heights of God's election and man's responsibility is to search out the unsearchable - we all look into this glass darkly. There are tensions in Scripture that are beyond human understanding and different scholars throughout church history have developed theology that attempts to reconcile these tensions. We need to have the grace to recognize that no two people agree on every single point of doctrine and that we can live and serve God within that tension.

There are doctrines that are so important salvation depends on them (these are life and death and must be fought at all costs).

There are doctrines that cause us to fellowship at different local churches but we still extend the hand of fellowship to our genuinely born again brothers who differ on these doctrines.

There are also doctrines which we can differ on but still attend the same fellowship and sit down and lovingly reason from the Scriptures.

Please be big enough to do that for the sake of Christ's great Name and the furtherance of His glorious Gospel.

Phil Johnson Hangs Up The Gloves

The blogosphere is going to miss Phil Johnson's sharp and satirical theological brain. For those of you who are unaware, Phil, the main writer for Pyromaniacs which is (in my estimation) the best Christian blog on the web, has announced his official retirement from blogging. Whether a lucrative career as a blogging commentator now awaits remains to be seen. Due to some major health issues and the immediate need to drop his stress levels, Phil has taken the urgent decision to cut all extra activities outside of his direct responsibilities as a Pastor at Grace Community Church and editor for John Macarthur's books.

This has directly affected me in more ways than one. Not only will I have to find a literary dietary replacement for my evangelical insights, it also means that Phil is no longer our keynote speaker for the Reformation resurrection conference in Denmark this July. Though we are all saddened by Phil's coming absence, we commend him for the sudden re-prioritization he has done. We are also making the necessary adjustments for the conference and have secured another excellent keynote speaker (who also happens to be a Pyromaniacs regular reader).

Something that has distinguished Phil in recent years has been his willingness to give frank, candid, and biblical answers to the multitude of paranormal happenings on the evangelical landscape. Only Phil Johnson could sum up the many issues facing the Gospel Coalition with the question what is more important - the Gospel or the Coalition? Phil was the man who was able to decipher Mark Driscoll's disturbing "visions" with the article Pornographic Divination. It was also Phil who was one of the few people to give a much needed response to the bizarre interview between John Piper and Rick Warren. And then there is Phil's unique way with words:



A hearty thanks to you Phil from all of us who learnt so much through your internet writing while living in far flung apostate wastelands. We will miss your insights but are thankful for the literary legacy that you have left on the world wide web. We look forward to enjoying more of your editorial skills with each new Macarthur book and tapping into your teaching ministry at Grace Community Church. And we know that we are not the only ones who will miss you:

Phil Johnson, Todd Friel, And Another Elephant In The Room

I have refrained from commenting thus far on the much debated Elephant Room conference. The Elephant room conference is a concept developed by Pastor James MacDonald which, in the words of the conference website:

Getting brothers together who believe in salvation by grace alone through faith alone but normally don't interact, is what the Elephant Room is all about.

The idea is to get Christians together who agree on the Gospel but have major methodological differences, and thrash out those differences in a no holds barred public conversation. I think it would be fair to say that MacDonald is trying to give off a combative vibe about the conference when people are invited to "get their ringside seats".

I think the concept has a lot of merit in principle and I have always liked James MacDonald and the content of his preaching. I think people like Mark Driscoll, Francis Chan, and Matt Chandler are the perfect candidates for a brotherly debate on methodology. But I took issue with the first Elephant Room conference earlier this year because, I would contend, there was another elephant in the room. When MacDonald invited wannabe rock star pastor Steven Furtick and wannabe tough guy pastor Perry Noble I was quite shocked. I would think that a lot of other things need to be discussed with these guys before we talk about methodology. What about the Gospel elephant in the room? And what about the way they speak to their sheep? (Though I do find the thought of speaking with Steven Furtick without the interference of one of his bodyguards quite appealing.) When Perry Noble has ACDC's Highway To Hell as part of his worship service I think the problems go way deeper than song selection. This all just seemed so beneath Pastor James MacDonald. Many of us scratched our heads and just chalked it up as one of those strange things akin to JI Packer signing the ECT (Evangelicals and Catholics Together statement) or John Piper's association with Rick Warren.

But when MacDonald announced Elephant Room 2 (the sequel) and said that TD Jakes would be one of the guests a cyber volcano erupted. A lot of respected theological heavyweights weighed in with very sharp responses. MacDonald does not seem to have taken the criticism especially well but has softened somewhat more recently. But the way he has dealt with the opposition to his invitation of a well known anti-Trinitarian heretic (and that is just one of the myriad of problems with Jakes prosperity man centered theology - see the video at the bottom of this post) by changing the vision statement from "getting brothers together" to "conversation among all kinds of leaders". I seriously question this kind of solution to a problem of this magnitude.

Todd Friel publicly questioned Phil Johnson on this very subject recently and I am grateful that someone was around to video this fascinating conversation. It is 43 minutes long but well worth the listen because Johnson's insights really get to the core of this issue and discernment in general. This is an interesting discussion that would be exceedingly appropriate for the Elephant Room (without the need to buy "ringside" seats):

Exposing And Expelling Heretics (Part 11)

Today we pick up from where we left off last week on our expository journey through the Epistle of Jude. Today we will take an interesting look at four false substitutes for the biblical doctrine of hell. This is a part of my verse by verse exposition through the Epistle of Jude for our church plant in Denmark - Kristuskirken.

1 Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and brother of James, To those who are called, beloved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ: 2 May mercy, peace, and love be multiplied to you. 3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. 4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ. 5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day- 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. (Jude 1-7)

Who is the major enemy in this war that we are called to fight in contending for this once for all delivered faith? Ultimately it is Satan who controls these false teachers that have crept into the church. Just as Jude comforts the Christians with the knowledge of God’s election, so he also assures them of the certain damnation of these false teachers or apostates. Jude gives three examples from history to remind his audience of the certainty of damnation for these apostates.

In verse 5 Jude reminds us that after rescuing Israel out of Egypt, God destroyed those who did not believe. In verse 6 he reminds them of the demons that did something that was extra evil and are now locked up in hell. And in verse 7 he gives an example of the of the Gentiles of Sodom and Gomorrah that practiced gross immorality and rampant homosexuality but were destroyed by God as rained eternal fire on those two cities.

The doctrine of hell is not a popular subject today. Many preachers try to pretend it’s not in the Bible because it is too scary and no one wants to go there which is actually the whole point! In verse 23 Jude reminds the church of how serious this is when he calls on them to:

save others by snatching them out of the fire (Jude 23a).

The fact that so many churches refuse to speak of hell and so many pastors find it contrary to God’s love only shows that they have no understanding of Who God is and who we are. If God is loving then He must also be wrathful. What do you think of those policemen in Muslim countries who look the other way when Muslims attack Christians and murder them right in front of the police station? They are unloving because they have no desire to punish evil. It is because God is good and loving that there must be a hell. Just as God loves all that is good he hates all that is evil.

God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day. (Psalm 7:11)

The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers. (Psalm 5:5)

It is not just what we do but also Who He is. The Bible says that all liars will end up in hell. If that seems severe then think of this illustration that I use ad infinitum (it is worth repeating because it is worth memorizing). If I lie to my daughter, she can do nothing to me. If I lie to my wife I will be sleeping on the sofa. If I lie to my boss he can fire me. And if I lie to the government they can throw me in jail. Though the crime never changed the higher the authority the bigger the consequence. Now, what if God is an infinite authority, then all lies are an infinite crime. If God is infinitely Holy and He judges all of our actions, all of our words, and all of our thoughts and He is infinitely good and infinitely loving and infinitely righteous then it is heaven that should confuse us. We should really be asking the question how can anyone be right with God. And that is the right question to ask and I will answer that question later.

Before taking a closer look at verse 5 in Jude's letter it is worthwhile refuting four popular modern preaching ideas that try to get rid of hell or make it softer.

1. Annihilationism

This is the idea that hell is not eternal punishment but that the wicked will be destroyed and no longer exist. This idea has little basis in Scripture but comes more out of the emotions of those who cannot believe in eternal punishment. John Stott readily admitted this when articulating his annihilationist view. The silver bullet to this view is Matthew 25:46 which comes right at the end of the Jesus' frightening story of when the sheep (true converts) and the goats (false converts) will be separated:

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

The two words "eternal" in this verse are known as a perfect greek pair. They are the mirror image of each other. To deny eternal punishment you must also deny eternal life because they both carry the same meaning in that verse.

2. Purgatory

This evil lie is an invention of the Catholic church found nowhere in Scripture. It is supposed to be a temporary hell where people can have their sins atoned for or paid for by some relative. The Catholic church used purgatory to make money by claiming that they could release dead relatives from purgatory if you paid them enough money. This evil practice is what provoked Martin Luther to nail his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg which was the bomb that started the reformation. Emergent church leader Greg Boyd actually teaches purgatory in the present day. But the idea is found nowhere in Scripture. There is eternal life and eternal punishment and once we are dead it is too late.

3. Hell Is Separation From God

This modern evangelical phrase shows itself to be worthless in the clear light of Scripture:

If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name. (Revelation 14:9-11 emphasis mine)

4. The Fire, Darkness and Punishment are Symbols

John Piper says that:

Even if I try to make the Lake Of Fire a symbol, I am confronted with the terrifying thought that symbols are not overstatements but understatements of reality. Jesus did not choose these symbols to tell us that hell is easier than burning (Brothers We Are Not Professionals P114).

The truth is that if we preach hell as something totally horrifying, then it actually makes salvation more meaningful and wonderful. The wrath of God is real and something that should terrify us. It is the reason that Jesus trembled in the garden and sweated drops of blood asking if there was another way. The Jews did not scare Jesus, neither did the Romans, and neither did Satan. But the Lord asked if He could avoid the “cup”. What was that “cup” – it was the cup of God’s wrath that had to be poured out on Him as a substitute in the place those who deserved God’s wrath but trusted in Him as the One who would pay for their sins. When we preach hell and God’s wrath in full terror then we are magnifying His love and salvation.

So in Jude verse 4 the church is reminded that the false teachers among them "who long ago were designated for this condemnation". Verses 5-7 are a lesson in history to remind us that this damnation is absolutely certain and we will explore this lesson from history next week . . .

Go On To Part 12
Go Back To Part 10
Go Back To Part 1

The Piper Warren Interview (Part 5)

Today, I have decided to add one last post to this series on the tragically bizarre interview between John Piper and Rick Warren. This is because a lot of new information that exposes Rick Warren, as even more fraudulent, came to light in this sensational online radio discussion between Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio and Phil Johnson from Grace To You. This entire discussion is very long (all three parts add up to about five hours) because it is a piece by piece dissection of the interview between Piper and Warren. This is not the sort of thing we should listen to on a regular basis but these particular programs are very much worth listening to for educational purposes in the art of practicing discernment in the cryptic world of mainstream modern evangelicalism. Also, Warren's MASSIVE prominence as a "spokesman" for Christianity gets a much needed expose for what it is - a total sham! Many of us who find ourselves in churches who either embrace or consider the "Purpose Driven" propaganda need to be aware of Warren's modus operandi.

Chris Rosebrough is seen by many as a bit of a "shock jock" but his hermeneutics are generally very good. Furthermore, Phil Johnson is a true and godly heavyweight in the world of Christian discernment. Phil continually weighs in during the program with excellent insights that are constantly Gospel centered and exceedingly helpful in decoding Warrenisms. But what makes these programs a "must listen" is the many audio files that Rosebrough digs up from Warren's archives that completely expose him for the chameleon (or liar) that he is. I knew Rick Warren was bad news but I had no idea how bad until I heard these shocking revelations from his own mouth! I am deeply saddened by the fact that I consider Piper's approach to this interview is a major low point in a ministry that has profoundly impacted me for the positive. I am done with this, if you really want to get to the bottom of the misleading, self contradictory, delusional, dishonest, and damaging ministry of Rick Warren then listen to these programs because everything that needs to be said is spoken with acute clarity. As a personal footnote, I would add, pay particular attention to the frequency with which Rick Warren prefaces his comments with the words "to me" or "for me" - this, I would contend, is a strong indicative of his hermeneutical approach that is born out as the interview progresses.

Here are links to all three parts of the interview: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

Go Back To Part 4
Go Back To Part 1

The Piper Warren Interview (Part 4)

It is my deep conviction that anybody can be won to Christ if you discover the key to his or her heart. That key to each person’s heart is unique so it is sometimes difficult to discover. It may take some time to identify it. But the most likely place to start is with the person’s felt needs - Rick Warren (p219 The Purpose Driven Church)

Because of the Fall, humans are incapable of any saving good apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. We are helpless and dead in sin. We have a mindset that “cannot submit to God without divine enabling" - John Piper (Summary Of The Sovereignty Of God In Salvation, online source)

These quotes not only reveal that John Piper and Rick Warren live on different theological planets, they also raise the bizarre question as to why John Piper would make a concerted effort to prove that they live on the same planet. They furthermore reveal the utter pointlessness of interviewing Rick Warren and asking him questions like the one below:



Here is Rick Warren again at his chameleon best. He is clearly not a theological dunce which makes his long history of conflicting statements even more troubling. Rick Warren, who says that "God's not mad at you, He's mad about you", claims that Jonathan "Sinners In The hands Of An Angry God" Edwards is his hero. Piper who has a long track record of excellent biblical exposition is undermining it by doing something that is so far beneath him.

Just five years ago Piper wrote:

The recent lamentations over the drift of evangelicalism into pragmatic, doctrinally vague, audience-driven, culturally uncritical Christianity are, in my judgment, warranted and needed . . . The political spin doctors who specialize in deflecting attention away from truth onto feelings and relationships and styles have their counterpart in the evangelical tendency to avoid doctrinal disputes by casting issues in terms of demeanor and method rather than truth. Serious disagreements are covered over, while vague language and pragmatic concerns preserve hollow unity at the expense of theological substance and Biblical clarity and power . . . a major shift . . . has taken place in western evangelicalism where truth has been replaced by pragmatism as the major influencer of thought and life. This path is suicidal - John Piper (online source)

Many of us who love John Piper are at a loss as to why he thinks a suicidal path is a viable alternative!

Go On To Part 5
Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1

The Piper Warren Interview (Part 3)

An Open Letter To John Piper

(Courtesy of Frank Turk at Pyromaniacs)

Dear Dr. Piper

First of all, I am personally still grateful that you are back in public ministry. I am personally still edified by you, and am grateful for your spirit and your mission to make Christ known. I would in no way retract my original open letter to you as I believe that you have been mightily used by God for his work to make Christ known in the English-speaking world, and I credit you for it.

I am also on-record to say that you were right, back when Rick Warren spoke by video at the DG conference, to point out that we allegedly-reformed people have something to learn from Warren when it comes to being intentional about people and not just about doctrine. I wouldn't retract one word of that post either.

While I can't speak for my fellow bloggers here at PyroManiacs, I can say that I am probably the least-unimpressed with Pastor Warren. Without naming names or trying to line out who would say what about whom, it's enough to say that the consensus here is that Rick Warren harms the church in general. His books have done more of a dis-service for local churches than they have served to improve them, and his own methods and writings are frankly a bad example for others.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Rick Warren. I can't get excited about his approach to Scripture and Ministry because I see all his writing and sermons as glib, simplistic, mediocre, and often muddled in his broad endorsements of people in interfaith settings -- something I know you disagree with. This was the major stunner from last year's conference: you see Pastor Warren as a great communicator -- which I think is startling because you are yourself a great communicator, and I would think you personally would know better than this. From my perspective, Pastor Warren has done what so many Southern Baptist pastors have done: he has created a local civic institution which has come into national prominence because so many people have come to it. And on that platform his shortcomings are simply magnified, so that the kinds of criticisms he receives are at least warranted because they have such a wide-reaching effect.

But at the same time, I also cannot bring myself to brand Rick Warren, as Chris Rosebrough would say, a rank heretic of a pelagian stripe [a view Phil Johnson has a lot of sympathy for]. I can't do it because I know where he comes from denominationally and ecclesiastically, and I simply can't write off the standard vocabulary of the average SBC pastor as inherently-pelagian. It may be populist in intention, and anti-intellectual in spirit, and simply and finally guided by the view that the number of people who agree with you and will follow you defines the success of your work, but I honestly don't see Rick Warren as anti-Christian. He's just mediocre, and popular, and most of his critics cannot evaluate him from that perspective because, frankly, they cannot muster a generous or balanced approach to discernment in general.

That, I think, is what guided your interview of Pastor Warren: a reaction against his most-unfair critics. As you see him as your friend, I credit you for wanting to defend a friend against injustice. But here's the thing: it seems to me that you thereby missed the point of all the fair criticism of Rick Warren and the PDC/PDL approach to local church life. In seeking to overcome the unfair criticism, you brushed over the concerns legitimate people have about your friend.

There were great opportunities to address those problems during this interview. For example, when pastor Warren boasted that he'd put any 500 members of Saddleback up against any 500 members of any other church with regard to doctrinal knowledge (cf. pg 36 of the transcript), this was a great opportunity to consider his consistency. If the members of his church are deeply educated in systematic doctrine, why does he preach without using the language of the Bible for the doctrines of the Bible -- let alone the common language of systematic theology (cf. pg 37)? Isn't this kind of latently anti-intellectual approach to doctrine and the Bible the most serious cause for concern about what Pastor Warren has advocated for 25 years?

To that charge, it's also interesting that he offered the claim that he has read the "complete sets of Jonathan Edwards ... 22 volumes, 800 pages each" (pg 4), and it had a significant influence on PDL. PDL was published in Nov 2002, and written presumably in the previous year -- and through that time, only volume 18 of the Yale "Works" series had been published. Perhaps he forgot how much he had read prior to writing that book; we are all getting older and are not the Grad students we once were. But more to the point, if Edwards was such a profound influence on PDL, why is his name so conspicuously-absent from it? Others are plainly mentioned in the book: Brother Lawrence is mentioned 5 times; Dr. Hugh Moorehead is quoted 3 times; Mother Teresa is cited twice; Hudson Taylor is mentioned once; Billy Graham is mentioned once; George Bernard Shaw was mentioned; Lane Adams [an author with fewer readers than this blog can claim] is quoted; there are others. [Thx, Kindle Edition search, since the book lacks a subject index] Plainly, these influenced Pastor Warren's writing of this book. Why not mention Jonathan Edwards if he had, as Warren said in the video, greatly influenced PDL?

To point this out and to ask Pastor Warren how he can substantiate this statement when factually it seems, at best, unsupported by the text, would not have been a hard item to come up with. I had not read PDL in almost 10 years, and this bit of emendation to the text seemed obvious -- an interesting and challenging point to investigate; it's unfortunate you missed the opportunity.

The enduring legacy of PDL, though, is Warren's use of any and every translation of a passage to allegedly make a point. For example, in Chpt 8 of PDL, Pastor Warren cites Ps 147:11 as "The LORD is pleased only with those who worship him and trust his love." This theological point is certainly true enough, but this is the CEV translation of a passage which reads "the LORD takes pleasure in those who fear him, in those who hope in his steadfast love," (ESV) or "The LORD taketh pleasure in them that fear him, in those that hope in his mercy," (KJV) -- a phrase which, in the context of the Psalm in question, as you know, is a contrast of God's will to do good over and against the normal hope of man that one's own strength or accomplishments will carry the day. This example is a rather-mild incident in PDL, but it is by no means the only one. For your reference, Tim Challies shares this concern, as does Mike Oppenheimer of "Let Us Reason" Ministries. Monergism.com points out that PDL is not the only source of data regarding Pastor Warren's misuse of Scripture.

This practice of cherry-picking the loosest and most-imprecise translations of passages to make a point in PDL is probably the most-pervasive criticism of the text, and you never arrive there. Of all the things you are from the pulpit and in your ministry, you are a man of God's word, and the misuse of Scripture is not something you usually lay hands on lightly. From my desk, it seems to me you can't possibly have missed this. Let's admit this: you didn't ignore the issue of hermeneutics. You opened up the question of how one uses Scripture (pp. 5, 14, 34). You simply didn't pursue it. You allowed Pastor Warren to simply say that he doesn't believe in contradictions in the word of God, and let that be enough. It's a casual approach to the man and his philosophy, not a deep consideration.

And in the end, this is why I have written to you. I am your fan, and deeply indebted to you for your lifetime of faithful ministry. I'm not a quack blogger who is now emptying my library of anything you may have written or edited because you are endorsing a dubious partner in ministry. I'm a guy who has grown because of your engagement with the glory of God, and have felt the weight of the divine act of the incarnation and crucifixion because of your meditation on and exhortation of God's Grace. I am a better man, and a better father, and a better husband, because you have put the Gospel to me in serious and sober and joyful terms. I believe completely that the greatest cause in the world is joyfully rescuing people from hell, meeting their earthly needs, making them glad in God, and doing that with a kind and serious pleasure that makes CHRIST look like the treasure He is.

I believe in your faith, and in your good judgment. While I cannot and will not question the former, I ask you to reconsider the latter as you are now campaigning for a broader and deeper acceptance of Rick Warren among those in broader "reformed", "T4G", and "Gospel Coalition" circles. He is, after all, a pastor and not merely a blogger. He's a shepherd and not merely a popular author. He's sending missionaries and not merely encouraging middle-class values. And as you seek to leverage the good name and good faith relationships you have among your partners in the groups listed above, remember that part of fellowship among brothers is honoring the concerns and objections your fellow workmen have expressed throughout the years about Rick Warren. He only has something to gain from their acceptance -- while they clearly would tell you there is something to lose by uncritically allowing him in as a teacher and leader.

In closing, I have a great empathy for your efforts to seek to be inclusive for the sake of Christ toward those who are in Christ but not in our basic theological camp. As I close in on a decade of internet punditry as a blogger and advocate for the Christian faith, I am deeply sensitive to the dark and unrestrained excesses of those who count themselves as defenders of the faith but are unaccountable for their strident pronouncements. As someone who is often lumped in with those sort, I think it's important to say plainly that I don't think it's an easy or uncomplicated thing to write you, a seasoned pastor, a critical open letter. I think you are right that some have treated Rick Warren with injustice -- but he is not hardly the man your interview with him paints him to be. He's not hardly someone deeply concerned with a robust declaration of the Gospel and its consequences. His weekly preaching does not reflect this, and his books do not reflect this. After 40 years of demonstrating pastoral care for real people and careful, weekly expository preaching, you must be able to see the deficiencies in what he has done, is doing, and will continue to do if accepted without asking the serious questions his writing and actions create.

Please: for the sake of your own continued credibility, and for the sake of the partnerships in the Gospel which you have forged with other men of good faith, reconsider the broad and uncritical endorsement you are giving to Rick Warren. Underscore your differences with him clearly and cogently, and ask him to respond seriously for the sake of his commitment to your integrity and his own.

For that reason, I leave you with a blessing. As the apostle charged, it is always our purpose to give a reason for the hope that is in us -- to put to shame those who would revile us for Christ's sake -- with gentleness and reverence. As you have spent your adult life doing this, I ask God our Father, through the Holy Spirit, and in Christ's name, to bless you for it now with these things: love for your friend beyond mere bonhomie; courage to speak prophetically and evangelistically; and humility to see the limits of your own approach to what you believe is addressing injustice.

My thanks for your time.

And my thanks to Frank Turk for some excellent perspective on an issue that has huge damage potential!

Go On To Part 4
Go Back To Part 2
Go Back To Part 1

The Piper Warren Interview (Part 2)

I promised in Mondays post to share some thoughts on therecent interview between John Piper and Rick Warren. However, I decided to post something even better today because I think it is such an excellent get to the point article on this bewildering interview. Tim Challies has an exceptionally popular blog and with good reason. It is insightful, theologically tight, and full of discernment. Challies has also written extensively on Warren's material in previous years and has even met him in person. What Tim wrote I can say an absolutely hearty amen and amen (and I never thought I'd say that about someone from Canadia). I've said enough - let's listen to Tim Challies on this subject.

Desiring God Ministries has posted John Piper’s long-awaited interview with Rick Warren. This has brought to completion the invitation Piper extended to Warren to speak at the 2010 Desiring God National Conference. The interview was supposed to happen at that event, but in the end Warren was unable to travel to Minneapolis and the interview was postponed. The men got together on May 1, 2011 and this video is the result.

Today I want to offer up some thoughts on it. I do so because over the years I have come out as a bit of a critic of Rick Warren and his ministry. This is not something I am entirely comfortable with, but it was no surprise to me that when the interview was posted I began to receive questions; people wanted to know what I thought of it. And, frankly, I wanted to know what I thought of it. So what I intend to do in this article is simply let you into my mind as I wrestle through the interview and its implications.

Before I begin, let me say a word about critiquing Warren. Many people seem to imagine that there is some kind of a Calvinist conspiracy against Rick Warren. I will grant that there are many outrageous critics out there who seem to put Warren in the same league as Jezebel and Judas. Despite such people there are many others who have good, legitimate critiques of the man and his ministry. I think we need to be careful that we do not combine these 2 groups—that we do not ignore legitimate critiques because of the outrageous ones.

Having said that, let me tell you where my mind went as I watched and read the interview. I am very glad to hear from you whether my thinking has gone off-track or if I am just plain wrong. The comments are open and I will be reading them as I am able.

1. Awareness
I find myself aware of my youth. As I begin to think through this issue I immediately realize that both of these men are old enough to be my father and I want to be very careful that I do not play the role of the impulsive, self-assured, prideful young(er) man. The Bible commends age and maturity and this leaves me inclined to doubt my own interpretation when it conflicts with those who are older than I am. Both of these men have far more knowledge of Scripture than I do and both have much greater ministry experience. Both have obviously been used by the Lord in unique ways.

And yet their greater age and ministry experience does not mean that I cannot have legitimate concerns. I know that what was true of Rick Warren before I saw this interview is true of him still. And this means that the concerns I had before remain concerns. While I am aware of the age difference between myself and these men, I am also aware of what I am convinced are legitimate concerns.

2. Uncertainty
From awareness I went to uncertainty. I found myself grappling with this question: What does John Piper wish for people to take away from this interview? Piper knows that he is a leader within the church, one who is much admired; he knows of the concerns people have for Warren; he knows that this interview will be widely watched, dissected and interpreted. All of this means that he must want people who watch this interview to come to a certain conclusion. As far as I can tell, that conclusion is this: Rick Warren has been misinterpreted and misunderstood. The implication is that he is an orthodox brother in Christ, and that Piper is leading us to see that many of Warren’s critics are being unjust toward him.

This is one of the takeaways I am seeing in the blogosphere and in comments left right here at my web site. My friend Timmy Brister seemed to say this in an article he posted at his blog where he marvelled at the theological agreement between the 2 men. A commenter at my blog wrote “Hope you will have the integrity to comment on the interview Tim, as it shows some of your previous critiques might have been off and misplaced. Very good interview, and helpful in showing just what a sharp, Bible-loving pastor Rick Warren is.”

3. Confusion
I find myself confused with this. Now hear me say that I love John Piper. I admire him a great deal, I’ve benefitted immensely from his ministry and on the few occasions I have spent time with him, have enjoyed him on a personal level. My disappointment in no way means I am turning on him or negating all that his ministry has meant to me. I feel like I need to repeat this so it does not get lost in the noise. I love and admire John Piper.

And yet I find that I disagree with his conclusion. And here is why: I do not think he has given us an accurate understanding of Rick Warren or his ministry. It has given us a very partial understanding, one based on a very limited scope of conversation. I do not think there is any malice here or any intent to deceive. It’s just reality as I understand it.

This interview was meant to be a frank one. Piper asked Warren some of the questions that people have been wondering. He asked about the gospel, about the existence of hell, about preaching philosophy, about God’s sovereignty, about the doctrines of grace. Yet, because Piper’s questions were based almost entirely on the text of The Purpose Driven Life, the interview was narrow in scope. And because it was an “appreciative interview” it steered away from some of the book’s most pronounced concerns. The fact is, though, that there is far more to Rick Warren than this 1 book. He has written several books; he has preached thousands of sermons; he has written other things and spoken other places.

As the interview drew to a close I saw that many of the predominant concerns I have with The Purpose Driven Life as well as Warren’s wider ministry went unaddressed. Let me speak to just 2 of them. And I think this is the crux of what I am saying in all of this—we do not have to change our critiques of Rick Warren based on this interview. What he said in this interview simply does not correlate to the facts of his books and ministry.

A Theological Chameleon
One of the most common critiques of Rick Warren and one of the most important is that he is something of a chameleon. There is a kind of pragmatism to him where he will be A and Not A depending on the context. I have little confidence that in a different context Warren would have answered the questions the same way. I am not saying that he outright lied to Piper, but simply that his track record shows that he adapts to fit the context.

Warren has been lauded in the secular media for speaking for a long time to a large group of Jewish leaders without ever using the name of Jesus. He is now being lauded by Calvinists for affirming the doctrines of grace. He has received praise from Roman Catholics. After all, he recently wrote the introduction to a special edition of TIME magazine that celebrated the life of Mother Teresa. This introduction praises the woman and holds her up as a model of Christian virtue. There Warren tells about a handwritten note by Mother Teresa that adorns the wall of his office. He proclaims that Mother Teresa “offered the same unconditional love our Savior did. By being the hands and feet of Jesus, this petite Albanian nun became one of the great evangelists of the 20th century.” He declared her “exhibit A of a true hero—a saint.” Mother Teresa, though, was a Catholic of Catholics, a devout follower of her church. She was also a universalist and one who saw no reason to seek to convert people to the gospel.

I think I am right to be confused here, right to ask questions. How do the doctrines of grace allow for an ardent Roman Catholic, one who denied those doctrines as anathema, to exemplify the Christian faith, to be a true hero—a saint? Surely I am not the only one who sees a contradiction. Surely I am not wrong to balk at Warren teaching Jewish rabbis how to increase the strength of their congregations.

Warren gave all the right answers in this interview, but I am not at all convinced that they reflect what he truly believes at all times and in all contexts. And certainly his ministry does not appear to bear out the kind of theological underpinnings that would reflect the theology he espouses here. Where is the influence of Edwards? Where is the monergism? Where do we see a belief in total depravity consistently applied in any of his books?

Use of Scripture
Another very common critique of Rick Warren and his books concerns the use of Scripture. Throughout The Purpose Driven Life he consistently and unapologetically tears verses from their context and applies them haphazardly, relying on a long list of translations and paraphrases to do so. Examples abound and would probably number in the hundreds; these are very well documented and very widely known.

Piper spoke to Warren about Scripture but stopped short of asking about his use of Scripture. If I were to preach in my church and Scripture as Warren does, I would be rebuked and I would deserve the rebuke. If a man stood in the pulpit of Bethlehem Baptist Church and used Scripture as Warren does, he would be rebuked as well, I am convinced. We do not want men to learn from Warren how to preach, how to use Scripture! He does not treat the Word of God as the very words of God. He can speak of his indebtedness to Edwards and Spurgeon and others, but his preaching shows very little of their influence.

These are just 2 critiques that remain unaddressed—very important critiques that seem to get to the heart of what he truly believes.

4. Unconvinced
There is still a pronounced gap between what Warren says in this interview and what he says elsewhere. And there is just as large a gap between what Warren says here and what his ministry bears out. Saying all that he said and affirming all that he affirmed is not enough; he also needs to show it. But he has not done that. The reason everyone was so surprised that Warren is Reformed is that he has never given us any reason to imagine such a thing. As Michael Horton wrote in a review of The Purpose Driven Life, “Judging by The Purpose-Driven Life, Pastor Warren’s theology seems to reflect run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminianism, especially with its emphasis on the new birth as the result of human decision and cooperation with grace. There are also heavy traces of Keswick ‘higher life’ teaching throughout the book.” What he says in this interview is not at all consistent with what he has shown through his ministry. So why would we believe that it’s true?

Now hear me say that the fact that his theology is “run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminianism” does not mean that he is not a Christian; it does not mean that he cannot be a godly man or a good pastor. But it does mean that it is not Reformed, because A cannot also be Not A.

I love John Piper (I already said that, right?). I’m glad that he has risen to a position of leadership within the church. But this interview has not at all convinced me to retract what I believe about Rick Warren. I firmly believe that those who have respectfully offered measured critiques of Warren and his ministry—substantial and important critiques—have done so for good reason. And those reasons remain.

Go On To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1