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 ...

Hillsong Pastor Brian Houston's Continual Abuse Of Scripture

Brian Houston, senior pastor of Hillsong Church in Australia (and it's rapidly expanding global empire) has just visited Saddleback Church in California which is just a couple of hours down the road from my current address. I became immediately interested when I found out that Houston would be preaching from 2 Corinthians 7:8-10. I had to ask myself how Brian Houston would preach from a passage explicitly about repentance:

For even if I made you grieve with my letter, I do not regret it - though I did regret it, for I see that that letter grieved you, though only for a while. As it is, I rejoice, not because you were grieved, but because you were grieved into repenting. For you felt a godly grief, so that you suffered no loss through us. For godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation without regret, whereas worldly grief produces death. (2 Corinthians 7:8-10).

Those who know me or are regular readers here know of the years I have spent pursuing Hillsong Church and its leaders over their relentless failure to preach the core salvation doctrine of repentance. Not only is this doctrine historically recognized as the necessary corresponding reality of true saving faith, it is also a core element of Hillsong Church's very own doctrine statement (which is somewhat difficult to find, although this may be due to my severe lack of nerd capabilities). To quote from their "What We Believe" page:

We believe that in order to receive forgiveness and the 'new birth' we must repent of our sins, believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and submit to His will for our lives.

Time and time again I have cited example after example of this violation of their own doctrine statement (several of the videos previously cited have since been removed). In fact, of the services I and others have attended, the books we have read, the CDs we have heard, and the videos we have downloaded or streamed, none of us have ever heard anything about repentance coming from any Hillsong source. Even if it has been preached on an occasion that I am not aware of (and I gave an open invitation to my many critics to prove me wrong with nothing ever forthcoming), such a core doctrine essential to salvation should be strongly evident in all their outreach arms. Hillsong even had the audacity to edit the Bible verse on the back cover of their "Mighty to Save" CD to sanitize repentance out of it (yes, they REMOVED the line from 2 Chronicles 7:14 that says "turn from their wicked ways"). Can anybody else smell a rat?

Fast forward to Pastor Brian Houston's sermon at Saddleback. I polled several friends and colleagues of mine at the Master's Seminary (where I am a student) and asked them if they thought it was possible to preach a sermon out of 2 Corinthians 7:8-10 without mentioning the word repentance. None of them thought this to be possible but Brian Houston proved them all wrong. That's right, he preached directly out of a passage that explicitly and obviously centers on repentance without even once talking about it. How did he get out of even mentioning repentance when reading the text itself? By switching to a very liberal translation (The Message) when he got to verse 9! Preachers are called to submit to the biblical text, not submit the biblical text to their own agenda. If you don't believe me then you can see it for yourself (the translation switch happens at the 15:30 mark). Chris Rosebrough's brutal review of the sermon can be heard here (start listening to the program at the 93 minute mark).

I cannot put into words my personal grief at seeing Houston butcher and pervert a passage of such immense beauty that describes the godly sorrow over sin that leads to repentance and salvation. Furthermore, he twisted the passage into something completely irrelevant to its obvious meaning from a plain reading. Brian Houston believes that the problems at Corinth were caused by Paul's angry letter and that the Corinthians needed to make the decision to stop being bitter and wounded about it so that their pain would be "only for a while". Earth to Brian! Houston we have a problem! Hello!!!!! Paul's angry letter was written because of the incest (1 Corinthians 5:1), immorality (1 Corinthians 6:12-20), lawsuits between brethren (1 Corinthians 6:1-8), idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:1-14), and turning the communion table into a place of drunkenness and gluttony (1 Corinthians 11:17-22). The Corinthians grieved "only for a while" because Paul's rebuke had brought about deep conviction and saving repentance in their lives. As I watched Houston's sermon I was left wondering if he had even read Paul's letters to the Corinthians. My criticism is not the deep theological insight of a Seminary student. It is the obvious conclusions of anyone who would take the time to read these letters in the same way that they read their own mail. It's just not that difficult . . . unless you are determined to avoid the subject of repentance.

Oh how tragic that a church would pay a lot of money for a man to fly a long way and then obscure the glorious truth that is so obvious to anyone who would read that passage. It is perhaps almost as tragic that Brian Houston's continual avoidance of the subject of repentance makes him oblivious to his own need to repent. And repentance of the unbiblical nonsense he is preaching is the single greatest contribution he could presently make to the Body of Christ.

The Truth About Rick Warren

Finally, a movie that tells the truth about Rick Warren and hasn't been altered by his spin doctors. This is an important movie for those of us grazing on the modern evangelical landscape. Please check it out . . . good job guys! Also, under the video you will find links to more articles critiquing Rick Warren.



The John Piper - Rick Warren Interview

Rick Warren's Sermon at Desiring God 2010

Does Rick Warren Worship Allah?

The Undertones of Rick Warren's Inauguration Prayer for Barack Obama

Does Rick Warren Worship Allah? (Part 2)

My earlier post on Rick Warren and the controversial "Kings Way document" caused some people to write to me saying that it was a media beat up. They pointed out that Rick Warren has come out and denied ever saying or believing anything concerning Christians and Muslims worshipping the same God. Yes, I am very aware of Rick Warren's response. And no, I have never really entertained the thought that Rick Warren is an exponent of "chrislam". But I stand by the title I gave to the post because it draws attention to the issue of rick Warren's continual ambiguity. Why do people misunderstand him and take him out of context continually? Might it have something to do with the fact that he continually speaks in very vague terms when things get ecumenical? Could he be suffering the fate Margaret Thatcher once warned about when she said that "if you stay on the fence then you get slapped from both sides". Pleasing all men is a futile pursuit that always seems to ultimately end up in a very lonely place. And Rick Warren has a long history of either failing to take a side on an issue or speaking out of both sides of his mouth.





I have no sympathy for Rick Warren as to whether Jim Hinch (the journalist) misunderstood the relationship between Rick Warren's church and their relationship with the local Muslim fellowship. Can you imagine an interviewer ever getting confused by John Macarthur as to whether Allah and the Biblical God are the same? Why not? Because all preachers have a biblical mandate to be explicitly clear and uncompromising about the core tenets of the Christian faith - something Warren continually fails to do.

But there is also the possibility that Warren's denial is not entirely true anyway. Ken Silva (KS) over at Apprising Ministries contacted Jim Hinch (JH) to get his side of the story.

KS: You see, yesterday I asked Jim Hinch about the King’s Way document, which he has. Hinch began with a recap of the situation:

JH: Rick Warren initially posted a comment to the article claiming that the article contained “multiple errors.” That comment was later deleted, I presume by Warren. After seeing that comment I reached out to Warren’s director of communications.

On Monday, Feb. 27 a Saddleback representative called and told me that while the Register story was factually accurate, folks at Saddleback would prefer that the opening paragraph read “Muslims and Christians believe that God is one.”

Following a discussion with a Register editor Saddleback decided to withdraw its request for a clarification. At no time has anyone at Saddleback said to me or to anyone else at the Register that the story contains factual inaccuracies.

KS: You should be able to see why online apologetics and discernment ministries work to expose the methodology of Rick Warren. What “multiple errors” is Warren talking about? He also kept insisting that no one contacted him. Hinch then sets the record straight:

JH: Warren states in his white paper that “no one even talked to me about that article!” I made numerous attempts to contact Warren, both by phone and by e-mail, before the story was published.

I was eventually told by Warren’s director of communications that Warren was too busy with other projects to speak with me or to e-mail a response to the story’s main claims, which I had e-mailed to the communications director. Instead I was put in touch with Tom Holladay, an associate senior pastor at Saddleback.

I ran all of the story’s claims by Holladay and he affirmed all of them, including the language of the King’s Way document and the fact that King’s Way was an effort to build bridges of friendship and cooperation, not an attempt to evangelize.

During my conversation with Holladay I asked whether the King’s Way effort, including the December dinner and the theological document, was done with Rick Warren’s approval. “Of course it has his approval,” Holladay replied. It is neither fair nor accurate to claim that this story was published without attempting to solicit Rick Warren’s response.

Who knows what the whole story is here. But it once again proves my point that the best possible construction on the world of Rick Warren is a giant fog of double speak coupled with a continual failure to proclaim the Gospel in spite of all the doors of opportunity presented to do just that. And what is the worst possible construction on the world of Rick Warren? I think you can join the dots on that one!

Go Back To Part 1

Does Rick Warren Worship Allah? (Part 1)

The universe of Rick Warren is a bizarre place. What he says continually morphs into the demographic of his audience. When is Rick going to learn that he can't be everybody's friend forever and he cannot continually avoid coming clean with what he really believes. I am reminded of an email conversation that transpired between myself (CB) and a Danish apologist (DA) a few years ago. The conversation went something like this:

DA: I am really upset that you are calling Rick Warren a heretic!!!!

CB: I didn't call Rick Warren a heretic.

DA: Good, I'm really pleased to hear that.

CB: Rick Warren is worse than a heretic!

DA: AAAAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!! What could be worse than a heretic????

CB: A chameleon - that's what!

And many were shocked in the last week to see that this chameleon has not yet exhausted all possible colors! I'll leave it to my good friend Tony Miano (aka Lawman) to take it from here because I cannot cover this breaking story any better.

Chameleon: Any of various tropical Old World lizards of the family Chamaeleonidae, characterized by their ability to change color; A changeable or inconstant person.



A friend of mine used to raise chameleons. They are fascinating and fragile creatures. They are slow-moving, with a lightening-fast tongue. The tongue of this little creature is a deadly weapon, which hits its prey with pin-point accuracy with a grip that most of its victims cannot escape.

It was always fascinating to watch my friend's chameleons change colors based on their mood or changes in their environment or a perceived danger.

Today, I read an Orange County Register article titled Rick Warren Builds Bridge to Muslims.

The article, which can be read in its entirety at the above link, begins this way:

The Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest and one of America's most influential Christian leaders, has embarked on an effort to heal divisions between evangelical Christians and Muslims by partnering with Southern California mosques and proposing a set of theological principles that includes acknowledging that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

The effort, informally dubbed King's Way, caps years of outreach between Warren and Muslims. Warren has broken Ramadan fasts at a Mission Viejo mosque, met Muslim leaders abroad and addressed 8,000 Muslims at a national convention in Washington D.C.

Saddleback worshippers have invited Muslims to Christmas dinner and played interfaith soccer at a picnic in Irvine attended by more than 300 people. (The game pitted pastors and imams against teens from both faiths. The teens won.)

The effort by a prominent Christian leader to bridge what polls show is a deep rift between Muslims and evangelical Christians culminated in December at a dinner at Saddleback attended by 300 Muslims and members of Saddleback's congregation.

At the dinner, Abraham Meulenberg, a Saddleback pastor in charge of interfaith outreach, and Jihad Turk, director of religious affairs at a mosque in Los Angeles, introduced King's Way as "a path to end the 1,400 years of misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians."

The men presented a document they co-authored outlining points of agreement between Islam and Christianity. The document affirms that Christians and Muslims believe in "one God" and share two central commandments: "love of God" and "love of neighbor." The document also commits both faiths to three goals: Making friends with one another, building peace and working on shared social service projects. The document quotes side-by-side verses from the Bible and the Koran to illustrate its claims.

"We agreed we wouldn't try to evangelize each other," said Turk. "We'd witness to each other but it would be out of 'Love Thy Neighbor,' not focused on conversion."

Saddleback representatives declined to make Warren available for comment. Tom Holladay, associate senior pastor at Saddleback, said the outreach to Muslims is part of Saddleback's PEACE Plan, a wide-ranging effort to solve major world problems by mobilizing governments, businesses and faith communities.

"This is us serving our own community with Muslims here in Orange County," said Holladay. "We realize we don't agree about everything and we're very open about that . . . You just recognize the differences and recognize the points where you can work together."

About fourteen hours prior to the writing of this blog post, Rick Warren posted the following comment to the online version of the O.C. Register article:

I deeply love my Muslim neighbors but this article contains multiple errors - factually and theologically that neither our dear friends in the Muslim Community nor the Christians at Saddleback Church would agree with.

And about an hour before the writing of this blog post, Jim Hinch, the author of the O.C. Register article, posted the following response to Rick Warren's comment:

Hi, I'm the reporter who wrote this story. I'm sorry Rev. Warren feels the story contains errors but the story was based on interviews and documents and it was thoroughly fact-checked. I discussed all of its major points with Tom Holladay, an associate senior pastor at Saddleback. I checked with other sources quoted in the story this morning and they said they did not see any errors. While reporting this story I asked to speak to Rev. Warren directly but was told he was too busy for an interview. If any facts need to be corrected I hope representatives from Saddleback will get in touch with me. I'm glad to see so many people reading and responding to the story. Thanks for your comments!

I've watched interviews of and read works and comments by Rick Warren for two decades. And what I've discovered over that course of time is that Rick Warren is a chameleon. And I believe he is one of the most dangerous men in Christendom, today.

Plastic pastors transparent enough to see through, like Joel Osteen, are not as dangerous as Rick Warren. Modalistic moguls of the painfully-obvious-money-hungry prosperity movement, like T.D. Jakes, are not as dangerous as Rick Warren. Self-serving sorcerers of the false signs and wonders movement, like Todd Bentley, are not as dangerous as Rick Warren. No. None of the before-mentioned personalities or groups are all that dangerous because what you see is what you get. They all lack the ability to change their appearance to accommodate a change in environment. They lack the chameleon-like ability, the self-serving ability, to say what needs to be said in order to keep people in every camp liking them.

Rick Warren is a chameleon. Over the years he has shown, time and time again, his uncanny ability to say what will please his audience at the moment--secular news anchors and pundits, the masses at the request of a president who knows neither the Christ nor His Word, the leaders of false religions around the world, and sadly, even well-respected leaders of the real Christian community.

Undoubtedly, I will receive criticism for writing this blog post. There will be those who will call me judgmental. To them I say, "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment" (John 7:24).

There will be those who will say that I am being unfair to Warren because he is on a mission of peace. To them I say, "They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace" (Jeremiah 6:14 and Jeremiah 8:11).

There will be those who will say that I shouldn't write this way about such a respected leader in the Christian world. To them I say, "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). And, if they do not find this compelling enough to question Warren, then to them I say, "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test (2 Corinthians 13:5).

There will be those who will say that I am not being loving toward Rick Warren. To them I say, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). I love Jesus more.

The dictionary has this to say regarding the history of the word "chameleon."

The words referring to the animal chameleon and the plant chamomile are related etymologically by a reference to the place one would expect to find them, that is, on the ground. The first part of both words goes back to the Greek form khamai, meaning "on the ground." What is found on the ground in each case is quite different, of course. The khamailen is a "lion [len] on the ground."

In Rick Warren the Church has a lion on the ground.

I believe Rick Warren is an enemy of Christ and His Gospel. Anyone who is an enemy of Christ and His Gospel is my enemy. The Word of God commands me to love my enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). And that's what I will do.

The most loving thing I can do for Rick Warren is to pray for him and call him to repentance.

I call Rick Warren to repent of all-too-often being an appeaser to the world, instead of being a true ambassador of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20).

I call Rick Warren to repent of his expert ambiguity when speaking the truth in love is the only speech that will please God (Ephesians 4:14-16).

I call Rick Warren to repent of his unbiblical ecumenism and pluralism. I call Rick Warren to repent of courting the false religion and the false god of Islam, for to enter into any spiritual enterprise with those who are outside of Christ is an abomination to God (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

Rick Warren, it is time for you to stop being a lion on the ground.

You are in my prayers.

Well said Tony Miano! Thank you for serving the body of Christ with such clarity and faithfulness to Scripture.

Go On To Part 2

Rick Warren - The World's Foremost Expert On Humility

Warren Unveils The R.I.C.K. Plan On Humility

Pastor Rick Warren, well-known for creating memorable acrostics to convey his groundbreaking church initiatives like PEACE, SHAPE and CHURCH, has unveiled his latest teaching on Christian humility called the RICK Plan. Says Warren, “As Christians who have received greater spiritual insight than people of other religions, we can easily fall into the trap of acting superior. But Jesus said we need to humbly serve others without concern for our preeminence in the world, and that’s what my new RICK Plan is all about.”

RICK stands for: Remember others first; Imitate Christ; Create opportunities for service; and Keep your ego in check.

Warren believes his new strategy is essential for the success of the Church and plans to implement it throughout his Purpose Driven network until RICK covers the globe. “I’ve come to realize how important humility is, and I want other Christians to understand it, too,” Warren explained. “In fact, just the other day I was telling Bono how I practically created another Pentecost at Saddleback’s last membership drive. All of a sudden the phone rings and it’s a call from the White House. It was Barry wanting some pastoral advice. This is the kind of humbling situation that I hope others can learn to experience someday, too.”

When asked about the critics who charge that his new global humility plan is just a veiled marketing campaign to force his personal agenda on the Church, Warren responded, “Hey, the RICK Plan isn’t about me.”

(article courtesy of Sacred Sandwich)

The saddest thing about this post is that many of the readers will remain unsure as to whether it is satire or real life. Those lines regularly cross over in Rick Warren's universe!

If you haven't heard enough about Rick Warren's humility you can find out more (non-satirical examples) in these previous posts from his sermon at last years Desiring God conference.
Rick Warren's Sermon At Desiring God Part 6
Rick Warren's Sermon At Desiring God Part 13

(Based on subsequent feedback it would seem that too many readers are seriously open to the RICK plan being a real thing. To alleviate your fears the article is courtesy of "Sacred Sandwich" which is a site devoted to satirical pokes at the worst parts of modern seeker sensitive evangelicalism. But I have to say that in the likelihood of Warren not reading this article, the RICK plan would seem only a matter of time!)

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