Warrengate 2010: So What is The Problem With Rick Warren Anyway?

In Ken Silva’s latest article at Apprising.org: “Warrengate, John Piper and Desiring God 2010″, an important topic comes up. Ken writes:

“Apprising Ministries made it clear in Desiring God 2010, John Piper, And Warrengate that this isn’t about Dr. John Piper because no one credible is saying he’s anything other than a dear brother in Christ who’s made a mistake by inviting Purpose Driven Pope Rick Warren to be a keynote speaker at the Desiring God Conference 2010. What’s been forgotten is there’s a very real reason why I refer to Warren as the PDL pope.”

Ken then links to several blogs (some of which use personal experiences) in order to express problems with this whole issue of someone like John Piper inviting Rick Warren (of Purpose Driven Life fame) to come speak at his upcoming “Desiring God 2010″ Conference.

In my mind, the real question becomes: Why does Piper want to invite Rick to speak at DG2010 when Rick’s man-centered “gospel” and the Gospel as revealed in Scripture are diametrically OPPOSITE of one another?

Rick’s gospel is man-centered. Yet the Bible places salvation in the sovereign hands of God Himself! (Read Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 1:16, Romans 5:8, John 1:12, Romans 6:23, etc.) The last time I checked, Piper was right on target Biblically, and I admire his zeal for the Lord and his desire to live holy. But something fishy is going on.

When I first became a Christian, I was literally surrounded by people who were falling in love with Rick Warren, and the “Purpose Driven Life”. It seemed like everywhere I turned people were talking about Rick Warren’s new book and how great it was.

I was unimpressed.

Compared to Scripture, Warren’s book is shallow, and lacks biblical substance. It compromises the Gospel by providing one of the weakest efforts at evangelism I’ve seen. Here’s how Rick explains the Gospel in the PDL:

In Rick’s PDL video that accompanies the book and study series, Rick leads everyone watching the video in the following prayer:

“Dear God, I want to know your purpose for my life. I don’t want to base the rest of my life on wrong things. I want to take the first step in preparing for eternity by getting to know you. Jesus Christ, I don’t understand how but as much as I know how I want to open up my life to you. Make yourself real to me. And use this series in my life to help me know what you made me for.”

Rick then makes this amazing claim:

“Now if you’ve just prayed that prayer for the very first time I want to congratulate you. You’ve just become a part of the family of God.”

The problem with that presentation of the Gospel can be summed up in this scripture:

1 Cor 1:21:  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Unlike Rick’s pragmatic, man-centered message, the Scriptures teach us that salvation starts and ends with God himself. It’s not a man-centered feel-good message. Instead the bible teaches us the following:

Acts 17:30-31:  “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all people everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.”

Now this raises an interesting point. Piper says in his video where he is trying to validate why he asked Rick Warren to come speak at his conference:

Uh, repentance: He’s been criticized for not highlighting repentance in the purpose Driven life and the way he would explain it is to say:
“I totally believe in the… the necessity of… of repentance and I totally am committed to the call for repentance though I may not use the word as often as some would want me to. So, check out the reality if not… if not the language.”

So Rick Warren says to John Piper that he believes in the necessity of repentance and that he’s totally committed to the call for repentance. Yet time after time when he speaks about the Gospel, he leaves repentance out.  Not only does he leave out repentance which Jesus also preached (see Luke 13), he replaces it with SINCERITY during prayer?!

In Rick Warren’s world, repentance may not be necessary, only sincerity of heart. Yet the Bible teaches us that:

Jer 17:9-10:  “The heart is more deceitful than all else And is desperately sick; Who can understand it? “I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, According to the results of his deeds.”

The real issue with this whole dust-up online between Piper and Warren has to do with how Rick Warren presents himself. He’s like a chameleon. He will say whatever is pragmatically necessary to get the results he wants. So to him the end justifies the means.

Friends, this is not Biblical. We’re never told to compromise on the Gospel. Instead, we hear the opposite in Scripture:

Gal 1:6-10: I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

For a more in-depth study of why Rick Warren’s gospel is inadequate, I recommend you check out: Bob DeWaay’s excellent article found here:  http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue80.htm

Review: Brian McLaren’s “A New Kind of Christianity”, Pt. 1

Brian McLaren (part of the emergent “conversation”) has recently published a new book called “A New Kind of Christianity: Ten Questions That Are Transforming the Faith“.

McLaren published the book in 2010 with HarperCollins, and it’s been quite a hit. As of mid-April 2010, it’s currently #484 at Amazon.com for book sales, and #4 in the “Books > Religion & Spirituality > Christianity > Christian Living > Faith” category.

Brian describes himself inside the back jacket cover as “an author, speaker, pastor, and networker among innovative Christian leaders, thinkers, and activists.” He also says “here you will find a provocative and enticing introduction to the Christian faith of tomorrow.”

My disagreement starts there. What McLaren presents isn’t an introduction to the ‘Christian faith’ at all. While McLaren may be describing what he thinks faith will look like in the future, he has intentionally mischaracterized much of evangelical Christianity, presenting a straw-man view that modern Christians worship a faulty idea of God that’s derived from the “Greco-Roman” lens. Once McLaren sets up the straw man at the beginning of the book, he proceeds to prop it up and knock it over in each chapter.

Each of the 10 questions gets one chapter of discussion. Yet once McLaren asks the questions, he often dodges direct answers, or using Hegelian dialectic methods, he sets up “thesis/antithesis/synthesis” answers that often employ gross mischaracterizations of evangelicals. He seems to practice rather long-winded exercises in “missing the point.”

This isn’t orthodox Christianity. It’s doubt.

Brian slowly introduces his brand of liberal post-modernistic poison, until by the end of the book the views he expresses are at direct odds with what Christianity believes, all the while calling it “an introduction to the Christian faith of tomorrow.”

I plan over the course of several serialized blog posts to show how Brian’s opinion of the Christianity of the future isn’t a true picture of biblical Christianity, but is instead a picture of wolves running amok in the church.

Just to give you an example of the anger that seems to seethe just below the surface of his book, consider the following:

On page 191 of Chapter 18: “Can We Find a Better Way of Viewing the Future?”, Brian  mischaracterizes conservative Christians, especially those who hold to an eschatology that Jesus is coming back soon with the world being consumed by fire. He seems to reject both ideas as old-fashioned and in the way of the Kingdom work that needs to be done. (Yet both ideas of Jesus’ imminent return and the destruction of the earth are both Biblical: See Revelation 22:20, and 2 Peter 3:12)

Listen to what he says on page 192:

Those of us raised in dispensationalist circles can regale one another with stories about scary “left-behind” sermons, sometimes illustrated through huge and serious wall charts and dramatized in B-rated movies. These sermons often climaxed with warnings about the second coming, when Jesus will return like “a thief in the night” – initiating the “Rapture” when “born-again Christians” will (we were told) be miraculously evacuated to heaven and the rest (includign the children of “saved” parents) will be left behind for a nightmare apocalypse. As a boy of about eight, having come home from school and found the doors locked and nobody home, I once spent nearly an hour sitting on my back porch, deeply dejected and with rising panic, sure that the Rapture had occurred and I was a child left behind. Who knew a third-grader could feel such terror and despair?

To the uninitiated, this all might sound pitiful or laughable, like wild conspiracy theories shared on strange Web sites or middle-of-the-night AM radio. But surprising numbers of mainline Protestants and Roman Catholics have also been thoroughly catechized in this eschatology through televangelist broadcasts and books (and newer B-grade films) in the Left Behind Series, which have broken sales records around the world. If they only focused on speculation about who the antichrist is (I remember hearing it was Khrushchev, then Henry Kissinger, then Saddamm Hussein, and now apparently odds are being placed on Barack Obama!), their eschatological hobby might be harlmess enough – like a crazy uncle obsessed with UFOs. But in recent decades, dispensationalism and it’s eschatological cousins have become significant factors in the foreign policy of the richest, most consumptive, and most well-armed nation in the history of history, and that’s where things get even scarier than a B-grade movie.

Here’s where McLaren really begins to mischaracterize Christians:

If the world is about to end, why care for the environment? Why worry about global climate change or peak oil? Who gives a rip for endangered species or sustainable economics or global poverty if God is planning to incinerate the whole planet soon anyway? If the Bible predicts the rebuilding of the Jewish temple (or requires that rebuilding for it’s prophecies to work in a dispensationalist framework), why care about Muslim claims on the Temple Mount real estate? Why care about justice for non-Jews in Israel at all – after all, isn’t it their own fault for being on land God predicts will be returned in full to the Jews in the last days? If God has predetermined that the world will get worse and worse until it ends in a cosmic megaconflict between the forces of Light (epitomized most often in the United States) and the forces of Darkness (previously centered in communism, but now, that devil having been vanquished, in Islam), why waste energy on peacemaking, diplomacy, or interreligious dialogue? Aren’t those simply endeavors in rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic? And since even Jesus can’t set the world right without taking up the sword and shedding swimming pools of his enemies’ blood (recalling our discussion under the Jesus question), what’s so bad about another war, and maybe even a little torture and genocide now and then? If God sanctions it, why can’t we?

McLaren’s idea of writing a scholarly approach to “Christian Faith of tomorrow” seems to involve mischaracterizing Christians, setting up and knocking down a laughable straw-man argument that we view Scripture through a “Greco-Roman” lens, spewing forth vitriol at fellow Christians – all the while holding forth a smug attitude of false humility and piety.

Reader be warned! This book is not about the coming Christian faith. It’s McLaren’s attack against the faith that’s already been delivered to us.

In the next segment, I will be discussing Question 1, “What is the Overarching Story Lline of the Bible?”

Chris Rosebrough’s accurate handling of Brian McLaren’s book “A New Kind of Christianity”

In Christ Rosebrough’s post on Extreme Theology, he does an excellent job of rebutting Brian McLaren’s argument that Christians today no longer worship the God of the bible, but some other god of Greco-Roman origin. Says Chris:

In the opening chapters of Brian McLaren’s new book A New Kind of Christianity he posits one of the lamest and flimsiest liberal arguments I’ve encoutered to date as to why Christians need to abandon the historic/traditional understanding of the Bible and create a ‘new kind of Christianity’. McLaren’s contention is that today’s Christians are guilty of looking backward at Jesus through a Greco-Roman narrative lens that misconstrues and distorts the true nature of God and the gospel message itself. (Source: ExtremeChristianity.com )

Chris then quotes from McLaren’s new book, “A New Kind of Christianity” (which contains many errors that I plan to explain in upcoming posts).

In particular, Christ states:  “And his caricature and straw man mischaracterization of the God worshipped and believed in by historic Christianity through McLaren’s ‘theos’ character is nothing more than intentional dishonesty on his part.”

I am reading through McLaren’s new book, and plan on having a complete review done soon. In the meanwhile, I definitely recommend that you read Chris’ well-prepared rebuttal of just a small part of McLaren’s work.

Transcript of John Piper’s Video of Why He Invited Rick Warren to Speak at the 2010 DG conference

Words mean things.

Recently there’s been a big stir in evangelical circles because John Piper has invited Rick Warren (of Purpose Driven Life fame) to come and speak at the 2010 Desiring God conference. Posts have gone up everywhere. For the sake of helping bring some clarity to the situation, I decided to transcribe the video, so you can not only listen to what John Piper has said, but you can read it.

I’ve tried to separate what Rick was quoted as saying from what John says to minimize confusion. When I can tell the difference, Rick’s words will be italicized.

To comment, please log in on the right.

Here’s the transcript:

So I made a list… Here’s my list.. talking to him on the telephone two hours ago about what he thinks about a whole group of… of things. So I’ll just give these to you quick ‘cause we could talk about this for half an hour easy.

The bible is totally inerrant, and valuable in every way.

Penal substitution is of the essence of the Gospel, and the Steve Chalk approach that says “God’s pouring out his punishment on His own Son to free us as divine child abuse” is just horrific to Rick Warren. It’s absolutely essential that we get substitution right in the Gospel.

God is sovereign and central over all of life. I.. I think Rick Warren meant it when he began the Purpose Driven life with “It’s not about you. Anybody wants to know why he’s on the planet must being with God.” That’s page one of day one on… in the Purpose Driven Life.

“People are lost. They’re going to Hell. I am not a universalist” he said. “I’m an evangelist.” What drives my life is Matthew 24:14: “This gospel must be preached throughout the whole world as a testimony to all the nations and then the end will come.”

Uh, He’s a baptist. That’s relatively insignificant to me, but a little… little icing on the cake, that it’s a Southern Baptist church out there though they don’t wave that banner.

What would you think he would believe about women elders? He’s just totally there as far as the… the office of elder is concerned.

“We don’t have ‘em”, he said. “Can’t find it in the Bible. Women have all the spiritual gifts and they have all the… the gifts of pasturing but as far as the office of pastor, the office of elder goes,” he says, “the bible says it shouldn’t happen. I’m committed to the bible. Therefore we’re not gonna go there.”

Uh, repentance: He’s been criticized for not highlighting repentance in the purpose Driven life and the way he would explain it is to say:

“I totally believe in the… the necessity of… of repentance and I totally am committed to the call for repentance though I may not use the word as often as some would want me to. So, check out the reality if not… if not the language.”

Emergent church: “Brian McLaren’s new book: Off the charts… uh, old fashioned liberalism. It’s as Raushenbush boil… boiled over, warmed over,” he.. he said. “I’m not emergent.”

I could even tell you other things he said he’s not but that… that might offend uh… too many people.

Uhm, memorize Scripture every week. Preaches for an hour. Doesn’t do any drama in worship. Plants a church a year. Uh, rejects the Prosperity Gospel. ZERO FAITH in politics, and he gave me a long and elaborate explanation for why he did the inaugural prayer, and I don’t… I don’t  think it would right for me to share how he made that decision but he hasn’t talked to Barak Obama since that and has no desire to be putting his faith in politics.

He said: “I… I…If… if… if politics were the way to change world I’d be a politician. The only thing that’s gonna change the world is changing peoples’ hearts through the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

And on and on, so I… I’m uh… I’m uh… I need … I’m gonna need help to know why I should feel bad about this decision. (Laughs)

Uh, because let me put it out: One… One… one bigger, one bigger, uh  context: If you see a man do things that you wouldn’t do, if you see him express attitudes that you wouldn’t have. Uh, if he has strategies in ministry that you wouldn’t do, what’re you going to do with that? How do you rank up who you’re gonna hang out with and in what ways you’re gonna hang out? And who are you gonna criticize and who you’re not gonna criticize?

And uhm… I’m real eager that this glorious thing God is doing in the young, restless, reformed, whatever uh this this thing is called that God’s doing – awakening people’s love for the supremacy of God in all things – I’m real eager that that not become a… a brittle, narrow, ugly, excessively separatist movement and so I am not devoting my life to finding a lot of enemies to attack. I’ve got some and I like to do it by simply hammering on truth. I… I’m gonna hammer on truth.

In fact I said it to Rick, I said “OK, if you come, how about you and I do a uhh… ohh what do you call it… interview for an hour or so, and we’ll do this kind of thing right here, and I will put…”

He said: “In a heartbeat! No holds barred. Ask me anything you want theologically about anything.”

So I hope we can fit that in and fold that in, we’ll see if that’ll work in the conference.

Separatism or uh, who you do things with is… is an important, Biblical question. And so I… I don’t put Rick Warren in the group that I am gonna hold at arm’s distance.

On… On the Calvinism thing, on Reformed Theology he said, “I got… I got, I need to tweak. I need to tweak some traditional ways of talking about total depravity.” Well, every time I hear any reformed person talk about total depravity they… they tweak it, saying like… things like “Uh, We could do more bad things than we do. So it doesn’t mean total in that way.”

And he said “I’m stumbling over limited atonement because of some texts.”

Well, I got some really close Reformed friends who stumble there. I told David here on the way over, I said “Rick if you’ll give me a half an hour I could persuade you on limited atonement. I know I could.” So I’ll try to get that… that half an hour.

But as far as election, as far as the irresistibility of God’s grace, as far as His keeping power in the substitutionary atonement, the necessity of justification by faith, these central things – We’re there, and I’m not gonna push somebody like that away when they’ve got so much to offer.

Practically, and here I just think he could put me to shame with his aggressively, in-your-life, transformative discipling of his church. Uh, they have a membership covenant that you have to sign, and it is really rigorous and there are no inactive members and he said, “We discipline people in this church. They don’t fulfill their covenant? They’re gonna be disciplined.” And on and on.

So uh, I am not gonna draw the circle there and suppose you disagree with me on that. Now you’re face with the question: “OK, I’m with John Piper theologically. I’m not with Rick Warren on a bunch of things. John Piper has just chosen to hang out with Rick Warren. What do I do with John Piper?” That’s called secondary separation issues. And there you are. I hope… I hope we can disagree about WHO we hang out with. OK? Because a lot of traditional fundamentalists have said “No, if you hang out with somebody that I believe I should separate from, then I’m gonna separate from you.”

And I wanna say: Look. Let’s… Can we disagree about whether he would come to your conference and you still be willing to eat with me, talk with me? So I would encourage you to think through that issue of secondary separation.

The way I have chosen to live my life for the sake of reformed theology and the supremacy of God, and the inerrancy of Bible, and the importance of solid Reformation Gospel truths, the five Solas and so on, is to give all my energy to putting them in a positive, aggressively, uh, spreadable form, NOT to spend my time shooting at the people who don’t like them. And uh, at age 64 looking back over the years I think I have uh, got some work to do with my marriage, and my kids, and my soul, but I do not regret that approach to.. to Reformation advance.

The Big “Dust-Up”: John Piper taps Rick Warren for Desiring God 2010 Conference

So the raging news around the blogosphere for the last 24-48 hours has been the invitation of Rick Warren (of P”urpose Driven Life” fame) to speak at John Piper’s 2010 Desiring God Conference. This debate apparently caused enough consternation in the Piper camp to compel John Piper to release a video on his site where he defends why he asked Rick Warren to come. Here’s the vid:

I’ll see if I can transcribe it soon.