Rick Warren

[qb]

RA: Oh, this is unbelievable. Now you are telling me that I don't even know what I am thinking or believing. Basically, that I HAVE been influenced by the very thing that I understand quite well and have not only rejected but publicly criticized. Brilliant. Well, I can't argue with a mind/heart reader. You win.</font>[/QUOTE]Nope, never said that I could read your mind nor have I said that you didn’t believe what you said you believe. I said you were perhaps influenced. Face it, dude. The opinions and things around us influence us. That’s common sense. One may reject the philosophical post-modernism and still be influenced by the practical post-modernism in society around him. For example, I have friends who are vehemently opposed to secular humanism, yet they unknowingly incorporate large chunks of classical humanism in their thinking. My point is precisely that you would have to somewhat withdraw yourself from modernity and American society to totally avoid being influenced by post-modernism. The insipid ooze from our culture permeates our thoughts without us realizing it.

Personally, I have attended secular graduate schools that affected my thinking and practices although I thought I was a strong, grounded Christian. I’ve seen it in so many others that I can’t believe you are immune.

I don’t presume to know your thoughts but what am I to think when I see and hear things associated with post-modernism. You are so comfortable and meshed with the culture, which is post-modernism, that I have difficulty in separating your distinct features. And, this is why Fundamentalism has been screaming about the need for separation. In other words, you are so much like the secular post-modernists whom I meet and know that it is hard to tell the difference except for the occasional Christian buzzword.

Again, you are spoofing my arguments instead of engaging them. So be it if that is the best you can do.

 

RA: And that is wrong.</font>[/QUOTE]Well, why do you talk about discovering truth from experience on your web site? Were you inaccurate in expressing your beliefs? The following quote taken from your web site (I presume you wrote it) is completely in sync with a post-modernist perception of truth. Any good ole post-modernist could read and agree heartily. It mentions God or Scripture nowhere. If it is a soft sell approach to the gospel, it is a no sale. Tell us plainly what you mean here. I can't read your thoughts.
{b]You wrote:[/b]
“truth is all around us, but sometimes we miss it. i know that i myself miss it far too often, even when it is right there in front of me, waving furiously to be seen. in other words, like you, i am very human, which means i don't know everything. and yet i do feel called to share with others what I believe to be various truths i have discoverd in my life's journey, especially when it comes to those issues that relate in some way to my faith.”

 

RA: Actually, I did nt make an excuse. I placed his use of scripture in the context of the way everyone uses scripture—i.e., imperfectly and clouded by our human flaws. Do you know ANYONE who uses scripture perfectly?—careful, now.</font>[/QUOTE]True, but the drunk and the whoremonger can use the same excuse: "Nobody's perfect." You're weaseling again.

 

RA: Word games. Semnatics. Nit-picking. Straining at gnats. My goodness, of course God reveals all things to us, but we discover it in that we come upon it as God leads and guides us through life. Man, talk about being uptight and rigid! Lighten up. It's like your whole purpose (no pun intended) is to hunt and peck for SOMETHING to condemn. </font>[/QUOTE]Nope. You’re weaseling again. This is simply diversionary tactics and whining when you don’t have a good answer. You’ve said some nice words without any substance. There are many, many unanswered questions. How does God lead and guide us? How does He reveal truth to us? How do we discover and know that it is God and not just our own dyspeptic condition?

This is a solid philosophic point. Again, it may not be important if you have a more flexible view of truth. Truth is truth and any deviation is not truth. Again, you have shown a little of your viewpoint here. This is an important point.

I conclude you like that feel-good religion without the burden of hard questions. Now, that’s our point of difference. BTW, you seemed irritated. What’s the problem?

 

RA: This is a very interesting, and conveniently vague term you use "consistently." How do you mean this? If Warren happens to take one weekend to preach on marriage because he is concerned about that issue, now suddenly has he fallen away from being "consistent"? Must he mention in ever single message the word "hell" a set number of times to be "consistent"? I believe that what you are really saying here should read as follows: "[T]he point of contention is whether RW preaches the way I am comfortable with preaching, the way I have always heard preaching, and the way I have always thought preaching should sound, including the use of certain words/terms as often as possible." Such a position, of course, is supported nowhere in the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, you’re pretty good at building straw men since you’ve constructed one here. How many times do I have to tell you not to put words in my mouth? I don’t like your words in my mouth so I spit them out. Don’t try to make me say what you want me to say.

This is specious reasoning. It is the overall emphasis, thrust and manner of his ministry. My considered opinion is that it is a watered down, cultural friendly approach. Don't I have the right to have and hold my own opinion? Would you criticize me for having an opinion and expressing it?

 

You are unbelievable at times. You are the one accusing RW of not preaching against sin "enough" or mentioning specific sins "enough" but now I am the one trying to quantify something???

Here's an interesting thought ... since you are a "knowledgable" person on this subject matter (i.e. that RW does not preach on sin enough or name specific sins enough or presents a shallow or inadequate view of the gospel) exactly how many times have you heard RW preach or teach? Just wondering. I can't imagine you would come on here and rant and rave about such things without having a significant amount of evidence based on actuality ("knowledgable"). So Teacher, let us know how many sermons by RW you have heard in order to discern that RW has fallen short of your preferred standard?

If you are referring the earlier questions about sin, etc., they were not directed to me and have already been answered by RA.

If you are referring to the one constant "concern" in your diatribe regarding RW's use of Scripture, it has been addressed numerous times. I will say it again for clarity: RW does not always get it right. Neither do I. Neither do you (although I get the feeling you might actually believe you do always get it right ). That's not an excuse. That does not mean he does not work hard at exegesis and interpretation. That does not mean he is any less evangelical than you or me. RW does not always get it right. I disagree with some of his exegesis. Guess what? I also disagree with some of MacArthur's or Piper's or any other "expositional" preacher you might name.

The fact RW gets it wrong at times does not suggest he has a light view of Scripture or believes any less in the truth of Scripture or postmodernism has distorted his view of truth. These arguments are absurd. I can't believe you are even trying to employ them. Based on your premise, every evangelical has a weakened view of truth for every evangelical is "influenced" by postmodernism. Guess what? If the premise is flawed, the argument crumbles.

I am glad you concede this point. Many do not. And yes the disagreement is important because it directly affects how we reach our culture. However the disagreement is far less important than the fact people are dying and going to Hell and we have been called to share God's message of grace and forgiveness with them. So I am going to do whatever I can w/o compromising the basic message to get that message to them in a way that will engage them. And that is a truth upon which all evangelicals should be able to agree, for that is the bottom line.

 

Al Mohler has written an excellent article along the lines that I have been arguing. I recommend for your reading.

http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2005-07-01

Compromise and Confusion in the Churches
Friday, July 01, 2005

The church today finds itself assaulted without--and even within--by a culture and worldview of untruth, anti-truth, and postmodern irrationality. In fact, researchers increasingly report that a majority of evangelicals themselves reject the notion of absolute or objective truth. The seductive lure of postmodern relativism has pervaded many evangelical pulpits and countless evangelical pews, often couched as humility, sensitivity, or sophistication. The culture has us in its grip, and many feel no discomfort.

The absence of doctrinal precision and biblical preaching marks the current evangelical age. Doctrine is considered outdated by some and divisive by others. The confessional heritage of the church is neglected and, in some cases, seems even to be an embarrassment to updated evangelicals. Expository preaching--once the hallmark and distinction of the evangelical pulpit--has been replaced in many churches by motivational messages, therapeutic massaging of the self, and formulas for health, prosperity, personal integration, and celestial harmony.

Almost a century ago, J.C. Ryle, the great evangelical bishop, warned of such diversions from truth: "I am afraid of an inward disease which appears to be growing and spreading in all the Churches of Christ throughout the world. That disease is a disposition on the part of ministers to abstain from all sharply-cut doctrine, and a distaste on the part of professing Christians for all distinct statements of dogmatic truth."

A century later, Ryle's diagnosis is seen as prophetic, and the disease is assuredly terminal. The various strains of the truth-relativizing virus are indicated by different symptoms and diverse signs, but the end is the same. Among the strains now threatening the evangelical churches is the temptation to find a halfway house between modernity and biblical truth. Another is the call for an "evangelical mega-shift," which would transform orthodox evangelical conviction into the categories of modern process thought. This is a road that leads to disaster and away from the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

What is our proper response to all this? Should we devote our attention and energies to epistemology and metaphysics? Must we spend ourselves in arguments concerning foundationalism and non-foundationalism? While these issues are not unimportant, they cannot be our central concern. Again, the words of Ryle speak to our age: "Let no scorn of the world, let no ridicule of smart writers, let no sneers of liberal critics, let no secret desire to please and conciliate the public, tempt us for one moment to leave the old paths, and drop the old practice of enunciating doctrine--clear, distinct, well-defined, and sharply-cut doctrine--in all utterances and teachings."

We contend for the objectivity of truth, and we must insist that all persons do actually believe in the objectivity of Truth. The fact is that even the relativists objectivize their own positions. The difference for us is that we know that truth exists in God, who is Truth, and whose Word is truth. Our knowledge is true only in so far as it corresponds with God's revealed truth. We are dependent upon the Word, the Word is not dependent upon us. As Martin Luther stated so clearly, "The objectivity and certainty of the Word remain even if it isn't believed." We have no right to seek refuge in a halfway house of false epistemological humility. To deny the truthfulness of God's Word is not an act of humility, but of unspeakable arrogance.

This is our proper epistemological humility - not that it is not possible for us to know, but that the truth is not our own. We are dependent upon the Word of God. Indeed, we submit ourselves to the Word of God, as believers, teachers, and preachers. And this is genuine knowledge, revealed knowledge. It is knowledge of which we are not ashamed. As Gordon Clark warned: "If man can know nothing truly, man can truly know nothing. We cannot know that the Bible is the Word of God, that Christ died for our sin, or that Christ is alive today at the right hand of the Father. Unless knowledge is possible, Christianity is non-sensical, for it claims to be knowledge. What is at stake in the twentieth century is not simply a single doctrine, such as the Virgin Birth, or the existence of Hell, as important as those doctrines may be, but the whole of Christianity itself. If knowledge is not possible to man, it is worse than silly to argue points of doctrine--it is insane."

We confess that knowledge is possible, but knowledge of spiritual things is revealed. Without the Word of God we would know nothing of redemption, of Christ, of God's sovereign provision for us. We would have no true knowledge of ourselves, of our sin, of our hopelessness but for the mercy of Christ. As Professor R. B. Kuiper reminded his students, the most direct, the simplest, and most honest answer to the question, "How do you know?" is this: "The Bible tells us so."

As Jesus reminded Peter, immediately after Peter's majestic confession, "Flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17). So it is with us: Our true knowledge was not revealed to us by flesh and blood, and certainly was not discovered on our own by the power of our own rationality and insight; it is revealed to us in the Word of God.

This is our proper humility. But we must be on guard against an improper and faithless humility. Wilfred Cantwell Smith has asserted that "it is morally not possible to actually go out into the world and say to devout, intelligent fellow human beings: We believe that we know God and we are right; you believe that you know God, and you are totally wrong." Of course, Smith is correct; we have no right to assert such a statement, in and of ourselves and of our own knowledge. But we have no right not to bear witness to the truth of God's Word, and on that basis to proclaim the truth revealed in God's Word.

For this reason, our defense of biblical inerrancy is never a diversion or distraction from our proper task. This is why those who affirm biblical inerrancy and those who deny inerrancy are divided, not by a minor distinction, but by an immense epistemological and theological chasm.

Every aspect of the theological task and every doctrinal issue are affected by the answer to this fundamental question: Is the Bible the authentic, authoritative, inspired, and inerrant Word of God in written form, and thus God's faithful witness to himself? For the believing church, the answer must be yes. With the framers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, we affirm that "The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church. We confess and affirm the truthfulness of Scripture in every respect, and we stand under the authority of the Word of God, never over the Word. In other words, we come to the Scriptures, not with a postmodern hermeneutic of suspicion, but with a faithful hermeneutic of submission."

As our Lord stated concerning the Scriptures, "Thy Word is Truth" (John 17:17). And, as Paul wrote to Timothy, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). Made clear in this text is the inescapable truth that our task is to teach and to preach this Word; to reprove, to correct, and to train in righteousness. Should our churches return in faithfulness to this fundamental charge, the secular worldview would lose its grip on the believing church.


This article originally appeared on March 10, 2005. New daily columns will resume on August 1, 2005. Until then, please keep watching Dr. Mohler's Blog, which will continue to be updated periodically through July.

 

The truth is: The average Christian today lives like a practical atheist.

 

RA,

With your talks with Warren, and with your pointing out to him the "misuse" or poor use of Scripture in his book, how did he respond?

Without defending him you rightly point out that others misuse Scripture too. Understood. But now we are talking specifically about Warren.

Pastor Larry had an excellent post concerning Warren's use of Scripture and wondered aloud why Warren would choose to use Scripture in this way.

Can you shed any light on his reasons for doing so, and has he indicated any regret for doing so?

 

Don't you go to his Church? Where has he been for 2 1/2 months?

Also, Richard,

I would like to invite you to read this thread at your leisure and respond with your thoughts and comments:

What Can I learn...

I look forward to reading your response to my original question.

Joseph Botwinick

 

My Original question. Was this not a calm, rational request for information?

RA,

With your talks with Warren, and with your pointing out to him the "misuse" or poor use of Scripture in his book, how did he respond?

Without defending him you rightly point out that others misuse Scripture too. Understood. But now we are talking specifically about Warren.

Pastor Larry had an excellent post concerning Warren's use of Scripture and wondered aloud why Warren would choose to use Scripture in this way.

Can you shed any light on his reasons for doing so, and has he indicated any regret for doing so?

RA,

I am disappointed in your response.

I asked a very specific question as to the nature of Warren's use of Scripture in PDL.

Instead of answering the question, you accused me of failling to say "oops, I was wrong."

Since I've already apologized, and you are apparently not willing to forgive, there doesn't seem much point in carrying on this conversation.

Talks? I was referring to your interview with Warren and the fact that you have access to him. Did you not ask him about this criticism? Did he not discuss this with you? And if you and he didn't discuss this, that must not have been much of an interview.

I think you have answered my question about whether your book deserves a look.

I'll let the rest of the readers decide who was attempting to carry on a fair dialogue and who is defensive, rude, and condescending.

I must say, I'm not impressed with your ability to deal with critics.

 

You are unbelievable at times. You are the one accusing RW of not preaching against sin "enough" or mentioning specific sins "enough" but now I am the one trying to quantify something??? [/QUOTE
Obviously you don’t know what quantify means. You are asking me to assign a number value to something that has no number. Read my argument again.
[QUOTE Here's an interesting thought ... since you are a "knowledgable" person on this subject matter (i.e. that RW does not preach on sin enough or name specific sins enough or presents a shallow or inadequate view of the gospel) exactly how many times have you heard RW preach or teach? Just wondering. I can't imagine you would come on here and rant and rave about such things without having a significant amount of evidence based on actuality ("knowledgable"). So Teacher, let us know how many sermons by RW you have heard in order to discern that RW has fallen short of your preferred standard? </font>[/QUOTE]Your rant is biased and specious. You are trying to vilify me. I don’t have the time to waste. Give me a good reason why I should attempt to refute it.

If you are referring the earlier questions about sin, etc., they were not directed to me and have already been answered by RA. </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, but his answers are not satisfying and cogent—they’re emotional and defensive.

You are misconstruing and misrepresenting my points.

This is specious reasoning. Your premises are inaccurate and your conclusion is wrong.

I am glad you concede this point. Many do not. And yes the disagreement is important because it directly affects how we reach our culture. However the disagreement is far less important than the fact people are dying and going to Hell and we have been called to share God's message of grace and forgiveness with them. So I am going to do whatever I can w/o compromising the basic message to get that message to them in a way that will engage them. And that is a truth upon which all evangelicals should be able to agree, for that is the bottom line. [/QUOTE]
Yes, and the question is whether you are reaching them with your soft-soap sell. Is an unsaved church member or church attendee any better than a lost non-attendee? You may be giving them a false hope and making them seven times more the child of Hell. There is a growing alarm of people occupying the pews who are no different from the world. They have no evidence of salvation. More and more we are hearing of large numbers unsaved church members. Could this be attributed to shoddy evangelism?

 

I will take it by this response that you have a)never heard RW preach/teach or b) you have not heard him enough to claim to be "knowledgable" on the subject matter.

In either case, do you feel qualified to make the accusations against Warren's preaching that you have made? Honest question.

You are kidding right? You asked yes-no questions as to whether RW preached on sin, etc. RA answered "yes" to these questions and then pointed you to specific examples. And his answers are "not satisfying and cogent."

At least you hide your agenda well

How?

Again -- show us how.

Is this a "soft-soap sell"? People are sinners and are going to Hell without Jesus Christ and it is only by recognizing your sin and trusting in Jesus alone that one can be delivered from this deserved punishment.

Eternally no.

On the other hand if the church is creating an environment where these Hellbounders will hear the gospel consistently, I would say they are better off hearing than not hearing. They are at least hearing the message -- we become the means by which God calls.

How will they hear w/o a preacher?

Or you may be giving them the only true hope of the world -- Jesus Christ.

It can more likely be attributed to a lack of evangelism.

 

Joseph, This question has been answered repeatedly and you never respond to the answers. What more do you want?

The PDL is a book that puts into practical form truths found in Scripture. Nothing more - nothing less. What are you searching for?

 

A few observations about the Mohler article. I know Al Mohler personally and have heard him speak many, many times, so I feel I am "knowledgable" of his opinions and beliefs.

- While Mohler is a giant in certain arenas of church life (99% which have to do with theology), he has a tendency, like some others who speak on this subject occasionally, to attack extremes and straw men. This is vivid in his attack upon the "majority" of evangelicals who do not embrace absolute truth. I know of very few major evangelical "spokesmen" who do not embrace absolute truth. Many of the unnamed victims in these articles are people who embrace the same view of truth as Mohler.

- While I respect Al Mohler as a theologian and seminary prez, he has never pastored a day in his life. My personal experience is that ivory tower theories about local church ministry often fall short of reality.

- Mohler has created a paradigm that sets up expository preaching as the ONLY right model. This paradigm is built solely on personal opinion and conclusion. It is not a method prescribed or even largely practiced in Scripture. Again this is one of the difficulties in being a theorist -- theories promoted behind a lecturn or a study door may or may not be reality in everyday ministry.

Again -- I appreciate Al Mohler. Anyone who knows him knows his passion to defend the truth. That does not make him the authority across the board on all subject matters related to church life.