The “Mulligan” Wars , pt. 3

Oh No! Call out the Cavalry. Another front to the Mulligan Wars has been opened. This time the attack against Rick Warren’s Christmas analogy was launched at biblicalthought.com−yet another Reformed blog (hmm, these Reformed guys really don’t like poor old Rick Warren.) To see the other anti-Warren fronts in the ongoing crusade, click on my blogs about the Mulligan Wars in part1 and part 2.

Anyway, it was an interesting article posted there at biblicalthought Drew Kerrnot−not because it said anything unique, but rather, because it repeated so many of the same things already stated by critics of Warren’s Christmas message at Saddleback church. Oddly, before making his post, Mr. Kerr had even read my replies to the very same comments made by others. But rather than try to actually understand my points, he resorted to what seems to be the favorite approach of such individuals−i.e., personal attacks. So, I thought I’d post just a couple of responses to that website and repost them here for your reading interest:

Reformed Rich Says:
Drew, We know this is parr for the course about RW. I find it very sad that someone would try to defend the false teaching of this so called pastor.We need to remember to pray for him and all those who are deceived by his shallow teaching.Glory to God in the highest and continue to rightly divide the word of truth my brother!

_____________________

Reformed Mama Says:
I wonder why God’s Word never mentioned Messiah’s “large church campus” or “number of people attending”…hmmm could it be that “the way is narrow” and “some teachings are hard to understand”?

_____________________

Richard Abanes Says:

Drew,

>Abanes offered no exegesis and instead gave endorsements related to books on apologetics that he has written. However, providing endorsements by other Christian men does not make you credible. A proper exegesis utilizing hermeneutics of the texts used by RW in the PDL would give him credibility in this situation.
ANSWER: Actually, if you would have read the interchange CLOSELY, my reply of apologetic credits/endorsements was in response to Chris accusing me of not knowing “the first thing about Biblical Hermeneutics,” which was an unwarranted attack against my personal/professional integrity. Consequently, I raised my qualifications and credentials to assure readers that I do have knowledge of hermeneutics and scripture.

>This is much like Abanes’ attempt to give himself credibility by parading his endorsements on the back cover of books that he has written, instead of actually defending RW’s theology by using hermeneutics resulting in a sound biblical defense.
ANSWER: I don’t have to “give” myself credibility, I already have credibility. And it is sad, in my eyes, that you or anyone else would resort to personal attacks, innuendos, and attempts to impugn my long-standing reputation as a biblically-sound apologist who has stood for truth, the gospel, and Christian doctrine for so many years. Unfortunate, but I certainly bear you no hard feelings.

As for Rick Warren’s beliefs, I suggest you read my book on him titled “Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him.” It lays out exactly what Warren believes and teaches from his own lips and from internal Saddleback teaching tools.

As for each and every word/sermon that comes out of him, I’m not really interested in analyzing every syllable that comes from Warren somewhere in the world.

My newest posts about the whole Mulligan issue offers plenty of information to show how/why Warren’s approach is just that — an approach. It is not a false gospel. It is not heresy. It is not self-help. True, many of his messages are not complete, in-depth theology/soteriology lectures. Nor are most of them worthy of some systematic theology seminary class.

His preaching is, instead, a method of trying to communicate the gospel in an easy-to-understand style to unbelievers–that’s it. Is it perfect? No. Is it a method God wants everyone to use? No. beyond improvement? Hardly.

But we are all working toward the same goal — sharing the gospel the best way we know how to those God has put in our path, and hopefully seeing many of them embrace the Christ of the Bible, by whom eternal life is received as a free gift of God by grace through faith.

_____________________

Tim Says:
Keep up the good work Drew. Most of the people involved with a “big church” have not “heard” the gospel yet; maybe you’ll be the one that gets them thinking and asking questions? If they are reading this blog then we can point them to the Full Counsel of God, with proper exegetical and hermeneutical translation. After all it is the disposition of their soul for all eternity!

_____________________

Jon Powell Says:
My biggest problem with RW is that he is not teaching the whole truth. [shameless plug to follow] If you read “Professional Responsibilities of a Pastor” on this site, a true shepherd leads his people into all truth and Biblically-defined fruit will follow. To me, the mulligan analogy trivializes the all-important step of repentance and clear identification and conviction of sin. If a person does not know his sin and does not repent, how can he truly be regenerate? It is possible that Drew has not perfectly represented Abanes quotes, but the question still remains: does the ‘fruit’ of RW’s preaching correspond with Biblical fruit? Is a majority of his congregation exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, the proof of the regenerate?

_____________________

Richard Abanes Says:
Greetings Jon,

You asked: “Is a majority of his congregation exhibiting the fruit of the Spirit, the proof of the regenerate?”

Now, you might not believe me, but all I can say from being there for 15 years or so is, “yes.” Fruit I have seen is:

- repentance from sinful lifestyles,

- letting go of worldy desires, ideas, philosophies

- willingness to serve others as Christ served others,

- commitment to learn more spiritual truths from scripture (i.e., meat of the Word — or deeper theology),

- acceptance of the need to defend teh faith (Jude 3), and

- the technical, biblical fruit of the spirit,as listed in Galatians 5:19-23: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

The whole counsel of God is indeed taught at Saddleback. Hence, the fruit that is evident there. As a member of Saddleback, especially if enrolled in the spiritual maturity classes, one is taught the essentials of the Christian faith, including God’s nature, Christ’s nature, the nature of the atonement (what happened on the cross that made available to us the free gift of salvation by grace alone thru faith alone), and doctrines pertaining to the afterlife.

Did Warren shove all of this into his Christmas sermon? Uhm, no. But he put enough into it to get thru to Grandma whoever, or Uncle what’s-his-name, both of whom happened to be visiting Saddleback on Christmas Eve after not being in church for maybe 30 years.

They needed to hear something they could grasp — i.e., a morsel of life-giving bread that told them they do not have to be stuck in their dead-end life apart from God. They needed to know that Jesus, by going to the cross for their sins, was essentially allowing them to start life over again — i.e., a do over, in essence.

Not a perfect analogy, true — no analogy is perfect. But it gets the point across to people.

Now, it’s absurd, really, to start splitting hairs about the EXACT technicalities of a “mulligan” in golf, and whether that applies proportionately or disproportionately to the precise nature of our sins and the ramifications of them in conjunction with the necessity to “do over” the Law, which is of course impossible, since it is actually impossible to keep the law, and hence, it is only by Christ’s propitiation for our sins and imputed righteousness that we…… well, you get my point, I hope.

A lot of people at Christmas were probably just trying to: 1) not commit suicide; 2) make it thru another dark holiday with relatives they don’t really love, 3) looking for hope in a hopeless world, 4) begrudgingly sitting in a church they really didn’t want to be at to begin with, 5) understand a concept utterly foreign to their way of thinking (total forgiveness - no strings attached.

It was not the time to do anything else but share the Good News in the simplest way possible. Rick chose a certain analogy. You and others may have chosen another analogy or another way to speak to such people. Fine. Go for it. Let’s all do the work of the kingdom.

Sadly, others do not seem to feel this way. It’s either their way, or no way. Sigh.

Happy New Year, Jon.

Richard Abanes

There’s not really much more to say.

Richard Abanes