Rick Warren, More Rumors, and Rumor Clearing

Well, it looks like the end of 2007 and the beginning of 2008 has brought us a whole new set of charges against that favorite target of the church’s heresy-hunter, poor Rick Warren. For extensive back-n-forth dialogue about Warren’s fairly innocuous Christmas message of 2008, feel free to see my posts regarding what I have dubbed The Mulligan Wars (part 1, part 2, part 3), along with my post about Rick Warren supposedly telling everyone to lie to children (see HERE).

Another interaction I recently had with a Rick Warren critic was with Paul Edwards, host of The Paul Edwards Program heard daily from 4p – 6p ET on AM 1500 WLQV in Detroit (see his God & Culture blog). Edwards, unlike so many other Warren critics was fairly civilized in his comments and I was greatly encouraged by his display of godly disagreement. Nevertheless, like other Warren critics, Edwards seemed almost eager to find fault with the Saddleback Church pastor, going so far as to: a) mischaracterize Warren’s association with Hilary Clinton; b) misrepresent the thrust of Warren’s book The Purpose Driven Life; and c) misunderstand a comment made by Kay Warren while she was on his talk show.

My posts to his blog are as follows were made in response to what I saw as errors needing correction. This first exchange took place in his thread, “The Glory-Driven Life,” December 15, 2007:

Paul

You said: “Certainly the notion that we have a purpose is not an unbiblical one, but nevertheless the way Warren focuses that purpose seems to me to be more about using God’s purpose to attain our own ends rather than to truly come to understand what God’s end is.”
ME: Actually, I am not sure how you got this from The Purpose Driven Life because that is not what The Purpose Driven Life states. The problem, according to Warren, is the very thing you accuse him of teaching — i.e., us trying to find fulfillment and purpose in life without God (trying to do our own thing, for ourselves, for our own desires).

Warren actually tells people that their lives will always be empty and without real purpose until they come to God, who was in Christ, reconciling us through his death and resurrection. Then, once you know God (i.e., have entered into a relationship with him), you will find your REAL purpose on earth, which will be whatever God leads you to do for your life, which in reality is HIS purpose for you.

In other words, GOD’S purpose for your life, becomes YOUR purpose for your life – and by doing HIS purpose, you find fulfillment in being what you were created to be: a child/servant of God.

Sounds fairly biblical to me.

Happy New Year,

Richard Abanes

____________

Paul,

YOU SAID [in reply to me]: The point in what I was saying (which you cite above) is that Warren seems to have a utilitarian view of our relationship to God. “If you are not happy, add God to your life and you will be happy,” which ultimately means my desire is not God, but my own happiness.
ME: Yes. I do see what you are saying. Point well taken. However (oh yes, you knew there would be an “however”), there are some things to consider here that make the issue not so cut and dry.

1. Many people without God are indeed unhappy, unfulfilled, lost….purposeless, if you will. It is not unbiblical to tell people that they were created for a divine purpose — ie., a godly purpose for which they were specifically shaped by God as a unique person. Indeed, all our days are numbered and we each have missions, callings, anointings, ministries, and gifts/talents to fulfill those ministries.
2. It is also not unbiblical to tell people that significant measures of unhappiness, uncertainty, confusion, anguish, torment, and loneliness will dissipate if they come to Christ. The Bible is replete with passages about joy unspeakable, peace, and gratitude in the arms of Jesus. Even The Dictionary Biblical Imagery notes how Paul and the other NT writers communicated to their readers the basic promise that “Christians can live joyfully in a fallen world” (p. 465).

Now, let us suppose a person hears all this and says, “Gee, I want that. I want to live a life of peace, and joy, and hope. I want to be forgiven for all these things I have done that have messed up my life. If Jesus can do that, I want him, the Son of God who can forgive me, and change me, and fix me, and give me a new life here and in the world to come.”

Are you saying this is not a good enough reason to come to God? I hope not!! There are many, many, many reasons that people come to Christ: a) fear of hell; b) it’s the best option (note Paschal’s wager); c) nothing left to live for (addicts, prostitutes, criminals); and d) an intellectual acceptance of the reasonableness of Christianity based on evidence (see Lee Strobel’s story and also Simon Greenleaf).

In other words, if I simply read assorted passages from Romans close the book, then ask someone, “What are you gonna do about it?” and they say, “I want Jesus” — HALLELUJAH, I’ll take it.

Or, if I express to someone how their life can be totally re-arranged by Jesus and transformed from a confused, purposeless life into a life of peace, joy, and purpose serving Christ who saved them from their sins on the cross, then ask, “”What are you gonna do about it?” and they say, “I want Jesus” — HALLELUJAH, I’ll take that, too.

I hope you see my point. Same Jesus. Same Gospel. Same effects (eternally & temporally) — different method to communicate the love of God. It’s not utilitarian, its evangelism to different crowds.

YOU SAID [in reply to me]: My issue with The Purpose Driven Life (as stated in my original post) is not that finding God’s purpose is not biblical, but rather limiting God’s purpose to what ultimately fulfills us.
ME: Now this is interesting. And might be a semantic problem. Are you saying that in Christ we are NOT fulfilled? I would say that if you are in Christ and not fulfilled, you either have: a) the wrong Christ; or b) a wrong concept of fulfillment; or c) a misdirected desire.

When Warren talks about ultimate fulfillment, he is NOT talking about the fulfillment of self-ish desires, but rather that kind of divine-centered, holy, righteous, peaceful, joyful fulfillment/CONTENTMENT that comes from knowing God, knowing his will/purpose for you — and living it out for His glory.

R. Abanes

The next exchange took place in another thread he started titled, “The Purpose Driven Left,” December 2, 2007:

Dear All,

Let me clear up a few things here that need some clearing up from Paul’s original post:

PAUL: Rick Warren hosted Hillary Clinton at his Global Summit on AIDS and the Church this past weekend to standing ovations, an indication of Warren’s continued leftward march.
ME: Incorrect. Warren did not host Hilary Clinton. ALL of the candidates were invited — only Hilary showed up.

PAUL: Warren is becoming the new Jerry Falwell, without the passion for the same issues that motivated Jerry: abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Warren is much more inclined to be non-confrontational on these clearly behavioral issues, focusing his energies on traditional leftist causes like AIDS and the environment.
ME: AIDS is now a leftist cause? I thought it was a disease. There is certainly a significant aspect of the disease that is associated with a lifestyle that is biblically forbidden. However, a lot of people who have nothing to do with anything sinful are victims of this disease. As far issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. go, Warren views them with a traditional, Southern Baptist, biblical eye. He has not chosen to get involved with these issues. And I would think that this is his right as an American — i.e., to choose which social issues he engages.

PAUL: He’s learned you get much more favorable media coverage when you cover what the media favors.
ME: Actually, this is a serious allegation that impugns Warren’s character and suggests that he is only concerned with AIDS because of media popularity. That is a great assumption. In fact, it contradicts the very heart-warming story of why both he and his wife, Kay, are involved in helping with the AIDS problem. It originated with Kay Warren’s seeing of people with AIDS and her heart breaking over them. She shared her heart’s concern w/ Rick who decided to help her in her vision for bringing Christ into the AIDS crisis (see my book, Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him, pp. 20-22).

PAUL: Rather than take a bold stand for the gospel and its clear message of repentance, Warren has opted to follow today’s religious Left as they revive the social gospelism of the early decades of the Twentieth Century, allowing Hillary to go unchallenged when she stated that Jesus never asked why a person was sick . . .
ME: Untrue. Rick Warren has specifically condemned the Social Gospel. In my published interview with him, I asked point blank if he was advocating the social gospel of liberalism, and he declared in no uncertain terms, “NOT AT ALL!” He went on to explain that what he is doing through helping out with AIDS and w/ his PEACE plan is to re-integrate the biblical spiritual Gospel, with the social good works that we are to do as Christians. He said he wants to bring evangelicalism back to what it was in the 19th century – “It’s the evangelicalism of William Booth–The Salvation Army–who said, “The whole Gospel, for the whole man, for the whole world” (see my book, Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him, pp. 24-25).

PAUL: For Warren to give her message his defacto endorsement by giving her message a platform is evidence enough that Warren cares more about being connected politically than he does being convicted principally.
ME: Quite an accusation – but no proof.

Richard Abanes

____________

Hello Paul,

let’s break this down a bit and stay calm all around (I say that to myself as much as to you).

PAUL: I have not made an accusation without proof.
ME: Let me clarify. You said, “Warren cares more about being connected politically than he does being convicted principally.” how would you know this without some sort of document? Or email? Or recorded conversation? Or some statement? This accusation is indeed made without proof, unless you want to claim that you can actually see into Rick Warren’s heart — because this is an accusation that is directed at Warren’s motives. It is unprovable in the absence of any supportive evidence.

Let us say for the sake of argument, that he actually supports Hilary 100% (which I doubt since no one supports any candidate 100%). That might be a reason he applauded her. Or he might simply might be supportive of her remarks concerning our need to step up action to combat AIDS throughout the world (a far more likely reason for his words, since he seemed to be commenting directly on what she had to say about the AIDS crisis). Here is yet another reason for his positive attitude toward her.

So, you see, I have just given you two alternative explanations for him having Hilary speak at Saddleback. neither of them point to him as someone who cares “more about being connected politically than he does being convicted principally.”

It would seem that if a political candidate happens to have the same views as you on a particular issue, then as an American, you would be able to express that by saying, “Great message. Home run! Home run! Home run!” Or, does Rick not have that right?

PAUL: For Warren to characterize it as a “great message” and a “Home Run,” is to put his political standing above the biblical principles to which seminary trained pastors ought to adhere.
ME: Really? And what is the biblical principle that says we must not help victims with AIDS? Or care for those who have AIDS regardless of how they might have gotten it? Have you ever known anyone with AIDS? Visited an AIDS patient? Lost someone who was a friend to AIDS? Homosexuals have AIDS, as well as women, and children (often thru no fault of their own). The conference was about how to deal best with the AIDS crisis, not whether or not homosexuality is wrong — which is another issue entirely. And as I said, ALL of the political candidates were invited. Only Hilary showed up.

PAUL: Hugging people? There is more to the Gospel than merely being loving and nurturing.
ME: I have to laugh at this one — it sounds so Kay. I am surprised that you couldn’t understand her words and the spirit in which they were given. It is not difficult to see, at least to me, that in CONTEXT (i.e., dealing AIDS), what she was saying was that an intrinsic part of being a Christian and spreading the Gospel is helping people, loving people, and caring for people.

This was all Kay’s way of expressing how the gospel of salvation and the practical outworking of that (i.e., do to others as you would have them do to you – Matt. 7:12 and loving others – Mt 22:37-40) are so intertwined that they are one. They are not technically the same thing — but you should not have one without the other (read James, faith without works is dead, show me your faith by your work). I don’t think Kay was expecting to then have her simple, flowery, emotional expression to be squeezed through a doctrinal strainer for accuracy.

You have, IMHO, twisted what she said into some kind of namby-pamby apologetic for a social gospel, which as I have stated, is blatantly condemned by Rick (see above). You have the answers now to such comments. You might want to get hold of my book on Warren for more information and a look at precisely what he teaches and what is taught at Saddleback.

I bid you peace,

Richard Abanes

And that, as they say, is that………:-)