Bob DeWaay & Rick Warren: The Meeting

This post is in response to the ongoing firestorm that has erupted over a meeting that took place in mid-May 2008 between Rick Warren and two of his harshest critics: Pastor Bob DeWaay of Twin City Fellowship; and Chris Rosebrough (keeper of the blog EXTREME THEOLOGY).

The results of that meeting have been interesting. At first, Chris Rosebrough posted a THANK YOU to Rick Warren, which caused a rather hostile response from Warren’s critics, who felt: a) that Chris should not have thanked Warren so graciously; and b) that Chris had somehow been mesmerized by Warren’s slick charms and was now on the Purpose Driven train — their only evidence being that Chris had not come out swinging against Warren as every expected (and apparently wanted) him to.

Chris then posted an equally controversial thread, titled WITH GENTLENESS AND RESPECT, which again caused a considerable amount of panic among Warren’s critics who at that point was fearing the worst. This article read, in part, as follows:

“[A]fter seeing the ‘fire storm’ that was created after I publicly thanked Rick Warren for his generosity and for being a gracious host it became sadly clear that there is another issue that must be addressed.

The chief passage regarding apologetics and defending the faith is found in 1 Peter 3:15. It reads:

1Pet. 3:15 but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect,

The battle for truth or the ‘truth war’ as some have called it, has taken a bad turn. Some segments of the battlefield have degenerated into ad hominem bickering and biting and toxic vitriol. This is not what Christ has called us to. In fact, that behavior is contrary to the clear teachings of scripture which call us to defend the faith with ‘gentleness and respect’.

Anyone who knows me knows that I have a deep passion for the gospel and I will arm wrestle anyone in order to make the case that the message of ‘Christ crucified for our sins’ should be the central message of all of our sermons, lessons, studies, books and devotional material and many of you who read this blog and follow my public teaching share that same passion for the gospel. What I find ironic almost to the point of irreconcilable contradiction is that there are some that claim to share a passion for the gospel yet they employ the most demeaning and vicious forms of personal slander and ad hominem attacks in their “defense of the gospel”. . . .

I know that I have been guilty of the very behavior I am decrying in this post and I am deeply sorry for committing this sin and repent of it. That being said, I am appealing to all of my Christian brothers and sisters who have a passion for defending the truth and defending the gospel to repent of ad hominem and personal attacks and let your actions and statements and debates always be seasoned with love, compassion, gentleness and respect.

The commentary on this post came fast and furious! Because of the volatile nature of the article, I chose to remain all but silent, only posting one comment, as follows: “Thank you. R. Abanes”

Bob DeWaay also made some surprising comments — but not on a blog. Instead, Dewaay spoke directly to his congregation during a Sunday morning services in order to give them an account of what had transpired during his meeting with Rick Warren and alongside Chris Rosebrough. The most significant comments relating to Warren’s standing as a Christian leader involved DeWaay’s DIRECT acknowledgment that he, Chris Rosebrough, and Rick Warren — for all intents and purposes — are theologically/doctrinally on the same page. He stated very plainly:

1) “My conclusion is this: the chasm between Chris Rosebrough, and me, and Rick Warren that exists is based on ministry philosophy primarily. Privately, we agree on most doctrines”; and

2) “There were no differences of theology that I know of, other than we had a chasm in a difference in ministry philosophy.”

3) “He agreed with me that you can’t get sanctification and salvation through general revelation.”

I then posted a quick response to such a significant set of statements at PHOENIX PREACHER blog, stating:

There is a faint light shining at the end of this very long and dark tunnel that we have been stumbling through. I pray that the light grows stronger and brighter. I applaud Dewaay for his candor, honesty, integrity, and spirit of genuine care/concern, and openness to hearing what Warren actually believes theologically. I am hoping that many individuals will see that this is all little more than an issue of ministry philosophy, rather than the emergence of some bizarre Warren Smith-esk, conspiratorial, one-world, New Age religion with Warren playing the lead Pide Piper! There is a lot of repenting that needs to take place at this point — and not on Warren’s part.

This resulted in what I am guessing was a flurry of activity behind the scenes among Rick Warren’s most vociferous critics – each contacting each other, and contacting Bob DeWaay, seeking a clarification of his position in light of my remarks. DeWaay responded rather immediately with a additional statement, as follows:

May 31, 2008

I wrote my book, Redefining Christianity, assuming that Rick Warren actually believes the Saddleback Church’s statement of faith, but that he refuses to preach it because he wants to be popular with the world and grow his movement. I still think that could still be true—I give him the benefit of the doubt.

At the Saddleback Church conference he was speaking of winning souls for Christ and talking about his father’s legacy of building churches and winning souls. More than likely he believes Baptist doctrine. But along the way he was derailed by reading the church growth theory of Donald McGavran. While in seminary I studied under a disciple of McGavran. McGavran’s book was required reading. His philosophy hinges on this idea: “people do not become Christian for theological reasons, but for sociological ones.”

Rick Warren believed McGavran and set out to study people to find out what makes them tick so he could get them into church — thus “Saddleback Sam.” Purpose Driven is a franchise system to multiply this idea into other churches. Warren tells pastors that they do not have to change any doctrine to join his movement. The reason for that is that doctrine becomes unimportant because it is no longer taught. I don’t think Rick Warren changed his Baptist doctrine either; he just doesn’t allow it to determine what he teaches and what he does. When we met that is what I challenged him about.

So I have not moved in my beliefs nor have I changed my position on any doctrines I have preached.

I will not allow myself to be pitted against any of Warren’s critics. I read Warren Smith’s book and spoke with him on the phone. He is a wonderful brother. The New Age implications are in Rick Warren’s movement and are helping lead toward a One World church. But because he has publicly made statements besides his statement of faith that he believes there is a literal hell and that people without Christ will go there, I don’t believe Rick Warren is a true New Age believer, and neither does Warren Smith. Warren Smith simply says there are New Age implications to what Rick Warren is doing, and I agree with him.

Tomorrow morning I will make a statement clarifying what I mean when I said that we did not have theological disagreements in our meeting. Rick Warren did not disagree with my positions on doctrine in our meeting. But he did not comment on everything I said. Please read my book, because in it I point out that Rick Warren privately affirms orthodox Christian theology—he did so again in our presence. So this is not news worthy.

To set the record straight, for those who think I am suddenly okay with Rick Warren – I am not. I asked him to preach Christ and honor the idea of scripture alone – and I pointed out that he cannot have a “reformation” based on general revelation.

These are huge issues and he did not say he was going to change anything—but he did not disagree. Do Warren’s supporters really think that having an orthodox theology in private is all that God expects of a preacher? Do they think we should not hold Rick Warren accountable to sola scriptura? Do they think that we can have any old ministry philosophy even if doing so totally changes the definition of the church and her message from how the Bible defines them?

I challenge Rick Warren’s supporters to step up to the plate and demand that Rick Warren repent, as I requested him to do in my book. That statement is posted at http://www.twincityfellowship.com/special/appeal.pdf Otherwise they have no business claiming that I agree with them.

Bob DeWaay

My response to this letter from Bob DeWaay is my own open letter to him, originally posted at Phoenix preacher, but now here on my own blog for ease of reference:

DEAR PASTOR BOB DEWAAY,

It seems no coincidence that you have posted this letter at PP. Thank you for taking the time to more fully express yourself regarding Rick Warren. However, your most recent response seems a bit confusing. In all sincerity and candor, my impression is that you continue to hold to some unfortunate presuppositions, observations, and conclusions — all false.

Moreover, you seem to want to give Warren, as you say, the “benefit of the doubt,” while at the same time not wanting to in any way say that people like Warren Smith, Tim Wirth, and others have grossly misrepresented Warren’s personal views, agenda, and connections to the so-called New Age. Their outrageous accusations is why so much hatred, slander, false accusations, and division as spread in the Body of Christ over the Warren issue.

_______________________
YOUR RESPONSE #1: MY THOUGHTS
In your initial response to your own church, you plainly stated, without reservation, the following: 1) “My conclusion is this: the chasm between Chris Rosebrough, and me, and Rick Warren that exists is based on ministry philosophy primarily. Privately, we agree on most doctrines”; and 2) “There were no differences of theology that I know of, other than we had a chasm in a difference in ministry philosophy.”

These are extraordinarily significant admissions for they clearly indicate at face value that you, Chris R., and Warren agree on the primary/essential doctrines that are advanced in the areas of theology, soteriology, and thanatology. These areas, of course, encompass the essentials of the faith as they relate to the identification of God, the way of salvation, and the afterlife. The importance of your statements here relates to a large portion of criticisms that have been leveled against Warren for not only believing, but also preaching FALSE DOCTRINES regarding all three of these areas — i.e., theology, soteriology, and thanatology.

To be more specific, it has been alleged by many critics who look to you as a key adviser/leader that Warren:

1) is a pantheist;
2) that he teaches salvation by works (rather than grace); and
3) that people embracing other religions can/will be saved in the afterlife.

It is by use of these false charges that many of Warren’s harshest critics have labeled him: a heretic, false deceiver, preacher of a false gospel, an advocate of no gospel, a New Age pluralist, a tool being used by Satan to bring about a one world religion, and a liar.

I would have thought that you might have discerned any of these things in your meeting with him. And yet, your initial statement simply reflected a disagreement over, as you stated so plainly, mostly “ministry philosophy.” For that I have applauded you because I agree 100%. But as you know, differences in ministry philosophy does not make someone a heretic or a false teacher or a New Ager. Correct?

_______________________
YOUR RESPONSE #2: MY THOUGHTS

Now, you have released another statement, no doubt in response to the cries of disbelief, anger, and concern coming from the ant-Warren camp. And in response, you seem to be attempting to assure them of your ongoing concerns regarding Rick Warren. I can certainly appreciate that. But I’d like to make a few comments and call your attention to some facts.

First, you state: “I wrote my book, Redefining Christianity, assuming that Rick Warren actually believes the Saddleback Church’s statement of faith, but that he refuses to preach it because he wants to be popular with the world. After this, you state this COULD be true, but you are willing to not hold rigidly to such a charge because you are willing to give Rick the “benefit of the doubt.”

Fair enough. But my question to you relates to the how you can even make your foundational charge to begin with — i.e., “he refuses to preach it because he wants to be popular with the world.” You’re saying that Warren actually has refused on an ongoing basis to actually “preach” the statement of faith presented by Saddleback? I would, in all sincerity, ask how you can make that charge given the fact that Warren has repeatedly called people to give their lives to Jesus Christ, repent, look to what Christ has done for them on the cross for their sins, and has spoken about the alternative to accepting Christ — i.e., an eternity separated from God (i.e., hell).

I ask that you to please read just my SMALL sampling of the countless places where/when Warren has preached on such topics and tell me how you can say he doesn’t preach Saddleback’s statement of faith

PLEASE SEE

Rick Warren Preaches Salvation

Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, Hell

Repentance and Rick Warren

Second, you continue to make the erroneous assertion about doctrine at Saddleback, stating: “Warren tells pastors that they do not have to change any doctrine to join his movement. The reason for that is that doctrine becomes unimportant because it is no longer taught.”

This is absolutely UNTRUE. And as a brother in Christ, I ask that you correct this misperception and correct others as well. 1. Doctrine IS important. 2. Doctrine IS taught.

1. IN CONTEXT, all of the remarks Warren has made with regard to the so-called unimportance of doctrine relates directly to denominational distinctives ONLY! Such distinctive doctrines as eschatology, baptism, T.U.L.I.P., etc. etc. etc. do not matter to Warren as much as a) just seeing people get saved through the basic Gospel; and b) building a healthy church (no matter what denomination or what size).

2. IN TRUTH, doctrine is taught at Saddleback during home Bible studies, ministerial meetings (I personally taught doctrinal studies to the music ministry teams), and most importantly, during the FOUNDATIONS full doctrinal systematic theology study course given at Saddleback that covers the 11 core doctrines of Christianity, including God/Trinity, Jesus Christ, salvation/atonement, the afterlife, and the end times. I suggest you get a copy of the FOUNDATIONS systematic theology course. The course is very thorough and completely orthodox from a Southern Baptist perspective. Clearly, doctrine is both important and taught. I would ask that you amend your assertions to the contrary.

Third, you said: “I have not moved in my beliefs nor have I changed my position on any doctrines I have preached.” This comment was a bit confusing since I was unaware of anyone alleging that your doctrines had changed. I certainly made no assertion. So it seems an odd assertion to to make — UNLESS there were some critics who view Warren as holding non-Christian doctrines, and they were worried that your doctrines had changed to match his. This would make sense given their views that Warren does NOT hold to Christian beliefs. Is this what you were addressing? Wouldn’t it have been more productive to not only state that your doctrines have not changed, but that Warren’s doctrines have not changed either — i.e., that you are both in doctrinal agreement on the central tenets of Christianity (which is basically what you’ve already stated in your initial response).

Fourth, you allege: “The New Age implications are in Rick Warren’s movement and are helping lead toward a One World church.” I can certainly see why you’d feel this way from talking to Warren Smith and reading his book. Unfortunately, as I have demonstrated in several articles, Warren Smith is very adept at misrepresenting not only Warren’s views, but also in twisting his personal history, his motives, his associations, his influences and his P.E.A.C.E. Plan. Smith’s book Deceived On Purpose is built on half-truths, faulty research, guilt by association, word-play, and leaps of logic. Everything Smith analyzes is filtered through the lens of his past experiences of the New Age and the pain/suffering/trauma it caused him. I have no doubt he is sincere in his desire to keep others from enduring his sad experiences, but he’s going about it the wrong way — i.e., by causing unnecessary strife and division.

[see my articles on Warren Smith -- Warren Smith: Self-Deceived On Purpose, Warren Smith: Still Self-Deceived On Purpose, Warren Smith: The Rick Warren-Antichrist Conspiracy, and Warren Smith: Deception in Sacramento.

Fifth, you stated in your most recent letter, “I asked him to preach Christ.” But actually, in your initial comments to your church you also stated, “If Pastor Rick starts preaching Christ more than he does now, even that, I could rejoice in.” So which is it? Does he need to preach Christ? Or does he need to preach Christ “more than he does now”? Because these two statements say two different things. If he needs to START preaching Christ, that is one thing, which calls into question all kinds of serious issues. If he needs to start preaching Christ “more than he does now,” then that is a personal opinion of yours — and nothing more. I mean, how much would be enough for you? How many times must he say hell in every sermon? Twice? Three times? Ten times? How many times must he use the words “cross,” “substantiation,” “atonement,” “blood of the lamb,” or “forensic act of God” in order to be preaching Christ enough for you? I am not being flip or sarcastic here. These are real questions that we must discuss. Who is the Master and who is the servant. And who is telling who how to run their ministry or to preach? I only see in scripture the Gospel that is to be preached — and, indeed, MUST be preached. And that’s what’s going on at Saddleback. Warren doesn’t do it like you. You don’t do it like some Calvary Chapel pastors. And they don’t do it like a Lutheran minister. But the Gospel goes forth from all.

Sixth, you stated: “I challenge Rick Warren’s supporters to step up to the plate and demand that Rick Warren repent.” I would ask, with all due respect, repent EXACTLY of what, Bob. Repent EXACTLY of what? His views of the Trinity? That would be difficult because he his Trinitarian down the line. Repent of some heretical notion of salvation by works (which you know he doesn’t believe)? Repent of saying anyone can be saved through Buddha or Krishna (something else you know he doesn’t believe)? Repent of antinomianism, modalism, pantheism, polytheism? Repent of what?

Aren’t you actually saying that he needs to repent of his ministry philosophy here? As you so rightly explained on your initial statement to your church, Warren preaches the Gospel in an order reversed from your order? He tells people the benefits of living as a Christian, shows them how wonderful it can be, THEN tells them what the Gospel is & how salvation is received. You, however, reverse this (again, as you explained in your first response). So, is THAT what he needs to repent of? Where is THAT in the Bible?

Finally, you note: “Otherwise they have no business claiming that I agree with them.” Allow me to be very clear here. I have ALWAYS stated the following about Warren’s critics and their criticisms:

“Rick Warren fully embraces all of the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. . . . The essential doctrines of Christianity date back to the oldest of doctrinal creeds that we possess, particularly The Apostles’ Creed. From that historical creed emerge the following beliefs: ( 1 ) human depravity, ( 2 ) Christ’s virgin birth, ( 3 ) Christ’s sinlessness, ( 4 ) Christ’s deity, ( 5 ) Christ’s humanity, ( 6 ) God’s unity, ( 7 ) God’s triunity, ( 8 ) the necessity of God’s grace, ( 9 ) the necessity of faith, ( 10 ) Christ’s atoning death, ( 11 ) Christ’s bodily resurrection, ( 12 ) Christ’s bodily ascension, ( 13 ) Christ’s present High Priestly service, and ( 14 ) Christ’s second coming, final judgment, and reign. Warren, who is a classic Southern Baptist (see the Baptist Faith & Message declaration by the Southern Baptist Convention), accepts all of these doctrines. Through is many teachings (and also through the spiritual maturity classes taught at Saddleback), it is clear that Warren holds to the historic, orthodox definitions/explanations of the Trinity, the full humanity/deity of Jesus Christ, the miraculous conception of Christ, the inherited sin nature of humanity, the atonement by Christ for fallen humanity via his shed blood on the cross, salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the eventual return of Jesus (physically/visibly), and the inerrancy/infallibility of the the Bible.”

YOU STATED: “Privately, we agree on most doctrines” and ‘”There were no differences of theology that I know of.” So you see, Bob, it was you who stated by your initial response to the church that you indeed agreed with me. I have NEVER given a full-blown endorsement of everything Rick Warren stands for, or everything he has ever said/done/taught.

What I HAVE been saying all along is that far too many critics have gone out of their way to not just disagree with Warren’s ministry philosophy, but have desperately sought (through the use of lies, half-truths, deceptive implications, slanderous suggestions, and misinformation) to paint Warren as a heretical, non-Christian, New Ager whose doctrines/theology are completely incompatible with the faith. And Warren Smith is one of the worst examples — and I’ve released the documentation to prove it. Where is your correction of Smith’s “ministry philosophy” as a lay apologist (and others), which diverges sharply from the way scripture tells us to handle issues of discernment?

R. Abanes

Now, Chris Rosebrough has posted another thread at his blog as he begins to seek a way of lovingly, clamly, thoughtfully, and rationally expressing exactly where he disagrees with Warren, why he disagrees with Warren, and the seriousness/or superficiality of those various disagreements. His prefacing post can now be read at his blog under Rick Warren Purpose Driven Critique - My Presuppositions.

It is my hope and prayer that this will be the beginning of thoughtful, rational, civil, and honest discussions about Rick Warren in the spirit of love, honesty, openness, and calm -- all the while making sure to remain accurate and forgiving in those areas where forgiveness is necessary.

My additional hope is that the discussions which will no doubt ensue over at Chris Rosebrough's blog will once and for all put to death so many of the hateful, malicious, counter-productive, unChrist-like, and unbiblical rumors/gossip/slander that too many of Warren's critics have been eager to spread.

Richard Abanes

_______________________________________________________

UPDATE JUNE 4, 2008

In an apparent attempt at damage control, Bob DeWaay has continued to backpeddle away from his initial comments about Rick Warren -- most likely because those comments did not sit well at all with the anti-Warren camp. His most recent attempt to keep an acceptable distance between himself and Rick Warren appeared as the article My Visit to Ask Rick Warren to Preach Christ at Christian Worldview network. In this article, he makes several interesting remarks to which I will now respond.

* * * * *

DeWaay: What was lacking was any commitment to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ clearly to all people. That was exactly what I planned to urge Warren to do when I met him. Listening to his speech only reinforced that commitment.

RESPONSE: What DeWaay for some reason keeps missing, either intentionally or unintentionally, is that the PEACE PLAN is one big evangelism strategy designed to not only serve as a witness itself, but to also remove the "global giants" that are hindering the spread of the Christian Gospel in third world countries. I am unsure how to say this any clearer than how I have already been saying it:

The entire PEACE plan is an EVANGELISM STRATEGY. The reason WHY Warren is going after his GLOBAL GIANTS is not only to relieve human suffering, but more importantly to REMOVE those things that he sees hindering the spread of the CHRISTIAN GOSPEL throughout the world. I have said this over and over and over -- so forgive me if I am a bit exasperated and more than a little frustrated.

The P.E.A.C.E. PLAN is intended to remove those things that are hindering the spread of the Christian Gospel throughout the world. For example, if you seek to end illiteracy - suddenly how many millions of people can read a Bible? If you try to alleviate poverty, it enables people to look to other issues in their lives besides just worrying about how they’re going to survive through the next 24 hours.

This is all in BLACK & WHITE in the PEACE plan, but no critics are bothering to quote those parts of it. All they keep doing is talking about how “E” for evangelism is not in the plan. Why haven't you ever seen any of these quotes listed by Warren’s critics:

1. These are the world’s biggest problems, affecting billions, not just millions, of people: spiritual emptiness, corrupt leadership, poverty, disease, and illiteracy. These five global giants ravage the lives of billions of people worldwide and all work together to constrain them and cut them off from knowing the saving grace of a loving God who sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for their sins allowing them eternal hope and security” (P.E.A.C.E.).

PLEASE READ AGAIN - “cut them off from knowing the saving grace of a loving God who sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for their sins”

2. “These giants [spiritual emptiness, corrupt leadership, poverty, disease, and illiteracy] work together to constrain and prevent masses of people from knowing the saving grace of a loving God who sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins allowing us eternal hope and security. . . . The only successful solution is the global Church of Jesus Christ.” (PEACE PLAN SUMMARY)

PLEASE READ AGAIN – “work together to constrain and prevent masses of people from knowing the saving grace of a loving God who sent his son, Jesus Christ, to die for our sins allowing us eternal hope and security”

Far from being a Social Gospel (which Warren has repeatedly condemned), the PEACE PLAN in total is an evangelism strategy. The only real question is: Are we as Christians permitted to work with unbelievers in our attempts to: a) alleviate human pain and suffering; and b) gain access to places where we can spread the Gospel. I see NOTHING in the Bible that would prohibit either.

* * * * *

DeWaay: “After sharing our stories I made the main point I had hoped to make, which was an appeal to preach Christ. . . . Pastor Warren responded neither positively or negatively to that but specifically asked us why we were opposing him. Our answer was that we did not hear him publicly preach Christ in a forthright manner. . . . Anyone will be able to see if he does start preaching Christ; they merely need to listen to his public speeches before mixed audiences.“

RESPONSE: This is an interesting tweak to what DeWaay originally stated. In his original statement to his church congregation (see above), he noted; “If Pastor Rick starts preaching Christ more than he does now, even that, I could rejoice in.”

So, again, which is it? As I stated in my first response to DeWaay: “Does he need to preach Christ? Or does he need to preach Christ ‘more than he does now’? Because these two statements say two different things. If he needs to START preaching Christ, that is one thing, which calls into question all kinds of serious issues. If he needs to start preaching Christ ‘more than he does now,’ then that is a personal opinion of yours — and nothing more.”

It also must be noted here that if Bob DeWaay has not heard Warren preach Christ, then, to be blunt, he hasn’t been listening very closely. I submit in the following articles listed, just a SMALL sampling of Warren doing exactly what DeWaay has failed to hear:

Rick Warren Preaches Salvation

Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, Hell

Repentance and Rick Warren

It is difficult to see how DeWaay can say Warren does not preach Christ. It seems to me that what DeWaay is actually wanting is for Warren to preach Christ the way DeWaay preaches Christ. But that kind of request, of course, has no basis in scripture.

* * * * *

DeWaay: “One of the disconcerting things about dealing with Rick Warren is that in spite of many problematic, public teachings, he claims to agree with orthodox Christian doctrine…”

RESPONSE: Now we have DeWaay has suddenly changing his tune, saying that Warren “claims” to agree with orthodox Christian doctrine.” Originally, when speaking to his congregation, he stated, with no reservations or qualifications: “Privately, we agree on most doctrines” and ““There were no differences of theology that I know of.”

So, I wonder which it is. Are there truly no differences of theology, as DeWaay first claimed? Or, after feeling pressure exerted on him, is DeWaay now saying that there might actually be differences, but these cannot be discovered and exposed because Warren “claims” to hold to all the right beliefs?

My personal opinion: What is being shown here is an attempt on DeWaay’s part to keep peace between himself and Warren’s harshest critics at the expense of truth/peace.

Richard Abanes