Tim Challies pointed me to an "online extra" article on the Philadelphia Inquirer's website this past Sunday on Rick Warren. It's a pretty good article and Warren says some good things. I particularly like his concern that the church has come to be known more for what it is against than what it is for - I think he is absolutely right about that. The church has become known as a reactionary organization. He also has apparently been reading Nancy Pearcey, because he quotes her quote of Bill Wichterman who said that politics is downstream from culture. He goes on to embellish that a bit, saying that he would trust the local rabbi, Imam, pastor or priest to know a community better than he would the local community. That's a bit of an overstatement, I have known some local politicians who know their communities better than anyone else, but his point is still good - politics is not ultimate, so we'll give him that one.
But at the risk of being cranky and being known for what I am against, I have some concerns, mostly over the way he plays fast and loose with history.
Warren says:
"The New Testament says the church is the body of Christ, but for the last 100 years, the hands and feet have been amputated, and the church has just been a mouth. And mostly, it's been known for what it's against,"
And . . .
"One of my goals is to take evangelicals back a century, to the 19th century," said Warren, 51, shifting painfully in his chair because of a back sprain suffered during an all-terrain-vehicle romp with his 20-year-old son, Matthew. "That was a time of muscular Christianity that cared about every aspect of life."
Not just personal salvation, but social action. Abolishing slavery. Ending child labor. Winning the right for women to vote.
It's time for modern evangelicals to trade words for deeds and get similarly involved, Warren contends.
Fair enough - the body of Christ has hands and feet and is not just a mouth - that's a good point. But he completely ignores what was happening one hundred years ago. Evangelicals didn't amputate the church's hands and feet, any survey of Christian missionary activity will show that evangelicals have always been involved in the kinds of mercy ministries he is advocating.
What was happening a century ago was that the modernists were using their hands and feet to meet the physical needs of people while using their mouths (with voices raised) to deny the fundamentals of the gospel. So, while the evangelicals kept their hands and feet busy, they opened their mouths (and used their pens) to combat the errors of the modernists.
J. Gresham Machen was one of the great leaders of the fundamentalist movement and it is interesting that he was defrocked by his denomination precisely because of his formation of an alternative mission board. While some were supporting Pearl Buck and other missionaries who engaged in humanitarian endeavors while denying the gospel, Machen started a mission board that would engage in missionary endeavors for the sake of the gospel.
I think Warren made a slip of the tongue here and was just being careless in his speech when he said he wants evangelicals to trade words for deeds but it is a crucial mistake. To "trade" means to replace one with the other, and to trade a "word orientation" to ministry for a "deed orientation" is fatal to the faith. The fruit of the gospel shows itself in deeds, but the message of the gospel is only communicated in words. Where there are no words there is no gospel. Again I am sure this was a slip of the tongue, as I know Warren desires to preach the gospel, as he understands it, wherever he goes. But its still a fatal slip.
Warren's loosey-goosey approach to history comes out in his comments on fundamentalism.
Warren predicts that fundamentalism, of all varieties, will be "one of the big enemies of the 21st century."
"Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism - they're all motivated by fear. Fear of each other."
In his famous Pew Forum interview, (which I think he did very well on in many ways) Warren says:
Now the word "fundamentalist" actually comes from a document in the 1920s called the Five Fundamentals of the Faith. And it is a very legalistic, narrow view of Christianity, and when I say there are very few fundamentalists, I mean in the sense that they are all actually called fundamentalist churches, and those would be quite small. There are no large ones.
Aaarrrgghhh Matey!! Would a little accuracy kill anyone here? Let's go over this again. The way the word "fundamentalist" is used today is very different from the way it was used back in the 1920's with the publication of the Fundamentals of the Faith. The Fundamentals were key, cornerstone Christian doctrines which the writers believed must be affirmed by anyone who calls themselves a Christian. All of these doctrines had been denied in one form or another by the modernists.
J. Gresham Machen was one of the key churchmen and intellectuals in the formation of this. However, Machen later parted company with his fellow fundamentalists because they took the fundamentalist movement in a more social direction. Later fundamentalism become more concerned with social issues, like prohibition and other things and Machen correctly understood that the movement had lost its gospel and doctrinal moorings and became a legalistic, deeds oriented, behaviorally focused movement.
I am not sure if Machen ever said it in these words, but what happened is that the later fundamentalists became like the modernists they opposed in that they became focused on social issues. Their issues were different from the modernists issues, but the modernists and liberals were two peas in the same pod in that they defined Christianity in terms of deeds, rather than beliefs. To be sure, the fundamentalists still adhered to the gospel whereas the modernsts didn't, but the fundamentalist gospel got buried under their legalism.
Machen understood that Christianity was a life, but it was a life based on belief. The modernists denied the centrality of belief and the fundamentalists did a lousy job of connecting the dots.
So, this is why I think Warren is being very sloppy and unhealthy here in the way he talks connects the five fundamentals with a narrow, legalistic view of Christianity. Is this the fundamentalism that is one of the enemies of the 21st century? Does he mean to say that those who believe in the inerrancy of Scripture, the virgin birth of Jesus, the substitutionary atonement, the second coming, the Trinity and justification by faith are enemies of the 21st century? Come on Rick, what is your purpose in saying things like that?
And what is driving Warren to equate Christian fundamentalists with Muslim, Jewish and secular fundamentalists, particularly Muslim fundamentalists? Each of these groups have their extremists but does he mean to say that Christian extremists pose the same danger to the 21st century as do Muslim extremists? And by that I don't mean to be inflammatory toward the average Muslim fundamentalist. Although I do not agree with the way he words things I agree with sentiment of President Bush that the vast majority of Musims (even the fundamentalists) are peace loving. It's the extremists from any group that we have to worry about. Does recent history show that Christian extremists have posed as great a danger to the 21st century as Muslim extremists? If you have trouble answering that question my buddy the Discoshaman has a tally sheet on the sidebars of his Religion of Peace blog that might help you. Again, I'm not defending any Christian extremism at all - it is something to be repented of. Christian extremism may in fact turn bloody, and this would be a great tragedy, but as of yet it hasn't and Warren is gravely mistaken to equate it with other forms of extremism.
The biggest gripe I have about Warren is that he is fundamentally like the fundamentalists he disapproves of, and he has much in common with the modernists whose doctrinal views he denies. Fundamentalists, modernists and Warrenists have this in common - Christianity is a religion defined by its deeds, not by the gospel. In the Pew Forum interview he says he wants to create a reformation of deeds, not creeds. That is the very undoing of Christianity because Christianity begins with the presupposition that all of our righteous deeds are as filthy rags in the sight of God. Yes I know the fundamentalists and Warrenists will scream bloody murder when I say this. They wil say, "well of course the gospel is primary." But the problem is they don't say that. The Philadelphia Inquirer says that Warren
wants to use his growing influence - and wealth - for an ambitious global attack on poverty, AIDS, illiteracy and disease.
That is great - Warren is announcing to the world that he has come up with a new initiative to do what Christians have always done. What he didn't do here was make the proclamation of the gospel primary and these other things secondary.
I realize I am being unduly harsh here - I do think it is a good thing that Warren is using his influence for these noble humanitarian ends, and I do know that he will deliver include some type of gospel message in his larger humanitarian agenda.
But I do think it is worthwhile for all of us Christians to step back and recalibrate our understanding of what exactly God has called us to be and to do and to understand exactly what the greatest crises in the world are.
The greatest crisis facing the world today is not poverty, AIDS, illiteracy, disease, abortion, homosexual marriage, sexual promiscuity, governmental malfeasance, drinking, smoking, dancing or card-playing.
The greatest crisis facing the world today is unbelief. These other things are problems to be sure, but they pale in comparison to the problem of unbelief.
And I do hope that in the future Mr. Warren will be more careful when talking about Christian history to not charge our forefathers with crimes they didn't commit. I also think it would be prudent for him to align himself with those who championed the primacy of the gospel, instead of distinguishing himself from them. Why would any preacher want to distinguish himself from those of the past who fought so valiantly for the recovery of the gospel?
Related Tags: Rick Warren, Purpose Driven, Purpose Driven Life, Church, Christian, Christianity, Religion, Fundamentalist, Fundamentalism, Evangelicals, Evangelicalism
Great Post David!
The greatest crisis facing the world today is not poverty, AIDS, illiteracy, disease, abortion, homosexual marriage, sexual promiscuity, governmental malfeasance, drinking, smoking, dancing or card-playing.
The greatest crisis facing the world today is unbelief. These other things are problems to be sure, but they pale in comparison to the problem of unbelief.
That's one for the ages.
Posted by: John Schroeder (Blogotional) | January 10, 2006 at 05:39 PM
Whew...I concur with John!
This one is brilliant also:
The biggest gripe I have about Warren is that he is fundamentally like the fundamentalists he disapproves of, and he has much in common with the modernists whose doctrinal views he denies.
Posted by: Bonnie | January 10, 2006 at 11:36 PM
Great post David (although you are WAY to generous with Warren). He's made these sameW mistakes and misquotes to many times to be considered "slip of the tongue"... to Rome it is
Posted by: Renee | January 11, 2006 at 08:29 AM
Great post David (although you are WAY to generous with Warren). He's made these same mistakes and misquotes too many times to be considered "slip of the tongue"...
... on the way to Rome and works based salvation we shall go (with a Purpose :-))
Posted by: Renee | January 11, 2006 at 08:30 AM
David,
Warren worries about the "mouth of the Church?"
In these ensuing days it had better get larger!
"But what does it say? "The Word is near you, in your
MOUTH and in your heart-" that is, the Word of faith
which we are preaching, that if you confess with your
MOUTH Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God
raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the MOUTH he confesses,resulting in salvation."
Romans 8-10
Posted by: Nan | January 11, 2006 at 09:23 AM
Sorry,
That is ROMANS 10:8-10
Posted by: Nan | January 11, 2006 at 09:27 AM
As he ventures into new-and-improved social gospel, it will be interesting to see just how long Warren lasts compared with Bruce Wilkinson, who drifted from one project to another before heading to Africa and burning out before anyone really missed him.
Posted by: No Man Is an Island | January 11, 2006 at 05:02 PM
Great post David. It's apparent that the seeker-sensitives such as Warren are straying off of the true gospel path over to the worn-out-old-liberal-social-gospel-minus-the-true- gospel path.
Posted by: Diane R. | January 11, 2006 at 08:09 PM
The greatest crisis facing the world today has always been unbelief, not only today but yesterday and tomorrow as well. Today is no more special than any other time in history, as far as unbelief in the world goes. The whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
1 John 5:19
We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under the sway of the wicked one.
The greatest crisis facing the church is the false prophet and the false teacher, the wolf in sheep's clothing, Rick Warren being one of them. Even many Reformed Christian's are deceived by the heresies and leaven and false teachings Rick Warren has introduced into the Church through "HIS" very own Purpose Driven® Movement. Rick Warren wants to take over the whole world until the whole world is Purpose Driven®. Then he will have "HIS" second reformation. He has already deceived millions upon millions of people around the earth and inoculated them against the true-truth. Tragic. The apostasy is growing daily.
See:
External Links to critiques of Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven® movement
and:
Criticisms of The Purpose Driven® Life
Rick Warren focuses on earthly fears rather than the fear of God. How many more like him in the church? More concerned about temporal fears rather than the ultimate fear, the fear of God! Where is God's holiness? Is God no longer a consuming fire? Is God no longer angry with the wicked every day? Is God no longer a God of wrath? Is God all love now and nothing else?
Where are they, who are they, that tremble at the hearing of God's word?
Posted by: Douglas | January 12, 2006 at 04:15 AM
David..
Just thought you might want to rethink using a quote
by C.S. Lewis as some benchmark of wisdom...
(at the top of your page..) please see...
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/cslewisand.htm
Posted by: Nan | January 12, 2006 at 09:15 AM
We've used some of Warren's books in our small group. I've always found him to be very confusing? (confused!). For one thing, he can't seem to settle on a translation of the scripture at all, uses, what? 50 translations/transliterations/dynamic equivalencies/paraphrases, ad nauseum.
His thoughts are nearly as confusing and leftist as Yancey. Ever read any of that junk?
No, I agree what we need is more speech, more talk, but not from Warren. How bout more from the Gary DeMars and George Grants of the age?
I can't think of one good book (I mean good), that any of my evanjellypop friends in church have recommended. Warren is another of a long line of mediocre pastors bashing the church IMHO.
There is more to say but I refrain. I do agree with the above comment about the need for proclamation of the gospel. People are not going to be saved until the y hear the uttered word.
Posted by: john cummins | January 12, 2006 at 09:41 AM
Yes, just as confusing, legalistic, and false as John MacArthur.
Since what I see here is nothing but a hyperbole fest, I thought I'd chime in with mine as well.
Posted by: David C | January 12, 2006 at 03:33 PM
(Maybe Warren is the missing buttocks on the body of Christ.)
Osteen, Warren, and so many others have demonstrated an inability to read a text. They have turned the gospel into a self-help manual. I prefer Kierkegaard. He said that there are only 3 reponses to the gospel: indifference (which is damnable lukewarmness), offense leading to repentance, and offense leading to rejection.
Popular authors these days have removed the offense of the cross. Warren has simply transferred it to some devoted followers of Christ. Nice!
I think no more books ought to be written about the Bible. Read the Bible in the original if you can, get a good, critical set of commentaries, and take the Word in without imposing your own cultural values on it.
Oh, BTW, a decent article David. I would caution you though, that though we do not earn our salvation in any way, we are still supposed to obey God. And so work will always be the output of an obedient servant. Works in the James' sense is not legalism nor extremism. I thought your aticle "might" lead one to conclude that. But I am quite willing to admit that I have misunderstood you there.
Posted by: Dan Storm | January 16, 2006 at 05:32 PM
That little mustard seed has indeed grown into two billion people worldwide. The rule of Christ is a rule of truth and love. Love without truth is not love and truth without love is not truth.
Many comments by well known Christians have lacked the love element of speaking the truth. What Pat Robertson said was a front-page example. Ditto what Rick Warren said falsely about the Church.
Posted by: Timothy Mark Rush | January 17, 2006 at 04:53 PM
David, I just ran across this verse and never remember seeing it before. Needless to say it is both a comment and challenge for this issue.
1 Corinthians 4:20 For the kingdom of God does not consist in talk but in power.
Some translation substitute word for talk.
I have just begun to think about it, but it is reminiscent of James 2:14-17 don't you think?
Posted by: William Meisheid | January 19, 2006 at 01:22 AM
Bravo. I think that was the most enjoyable long post I've read in a while. The writing was excellent as was the analysis.
I read that article a few days ago and was obviously trouble by the comparison of muslim, jewish, and christian fundamentalists but dismissed it because it is a secondhand source and likely out of context. But then I think of Dick Durbin playing on Al Jazeera and the damage that his statment could make. Warren words could easily align himself with this democrat who compared Christians to terrorists.
You sifted through all that to the heart of the issue. Well done.
Posted by: JR @ RightFaith | January 19, 2006 at 11:15 AM
i don't think you were unduly harsh at all.
Posted by: danny Wright | February 07, 2006 at 01:01 PM
I think it is pretty hard case to make that Warren is abandoning the Gospel but probably fair to say that he could have been more precise. The problem of critiquing one article is that you can only say so much and there is always so much that is left out. That is a problem a preacher faces every week in the pulpit. You can't say everything that needs to be said. The Gospel isn't just about belief it is about a way of life. Jesus says that Christians are to be known by their love. Sometimes we talk love but act out fear and hate. Other times we do the right thing for all the wrong reasons. The Gospel is about truth and love as another poster said. Believing the truth helps us to love better. This is the challenge for the church today to connect truth and love in tangible and rational ways, rather than to pendulum between the two.
Posted by: Bob | February 09, 2006 at 10:24 AM
Some excellent points. I don't think you were too harsh on Warren. In fact, I think not enough. He's a man who more and more consistently is deriding the Christian faith, and by aligning himself with the earth-worshipper/global warming cult, Warren has proven once and for all that he is a FALSE PROPHET.
Posted by: Bob Mallory | February 16, 2006 at 07:45 PM
My comment is really a question:
In light of Rick Warren's numerous "gaffes" can he be rightly considered a man of Biblical faith?
Posted by: Dee | February 17, 2006 at 11:16 PM
Fundamentalism has been redefined to have a negative connotation, Fundamentalism is a modernist code word for antagonising people of monotheistic faith and unwaivering conviction in their belief. Jesus said that any believer in him would be hated for his names' sake; One only needs to take a look at where Rick Warren rubs elbows... with godless secularist hell bent on removing all bastions of traditional christianity from society... all under a guise of building a world community (Communitarianism)i.e. "Communist Uniterians" to establish their New World Order, well it all sounds fine and dandy but communism under a different label is still tirranny..., out with the old way of looking at the world ( Judeo- Christian bases for Western Culture)- in with the new City of Man.
I believe Rick Warren has aligned himself and his followers to embrace this secular humanist utopia idealogy of communitarianism... some willingly others deceptively.
Posted by: Marcos Villa | June 13, 2006 at 06:19 PM
What Rick Warren is doing... for most of you who don't see the big picture, I'll show you where Waldo is among the big picture... I know most of you will not understand, but some of you will.
Let me explain:
From a secular humanist point of view: To comprehend where history is going what we need to do is learn what the "Marx-Hegelian Dialectic" is; They believe...for history to reach it's glorious conclusion ("The Absolute Idea", NWO, Global Utopia)).... what needs to happen is for Heaven and Hell,(hyperbole) Left and Right, Up and Down, Democrat and Republican,Secular Humanist vs People of Faith, Capitalist and Communist, Femanist and Pro-Life, Homosexual Agenda and Family Rights, Animal Rights vs Human Rights, Rich and Poor, Educated vs Illiterate, We have socially evolved from the old order paradigm of conflict between opposites and now we must come together to reach consensus, and concentrate our synergistic energy for the common good of all, we must reach a new balance, a new consensus a new middle ground, a third way, for us to be able to live in a "New Civil Society" and have harmony on planet Earth. For this new global community to emerge we must become tolorant and embrace diversity of values so the oness of all mankind can manifest. After all we are one human race.
Bare with me; the Marx-Hegelian Dialectic has three stages.....example
1: Thesis (capitalism) 2: Antithesis (communism)
3: Synthesis ( coming together of both, {opposites})
We are at the Synthesis stage of history in the Marx-Hegelian Dialectic it is referred in different words but it is same concept, it can be called The Third Way, A New Olive Tree Illiance, A New Civil Society, Communitarianism,Synergy, Reaching Balance, Reaching Consensus.
George Orwell 1984: The consciousness of being in war, and therefore in danger, makes handing-over of all power to a small- caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival... It does not matter wether the war is actually happening, and since no decisive victory is possible, it does not matter wether the war is going well or badly. All that is needed is a state of war should exist.
When you understand this you will realize that history has been nothing more than staged conflict, hence 9/11 yes contrived,staged, managed by Luciferians at the Council of Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commision, and other Luciferian think tanks... to brings us toward their desired conclusion of an Anti-Christ ruled World Government.
I know this flys in the face of conventional wisdom but this my friend is what Rick Warren is part of, His role in the dialectic is to unite religious and secular interests into a new earth centered synthesis, this is the language he speaks, wittigly or unwittigly.
Posted by: Marcos Villa | June 13, 2006 at 10:01 PM
Dr.Robert Klenck summerizes very well "The Purpose- Driven Church Paradigm" in his report on "The 21st Century Church"
.....in this movement, it is imperative that unbelievers are brought into the church; and remain as unbelievers, otherwise, the process of continual change cannot begin. There must be an anti-thesis (unbelievers) present to oppose the thesis (believers), in order to move towards consensus (compromise) and move believers away from their moral absolutism (resistance to change). If all members of the church stand firm on the word of god, and its final authority in the doctrine and tradition, then the church cannot and will not change. This is common faith. Soon, we will see why these ' change agents' are pushing so hard for change to occur in the church.
Spiritual diversity is needed for the Dialectic Process to work.
Posted by: Marcos Villa | June 14, 2006 at 11:33 AM
Thank you Marcos - that's quite enough for now.
Posted by: David Wayne | June 14, 2006 at 11:40 AM
Great stuff friend,
The points you make in this post are excellent. I really find this an interesting topic.
Thanks!
Posted by: law of attraction friends | May 27, 2008 at 08:52 AM