On the A-Team blog you will find an interview with Richard Abanes regarding his new book, Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him (Harvest House).
I heard the book was coming and was looking forward to it. Abanes has made other contributions that seemed useful, and I anticipated an analysis that would bring some sanity to what are sometimes wild-eyed and exaggerated criticisms of Warren.
I was a bit surprised, then, to learn that Abanes classifies me as one of Warren's chief critics on the wild-eyed fringe. Here is the full paragraph from the interview so you can get the flow of thought:
"Expressing legitimate concerns and keeping them in perspective is one thing. Such discussions are not only valid, but also important and needed. But making wild accusations against a fellow Christian to the point of calling him (or her) a liar, a non-Christian, a false teacher, a deceiver, or a New Ager is quite another thing. It is sin?plain and simple. And people who have made such false accusations need to be held accountable, especially the more influential critics of Warren such as John MacArthur, Todd Wilken, and Greg Koukl?three men whose ministries have done a great deal of good. But now their irresponsible accusations about Warren have really caused me to question their motives and their concerns for truth. At the very least, they have been terrifically careless in making the comments that they have made. I deal with some of their accusations in my book. Truth?that is what is important."
Mr. Abanes has attached my name to a very specific charge in this interview (I don't know how the book reads, but I understand something along this line is mentioned in a footnote). The charge is that I am among those who are "making wild accusations against a fellow Christian to the point of calling him (or her) a liar, a non-Christian, a false teacher, a deceiver, or a New Ager." This causes him to question my "motives," and "concern for truth."
For the record, I have never said such things about Rick Warren. Ever. So Richard Abanes has said that I said specific things I never said. I think he knows I never said the things he said I said because he has never produced any quotes to that effect (if he does I?ll do my best to respond to them). However, Abanes still stands behind his charge because he believes he has properly inferred those "wild accusations" from remarks I've made on the air.
The source of Abanes's criticism is a transcript of a radio commentary entitled "What's Wrong with Being Seeker-Centered?" I invite you to read it yourself and make your own judgments about my posture towards Rick Warren.
The first thing you?ll note is that this commentary is not about Rick Warren. The central point of the piece is to make the distinction between "seeker sensitive" churches and "seeker centered" ones, and how those in the first category often drift unwittingly into the second category. Instead of making disciples?the directive of the Great Commission?they focus their main church activity on evangelism. A seeker church in Florida was the foil for my comments, not Saddleback.
Mr. Abanes seems to take my radio commentary as a broadside against Warren. It was not. In fact, Warren's name is never mentioned, nor is Saddleback Church, though there is a reference to other churches? participation in the "Forty Days of Purpose" program (I?ll get to that in a moment).
As far as I can tell, here is the offending paragraph from my radio commentary:
"I've talked with a number of churches who have gone through ?Forty Days of Purpose.? The problem is that there is no Gospel in those forty days of purpose. It's used as a technique to get to non-believers to the church, but they hear a message of good news without any bad news."
To what was I referring? If you read the piece, I think you?ll be able to see the line of reasoning as you read through the commentary: I ask: Why is it so hard for the church to understand what the Bible is saying and simply follow the directions? Many churches, especially seeker churches, think the Great Commission is about evangelism, not discipleship (e.g., the church in Sarasota, Florida). Discipleship isn't happening, and, largely, even the evangelism is inadequate because the message is not the message used by the Apostles in Acts. We need to follow the directions. That's my argument.
In the middle of the argument I make an excursus giving an example of a weak Gospel message. I mention the "Forty Days of Purpose" campaign in which I say "there is no Gospel."
Here's why I said that. Though its content is principally for discipleship (a virtue I have frequently pointed out), "Forty Days" is designed to be used aggressively as a tool for evangelism. The first home-group video has a segment dedicated to settling the eternal question of the Gospel before moving on to the main thrust of the program?fulfilling your God-given purpose as children in His Kingdom. Rick Warren leads viewers in a prayer to settle the first eternal question they face: "What did you do with my Son, Jesus Christ?"
What follows is a word for word transcript of that portion of the video. Forgive the long citation, but I want you to get the full effect since this appears to be the precise point at issue justifying Mr. Abanes's inference. I want you to be able to judge for yourself, to see Warren's intent for the use of this section of the video, and to see exactly how he carries it out. By the way, I think just about everything Rick Warren says in this session is wonderful except his conclusion that what happened had anything to do with the Gospel of salvation, which is the point under discussion.
Part 1: The following is at the end of what the home group leaders listen to before they lead the group in Session 1:
"Finally, I want you to know that at the close of this session, session 1, I'm going to invite those who have not previously begun a relationship with Jesus Christ to open their hearts to Him and to follow me in a prayer of commitment. After you turn off the video tape in your group meeting let me encourage you to be sensitive to what may have just happened. Gently congratulate and celebrate anybody who did pray to receive Christ. Now, don't put them on the spot or make them feel awkward but encourage them to tell someone of their decision before they leave the class or the meeting. During the prayer time of the video I'm going to ask you to please be praying for each member of your group just in case someone has not yet opened their life to Christ."
Part 2: The following is toward the end of Session 1 with everyone involved in the small groups listening:
"Now what you do with your life on earth will determine where you spend eternity. Imagine this: let's say I had a tape measure that stretched all the way from Los Angeles to New York City. And if that tape measure represented how long eternity is, the first fraction of that inch on the tape measure would represent the 70, 80 or 90 years you?ll be here on earth. You're going to spend far more time on the other side of eternity than on this side. So what are we supposed to do now? We're supposed to use this life to prepare for the next life. This is a dress rehearsal before the real show. It's the warm up act. It's the trial run. It's the preparation lap before the real race begins. The Bible says "He has set eternity in the hearts of men." Psalms 33 says "His purposes last eternally?. It is an understatement to say that God has [inaudible] plans for your life. They are never ending. And one day you're going to stand before God and He's going to do an audit of your life. He's going to ask you two questions: #1: "What did you do with my Son, Jesus Christ?" And #2: What did you do with what I gave you? What did you do with your life?
"During the next five weeks I'm going to help you to prepare for the second question. But as we end this introductory session, I want to make sure you know the answer to the first question. Do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? If you're not sure of this?maybe you've gone to church all of your life, maybe you've never been to church?it doesn't matter. I?d like the privilege of leading you in a prayer to settle this issue?that you are connected to Christ. So let's bow our heads together. I'm going to pray a prayer and you can follow it silently in your mind. Let's pray.
"Just say something like this: Dear God, I want to know Your purpose for my life. I don't want to waste the rest of my life on wrong things. Today I want to take the first step in preparing for eternity by getting to know You. Jesus Christ, I don't understand it all but as much as I know how I want to open up my life to You. I ask You to come in to my life and make Yourself real to me and use this series in my life to help me know what You made me for. Thank you. Amen.
"Now, if you've just prayed that prayer for the very first time I want to congratulate you. You've just become a part of the family of God. The first thing you ought to do is share your decision with somebody else. And if you feel comfortable doing so I hope you?ll share it with the people you are with right now in this class or this group."
Now I want to ask a very simple question: Is there any Gospel in that appeal? Does this bear any resemblance to the message delivered by the Apostles 14 different times in the book of Acts (my point in the commentary)? I don't see it. Maybe you do, but I don't.
If what you just read is the Gospel portion of the "Forty Days of Purpose" campaign (which is the way Rev. Warren characterized it in the video), then I think I am within my rights when I say there is no Gospel in the "Forty Days of Purpose" campaign. There are many valuable things in the program for building believers (a fact I've applauded many times). However, the "Forty Days of Purpose" has been promoted not just as discipleship, but as evangelism, and when Rick Warren personally gives the altar call, there is no Gospel in it. Yes, there is a more complete characterization in his book. But in the video?the specific tool distributed to tens of thousands of home groups around the country seen, arguably, by millions who?ve obediently prayed Rick Warren's prayer and have been welcomed into the Kingdom by him as "a part of the family of God" because they prayed the prayer?there is no substantive message of the cross.
I don't think this is the way Rick Warren always characterizes the Gospel, but it is the way he characterized it in the "Forty Days" video. My criticism within the context of the commentary is a fair one, and I stand by it.
Mr. Abanes has been apprised of these details, but is unconvinced. In another installment of the A-Team interview he adds "uncharitable" and "irresponsible" to his list of grievances against me, then defends his assessment. You're welcome to read the exchange yourself on the A-Team blog as it may give some insight into the way Mr. Abanes has reasoned on this issue.
This is all a bit ironic, since I have always been very careful to be even-handed on the air, especially with regards to Mr. Warren (though all of us on the air, given the extemporaneous nature of live radio, at times, have said things we would have thought better of in calmer moments). At STR we have never gone after Rick Warren specifically, as others have.
To the contrary, we've been very charitable when the issue was raised by callers, saying frequently that we have mixed feelings about him. We are concerned with the way he sometimes characterizes the Gospel (and this we have on the video-tape that went to millions of Christians for their home groups with the 40 Days of Purpose campaign), and also his questionable use of Scripture and "free" translations, which is easily demonstrated (and something we've complained about with many other pastors not in the "seeker" movement).
Even so, I've been invited to speak at Warren's church on three different occasions, and one of our other STR speakers has been there twice, hardly what you'd expect if we were wild-eyed critics.
Abanes simply has not represented my views accurately, nor can he justify his criticism of me from anything I've said publicly, privately, or in print. And even if I did misstep on this (which I don't think I have), why would this cause him to question my "motives" or my "concern for truth" when he knows I have a decades-long history to the contrary? This is ironic in light of the fact that Abanes's subject is the alleged unfair and inaccurate attacks on Rick Warren.
Mr. Abanes has charged me by name with being among those who are "making wild accusations against a fellow Christian [Warren] to the point of calling him a liar, a non-Christian, a false teacher, a deceiver, or a New Ager." If I have not said any of those things, then Mr. Abanes should not suggest that I have. He's free to argue from inference if he is able to succeed in that line, but that's another claim entirely.
Richard Abanes ends his A-Team interview this way:
"All I want is for people to, first of all, raise criticisms in a Christ-like manner. It is so unnecessary to get mean-spirited and nasty. Second, I would ask people to be fair. Warren should not be held to some kind of unreachable standard of perfection that no other pastor is held to. Third, I wish people would simply make sure to get their facts straight and not just repeat everything they hear on the radio, see in some self-published pamphlet/book, or read on the Internet. That's all. Anyone with legitimate criticisms of Warren should indeed voice them and offer constrictive criticisms."
This is precisely the way I and all others at STR have conducted ourselves regarding this issue. If in a transcription of live radio comments there's been a miscommunication of my and STR's position regarding Mr. Warren, I?ll take responsibility for it and will happily clarify, as I've taken great pains to do here. In any case, it seems clear to me at this point that my views have been misrepresented.
I have no reason to think this is Abanes's standard practice. I think he made a mistake here, at least with regards to me (I don't know about the others), and it probably is an innocent one. That's why I am not inclined to question his own motives or his concern for the truth. He has a noble history of valuable contributions to the body of Christ as far as I can tell, and no doubt that will continue. I do hope, though, that he's able to clear up this point of confusion regarding my views, judgments, and alleged accusations.
You may be interested in Tim Challies review of Abanes's book.
Comments