In What I Like About Rick Warren, New City Press has really done a nice job of reconsidering the overly negative, critical approach that many reformed and fundamentalist sites take to Rick Warren, author of the heinously successful Purpose Driven Life.
Of course, I entered the fray, and I decided to post my last comment here as content, since I put some effort into it.
1. Some Background Reading
The following articles are typical doctrinal critiques of Rick Warren:
- Rick Warren ‘Works With’ and ‘Strengthens’ Mormon Churches and Other Non-Christian Sects
- Critique: The Evangelism Message of Rick Warren
- A Berean’s Discernment Tool for The Purpose Driven Life
- The CFR and the Social Gospel: Part 1
The last link is interesting in that it clearly outlines what is wrong with the PDL approach.
2. What is missing from fundamental critiques of Rick Warren
What is glaring in all of these critiques is the total absence of introspection on the part of the reformed and fundamentalist about how they have contributed to the problem by
- ignoring the social part of the gospel (helping widows and orphans)
- focusing myopically on sin, without offering a loving God (the only "goodness of God leading to repentance" they can present is a God who hates sinners, but offers them a way out. While that sounds doctrinally correct, it bears little resemblance to the "humanistic" father of the Prodigal Son, and sounds a lot like the older brother.)
I mean, the whole reason I think evangelicalism left fundamentalism in the 30’s and 40’s was over the extremism, unkindness, and "older brother" approach of fundamentalism which included:
- the doctrine of separation, both primary and secondary (see my post NeoFundamentalism and the doctrine of Separation)
- anti-intellectualism (which was really anti-higher-criticism – in throwing out the liberalism, they also threw out a respect for scholarship and reason – not that they didn’t have scholarly theologians, but they refused to enter meaningfully and graciously into philosophical, exegetical, and hermenteutical debate – wanting to avoid heresy, they also hardened into their positions and forced those wanting discussion to leave).
- isolationism – leaving modern culture to rot
- anti-modernism – confusing modernism with worldliness
You can see my further discussion in What’s wrong with modern fundamentalists?
SUMMATION
In summation, as an evangelical, I absolutely understand and agree with those who criticize the doctrines that many evangelicals are courting these days, esp. the Emerging Church. However, what is really distressing to me is that the critics are entirely failing to see that their own shortcomings and gospel failures have spawned these movements, and the fundies are STILL failing to address the shortcomings that forced people to leave.
They are also failing to recognize the real works of God that these new movements are accomplishing.
1. Like the Pharisees
It reminds me of how the Pharisees obsessed over doctrine, and often, had good doctrine which Jesus said should be obeyed – yet, they missed the Messiah, quite honestly, because he was too friendly with sinners (a drunk, winebibber, glutton, and friend of sinners), and too theologically liberal (breaking the Sabbath).
2. Missing God in the Pentecostal Movement
In our time, I see the critics of the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements in the same boat – not seeing how God renewed worship and Christian art through these movements, and how God has saved literally MILLIONS through such denominations – sure, doctrinal errors have crept in in places and done damage, but they forget the scripture:
Proverbs 14:4
Where no oxen are, the trough is clean; But much increase comes by the strength of an ox.
Translation: If you want to actually get work done, there’s gonna be some mess. You want pure doctrine and no mistakes, you’re gonna have a nice clean barn and nothing getting done.
The truth is, we need to balance doctrine and practice, and fundies err towards perfection in doctrine to the point of Phariseeism, and to the point of missing the Spirit of God at work. That is what grieves me. I observe:
We’ve got more doctrinal policemen than workers in the harvest.
I doubt God’s first question in heaven will be "how pure was your doctrine?"
3. An Illustration – Whitefield and Wesley
It reminds me of the story (apocryphal?) where Whitfield (reformed) was asked if he thought he would see Wesley (Arminian) in heaven. Whitfield responded, "No, but if I’m lucky, I might see the back of his head as we face the throne of God."
Translation: They had big doctrinal differences, but maybe that’s not the primary criteria by which we should be evaluating the work of God in others – not that it is unimportant, but you get the idea.
You’re right. God’s first question is NOT going to be ‘how pure was your doctrine’.
The reason why is because those whose doctrine of salvation isn’t in line with the Biblical doctrine of salvation won’t be there.
It’s very simple. You trust in yourself and your own works (in whole or in part) you won’t be there.
You trust in Christ Alone and the free and full-forgiveness of sins won by Him on the cross for your salvation you will there.
Rick Warren doesn’t really tell people about their sins. He tries to get people to make a decision for Christ based upon all the great ways Jesus is supposed to make their lives better (less stress, know their purpose, better sex life, better career, improved family relations). It’s a gospel without repentance.
That isn’t the message that Jesus and his apostles preached.
BTW, I am NOT a fundamentalist.
I think that is an exaggeration of what he preaches, but it may not be. I still think his attackers are overreacting and playing policeman when they should be soul winning.
>playing policeman when they should be soul winning.
Why is it assumed that we are are not out doing good works, evangelizing, etc. simply because we’ve disagreed with Rick Warren’s erroneous message? Couldn’t the same be said of anyone here, who is not out evangelizing when they are spending time writing about those who are perceived as “a policeman”?
PS: I too am not a fundamentalist; I do not subscribe to that early 20th century movement. You’ll have to go back further in church history to define me than that.
I too am not a fundamentalist; I do not subscribe to that early 20th century movement. You’ll have to go back further in church history to define me than that.
I use the term loosely, since fundies are often the most vocal in attacking modern evangelicals, though now the reformed (and there is a great overlap there in doctrine and practice, it seems to me) have jumped in.
Like I said, there is a place for criticizing, but I still think that most “discernment ministers” spend too much time criticizing and not enough doing the work of the ministry – though they tell themselves that they are doing the work of ministry, but they are only half right – they neglect parts that they should not, and defend their bitter doctrinal screeching as if nothing is wrong. No real self-evaluation or self-criticism. That’s how it looks, anyway.
Maybe not everyone, but the doctrinal policeman movement is way bigger than it should be. I still agree with Whitefield’s remark – our ideological opponents may end up being much closer to the throne than us.
Seeker,
I’d challenge you to explain how you know what “discernment minsters” spend their time doing.
You go on to say that neglect parts of the ministry…hmmm…how would you know that? Could it be that you are “judging”????
Then you go on to say that they don’t have any “self examination”…you must be psychic…
For someone who seems to dislike judging…you spent a good amount of your post doing just that.
As for the main blog poster? Do me a favor and learn what the Pharisees actually were guilty of ok? Quit throwing around that little gem anytime someone disagrees with something you hold dear.
The question isn’t “why do they keep attacking Rick Warren?” The question is: is what they say about Rick Warren factual or not? No matter what their motives; that’s the question to be addressed.
To Chrisz;
Where does the Bible say that unless you have the right doctrine of salvation you won’t be saved?
your friend
Keith
Keith,
Of course, when it comes to the gospel, the apostle paul was pretty serious about false gospels, and if people don’t hear and believe the gospel, they CAN’T be saved.
But my complaint is that most critics, esp. those of the “discernment ministry” type:
– fail to show any of the necessary self-criticality or introspection that Jesus required of those who deem to take the speck out of their brother’s eye
– like the Jews who focused myopically on their doctrine in the first century, while their doctrine was somewhat exact (and exacting), they actually missed what God was doing (the messiah) in their day
In fact, it is my contention that the anti-Charismatics have entirely missed what the spirit has done through the Pentecostal and Charismatic movements over the last CENTURY, and they are probably missing what God is doing through the likes of Rick Warren and Bill Hybels.
Now, with that said, I think we should be careful to avoid positive-thinking preaching that is devoid of the central message of our guilt and the cross, and even warn people that cross-less gospels may not regenerate anyone (and regeneration is central to salvation).
I’d challenge you to explain how you know what “discernment minsters” spend their time doing.
I make an educated guess based on what they talk about. I suspect that if they were more involved in preaching, or personal repentance, or compassion, it would show up in their thoughts and writing.
You go on to say that neglect parts of the ministry…hmmm…how would you know that? Could it be that you are “judging”????… For someone who seems to dislike judging…you spent a good amount of your post doing just that.
It could be – but at least I have to good sense to consider such an accusation seriously rather than defending my works as inerrant. And I like judging very much ;)
Do me a favor and learn what the Pharisees actually were guilty of ok? Quit throwing around that little gem anytime someone disagrees with something you hold dear.
Actually, I explained why I thought that moniker fit, perhaps you could engage the argument rather than carelessly accusing me of throwing the term around lightly.
What I hold dear is the balance of mercy and truth, and I won’t lay down when doctrinal bullies who lack mercy and only focus on truth badger me or anyone else who show the fruits and works of the spirit.
The question isn’t “why do they keep attacking Rick Warren?” The question is: is what they say about Rick Warren factual or not? No matter what their motives; that’s the question to be addressed.
Actually, I half agree. We should answer the question “are they right in their accusations?” But we should also ask “are their criticisms really important, are they representing the life, doctrine, and ministries they are criticizing accurately?”
AND we should also ask and answer the question “are today’s doctrinal discernment ministries doing a good job, or are they on crusades that tear down the ministry of valid ministries? Are they doing the work of ministry in the right spirit, or are they merely focusing myopically on their own narrow doctrines and bitterly complaining like winges?”
I’m just saying that SOME such ministries are winging. That’s why I wrote 10 Principles of Biblical Discernment