Discerning the Discerners

Discerning the Discerners of Rick Warren
and the Purpose Driven Life

by Pastor Steve Lagoon

This article is a response to critics of Rick Warren and the Purpose Driven movement. Specifically, I will be responding to two of the current critics of Warren: Pastor Bob DeWaay of Twin City Fellowship in Minneapolis Minnesota, and Warren Smith, author of "Deceived On Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose-Driven Church," (Second Edition, Mountain Stream Press, Magalia, CA, 2004) hereafter referred to as DOP. The criticisms of DeWaay and Smith are fairly representative of the many other Warren critics.

What I am concerned about are the many faulty arguments put forward against Rick Warren that are both illogical and without merit. This is not to say that there are not legitimate areas of criticism of Warren and the Purpose Driven Movement. But as biblically discerning Christians, we are called to fairness and accuracy. Scripture says, "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:16).

Unfortunately, it seems that many of the Warren critics have decided Warren's guilt ahead of time, and rush off into a reckless crusade to prove it.

In the first part of this article, I will be looking at Bob DeWaay's criticisms of Rick Warren, and in the second part, those of Warren Smith.

I will be quoting extensively from DeWaay,'s journal "Critical Issues Commentary" which is available on line at the following web address: www.twincityfellowship.com/index.php.

Rick Warren and Bible Study

For example, DeWaay accuses Rick Warren of discouraging the study of the Bible. He states:

"Rick Warren makes an amazing claim. He writes, "The last thing many believers need today is to go to another Bible study. They already know far more than they are putting into practice" (Warren: 231). This shows that his deeper life pietism is an alternative to the means of grace provided in Scripture" (DeWaay, Critical Issues Commentary, Issue 80, hereafter referred to as Issue 80).

This is an example of taking an author out of context, and twisting the author's (Warren's) meaning. After, taking Warren out of context, he then beats up on the straw-man of his own creation. With a little research, one can see that Warren is not discouraging Bible study as the following quotes from
Warren show:

"the greatest church-growth textbook is the Bible" (Purpose Driven Church, p. 112, hereafter referred to as PDC).

"Some Christians have made the mistake of over-emphasizing emotional experiences to the neglect of sound biblical doctrine" (PDC, p. 341).

"To discover your purpose in life you must turn to God's Word, not the world's wisdom. You must build your life on eternal truths, not pop psychology, success-motivation, or inspirational stories" (Purpose Driven Life, p. 20, hereafter referred to as PDL).

"If you really want to improve your life, memorizing Scripture may be the most important habit you can begin" (PDL, p.11).

"I once heard the well-known Bible teacher Gene Getz say, 'Bible study by itself will not produce spirituality. In fact, it will produce carnality if it isn't applied and practiced.' I have found this to be true. Study without service produces Christians with judgmental attitudes and spiritual pride…The last thing many believers need is to go to another Bible study. They already know far more than they are putting into practice…When any Christian's schedule consists completely or receiving biblical input with no outflow of ministry or evangelism, his or her spiritual growth will stagnate…Please don't think that I don't value Bible study. Actually, the opposite is true. I wrote a textbook on methods of Bible study, Dynamic Bible Study Methods. We must 'continue in the Word' in order to be Christ's disciples. All I am saying is that it is a mistake to assume that study alone will produce maturity." (PDC, pp. 341-342).

"At the knowledge level, your church needs to regularly offer 'new believer' Bible studies and surveys of the Old Testament and New Testament… There are a number of excellent Bible survey curricula available, including the well-known Walk Thru the Bible seminars. Saddleback's largest program to develop knowledge of the Word is a nine-month inductive Bible study course, written and taught by our lay teachers. It is called the Word study. Word is an acronym for the four activities of this Bible study: Wonder about it (ask questions about the text), Observe it, Reflect on it, and Do it! It is based on the methods described in my book Dynamic Bible Study Methods…While every book of the Bible is important, at Saddleback we want our members to study five 'core' books before they branch out into other studies. These books are Genesis, John, Romans, Ephesians, and James." (PDC, pp. 351-352).

"Since spiritual growth is based on God's Word, the first level of learning is to gain a working knowledge of the Bible. Perspective and convictions must be Bible based. . . The better you know God's Word, the more you'll see life from God's perspective… Here are five questions you need to ask about your Christian education program: .Are people learning the content and meaning of the Bible? .Are people seeing themselves, life, and other people more clearly from God's perspective? Are people's values becoming more aligned with God's values? Are people becoming more skilled in serving God? Are people becoming more like Christ?" (PDC, pp. 361-362).

"When preaching to believers I like to teach through books of the Bible, verse-by-verse…Verse by verse, or exposition builds up the body of Christ." (PDC, p. 294).

Some have spoken of anecdotal evidence that people are not seen bringing Bibles in to church at Saddleback. Perhaps this is because they use pew Bibles as Warren states:

"Use Pew Bibles. In the early years of Saddleback, we purchased cheap, hardcover Bibles and placed them in every chair. Since the unchurched don't know the books of the Bible, you can simply announce the page number of your Scripture reading" (PDC, 297).

It seems quite unfair to accuse Warren of discouraging Bible study in light of these facts.

Are Warren's materials replacing the Bible?

Along the same lines are these criticisms by Bob DeWaay:

"Later in his book we learn why Warren warns against Bible study for those who are not perfect: he has an alternative! 'I strongly urge you to gather a small group of friends and form a Purpose-Driven Life Reading Group to review these chapters on a weekly basis' (Warren: 307). We are to have a Warren study to replace the Bible study. The amazing thing is that thousands and thousands of groups around the world have taken Warren's advice and began studying his book, leaving their Bibles at home. Pastors are preaching from Warren's materials rather than God's Word. Warren also says, 'After you have gone through this book together as a group, you might consider studying other purpose-driven life studies that are available for classes and groups' (Warren: 307). The message of the gospel has been replaced with the method of Rick Warren. The Bible has been supplanted by the wisdom of man"
(DeWaay, Issue 80).

This is all made to sound rather sinister. But all that is actually going on is people are studying Warren's book. Big deal. Simply because folks are studying Warren's book for 40 days, doesn't mean they can't still study the Bible.

In DeWaay's article, he contrasts Warren's book with John MacArthur's book "Hard To Believe" (Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003). Do not people study the books of John MacArthur (and many other Christian leaders) in churches as well, including some of his books that are designed with study guides that are "great for Sunday school classes and Bible studies." Is this also replacing the Bible with human wisdom?

DeWaay expresses concern about the level of involvement Christians and churches have with the Purpose Driven materials. Yet, the programs are only set up for 40 days! Compare that with those who are fans of John MacArthur who can listen to his teachings daily on his "Grace to You" radio program, read and study one of his many books, use a "MacArthur Study Bible," study the "MacArthur Bible Commentaries," read the daily MacArthur devotional, spend the family vacation on the MacArthur cruise to Alaska, attend college at MacArthur's "Master's College" and then go to seminary at MacArthur's "Master's Seminary." And so forth, and so forth. The point is not to criticize fans of MacArthur, but to ask for fairness when judging Rick Warren. People who are fans of MacArthur are every bit involved with MacArthur's material on an ongoing basis, as fans of Warren are of his materials.

Warren and Bible Versions

DeWaay is very critical of the bible versions that Rick Warren uses in the Purpose Driven Life. He states:

"Warren uses perverted Bible translations that change God-centered passages to man-centered passages. By carefully selecting the right mistranslation for each of his teaching points he has made the man-centered theology touted by Schuller seem Biblical." (DeWaay, Issue 80).

In appendix three of The Purpose Driven Life, Warren lists the 15 Bible versions he used. They are as follows: The Amplified Bible, Contemporary English Version, God's Word Translation, King James Version, Living Bible, The Message, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Century Version, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard Version, New Testament In Modern English, Today's English Version.

The Bible versions Warren used are top-selling reputable Bible versions. Aside from the two Roman Catholic translations, these are Bibles widely used by conservative evangelical scholars and laymen alike. It is grossly unfair to describe all these versions like the King James Version, the New American Standard Version, or the New International Version as "perverted."

The Message?

DeWaay particularly criticizes Warren for using the Bible version known as "The Message," even though it is endorsed and used by scholars such as Charles Stanley, Warren Wiersbe, Charles Swindoll, John Ankerberg and John Weldon, David Jeremiah, J.I. Packer, Billy Graham, Walter Kaiser Jr., Woodroll Kroll, Joni Earckson Tada, Ramesh Richard, Kenneth O. Gangel, and Leith Anderson.

In the following lengthy quote, DeWaay criticizes Warren's use of the "Message" Bible translation and its alleged New Aged bias:

"Here is Warren's quote, 'The Bible says, 'Self-help is no help at all. Self-sacrifice is the way, my way, to finding yourself, your true self'' (Warren: 19). . . we find out that it is from a Bible called The Message. Now, having determined what passage is under consideration, we get out a real Bible (not a paraphrase) and find out what Matthew 16:25 says. Here it is: 'For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find It' (Matthew 16:25). . . Now we need to compare Matthew 16:25 with The Message perversion of it. . . Matthew 16:25 is not discussing self-help, it is discussing life and death. Matthew 16:25 is not discussing 'finding your true self.' The idea of a 'true self' is a term of psychology and is not found in the Bible. Matthew 16:25 is not talking about self-sacrifice, it is talking about dying to self. . . Warren's version of the passage suggests that by self-sacrifice we find our 'true selves.' All false religions teach self-sacrifice, and finding one's true self is a New Age lie. The truth of the gospel is that we must die to self through the cross and put all of our hope in Christ by faith in His finished work. . . He has obscured the clear gospel message in Matthew 16:24, 25 and replaced it with a spiritual journey to find the 'true self.'" (DeWaay, Issue 80).

DeWaay totally distorts the meaning of this passage in "The Message." In reality, the Message is saying the very same thing as DeWaay. Our true self is who we are in Christ. "The Message" is simply saying that when we seek after our own self-centered desires, we are actually hurting ourselves, but when we are willing to follow Christ, denying our own selfish desires, we actually find our real selves. We become the person, the new creation, God wants us to be. "The Message" captures the biblical idea very well.

Apologetics By The Numbers

Bob DeWaay resorts to a strange criticism of Warren that we could call "apologetics by the numbers" when he states:

"His statement that this is not about 'you' is disingenuous (insincere). His style, word usage, Man-centeredness, distorted Bible translations, and many overt statements show that the book is about you! Here is one more example of how obtrusive the personal pronoun 'you' is in Warren's writing:

Your unspoken life metaphor influences your life more than you realize. It determines your expectations, your values, your relationships, your goals, and your priorities. For instance, if you think life is a party, your primary value in life will be having fun. If you see life as a race, you will value speed and will probably be in a hurry much of your time. If you view life as a marathon, you will value endurance. If you see life as a battle or a game, winning will be very important to you (Warren: 42). (italics in original; bold emphasis mine).

Here we have sixteen instances of "you" or "your" in one short paragraph." (DeWaay, Issue 80).

Since DeWaay is contrasting Warren's book with MacArthur's book "Hard to Believe," let us note that in the space of one page of the introduction, MacArthur uses the personal pronouns "you" or "your" or "yourself" 12 times. This counting of pronouns proves nothing. What really matters is understanding what the author intends to convey, and in neither case is the author's intent to promote human centered thinking over God centered thinking.

In context, Warren was teaching his readers that they must move away from a self- centered view of life to a God and Bible centered view of life. A little later on the same page, Warren says:

"To fulfill the purposes God made you for, you will have to challenge conventional wisdom and replace it with the biblical metaphors of Life. The Bible says, 'Do not conform yourselves to the standard of this world'"(PDL, p. 42).

Rick Warren the Human(ist)?

Right after the fallacy of apologetics by the numbers, DeWaay continues to try to prove that Warren is espousing a man-centered humanistic teaching:

"Notice also how Warren speaks what is no more than his own personal opinion as if it were God's truth. He claims a 'life metaphor' determines much of who we are. By what authority does he make such a claim? This is nothing but human wisdom. Warren started out this section saying, 'The way you see your life shapes your life. How you define life determines your destiny' (Warren 41). Why should I believe these statements? Warren speaks from his own self as if he were God's authoritative spokesperson. This is Christianized humanism. Our thoughts and metaphors have nothing to do with the gospel. We need to deny self, not set up the right thoughts and life metaphors to assure a wonderful destiny." (DeWaay, Issue 80).

This paragraph can best be described as illustrating the fallacy of the non-sequiter in that DeWaay's conclusions simply do not follow from Warren's statements. To begin with, the term "life-metaphor" is just another way of saying "world view." As we are aware, the term "worldview" is widely used today (though it is not a biblical word per se). All that Warren is saying is that your worldview, your outlook on life, will affect how you approach and live your life. Nothing shocking there. But for DeWaay, "This is nothing but human wisdom." Well, yes, Rick Warren is human. So I guess you can say it is human wisdom, since Rick Warren, a human, wrote the book. But the real question is: Are Warren's statements in accord with the Bible? Isn't it a biblical idea that our belief's (worldview) affect our lifestyles? Then DeWaay piles on with "This is Christianized humanism." I almost fell of my chair when I read that sentence. O.K. Since Rick Warren, a human, gave his opinion (which happens to agree with the Bible), it is humanism. Come on. I ask, are the opinions of John MacArthur in his multiple books "Christianized Humanism" as well, since he also is a human being expressing his opinion "as though he were God's authoritative spokesman."?

Does Warren dismiss doctrinal issues?

Another example of the faulty arguments DeWaay uses against Warren is taking his statements out of context. For instance:

"Rick Warren claims that doctrine is so unimportant that God will not even ask about it: 'God won't ask about your religious background or doctrinal views.'39 Jesus made doctrine very important and rebuked those who tolerated false doctrine: 'Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son.' (2John 1:9 NKJV)" (DeWaay, Issue 86).

In context, Warren was speaking about salvation, and that our salvation won't be dependent on which denomination we attended or what our particular views may be on a variety of theological questions. The only thing that will matter is the question that Jesus himself posed in Matthew 16:15 "'But what about you?' He asked. 'Who do you say that I am?'"

Warren and Occultic and Pagan ideas?

DeWaay accuses Warren of using occultic ideas:

"Rick Warren compromises with the pagans like the churches Jesus rebuked. He uses pagan principles in his SHAPE program which was inspired by Carl Jung's questionable theories, 40" (DeWaay, Issue 86).

DeWaay's footnote for this claim states:

"James Sundquist, Who's Driving the Purpose Driven Church?; (Bethany, OK: Bible Belt Publishing, 2004) 149-171 establishes the connection between SHAPE and Carl Jung. Jung was an occultist."

DeWaay's clear implication is that Warren is using occultic techniques borrowed from Carl Jung. DeWaay claims that James Sundquist "establishes" this connection. This is grossly unfair to Rick Warren. All that Sundquist establishes is that he is capable of making wild and bizarre accusations based on the flimsiest evidence. Through a representative of Saddleback Church, Warren unequivocally denies Sundquist's charges:

"SHAPE is originated by Pastor Rick Warren, our senior pastor . . . not Carl Jung. There are NO connections between the two and there is absolutely no reason to try to connect them." 10/19/2004, Erik Rees, Pastor of Ministry & Small Group Leadership Development, Saddleback Church"

In support of his theory that Warren is influenced by Jung's occultism is the fact that Warren uses words that he claims were popularized by Jung such as "introvert" and "extrovert." But these words are everyday words use by virtually every Christian leader around. Are we to believe that any one who uses these words is borrowing from the occultic ideas of Carl Jung?

For the record, the acronym SHAPE as used by Rick Warren stands for Spiritual Gifts, Heart, Abilities, Personality, and Experience (PDL, p. 236).

Next, DeWaay accuses Warren of promoting pagan prayer practices:

"He teaches pagan "prayer" practices such as "breath prayers" which are designed to induce altered states of consciousness." (DeWaay, Issue 86).

As Warren uses the term "breath prayers," he encouraging the practice of praying throughout the day in line with the scriptural admonition to "pray without ceasing" in 1 Thessalonians 5:17. It has nothing to do with "pagan prayer practices." In fact, one of the prayers Warren suggests is meditating on Scripture itself ("You can also use a short phrase of Scripture," (PDL, p. 89), hardly a "pagan practice." I would think that if the thousands of worshipers at Saddleback were going into "altered states of consciousness," we would hear about it.

Covenants

DeWaay is alarmed that Warren suggests readers of his book make a covenant to read his book over
40 days:

"Warren's students are asked to take an oath before a witness (which Jesus forbids) to turn forty days of their life over to Rick Warren and his method" (DeWaay, Issue 80).

To begin with, Warren is not asking anyone to "turn over their life" to Rick Warren. That is a bit melo-dramatic. He is simply asking them to commit to reading one chapter a day for forty days. More than likely, readers do not need to consult Warren about any other activities in their lives!

Most Christian colleges have covenants students must agree to before they can attend the college. Many churches also have covenants that Christians must agree to before they can become members. There is nothing sinister in this. With 22 Million copies in circulation, the contents of Warren's book are not exactly a secret.

Is Warren a self-help guru?

Warren states:

"If you want to know how much you matter to God, look at Christ with his arms outstretched on the cross, saying, 'I love you this much! I'd rather die than live without you'" (PDL, p. 79).

On first hearing, this quote seems alarming. But when you think about it, the statement profoundly captures biblical truth. Christ could have chosen to let us all go to hell (as we deserved), and lived in eternity without us, but because of his mercy and love, he chose to die for our sins at Calvary. Therefore, it is true that he would rather die (on the cross, because of his love), than live (in eternity) without us.

A Man Centered Theology?

Does Rick Warren promote a man-centered message? Bob DeWaay thinks so:

"Each of us must choose between a man-centered, man-made method loosely derived from parts of the Bible and the clear message of the gospel. Rick Warren promotes the former, a broad path with millions of fellow travelers" (DeWaay, Issue 80).

This accusation is "hard to believe" in light of the clear evidence to the contrary in "The Purpose Driven Life." Keep in mind that the following quotes are not exceptional, but representative of the flavor of the entire book:

"Self-help books often suggest that you try to discover the meaning and purpose of your life by looking within yourself, but Rick Warren says that is the wrong place to start. You must begin with God, your Creator." (PDL, inside jacket).

Under the very first lesson, it begins with, "It's not about you…If you want to know why you were placed on this planet, you must begin with God. You were born by his purpose and for his purpose. The search for the purpose of life has puzzled people for thousands of years. That's because we typically begin at the wrong starting point-ourselves. We ask self-centered questions…But focusing on ourselves will never reveal our life's purpose" (PDL, p. 17).

"Contrary to what many popular books, movies, and seminars tell you, you won't discover your life's meaning by looking within yourself" (PDL, p. 18).

"You cannot arrive at your life's purpose by starting with a focus on yourself. You must begin with God, your creator. You exist only because God wills that you exist. You were made by God and for God-and until you understand that, life will never make sense. It is only in God that we discover our origin, our identity, our meaning, our purpose, our significance, and our destiny" (PDL, p. 18).

"Many people try to use God for their own self-actualization, but that is a reversal of nature and doomed to failure. You were made for God, not vice versa, and life is about letting God use you for his purposes, not your using him for your own purpose" (PDL, p. 18).

"How to live a purpose-driven life - a life guided, controlled, and directed by God's purposes"
(PDL, p.30).

"All sin, at its root, is failing to give God glory. It is loving anything else more than God. Refusing to bring glory to God is prideful rebellion, and it is the sin that caused Satan's fall-and ours, too. In different ways we all lived for our own glory, not God's. The Bible says, 'All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.'" (PDL, pp. 54-55).

"Will you make pleasing God the goal of your life?" (PDL, p. 76).

"Here are a few examples:

'My life purpose is to worship Christ with my heart, serve him with my shape [an acronym], fellowship with his family, grow like him in character, and fulfill his mission in the world so he receives glory.' . 'My life purpose is to be a member of Christ's family, a model of his character, a minister of his grace, a messenger of his word, and a magnifier of his glory.' . 'My life purpose is to love Christ, grow in Christ, share Christ, and serve Christ through his church, and to lead my family and others to do the same.' . 'My life purpose is to make a great commitment to the Great Commandment and the Great Commission.'" (PDL, 317).

"Imagine what it is going to be like one day, with all of us standing before the throne of God presenting our lives in deep gratitude and praise to Christ. Together we will say, 'Worthy, oh Master! Yes, our God! Take the glory! the honor! the power! You created it all; It was created because you wanted it.' We will praise him for his plan and live for his purposes forever!" (PDL, p. 319).

"God is far more concerned with our character than he is with our comfort. His plan is to perfect us, not to pamper us." (PDC, 361).

Rick Warren's Gospel

What about Rick Warren's presentation of the gospel? I agree with those who think PDL gives a poor presentation of the gospel. Most importantly, it does not mention the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which I think is a key element in the gospel message (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). I strongly encourage Rick Warren to improve his gospel presentations in any new editions of the book (or any other new books).

But it is one thing to give a poor presentation of the gospel in a book, and another to say that Warren preaches a false gospel or to label him a false teacher or heretic.

Warren presents the gospel in the PDL as follows:

"Real life begins by committing yourself completely to Jesus Christ. If you are not sure you have done this, all you need to do is receive and believe. The Bible promises, 'To all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.' Will you accept God's offer?

First, believe. Believe God loves you and made you for his purposes. Believe you're not an accident. Believe you were made to last forever. Believe God has chosen you to have a relationship with Jesus, who died on the cross for you. Believe that no matter what you've done, God wants to forgive you.

"Second, receive. Receive Jesus into your life as your Lord and Savior. Receive his forgiveness for your sins. Receive his Spirit, who will give you the power to fulfill your life purpose. . . Wherever you are reading this, I invite you to bow your head and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity: 'Jesus, I believe in you and I receive you.' Go ahead. If you sincerely meant that prayer, congratulations! Welcome to the family of God!" (PDL, pp. 58-59).

In another place, Warren adds these comments:

"If God never did anything else for you, he would still deserve your continual praise for the rest of your life because of what Jesus did for you on the cross. God's Son died for you! This is the greatest reason for worship. . . Jesus took all of mankind's sin and guilt on himself . . . Jesus could have saved himself-but then he could not have saved you. Words cannot describe the darkness of that moment. Why did God allow and endure such ghastly, evil mistreatment? Why? So you could be spared from eternity in hell, and so you could share in his glory forever! The Bible says, 'Christ was without sin, but for our sake God made him share our sin in order that in union with him we might share the righteousness of God'"(PDL, pp. 112-13).

Is this a perfect presentation of the Gospel? No, I really don't think so. Could someone get saved through reading it? Yes, I have no doubt that many have been saved as a result of reading the PDL. Nonetheless, for a book introducing millions to the Christian faith, Warren could have done a better job explaining the saving gospel of Jesus Christ.

That said, before we get the rope out to hang Rick Warren, I want to do two things. First, let us recall what the biblical gospel actually is. Secondly, how do we treat other Christians who have a different understanding about what information must be believed in order to get saved?

It is my firm conviction that the gospel is defined by the apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, as putting faith in Jesus Christ and his atoning death and resurrection.

Consider what the following scholars suggest:

Matthew Henry states:

"1 Cor 15:1-11 Note, The doctrine of Christ's death and resurrection is at the foundation of Christianity. Remove this foundation, and the whole fabric falls, all our hopes for eternity sink at once."

In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Alan Redpath stated:

"What are some of the facts? "I delivered unto you first of all"- that is, first in order of importance-"that which I also received," says Paul, "how that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the Scriptures" (15:3-4).That is the whole gospel in a nutshell. . . These facts are inevitably linked together: if you take anything away, you have no gospel. These things: He died, He was buried, He rose again, constitute the basic elements of our Christian faith."

Theologian Charles Ryrie stated:

"Paul gives us the precise definition of the Gospel we preach today in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. The Gospel is the good news about the death and resurrection of Christ. He died and He lives-this is the content of the gospel . . . Paul wrote clearly that the Gospel that saves is believing that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead. This is the complete Gospel, and if so, then it is also the true full Gospel and the true whole Gospel. Nothing else is needed for the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life."

With this definition of the gospel in mind, we now move to our next question. How do we relate to other evangelical who define the saving gospel a bit different than ourselves? In other words, even if Rick Warren's presentation of the saving gospel is not as strong as we would like it to be, does this mean we should ostracize him in the evangelical community? Is it fair to characterize him as a false teacher or a New Age'r and the like? I do not think so. We need to keep in mind that there are various views Christians hold on these questions, and so it is important that we give Warren the same courtesy that we give other prominent Christian leaders.

For example, the famous Christian author and apologist, C.S. Lewis, believed that it was possible for someone to respond to Christ in a different religion:

"There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it."

And also in the same book Lewis said:

"Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved through Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is to remain outside yourself."

Dr. Walter Martin was one of the most well known experts on cults. In his book, Essential Christianity, he quoted the great Princeton theologian Dr. J. G. Machen:

"What then is our conclusion? Is belief in the virgin birth necessary to every man if he is to be a believer in the Lord Jesus Christ? The question is wrongly put when it is put in that way. Who can tell exactly how much knowledge of the facts about Christ is necessary if a man is to have saving faith? None but God can tell. Some knowledge is certainly required, but how much is required we cannot say."

Machen also said this:

"At this point, a question may perhaps be asked. We have said that saving faith is acceptance of Christ, not merely in general, but as He is offered to us in the gospel. How much, then, of the gospel, it may be asked, does a man need to accept in order that he may be saved; what, to put it baldly, are the minimum doctrinal requirements in order that a man may be a Christian? That is a question which, in one form or another, I am often asked; but it is also a question which I have never answered, and which I have not the slightest intention of answering now. Indeed it is a question which I think no human being can answer."

Was Machen a heretic for this statement? I think not.

Anthony Hoekma, the great reformed theologian and author of the classic work on cults entitled The Four Major Cults stated:

"At this point we may ask, how much knowledge is necessary? Faith, as we saw, must embrace the truth of the gospel and of Christ's redemptive work for us. But how much of the gospel must one know to be saved? This is not easy to say. We must have enough knowledge to realize that we are sinners who need redemption, that we cannot save ourselves but that only Christ can redeem us from sin and from the wrath of God, and that Christ died and arose for us. Our knowledge may be as slender as that of the thief on the cross (Luke 23:42); yet he had enough faith to be saved."

There are also those such as Hyper-dispensationalist like Les Feldick who believe that Peter and Paul preached different gospel messages. Are we to label them as false teachers?

What about Lutherans who believe that water baptism is necessary to salvation? Are we to label them as false teachers?

All this should give us pause before we start throwing labels around about Rick Warren. The more important question to ask is: Is Rick Warren orthodox in the essential teachings of the Christian faith? There is no doubt that he is, and therefore, he should be treated accordingly.

Responding to Warren Smith

In this section, I will respond to the criticisms of Rick Warren found in the book "Deceived On Purpose" by Warren Smith. The book offers much that is helpful in exposing problems with the New Age Movement that Smith had once been a part of. It is also helpful in exposing the bad teachings and practices of televangelist Robert Schuller. Unfortunately, it utterly fails in its 'purpose' to show that Rick Warren is a false teacher with New Age leanings.

The one statement I am forced to agree with is Warren's statement that:

"Some of the evidence I present . . . is rather circumstantial" (DOP, introduction).

The entire book can be summed this way. Rick Warren is likely a New Age false teacher because he is close to Robert Schuller and he uses a lot of the same words as New Age writers do. Warren utterly fails to show New Age doctrines in the works of Rick Warren. When he tries, he is usually misunderstanding Rick Warren and twisting Warren's statements in grossly unfair ways.

Metaphysical Spell-checker?

One of the central points of criticism Warren Smith levels at Rick Warren is the accusation that Warren uses words and phrases that are popular in the New Age Movement. One gets the idea that Warren Smith thinks that Rick Warren (or any Christian leader) should run everything they write through a metaphysical spell-checker to make sure that none of the words they use are also used by New Age writers. Smith stated:

"Christian leaders, need to be very careful about their use of this word-and any word-that has such special meaning in the New Age and in the New Spirituality. One of the main ways that the New Spirituality is sneaking into the Church is through this kind of overlapping vocabulary, where
Christians unknowingly use words that are heavy in New Age meaning" (DOP, pp. 74-75).

For example, Warren Smith is critical of Rick Warren for using "The Message" translation of the Bible. He notes Eugene Peterson's (translator of "The Message") translation of Colossians 1:16 as "For everything, absolutely everything, above and below, visible and invisible….everything got started in him and finds its purpose in him." What alarms Warren Smith is the phrase "above and below." Warren Smith reports that the phrase "As above, so below; as below, so above" is a common New Age phrase, and provides an example on page 29 of DOP. He notes that "The Message" translation of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 included the phrase "as above, so below" which Warren Smith believes is a shortened form of the New Age term "As Above, so below; as below, so above." Smith then argues that the phrase "above and below" is a further shortened and revised form of the New Age term (DOP, pp. 29-31).

Smith sums up his argument:

How come Eugene Peterson inserted a universally accepted, mystical New Age term right into the middle of the Lord's Prayer? And why does a derivative of the saying show up in his paraphrase of Colossians 1:16? . . . Why would you choose a term that so clearly has its origins in the magic of ancient Egypt and is so heavily identified today with the New Age and the New Spirituality?"

It seems that this is much ado about nothing. I find it quite unlikely that Eugene Peterson was trying to infiltrate the church with New Age terminology. The terms that Peterson used are not identical, but only similar to the New Age terms. Further, the use of the words "above" and "below" are also used in John 8:23 in many translations. The New International Version quotes Jesus as saying:

"You are from below: I am from above" (John 8:23).

Does this mean that Jesus used New Age terminology? Of course not. When Peterson used the words "above" and "below" in his translations of the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) and in Colossians 1:16, they did not convey the New Age ideas that Warren Smith is concerned about, but rather they faithfully conveyed biblical ideas.

Other words on Warren Smith's checklist of New Age terms that Christians should not use are "force" (pp. 74-75), "transcend" (pp. 128-129), "Purpose" (pp. 154-155), "master" (p.160), and "teacher" (pp.160-161). What is amazing is that these words are words that are commonly used by both secular and religious writers without the slightest hint of a New Age meaning. If using these words proves that you have New Age proclivities, as Warren Smith alleges of Rick Warren, then you can make the case that nearly every Christian leader is a New Ager for using these same words.

Warren Smith is very serious about this. Notice his alarm as he criticized Rick Warren for using the word "force,"

"Rick Warren acknowledged this implied meaning of 'force' in the word 'drive' by asking the question, 'what is the driving force in your life?' He was clearly suggesting that, at least metaphorically, everyone's life is 'driven' by some 'force' . . . The word 'force' is a key New Age concept."

Should we suspect that Pastor John MacArthur is promoting New Age concepts by using the word "force" as the following example shows?

"You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence." (John MacArthur, Creation: Believe It Or Not-Part 1, SermonIndex, webaddress:www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=2281).

The same line of reasoning can be used for the word "transcend" which is also on Smith's forbidden list:

"When we take the gospel to our city, it's amazing to watch God's Word transcend the culture-and every false religion-to change lives." (John MacArthur, How To Confront The Culture, available at the following web address: www.oneplace.com/ministries/grace_to_you/Article.asp?article_id=614).

It is just as ridiculous to accuse Rick Warren of using New Age terms because he uses the word "transcend," as it would be to accuse John MacArthur. The same could be done for the other words that are on Warren Smiths list, but this should suffice to show that this whole enterprise is completely devoid of merit.

Further, the apostle John use the term "Word" or "Logos" (John 1:1, 14), to describe Jesus Christ, even though the word "logos" had had a long history among pagan philosophers.

Warren Smith provides much evidence to show that Robert Schuller is a dangerous false teacher. He also provides evidence of a relationship between Schuller and Warren. He makes a reasonable case that Warren purposely alludes to Schuller's writings. What Warren Smith simply fails to do is to show that Rick Warren's teachings are unorthodox. It is one thing to say Schuller and Warren are friends, and another thing to show that Warren's teachings are unbiblical.

Warren Smith accuses Rick Warren of promoting New Age thinking:

Rick Warren's implication and Robert Schuller's contention that God is 'in' every person is at the very heart of all New Age thinking" (DOP, p. 81).

This is based on the statement by Rick Warren that:

"The Bible says, 'He rules everything and is everywhere and is in everything" (PDL, p. 88).

It is grossly unfair of Warren Smith to imply that Rick Warren said that God is in everyone, something Rick Warren never said, as the quote from Rick Warren's book shows. There is a categorical difference between saying that God is in everything on the one hand (omni-present), and saying that God indwells Christians through His Spirit in a special sense. Warren Smith seems painfully unaware of this theological distinction.

That Rick Warren's statement is orthodox; compare it to other orthodox theologians. "He [God] is equally present with all His creatures at all times and in all places" (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Abridged Edition, Baker, 1988, p. 141), and "His whole being is in every place" (Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, 1986, p. 41), and "and yet [God] is present in every point of space with His whole being...He nevertheless fills every part of space with His entire being...God is immanent in all His creatures, in His entire creation." (Lois Berkhof, Sytematic Theology, Eerdmaans, 1939, 1941, pp. 60-61). Rick Warren's statement is perfectly consistent with these giants of orthodox theology.

While Warren Smith offers much valuable insight on the New Age Movement itself, when it comes to his criticisms of Rick Warren, "the emperor has no clothes."

Pastor Steve Lagoon, Woodbury, Minnesota
Director of Christian Apologetics Ministries and Pastor of Faith Community Church of Independence.

2005