ABANES: Let me be perfectly clear about something that I think needs to be said—I do NOT speak for Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, or purpose driven ministries. I am NOT an official spokesperson for anyone but myself. Second, no one—including Warren—had any control over the book's content (nor did anyone, including Warren, ask me to write the book). In other words, my book is NOT part of purpose driven anything. My book about Warren is just the latest in a long list of books that I have written about religious issues affecting the church, our culture, and the faith. It's a volume that I felt needed to be written.

Now, in answer to your specific question about my "motivation," I decided to write my book for the same reason I have decided to write any of my other books—i.e., because I felt like there needed to be a clear presentation of accurate information on the subject. My personal writing ministry is dedicated to offering solid, documented, concise, and user-friendly material that people can use to make thoughtful/godly decisions about various issues: e.g., the end-times, near death experiences, the militias in America, The Da Vinci Code, and Harry Potter.

As with these particular topics, the subject of Rick Warren had become confused, messy, and weighted down with lies, gossip, rumors, and full-blown urban legends. It was disturbing to see false accusations being made against a movement, a man, and a ministry that was bringing so many people into God's kingdom. I felt like someone had to step up to the plate and say, "Wait a minute, folks. Here's the real scoop. You need to separate fact from fiction when it comes to Warren, Saddleback Church, and Warren's purpose driven model for church health."

It still amazes me how so many people now, even after various accusations have been proved false, are continuing to just repeat what they apparently WANT to be true about Warren—e.g., that he never talks about sin, that he thinks doctrine is unimportant, that he was mentored by Robert Schuller [see my article Warren and Schuller: Debunking An Urban Legend]. The latter accusation, of course, has now become nothing less than an urban legend very akin to the Proctor & Gamble Satanism rumor or the Madeline Murray O'Hare FCC petition rumor.

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.

My book is written to anyone interested in: a) Warren's life (I offer a mini-biography of his life, his ministry, and the founding of Saddleback); and/or b) the most common criticisms be made against Warren's teachings, Saddleback Church, the purpose-driven life concept, and seeker sensitive church services (which, by the way, can vary dramatically from church to church—some "seeker" services / some churches are not wholly biblical).



THE A-TEAM: I'll be getting back to Greg Koukl's comments later, but before we talk about the criticisms of the content let's talk about marketing. Tim Challies has written a few posts now on how PDL and related ministries have been marketed using "Pyromarketing."
ABANES: Well, since I had nothing to do with the marketing of Warren's book, this is a very difficult issue for me to deal with. I am an outsider at this point, rather than an insider. I have only read what you have read. I was not present in any meetings that dealt with the best way to market Warren's book. I have not discussed the marketing of the book with Warren, Zondervan, purpose driven, or any other insider. So, I really can't say what is going on internally regarding this issue.

But this question does bring up a very interesting question that I would like to pose to your readers: How critical are we to be of Warren? When it comes to the marketing of Warren's book and criticisms over it, I am left scratching my head in wonder. Let's say for the sake of discussion that pyro-marketing was indeed used as has been discussed in various other forums. So what? Do people really think that Warren's book is the only Christian book to ever be marketed? Goodness! I have written 15 books and every single one of them have been marketed in different ways, depending on the target audience, varying according to the subject matter, based on market studies, etc. etc. etc. And this holds true for EVERY author—R.C. Sproul, John MacArhur, John Piper, Max Lucado, Philip Yancy, Hank Hanegraaff—you name the author. That's just the book publishing industry (both secular and Christian). Truly, I am not sure why there is so much fuss being made over this so-called pyro-marketing. It's simply a great idea to get a product (in this case, a book) into the hands of a lot of people. So what?



THE A-TEAM: Tim Challies said, "this approach takes advantages of Christians, foisting on them products, books and services that we do not need!"
ABANES: This is like saying cultists are utterly brainwashed into doing really horrible things, which basically lets them off the proverbially hook of accountability/culpability. I don't buy that (no pun intended). In other words, nobody held a gun to anyone's head and said, "Buy The Purpose Driven Life, or else." People saw it, heard about it, had it recommended to them, felt like they wanted, and bought it. Nobody twisted anybody's arm. I don't think a book, or any product for that matter, from soft-soap to DVD players, can be foisted upon someone in the truest sense of the word.

Also, who is to say what we do or  don't need? Who is the arbiter of what is necessary for every Christian? I was just at the International Christian Retailers Association convention in Denver—talk about items we don't need! I saw socks with fish embroidery on them, ties with crosses, coffee mugs covered with trite Jesus sayings, and T-shirts with radical Christ promotions emblazoned across the front. And all of them, in my opinion were being foisted upon the crowds. I say, "So what?" It's not my cup of tea, so I'm not going to buy that stuff. But hey, if the guy or gal sitting next to me at church wants a "Jesus Tie," then they can go for it. I hope they enjoy it. Now let's pour some coffee into that Jesus mug and get down to serving Christ together. Likewise, if someone wants to buy/read a book (by Warren or anybody), then read it—or don't. As for marketing, there are numerous ways to market numerous things including said books. That's not a crime. And it certainly is not unbiblical.

If Zondervan used pyro-marketing for The Purpose Driven Life, which it seems to have done, I personally have no problem with that. It's America—the marketing capital of the world. In fact, in my newest book Harry Potter, Narnia, and The Lord of the Rings, I talk about the marketing of Harry Potter and how experts were able to get the word out in such a way as to create a "market" for that product. I'm just glad that unlike Harry Potter, Warren's book points people to Jesus Christ and has brought a lot of people into the Kingdom of God. Why is everyone so upset about that? I have no idea.



THE A-TEAM: Is there a Biblical problem with how PDL has been marketed and if so, did Rick Warren have anything to do with it?
ABANES: First, I am not altogether sure exactly how PDL was marketed, although it seems that pyro-marketing was involved somewhere. But allow me to stress that the question you asked here cannot really be answered except by someone who really knows precisely how PDL was marketed (e.g., someone from Zondervan). I do not have any first-hand information about how the book was marketed. But as an outside observer I certainly don't see any problems. Second, as for Rick Warren's involvement, let me be extremely clear, I HAVE NO IDEA what he did or did not have to do with the marketing of the book. You'd have to ask Rick.



THE A-TEAM: Okay, let's get into the content. In general, I've seen three main criticisms of Rick Warren and PDL—New Age spirituality, use of Scripture, and being seeker-sensitive. Let's start with the New Age issues. Having just read Warren Smith's Deceived on Purpose, it seems there's a very convincing case to be made that Robert Schuller is closely tied with New Age thinkers and teachings.
ABANES: He is. I call Schuller a heretic-liberal. His doctrine is terrible. Let me be very clear about that. He compromises biblical truths, rejects the idea that people in other religions need to convert, has diverged significantly from the orthodox doctrine on sin as well as the sin nature, and preaches such a watered down gospel that it is no gospel at all. He also has not only allowed non-Christians in his pulpit, but also has persons boldly professing other faiths to teach from his pulpit. Schuller has whole litany of doctrinal problems.



THE A-TEAM: Rick Warren's been accused of being mentored by Robert Schuller...
ABANES: Yes, well, this is one of those Urban Legends that just will not die. It is about as true as the Proctor & Gamble Satanism rumor or the Madeline Murray O'Hare FCC petition rumor. It's completely false [see my article Warren and Schuller: Debunking An Urban Legend].



THE A-TEAM: So, what exactly is the relationship between Robert Schuller and Rick Warren?
ABANES: At this point is almost non-existent. It all started way back in 1979 when Warren, in his last year of seminary, paid Schuller's Institute a visit (he visited a lot of different churches that year because he was studying church growth). He thought it was great how Schuller was doing things in a non-traditional way (e.g., holding church in a drive-in). Then, once Warren came to California, he shared his testimony at Schuller's Institute a few times—that's it! Schuller was nice enough. He encouraged Warren, prayed for Warren, and hoped the best for him. They became friends, but in about the mid- to late 1990s, Warren started noticing that Schuller had some doctrinal problems. He subsequently broke off the connection with Schuller. In my book I quote from various private letters that Warren wrote to Schuller telling him about some of his serious errors. Schuller did not really change, and well, that was the end of that [see my article Warren and Schuller: Debunking An Urban Legend].



THE A-TEAM: And what sort of impact has that relationship had on Mr. Warren's teachings?
ABANES: No doctrines at all. Once in a while, Warren has repeated a few Schullerisms—e.g., "you need hope to cope"—but these are fairly generic concepts that really have nothing to do with doctrine. I list a few of them in my book. Truly, I see no real impact at all on Warren's teachings from Schuller, and I've been listening to Rick for ten years (not to mention the fact that I have transcripts of just about every message he has delivered for the last twenty years). As I previously noted, Warren just liked Schuller's willingness to do church in a decidedly non-traditional way. This approach appealed to him. But that's about it, except for, if memory served me correctly, a single question that Warren used in his survey of the unchurched—i.e., "Why do you think most people don't attend church?" Schuller used this same question in a survey he conducted in 1955. No big deal, really.



THE A-TEAM: In his article "A Regular Purpose-Driven Guy," Tim Stafford quoted Kay Warren (Rick's wife) speaking about Robert Schuller. "He had a profound influence on Rick," Kay says. "We were captivated by his positive appeal to nonbelievers. I never looked back." So does the "profound influence" she spoke of only refer to Schuller's church-growth ideas?
ABANES: The kind of assumptions and bizarre extrapolations that have been taken away from this isolated statement by Kay have been nothing less than ludicrous. I cover this extensively in my book under a heading called "The Kay Quote." Actually, it's even less than  "Schuller's church-growth ideas." It really has a lot more to do just with Rick's pleasant surprise over the way Schuller did church—i.e., in a completely non-traditional way. That profoundly influenced him, sure. It showed him that he did not have to go along with a crowd. It had nothing to do with doctrine. In fact, the issue of "growth" was not even part of it all because Warren, as he has said many times, is not particularly interested in "growth" for the sake of growth [see my article What is the Purpose Driven Church?]. Warren is more interested in church "health." He sees growth as just a by-product of church health. This is all stated very clearly in The Purpose Driven Church—but critics somehow miss it. The thing that he noticed about churches that most influenced "growth" was the simply fact that most growing/large churches had enjoyed the presence of a consistent pastor for many years.



THE A-TEAM: In PDL, Rick Warren uncritically quotes several questionable figures that Robert Schuller also quotes. For example, Theosophist George Bernard Shaw (PDL, 33) and New Age thinker Aldoux Huxley (PDL, 248). Even if these quotes don't tie Warren to Schuller, don't they tie him to New Age thinking?
ABANES: No. These quotes do not tie Warren to New Age thinking any more than his quote of the atheist Bertrand Russell (1872–1970)—"Unless you assume God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless"—ties him to atheism. Warren feels, and I do too, that a person does not have to be a Christian in order to make an astute observation, or say something that is true. All "truth"—wherever it may be found—is God's truth [see my article Is Rick Warren A New Ager?]. So if I quote something that is true in order to make a point, then it really does not matter who said it, whether it was a Buddhist, an atheist, or a space alien! On my own website, for instance, I quote Oscar Wilde, who said: "Music is the art which is most nigh to tears and memory." Does this tie me to homosexuality? Hardly.

Christians as far back as the first century were quoting pagans in hopes of communicating the truths of the Gospel. They saw that unbelievers, including the Greek philosophers, had made astute observations about God and possessed some truths consistent withChristianity. In the Gospel of John, for instance, we find the Greek word logos ("Word") being used to describe Jesus. Logos was a Greek philosophical term that represented "reason" as a sort of bridge between the unreachable God and earthly matter. Hence, Jesus, as the eternal logos, is the bridge between God and man. Like John, Paul the apostle also quoted various pagans in his attempts to share the good news of Jesus Christ with the unbelieving world (I talk about Paul's extensively in my book). Are we now going to say that John and Paul can (or should be) tied to Greek paganism? I don't think so.



THE A-TEAM: On October 26, 2003, after speaking at Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral, Bruce Wilkinson spoke at Saddleback Church. According to Warren Smith, Wilkinson told everyone that they should "find out what their Dream is." Wilkinson emphasized, as he did at the Crystal Cathedral, that each person's Dream is connected to everyone else's dream because it is really "God's Dream." He warned that when people don't "do" their "Dream" it can negatively impact everyone else's Dream for "generations" afterwards. Each person must look to the Dream that is in their heart, see it as "God's Dream," submit the Dream to God and then "commit to that Dream." He said that if the Dream is in your heart it is "probably" what God wants you to do." (123) This teaching sounds incredibly unbiblical, however, Rick Warren claimed that Wilkinson's talk was "based out of the principles of the Bible that are taught in [Wilkinson's] book." Was Warren Smith wrong or does Rick Warren really believe we will find "God's Dream" in our heart?
ABANES: This question reveals a very serious problem—not with Warren, or Wilkinson, or even Warren Smith. It reveals a problem with terminology that leads to confusion. Really vague terms like "dream," if not clearly defined, can mean all kinds of things to all kinds of people. Schuller has used the "dream" term. Wilkinson has used the "dream" term. Warren has used the "dream" term. And a host of others have used the "dream" term, including the lead "Mamma" character in the Broadway musical Gypsey, who sings: "I have a dream! A Dream about you, baby!" Well, I think that what we have are multiple uses of the term "dream." In other words, we have a kind of conceptual mess.

So there is a major communication problem going on if Schuller is talking about a "dream" of self-esteem, Wilkinson is talking about a "dream" of getting whatever you want through the proper prayer formula, and Warren is talking about a "dream" of finding your purpose in life whereby you serve Christ with all your heart, soul, mind and strength! See what I mean?

Rather than speaking for any of these men, I would simply say that at Saddleback—in all my years and experiences there—I have only heard WARREN speak of his "dreams" or the "dreams" of church members in a way that is biblically acceptable (i.e., simply as a way of expressing one's hopes for the future, especially in connection with what a person hopes to do for God). As far back as 1980, Warren was using this "dream" language—not in connection AT ALL with Schuller or Wilkinson. At his very first Saddleback service, Warren declared his dream for the church, saying:


Clearly, we see in his earliest years, how Warren was using this term "dream." In the complete absence of any evidence to the contrary, I suggest that Warren is still using the term in a similar way—i.e., as one's greatest, most personal, intimate, heart-felt hopes for the future as it relates to serving God and changing the world for Christ. Will we find that in our hearts? Well, we are not going to find it under a rock, or in a book, or at some rally. God reveals to us, in us, what he wants us to do for him—i.e., our dreams for serving God. I would offer Psalm 37:4-5 as a biblical passage that supports how I believe Warren is using the term ["Delight yourself in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart. Commit your way to the LORD; trust in him and he will do this"].



THE A-TEAM: Warren's use of "dream" is one thing, but he did also practically endorse Wilkinson's use of "dream." Did he ever withdraw that endorsement or try to distance himself from Wilkinson on this matter?
ABANES: At this point—not having read The Dream Giver by Wilkinson—I am really not so sure that Wilkinson is saying anything contrary to scripture. His website about the book says that is meant to invite readers "to follow their hearts and find their destiny in an inspired Life Dream that is uniquely theirs."

That certainly is compatible with Psalm 37. Everybody has a dream of some kind—to own a business, to graduate from culinary school, to retire by age 55, to take a world cruise, to build the best house in Laguna Beach, to . . . . [fill in the blank]. It sounds like Wilkinson is simply saying, find in your heart, a dream that is consistent with serving God.

His website also says, "Through the principles and examples set forth in the book, readers learn how to overcome the obstacles to fulfilling their destinies. And living the lives for which they were created." Notice the last part—"living the lives for which they were created."

To me this is pointing to the purpose(s) that God created us for. For example, I was created to be an author. Warren was created to be a pastor. Others were created for . . . who knows what? That is what each one of us must find as we delight ourselves in God and seek to serve him with all of our talents and gifts.

But I have not read the book. This is all just based on very sketchy information. I don't see Wilkinson's statements, at least at this point, as problematic. My previous answer was simply to show that terms like "dream" can be used in many different ways, which is something that Warren Smith and others are forgetting. So, instead of really trying to find out what is being said, they leap on the worst of all possible meanings and try to tie it into the New Age, false teachings, Satan, the anti-Christ, the coming one world religion—you name it. But that is not good research.

Again, I have not read Wilkinson's The Dream Giver. I have only seen snipets of it. I see nothing horrible or unbiblical. I think, at least at this point, that folks like Warren Smith read EVERYTHING with an eye toward finding something in it that is New Age. They see a New Ager under every rock and hiding behind every bush in much the same way that people obsessed with spiritual warfare see a demon everywhere. Again, that is not could research—and it shows an inability, or an unwillingness, to thing carefully through such issues. It's a very knee-jerk, emotional response.



THE A-TEAM: Okay, let's move on to Warren's use of Scripture. On page 325 of PDL Warren stated that he, "deliberately used paraphrases in order to help [the reader] see God's truth in new, fresh ways. English-speaking people should thank God that we have so many different versions to use for devotional reading." Wouldn't accuracy of the translation be a better criterion for choosing a version rather than if it's fresh?
ABANES: Sure, I would have no problem agreeing that the "accuracy of the translation is a better criterion for choosing a version rather than if it's fresh"—except maybe for people who, unless you were to use some kind of new/fresh translation or paraphrase, would end up not reading the Bible at all. There are some people, like it or not, who just hear the sound of that King James Version English (or any common Bible translation for that matter) and they run for cover in the other direction. Why? Well, sometimes its bad memories of church, sometimes its preconceived false ideas about Christianity (or more likely, Christians), sometimes its just that it makes no sense to their 21st century mind.

So, I would say, that if I am having to choose between: 1) giving/quoting a less than ideal translation (and/or a paraphrase) in order for someone to at least read the Bible; or 2) quoting a more common/reliable translation like the NKJV, NIV, or NASB, but as a result having a bunch of people remain unwilling to read scripture at all—then, I would say I would have to go ahead and use whatever translation/paraphrase was available to me that might get people at least thinking/reading about Jesus AS LONG AS THAT TRANSLATION/PARAPHRASE DID NOT COMPROMISE THE ESSENTIAL TENETS OF THE FAITH.

This last qualifier I have added is very important. I think that any translation/paraphrase is at least usable as long as we do not see it marring/perverting concepts directly related to our identification of, and relationship to, God—e.g., the personal nature of God, the Trinity, the full humanity and deity of Christ, the virgin birth, and the physical/bodily resurrection.

Also, it must be kept in mind, that unless you can actually read Hebrew or Greek, you are at the mercy of ANY translation no matter how good it is. Moreover, each translation has its own weaknesses and strengths—that includes the KJV, NASB, NIV, and other common translations. No translation was handed down from God. We don't even have the original autographs of God's Word. We have some very early copies, but they are copies, nevertheless. And even when dealing with these manuscript copies, we have what are known as manuscript families (i.e., batches of copies that reflect a certain tradition, usually from a certain area of the Old World). In other words, the topic of biblical translations, versions, and paraphrases is not so cut and dry as some people would have us believe.

This is an area that we all need to show a little tolerance for differing opinions. For example, I am no fan of The Message—believe me. But I do know, personally, many people, who for whatever reason, love The Message, and more importantly, it has really enabled them to get through the Bible, which in turn has brought them closer to Christ. For some people, in fact, The Message was the first Bible they could understand. And after reading it, they actually accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Now what? Are we going to say these people are not Christians? Have they not been drawn closer to God? Do they not love Jesus because they read a paraphrase? I guess my point is that God can, and does, use anything. He can speak to us in a myriad of ways: translations, paraphrases, other people, a nudging in the spirit, dreams, visions. If he spoke through the mouth of Balaam's ass (Numbers 22), he can speak through a paraphrase of his Holy Word. God is sovereign. I am not saying that every translation/paraphrase is equal. Some are indeed better than others. But that does not mean we can go around crucifying people simply because they don't happen to feel the same way we do about a particular translation/paraphrase.

Finally, I think Warren was absolutely correct when he said that we miss "nuances and shades of meaning" in most translations since we are going from very detailed languages like Hebrew and Greek into English (p. 325). That's why we have commentaries (and translations/paraphrases). Warren, in my opinion, also was correct when he stated that sometimes we become "so familiar" with a particular translations that we repeat each memorized verse like robots and stop listening to what that verse may be saying (p. 325).

Warren, it seems, was simply trying to help bring scripture alive to people who either: a) were not accustomed to reading the Bible at all; and/or b) had fallen into a sort of complacency with regard to their devotional Bible reading. He was trying, as a pastor, to breath new life into people's dead or dying spiritual lives and help make the Bible "fresh" to them. This is not the unforgivable sin that so many people are trying to make it out to be.



THE A-TEAM: There's a concern, though, that paraphrases like The Message (which I consider to be more of a commentary) don't accurately convey the meaning of the text enough. Doesn't using such paraphrases help contribute to the Biblical illiteracy we find in our churches?
ABANES: Well, this is a concern for me, too. But paraphrases, like The Message, seem to be conveying the text well enough for a whole lot of people who are either: a) at least starting to read "a" Bible (any Bible) again; or b) actually get saved!

Really, now, let's stop for a moment and consider your question, then ask ourselves another question: "How well is the meaning of the text being conveyed by the KJV to 21st century non-Christians who have no idea what scripture is saying when it uses words/terms like "divers," "not suffer," and "quick and the dead"—not to mention the unending thees, thous, sayeths, and thereuntos. Even some of the more up-to-date versions (e.g., the NASB and NIV) can be problematic for some people.

You know what is so odd to me is that we have teen Bibles and children's Bibles, but suddenly, when someone tries to produce an adult Bible that reaches down to where a person is, we castigate it for contributing to "Biblical illiteracy" or get all flustered about
"dumbing down" God's Holy and Infallible Word. Well, alright. I suppose, then, that we should just let kids and teens struggle unnecessarily with out-dated language and rejoice that our neighbors are not reading a Bible at all. Sorry, that does not make any sense to me.

And as for Biblical literacy, the lack of it in churches is not, in my opinion, traceable to translations and paraphrases. In the first place, Biblical literacy is NOT just being able to spout innumerable verses from the KJV, NIV, or NASB. Biblical literacy has far more to do with being a "doer" of as much of the Word as you know, rather than just a "hearer" of the Word who keeps heaping up more knowledge that goes into the head and pretty much stays there. You can have a veritable storehouse of verses from the best translation in the world locked up in your head and be quite the Biblical scholar—but at the same time not live out the simplest phrases from The Message that talk about love, kindness, gentleness, respect, humility, or patience.

Real Biblical literacy is knowing what the Bible says—and doing it. Real Biblical literacy is not just obeying those easy verses that teach the big DO NOTS (like do not get drunk, steal, commit adultery)—it's also deciding to obey the tougher things like being considerate, or thinking before you speak, or really putting others before yourself, or not judging another person just because they look differently (or dress differently) than you dress. Real Biblical literacy is having the principles/truths of John 3:16, 1 Corinthians 14, Galatians 5, and Ephesians 5, and Philippians 1-2 rooted deep in your heart and living them out—even though you may not be able to quote a chapter/verse perfectly from the best translation. I have found so many Christians who think that quoting some Bible verse(s) or Bible versions makes them holy, righteous, or Christ-like—or Biblically literate. But it doesn't. It usually just makes them prideful.

Bible memorization, good Bible translations, biblical study, doctrine—it's all great, awesome, necessary, and important. But anything that we look at with an unhealthy reverence, including some Bible translation, becomes idolatry. That's all I am trying to say. We need to hold all of these things in a proper perspective. This is one of the ways that we can be sure to avoid substituting mere "religion" for what should be a living, growing, and thriving relationship to Christ.



THE A-TEAM: Don Veinot and Mike Mahurin examine some peculiar assertions by Warren in their article "The Purpose Driven Claim." On page 10 of PDL Warren lists several (supposedly Biblical) examples of people being transformed by God in forty days, such as Noah during the flood, Moses on Mt. Sinai, and Jesus in the Wilderness. As the article effectively shows, none of these incidents in Scripture support the claims Warren made. Furthermore, Nathan Busenitz cites several examples of where God didn't use forty days, "Abraham learned patience while he waited for God's promise seed (Isaac)—a wait that lasted many years, not forty days (see Gen 21:2-3). Jacob learned humility, being forced to trust God, in one night while wrestling with an angel. This was preceded by fourteen years of working for Laban (Gen 32:24-30)..." (Fool's Gold, 51) This seems to directly contradict Warren's claim that "Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he took 40 days." (PDL, 9)
ABANES: I am reminded at this point of Matthew 23: 23-24: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."

This obsession with Warren's references to 40 days has become one of the many gnats that critics of The Purpose Driven Life love to strain at. They basically ignore the fact that Warren points people to the Bible as God's Word, calls the world to Christ, says that life without God has no meaning, assures readers that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, reminds everyone that storing up temporal treasures is waste of time, exhorts Christians to live like Christ, teaches believers that sin must be avoided, explains why it is important to serve in the church, and promises that one of the greatest things we can do is to tell others about Jesus. These things that are good/biblical in The Purpose Driven Life are virtually dismissed by many of Warren's critics in favor of what has become an almost mantra-like hypnotic chant: "40 days, 40 days, scripture twisting, unbiblical, 40 days, 40 days, scripture twisting, unbiblical, 40 days, 40 days, scripture twisting, unbiblical."

For those who do not have an anti-Warren agenda, it is fairly obvious that Warren was simply trying to say, in his own way, that the number 40 seems to have very significant meaning in scripture. We see the number popping up everywhere in the Bible. and it is often connected with events, people, places, and things that show some drastic change in a person or circumstances. Now, as for the way that Warren sought to make this particular point, his entire horrifying "perversion" and so-called "mangling" of the Bible takes up a grand total of . . . . [drum roll please] . . . . one sentence at the bottom of page 9.

He writes: "WHENEVER GOD WANTED TO PREPARE SOMEONE FOR HIS PURPOSES, HE TOOK 40 DAYS." Warren followed up this comment with eight short bullet points (on p. 10)—out of a 334-page book! His bullet points read:


Now, let's look at this whole set-up, which is based on the undeniable fact that the 40-day period of time appears in conjunction with many extraordinary events in the lives of some well-known biblical characters—and this time period is often closely related to God fulfilling a purpose/promise in their lives: Noah, Moses, David, Jesus, the disciples. This is really the only thing Warren is trying to say as a kind of "Hey, look at this interesting tid-bit of biblical trivia. Kind of cool, huh? Let's use 40 days, too!'

Does Warren say all of this perfectly? No. Does he explain it using the best examples? No. Does he uses a little excessive hyperbole and some over simplifications? Sure. Okay, But instead of responding appropriately, critics have turned this into a sideshow of criticism; a tempest in a teapot; and mountain out of a mole hill, etc. Critics are latching on to these few lines in Warren's lengthy book and are acting like he said something more akin to "Jesus is not God!" Here are my thoughts.

First, Warren clearly should not have said "Whenever" God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes. Obviously, God has also transformed people in 1 day, 1 hour, 40 hours, 40 years, etc. etc. etc. Big deal. Warren's use of "whenever" might best be categorized as a either an overstatement, a broad generalization, or perhaps even hyperbole—but not heresy, or anything deserving of the kind of freaking-out that we are seeing from people. Critics are fixating on the word "whenever" as if it had some radical anti-Trinitarian implications or something. I want to just say to people, "C'mon, let's keep this in perspective." In context it is clear that the only thing Warren was trying to do was use the number "40" as a peg on which some poor lost soul or immature Christian could hang their proverbial hat. That's all. But for this offense people are willing to practically crucify him! Why? — Gnats & Camels . . . Gnats & Camels . . . Gnats & Camels.

Second, concerning the bullet points? Well, truth be told—Warren gives:


Ok, fine. sure, whatever. So what? Again, what exactly has made everyone so hyper-angry? How judgmental and exacting are we to be of a fellow believer? Are we only to smile and give approval to those pastors/teachers who always get EVERYTHING right? If so, then we have some problems:


The list goes on and on. I cannot count how many pastors/teachers, evangelists, radio Bible personalities, and even lay Christians have misused/misinterpreted all of the above passage (and more)! Now, should we start labeling their entire ministries as false, lying, deceptive, liberal, New Age, watered-down, perverted, or abusive of scripture? Hardly.

And yet people are being terribly exacting and unforgiving when it comes to Warren. Is there some kind of anti-Warren agenda going on? I worry that for some reason Rick Warren is being held to a standard nobody else is being held to. Is that fair? Is that Christian? I suppose that if some people want to be hyper-judgmental about every little thing Warren says, then that is certainly their choice and freedom. But they will have to be consistent and view/judge with equal harshness anyone else who has ever committed the same unspeakable crime of being mistaken on some occasions and not getting every little Bible passage perfect (yes, I am indeed being a bit sarcastic).

And, by the way, Warren's examples of persons "prepared" for God's purposes via a 40-day period are not even all that terrible. Let's go ahead and look at them. Please notice, first of all, that Warren says "when God wanted to prepare someone for His purposes . . ." (p. 9). He does NOT say "When God wanted to save someone." I mention this point because most critics have actually CHANGED what Warren said.  Marshall C. St. John, for instance, in his ant-Warren diatribe "The Purpose Driven Life–Guidance or Misguided?," writes: "Noah . . . was a believer and follower of God long before that time. Moses became God's man long before his 40 days on Mount Sinai." But these arguments by Mr. St. John are irrelevant since Warren never said that it was during the 40-day period that either Moses or Noah became God's followers/believers. So here are Warren's examples and my take on them:



Clearly, the paroxysms of panic and the gnashing of teeth by Warren's critics over the above eight points are hardly worthy of the time that has been spent on them (including, IMHO, my own time spent having to tease out the above arguments). The bottom line is that no author or a speaker communicates everything perfectly. Warren is no exception. But one would think that fellow believers would grant a bit of room for human imperfection to someone whose goal is to bring people to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ—not a false Christ, not a false God, and not some self-help plan rooted in the bankrupt Human Potential Movement.

Sadly, the very opposite seems to be true. In a somewhat analogous incident, John the disciple came to Jesus one day and said, "‘Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.' And Jesus said to him, ‘Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us'" (Luke 9:49-50). In reference to this verse, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary observes: "The disciples were bigoted. Because this man was not of their company, they were ready to discount his work completely" (Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, p. 1045).

I think my point is clear—nobody has it all perfect. Mistakes will happen, overstatements will be voiced, hyperbolic remarks will be made, and flawed appeals to scriptures will be given. Why? Because we are all sinners saved by grace. Are these critics saying that they have it all nailed down and perfect when it comes to scripture? Wow. Amazing. Good for them. Warren, however, is human. So at times he unwisely used hyperbole in The Purpose Driven Life—for example, when he probably should not have "whenever" God wanted to transform someone he used 40 days. This is very likely because he is a preacher, rather than an author. So, how should we respond? Crucify him, of course! How tragic. Gnats and camels . . . . gnats and camels.



THE A-TEAM: In an earlier, shorter version of his chapter in Fool's Gold on PDL, Nathan Busenitz says, "On page 165, the author encourages his readers not to spread or listen to gossip. He then says, "If you listen to gossip, God says you are a troublemaker. 'Troublemakers listen to troublemakers' [Prov. 17:4]. 'These are the ones who split churches, thinking only of themselves' [Jude 1:16]." Yet Proverbs 17:4 does not directly mention gossip (but rather evil speech and lying) and Jude 1:16 is not speaking of gossipers at all, but rather false teachers (regarding their grumbling, pride, and flattery). Again, Warren strings two out-of-context verses together (citing only half of each verse) in order to make his point. While the point may be valid (that gossip is wrong), it cannot be exegetically validated from Proverbs 17:4 or Jude 1:16. This type of hermeneutic is destined for disaster." Isn't he right?
ABANES: To be perfectly frank, I read this whole argument and simply thought, "how sad," given the fact that so many people are lost and dying on their way to hell in a hand basket. Warren's book is clearly trying to call people to Jesus and teach them about how to live a godly life. But rather than seeing this aspect of the book and rejoicing in the countless truths in The Purpose Driven Life, Nathan Busenitz spends his time nit-picking at every little passage/word in Warren's book, including this little one (three sentences long) that condemns gossip, which I would think is a view that Busenitz might want to support. He even admits that warren's point—i.e., "that gossip is wrong"—is valid. But, of course, he then says, "it cannot be exegetically validated from Proverbs 17:4 or Jude 1:16."

This is such a classic case of majoring in the minors for the sake of argument—and also for the sake of what I would call "intellectual self-stimulation." I mean, really, at this point I have to wonder why these people like Busenitz are spending so much time and ink (or perhaps these days, I should say, bandwidth) straining at so many itsy-bitsy gnats (again, see Matthew 23: 23-24). Does Busenitz really think he is doing a service to Christ by throwing on his hermeneutical magnifying glasses and teasing out all the gnats from Warren's book? I would think that Busenitz might be of better service to the kingdom by writing a treatise against Mormonism, or the influx of occultism in our schools, or if need be, going out and feeding the poor.

But instead, Busenitz rails against Warren's use of Prov. 17:4 and a verse from Jude to say, "Please people, stop your gossip! It's ungodly. It's sin. And it divides us as a church!" Well, as I said in one of my previous answers, fine, as long as Busenitz and others spend an equal amount of time going after every single pastor/teacher/radio preacher/televangelist who has EVER mis-used and/or misapplied: Rev. 3:20-21, Jer. 29:11, Matt. 18:18-20, and 2 John 1:10-11.But where does all of this tearing apart Rick Warren stop? No one seems willing to just let the guy be a human being for Christ's sake (and I mean that quite literally). You can pick 100 books off of any Christian bookshelf—and I would venture to say that would include several off of Busenitz's own study shelf—and rip apart author after author. Is this what we are supposed to do as Christians?

God help Busenitz or MacArthur if someone were to start doing to them what they are doing to Warren. In fact, I would suggest that both of them need to take a good look at the various comments that have already been made about their Calvinist interpretations of scripture—according to non-Calvinists, that is. To non-Calvinists, Busenitz and MacArthur don't know what they're talking about when it comes to all kinds of topics/verses (but that's a whole separate discussion). Are we now supposed to accuse Busenitz and MacArthur for mishandling God's Word?

Having said all of this as a preface to my complete answer, let's go ahead and look at what Busenitz is saying.

First, Busenitz writes that Warren says, "'If you listen to gossip, God says you are a troublemaker. Troublemakers listen to troublemakers [Prov. 17:4]." But here we see Busenitz already stacking the apologetic deck in his favor by failing to mention that Warren's biblical references begin not just with Prov. 17:4, but also Prov. 16:28; 26:20; 25:9; 20:19. These additional verses appear in Warren's endnote #14, which immediately follows Warren's statement, "If you listen to gossip, God says you are a troublemaker." Here is what these verses—not mentioned Busenitz, but cited by Warren—say:


Now, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think these verses are pretty much saying EXACTLY what Warren states in his remark to the endnote—i.e., "If you listen to gossip, God says you are a troublemaker." I mean, it certainly seems as if Proverbs is talking about gossip in these verses, and it certainly seems like Proverbs is saying that you're going to cause plenty of trouble if you spread or listen to gossip. So it is odd to me that Busenitz is making any objection.

Even more troubling to me [i.e., Busenitz] is that he seems to have deliberately not cited all of the passages that Warren cited. Why? Personally, I believe it is because it would have weakened his argument. Clearly, Warren came out of the starting gate with a bunch of passages that show gossip is condemned and that a person is indeed a troublemaker if they start spreading and listening to it.

Second, right after this endnote #14 (accompanying statement—"If you listen to gossip, God says you are a troublemaker"), Warren says, "Troublemakers listen to troublemakers." This is endnote #15, which does indeed have only Prov. 17:4 listed as the source verse (Contemporary English Version, CEV). Here is where Busenitz begins to form his argument (but again, notice how he utterly ignored the validity of Warren's comment to endnote #14). Busenitz writes: "Yet Proverbs 17:4 does not directly mention gossip (but rather evil speech and lying)."

It is amazing to me how Busenitz has to dig so deep to come up with something with which to trash Warren. Notice how he says, "Yet Proverbs 17:4 does not DIRECTLY mention gossip (but rather evil speech and lying)." What does he mean "directly"? Why the qualifier? I'll tell you why. Because although the passage may not have the exact word "gossip" in it, the verse does include references to actions that easily include gossip.

Let's look at the verse Warren quotes, remembering that the CEV (1992) is a legitimate translation that seeks to put biblical language into contemporary English. Prov. 17:4 reads: "Troublemakers listen to troublemakers, and liars listen to liars" (CEV). Couldn't this verse be applied to gossip? I think so since Warren has already shown via the other Proverbs passages he cites (ignored by Busenitz) that those who gossip do indeed stir up trouble—and we all know that a great deal of gossip is basically nothing but lies.

Interestingly, the NIV renders this verse "A wicked man listens to evil lips; a liar pays attention to a malicious tongue." Isn't gossip something that comes from "evil lips"? Would you categorize the lips of a person who gossips as "good," or "pure," or "holy"? I wouldn't. And what about the NIV's use of the term a "malicious tongue"? Can we not attribute gossip to a "malicious tongue"? I think application of Prov. 17:4 to gossip is perfectly acceptable, even though as Busenitz is careful to note, it does not "directly" mention gossip.

Busenitz, however, apparently wanted to use this verse to attack Warren—and did it. But the only way he could do it was to include that little qualifier "directly." That kind of attack mode, in my opinion, is totally uncalled-for.

Oh, and by the way, just to shed a bit more light on Prov. 17:4, the Keil & Delitzsch commentary (vol. 6, p. 255) notes the meaning of this verse, saying: "[W]hoever gives ear with delight to words which are morally reprobate, and aimed at the destruction of neighbors, thereby characterizes himself as a profligate [i.e., a troublemaker]." Keil & Delitzsch also quote Luther, after Jerome, on the verse: "A wicked man gives heed to wicked mouths, and a false man listens willingly to scandalous tongues" (also on p. 255)—Hmmmm, sounds like gossip to me.

Next, we have Busenitz referencing Warren's subsequent statement about those who gossip—i.e., "'These are the ones who split churches, thinking only of themselves' [Jude 1:16]." Busenitz then observes: "Jude 1:16 is not speaking of gossipers at all, but rather false teachers (regarding their grumbling, pride, and flattery). Again, Warren strings two out-of-context verses together (citing only half of each verse) in order to make his point."

As we have already seen, Busenitz goes way too far in condemning Warren's application of Prov. 17:4 to gossipers. Using Prov. 17:4 in reference to those who spread and listen to gossip is perfectly acceptable given the verse's broad parameters. But what about Jude 1:16 (endnote #16)? Well, unfortunately for Busenitz, Warren actually does not quote Jude 1:16. In his main text, Warren quotes Jude 1:19 (at least in my version of the book). Moreover, Warren's endnote #16 also refers to Jude 1:19—not Jude 1:16.

Can it be???? Horror of horrors, Nathan Busenitz made a mistake?!!! Shocking. Unforgivable? How dare he make a mistake? How dare he misquote a man of God and say a Bible verse appear where no such Bible verse appears!!! (okay, I'm joking a bit here to make a point). Clearly, Busenitz is not perfect. Warren is not perfect. People make mistakes. Misapply verses. Read things wrong. Go to far with some Biblical passages—whatever.

As brothers and sisters in Christ we are supposed to cut each other a little slack. But that is not what Busenitz does when it comes to Warren. And I really don't understand why not.

Now, more seriously, what about Jude 1:19. I would agree that this verse, too, like Jude 1:16, is specifically targeting false teachers whose words were dividing Christians. But what is very interesting here is how the denunciations of their conduct can easily be applied to all of us. In fact, here is what the Tyndale New Testament Commentary says about Jude 1:16 (which mentions murmurers and complainers—or grumblers):


As for Jude 1:19, The Message, quoted by Warren, reads: "These are the ones who split churches, thinking only of themselves." So does Jude 1:19 EXPLICITY or DIRECTLY mention "gossipers"? No. But must it specifically mention "gossipers" in order to be coupled with Prov. 17:4? Well, it sure would have been better if either: a) it did mention "gossip"; or b) it had an even more explicit broader application to ALL Christians. But I can see what Warren was trying to say—i.e., the point he was attempting to make. 

Personally, I would have linked Prov. 17:4 with some verse(s) other than Jude 1:19. So when I read these remarks by Warren, I basically thought, "Hmmm, oh well, whatever, I get his point, I would have said it differently, but no big deal." People like Busenitz, however, seem to thrive on this kind of stuff—gnats, gnats, gnats.

It's all really tragic to me that so many people are spending so much time attacking the littlest things and making them into some extraordinary marks of Warren's evil ways. It's terrifically sad, given how much work there is to do in the kingdom of God that is really important. But now, thanks to Busenitz, at least we all can rest easy knowing that Jude 1:19 is not specifically talking about gossipers, but rather false teachers, who are doing things (saying things) and acting in ways that all of us Christians should be careful to avoid. Wow. Big deal.

What has Busenitz really accomplished here—especially since he did not even get Warren's reference right? How has he furthered the kingdom of God? Was his nit-picking really necessary? How does Busenitz deal with others who have made far worse errors in their hermeneutics (see above biblical references that I list)? And what about Busenitz himself—is he perfect in his Bible interpretation? Where do we draw the line separating minor flaws in people's teachings that should be overlooked from major doctrinal errors that need to be corrected/exposed? These questions to me are far more important to start looking into than whether Rick Warren used Jude 1:19 to perfection.

Busenitz declares, "This type of hermeneutic is destined for disaster."

I would submit that it is an obsession with straining at gnats that will more quickly bring disaster to not only Christians, but also to the church's unity. NO PERSON ever gets everything right—not Warren, not me, not you, not Busenitz, not MacArthur, not _______ [fill in the blank]. Understanding this undeniable fact, and showing a little bit of forgiveness, rather than being so exacting, is how Christ would want us to respond (I think). And again, as I previously noted, it is not as if Warren has denied any essential tenet of the. And any biblical glitches he has made are indeed just that—glitches. Busenitz and others, in my opinion, have lost all perspective on this issue and are relishing this ongoing witch-hunt for people whose views and ways are not to their narrow liking—the most notable "witch," at the moment, is Warren.



THE A-TEAM: Gary Gilley's two-part article, "The Purpose-Driven Life: An Evaluation," cites a list of passages that Warren twists to make his points. Most of these are twisted, it seems, because Warren chose to use a paraphrase that doesn't accurately convey the meaning of the text. Gilley's points are powerful, "Once we believe we have the right to change the meaning of God's Word to suit our agenda, there is no limit as to how far the misrepresentation of God's truth can go. This is exactly how virtually every cult and heresy is started. It should disturb us even more to discover that so few Christians care." How can Rick Warren justify such treatments of Scripture?
ABANES: Well, unfortunately, I have not read Gilley's articles closely—I've only skimmed them. So I cannot really go into great detail about all of the verses he mentions. But I will say that Gilley's alarmist tone reminds me of far too many of Warren's critics who, rather than seeking to be balanced, are fixated on digging and digging and digging to find every possible problem. Has Gilley devoted equal time to full-blown non-Christians and non-Christian groups? Has he spent as many hours pouring over the writings released by Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other "cults"? I certainly can't find such material [for a new, updated report on Gary Gilley, see my article Gary Gilley: Another Voice in the Chorus of Critics].

Gilley seems more interested in attacking people within church. This is odd, and I believe, very telling. Out of 110 articles (± 1-2) by Gilley [at the time of this interview], only 2 are on Islam and only 5 are on Mysticism. But 34 of the articles target Christians—i.e., Pentecostals, charismatics, Promise Keepers, non-pretribulationists, women ministers, the vineyard, and others. Other articles deal with various Christian life issues. Six articles deal with Warren (and/or purpose driven). Such a spread of articles makes me wonder whether Gilley is actually most interested in defending his own personal views/beliefs and getting others to see things his way when it comes to Christianity.

I will admit that some of the issues he has written on are worthy of attention (e.g., the Word of Faith Movement, Brownsville Revival, and Toronto Blessing), but there is an over-emphasis, in my opinion, on attacking people within the body of Christ. Also, Gilley seems to not be a very good researcher—or a very clear thinker. For example, in the article you mention (part 1), he says: "I was thoroughly bewildered as to whom the author [Rick Warren] was trying to connect [in The Purpose Driven Life]." But I am not quite sure why Gilley was unable to discern such a simple aspect of Warren's book. From the contents we can see that his audience is three-tiered:


And then Gilley, still in part 1, says: "the gospel is never at anytime clearly presented. . . . In Warren's gospel no mention is made of sin, repentance or even the Cross." Really? What book was Gilley reading? Here's what Rick Warren stated in The Purpose Driven Life:


As for the many scriptures that Gilley cites, as I said, I have not gone through each one word by word, but generally speaking, what he appears to be most angry about is Warren's use of paraphrases. Well, that is a legitimate objection. But every single translation/paraphrase has its weaknesses, some more than others. Using a certain translation/paraphrase does not make someone a heretic or false teacher—even if that person uses a paraphrase to support a certain position.

Again, we are dealing with a matter of perspective here. Some Christians, for example, will only accept the KJV and then, BAM, no more—everything else is a perversion of God's Word. To these people even Warren's use of the NIV, NASB, and other legit translations would be enough to attack him. So where does it all end? If Warren used paraphrases to support a point he made, well, it's not something that I would have done, but I am not going to crucify him for it either. These paraphrases exist, and it would be more valuable to deal with them in isolation, as a separate issue, rather than linking them to Warren.

Many, many, many people/pastors use the paraphrases. Warren should not be singled out the way he is being singled out. Gilley himself, in another article titled "The Bible Translation, part 2," said that paraphrases sacrifice "accuracy for readability. Works such as the Living Bible, Phillips, and The Message, are all highly readable but represent more the interpretation of the author than a translation of the text. These may have value as a comparison but are of little use as a legitimate translation" (in Think On These Things, Jan. 1997, volume 2, issue 15).

Okay, fine. So here we have Gilley saying that paraphrases are "highly readable," but unlike Warren, he does not like quoting for them or using them to support various things that he may teach. That's about the extent of the issue. Warren and many other people like paraphrases—and they like to use them. Gilley and many other people don't like paraphrases—and don't use them. Fine. Keep it in perspective.

But Gilley blows this issue up, going so far as to link Bible paraphrases and Warren's use of them with statement like: "This is exactly how virtually every cult and heresy is started." Such a remark, however, is an overstatement in the extreme. It shows Gilley's crippling ignorance of cults, cult formation, the dynamics of a cult, the structure of a cult group, characteristics of cults, and particularly the motivation, behavior, and teaching tactics of a cult leader. I must admit, however, that making these kinds of sensationalistic statements provide good reading material and will draw the attention of many people—but it is very irresponsible.



THE A-TEAM: The last area for us to cover is the "Seeker-sensitive" aspect of Rick Warren's ministries. First, I think it may be helpful for you to define for us what you and/or Rick Warren mean by "seeker-sensitive."
ABANES: Well, this is question that perfectly illustrates partly why I have become in some ways so frustrated with critics. The term "seeker-sensitive" has already been defined by Warren in The Purpose Driven Church. He has also talked about it in various articles and interviews. But few critics are going back to these sources. Instead, they keep repeating rumors, gossip, and preconceived notions about what "seeker-sensitive" is (or what 'seeker-sensitive" is at churches other than Saddleback). When I ask critics exactly what Warren teaches regarding "seeker-sensitive," they cannot even define it per Warren's teachings—let alone quote what Warren actually has said on the issue. But they certainly do voice their own opinions about what it means, then make false accusation after false accusation.

So allow me to quote Warren: "A seeker service is an evangelistic service specifically designed for two purposes: First, so that people without any religious background will understand everything that takes place, and second, so that members are proud to bring their non-believing friends to it. Our members are constantly on mission to bring their friends and neighbors to these weekend seeker services" (Warren, Why Do You Emphasize Seeker Services?, 10/20/2004). And here's something Warren teaches that you will not find quoted by ANY critic: "You might wonder if we've attracted all these visitors by watering down the Gospel, but we haven't! Being seeker sensitive does not mean compromising the message—it just means you communicate it in words that non-believers understand! Jesus drew enormous crowds (called 'multitudes') without compromising the message. He was just clear, practical, and loving" (Warren, Why Do You Emphasize Seeker Services?, 10/20/2004).

 In other words, Saddleback "seeker-sensitive" services do not condone sin, water down the gospel, or avoid mentioning the cross [see my articles Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell and The Doctrinal Essentials of Christianity—and Rick Warren]. The sermon is simply delivered in a way that helps 21st century seekers (unbelievers) and saints (believers) better understand things like "sin" and equally important biblical truths. And to help do this, "seeker-sensitive" services try to remove anything that might distract visitors: e.g., worship songs with lyrics that they cannot understand, unnecessarily long prayers, lengthy offerings, uncomfortable gaps of silence between speakers, apparent confusion by leaders about what comes next, and a service length that visiting non-Christians cannot handle thanks to their shortened "attention span" in this age of sound clips, MTV, network news briefs, and commercials. In other words, we must be considerate to visitors. This is called being "seeker-sensitive."

In The Purpose Driven Church, Warren further expalins: "Attracting seekers is the first step in the process of making disciples, but it should not be the driving force of the  church. While it is fine for a business to be market driven (give the customer whatever he wants), the church has a higher calling.  The church should be seeker sensitive but it must not be seeker driven. We must adapt our communication style to our culture without adopting the sinful elements of our culture or abdicating to it" (pp. 79-80).

How many critics have you seen quoting this passage? None. Why?



THE A-TEAM: Most criticisms of the "seeker-sensitive movement" focus on it's typical watering down of the Gospel and Christianity in general. How does Rick Warren remain true the Gospel, as you contend he does, while also being "seeker-sensitive?"
ABANES: It's easy to remain true to the gospel and yet be seeker-sensitive because being seeker-sensitive has NOTHING to do with changing or softening the gospel message! (see previous answer). Being seeker sensitive is all about presenting the gospel in a way that unbelievers can understand it. Look, when I preach the gospel to a Buddhist, I do not approach them in the same way as I would approach a Mormon, or a Wiccan, or and atheist. Jesus met people where they were and adjusted his interaction (i.e., the way he communicated truth) to them. His core message did not change, but he most certainly changed the way he communicated it. Being seeker-sensitive is a generalized way to preach the gospel to today's unbelievers. That's all. The good news (i.e., the gospel) is the same.



THE A-TEAM: Don Veinot recently withdrew his endorsement of your book, not because of anything you wrote per se, but because he doesn't want the appearance of endorsing Rick Warren. The reasoning he offered has to do with some comments Warren's made about Roman Catholicism: "And, you know, growing up as a Protestant boy, I knew nothing about Catholics, but I started watching ETWN, the Catholic channel, and I said, "Well, I'm not as far apart from these guys as I thought I was, you know?'" [Rick Warren's offending remark]
ABANES: I am very, very disappointed in Don Veinot. And I am not going to discuss him in this interview, except to say that my official response to his decision and reasoning can be found on my website, in my new article/open letter to him titled "Don Veinot: Broken Promises Under Pressure."

Lighthouse Trails Research Project, for instance, has declared: "Rick Warren Speaks at the Pew & Religion Forum and belittles the Five Fundamentals of the Faith, shows his adherence to Catholicism. . ." For the record, Rick Warren does not adhere to Catholicism. He is a classic Southern Baptist. I'm not sure now many times this must be said in order for people to hear it.

Moreover, he does not say in the interview what Lighthouse Trails Research Project (LTRP) claims he says. Deborah and Dave Dombrowski of LTRP play loose with the facts and change reality to suit their purposes. Warren simply states: "[G]rowing up as a Protestant boy, I knew nothing about Catholics, but I started watching ETWN, the Catholic channel, and I said, 'Well, I'm not as far apart from these guys as I thought I was, you know?'"

That's it.

Clearly, Warren is not saying that he adheres to Catholicism. He is contrasting how far away from Catholicism he thought he was as opposed to how far away from Catholicism he really is. As he puts it, he learned that he was not as far away from it as he "thought" he was. This is a far cry from saying that he adheres to Catholicism. Where did the Dombrowskis get that idea from? Apparently, from their own imagination.

Interestingly, Warren is saying nothing in the interview that has not already been said by the likes of Dr. Norman Geisler, co-author of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995). In this volume, Geisler—who is a well-respected evangelical apologist—discusses the many differences and However, I would like to comment here on Warren's remark, which has been blown WAY out of proportion by Warren's hyper-sensitive attackers. similarities between Protestants and Roman Catholics. In fact, PART ONE of his book is dedicated to "Areas of Doctrinal Agreement" that lists eight major areas of doctrine that he says evangelicals share with Roman Catholics (120 pages worth). And on top of that, his entire PART THREE is dedicated to "Areas of Practical Cooperation" that includes social action, educational goals, spiritual heritage, and evangelism (see pp. 359-429).



THE A-TEAM: Additionally, in response to learning that a Roman Catholic church was holding a "Purpose Driven Conference," the director of the Purpose Driven ministry, Pastor Brett Schrock, said, "We're excited by this because we're seeing God unify his churches." Does Rick Warren believe that Roman Catholicism is just another denomination and is that belief part of what the Purpose Driven ministries are doing?
ABANES: I want to reiterate here that I do not speak for Warren. Nor am I a spokesperson for Saddleback. But I would say, based on what I have seen and heard, that Warren views Roman Catholicism in a way that would be similar to how many other evangelicals view it (e.g., Norman Geisler, Ron Rhodes, myself, and Hank Hanegraaff [president of the Christian Research Institute]). It is indeed a "Christian" denomination, but one that has some serious doctrinal problems when it comes to church authority, Sola Scriptura, salvation, the priesthood of all believers, and various other issues (e.g., communion, baptism). There are some monumental differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. But there are also a great many beliefs we share (see Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals).



THE A-TEAM: In response to the very first question of this interview, I believe you made an irresponsible error. You said, "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 don't believe these men ever said anything you've accused them of here. They've never called Rick Warren these names or questioned his motives (the only name-calling I could find was Wilken explaining why he thinks Warren is a liberal). It's one thing to claim that these men are wrong in some things they said, but it's another thing entirely to question their motives and "concerns for truth," especially after all the good you believe they've done. That's uncharitable at best.
ABANES: I don't think I have been uncharitable at all. On the contrary, they have been not only uncharitable, but also irresponsible. Todd Wilken, for example, as you have rightly noted, calls Warren a liberal—and goes so far as to make a direct comparison between Warren and the liberal-heretic John Shelby Spong (see my response). Wilken is comparing Warren here with a full-blown heretic; a non-Christian who denies virtually every tenet of Christianity. This is an absurd charge. Warren is a conservative Southern Baptist—ethically/morally, politically, and theologically. Even mentioning Warren and someone like Spong in the same breath is ridiculous.

And John MacArthur, on a widely-viewed CNN broadcast, accused Warren of adopting a "feel-good kind of approach" to preaching—[which is wrong regarding Warren]. Warren's sermons have nothing to do with trying to make anyone "feel good." MacArthur further alleged of Warren, "This is telling people exactly what they want to hear, telling people that God agrees with you. God wants you to be what you want to be. And this is pretty heady stuff, to tell somebody that the God of the universe wants them to be exactly what they want to be." In other words, to put it in bottom-line terms, MacArthur is saying that Warren is preaching a false gospel (at least that's how it sounds to me).

But what Warren has REALLY has said is the exact opposite. In 1993, Warren declared: "You become what God made you to be. . . . You will never be fully satisfied in life until you begin to be what God made you to be. . . . Find out what God made you to be and be it. . . . You cannot conform to the will of man if you're going to be what God wants you to be" (Warren, "Building on My Strengths: The Purpose-Driven Life," part 3, May 9, 1993).

Clearly, there is nothing here in Warren's words about us telling God what we want to be. MacArthur is spreading absolute falsehoods about Warren's views. Moreover, MacArthur's apparent spokesperson, Nathan Busenitz, is equally careless in making false accusations against Warren. In his article, "A Sense of Purpose: Evaluating the Claims of The Purpose-Driven Life" (at MacArthur's Grace to You website), Busenitz cannot even properly define "seeker-sensitive" services as a concept taught by Warren (and Saddleback)"


THE A-TEAM: What about Greg Koukl? Let's go on to your next question . . . bearing in mind that preaching no gospel at all is basically being a false teacher. You say you deal with their accusations in your book. I want to deal specifically with Greg Koukl's since I work for him and your comment seems to impugn his entire ministry. You quoted him once, 'Some critics, though, have alleged there is 'no Gospel at all' to be found either at Saddleback's seeker services or in Warren's book. 'It's the Gospel without the bad news. People are coming to have purpose in their lives, but they are not coming to get saved from sin.'" (123) The citation for this quote is from a radio commentary transcribed on the STR website. In the commentary, Greg is talking about how, in general, "seeker-sensitive" services tend to become "seeker-centered." Not once does he mention Saddleback or any of Warren's books. It is only after the quote you pulled that Greg briefly mentions the 40 Days of Purpose church program. You took Greg's quote out of context to make your point—attributing to him something he never said, and in this interview used that as a basis to slam Greg and his ministry. Do you have any other quotes to substantiate your accusations against Greg?
ABANES: Ok, here's my take on this criticism I have made [about Kouk]. It would be the height of naivete to think that Koukl is speaking in some kind of sanitized vacuum where people are just going to hear his comments about "seeker-senstive"  services and innocently ask, "Gee, I wonder who he might be talking about?" Go to Google and enter in "seeker-sensitive" and see what name pops up the most—ding, ding, ding—Rick Warren. And Saddleback Church is probably the second most well-known seeker church in the world, probably just after Willow Creek. People hearing Koukl are going to almost immediately think of the seeker church that is right now on everyone's mind—Saddleback Church [see this extended article for a complete response to Koukl].

For example, in the article Seeker Sensitive Christianity, the author first quotes none other than John MacArthur to slam seeker-sensitive churches, only to follow-up MacArthur with Koukl, who said: "Most churches that try to be seeker sensitive end up being seeker centered. The church becomes for the seeker rather than Christians." This article then goes on to lambaste seeker-sensitive churches. And who is the prime example? [It reads:] "The whole 'purpose' of Rick Warren's, The Purpose Driven Life

In other words, Koukl has only added more fuel to the anti-Warren fires by targeting "seeker-sensitive" churches, specifically Warren since he actually mentions Warren and the 40-days of purpose program. In full context, Koukl very quickly moves from decrying seeker-sensitive services with "no gospel" in them to Warren's "forty days of purpose." He makes the following statements: "[W]hat is the nature of the Gospel that is going out in the service to the mass gathering? Well, it's no Gospel at all. It is the seeker Gospel. It's the Gospel without the bad news. It is the good news with no bad news. People are coming to have purpose in their lives, but they are not coming to get saved from sin. Lack of purpose isn't the problem; sin is the problem. It turns out that not even the Gospel is being preached. 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."

It sure sounds to me like Koukl is just falling in line with saying that the true/full Gospel is not being taught/preached by Warren—in either his writings or his sermons. Did Koukl use those precise words? No, and he didn't have to, in my opinion. But what he said was more than enough to get that point across. A person does not always have to say something explicitly to communicate a very explicit message.

I'm sure you know Rob Bowman [director of The Center for Biblical Apologetics], who is a very experienced apologist and author in the area of Christian doctrine. He couldn't believe what Koukl said, and actually went to read it for himself. And, sure enough, after reading what Koukl said—or rather, how Koukl phrased what he said—Bowman agreed that he was indeed saying what I was alleging in my book. So, let's say Koukl didn't mean to make it sound the way it sounds (at least to me and Bowman). Okay. I can buy that. But then he needs to make some kind of clarification because his short commentary his being used to slam Warren right along side of other anti-Warrenites. See, for example, Koukl being listed here propaganda extravaganza was big money for the author and it added more lost souls counted for Satan and NOTHING to the Kingdom of God. I wonder how many ridiculous seminars the Apostles or their contemporaries attended? I have been stunned into tears by many so-called brethren of mine upon hearing of their being 'jazzed' by Warren's Godless tripe!" along with some of the worst of Warren's critics:


Do you mean to really tell me that Koukl was NOT referring to Rick Warren, Saddleback, or purpose driven when he referenced the "seeker Gospel," which he describes as "no Gospel at all"? I'll tell you what. If Koukl makes some kind of clarification announcement/statement that really clears this thing up, I'll make an adjustment to my book in a subsequent printing. better yet, you have Koukl allow me to come on the show and we'll see what happens. I am all for coming together and taking about these issues rather than fighting about them. That is more than fine with me—it is preferable.



THE A-TEAM: Let's look at what Greg did, in fact, say. Greg was referring to the fact that there is no bad news presented in the 40 Days of Purpose video's presentation of the Gospel. Here are some lengthy excerpts from the video transcribed (www.afcmin.org/rickwarren.htm). I don't see sin or any form of bad news being presented, nor an admission of guilt or request for forgiveness in the prayer. And yet after the prayer, Warren says, "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." That sure sounds like the Gospel's been compromised.
ABANES: To me it does not sound like Koukl is referring to JUST the 40 Days of Purpose program. The way he has worded his commentary, he makes it seem as if Warren's 40 days of Purpose program is just one example of the overall approach of seeker-sensitive services and purpose driven teachings at Saddleback. He seems to use the 40 days of Purpose program as being indicative of the entire seeker-sensitive approach at Saddleback and of Warren's writings on living the purpose driven life.

But the 40 Days can't and shouldn't be used in this way. It is a very limited picture of what goes on during the campaign. Unbelievers are not isolated with the video in a closed room by themselves and told, "Ok, have a good time, see ya in 40 days!" They are surrounded by Christians with whom they can talk and interact. Now, as for exact statements, it seems to me that there certainly is enough in the videos to have people make real decisions for Jesus Christ. I've seen it happen at Saddleback and I've heard of it happening at other churches.

I think that we are now entering into a whole separate discussion that is very broad and complex—i.e., How much of the gospel is enough of the gospel? If I mention "hell" once, then is that enough? If I say "sin" three times, then is that enough? Do I need to say sin LOUDLY and point my finger, or can I say it softly? Do I have to tell someone—"In order to really be saved you MUST say, 'I admit my my wretched state, oh God, and my utter guilt before you, please forgive me'"? Or, is it possible for someone to be justified before any real prayer faith is even spoken (which by the way is the Calvinist position) so that the actual words ultimately spoken are of little import since they are really after the fact? If someone is praying a prayer like the one that Warren gives, isn't this evidence itself that internally they already HAVE admitted their guilt and want forgiveness? These are questions that Christians have been debating for ages.

Look at what Warren says. He is talking to people who have "not previously begun a relationship with Jesus Christ" and proceeds to ask them "to open their hearts to Him." I've heard this a million times (hyperbole) at Calvary Chapels! And the actual [40 Days, Warren] prayer says: "Do you h