---

In 2005-2006, Roger Oakland and Dave Hunt (see my article Dave Hunt: The Convenience of Compromise) began to raise significant objections to the teachings of Rick Warren. Their objections, not surprisingly, coincided with concerns that were also being raised about Warren by Chuck Smith, founder of the Calvary Chapel system of churches (for an in-depth look at Smith's views on Warren, see Chuck Smith: A Pastor's Perspective).

Oakland, who is the founder of Understanding the Times ministry and was for many years a frequent speaker on the Calvary Chapel circuit, not only voiced his own concerns, but outlined four reasons why he believed Warren's teachings were incompatible with those of Smith/Calvary Chapel.

Around this same time, Dave Hunt—another popular Calvary Chapel personality—was launching his own series of attacks against Rick Warren/Saddleback Church through his radio ministry and also in print via The Berean Call (his newsletter).

The following article is a response to Roger Oakland, including corrections to many false notions about Warren that seem to be circulating throughout the entire Calvary Chapel system (for a look at Chuck Smith's views of Warren, see Chuck Smith: A Pastor's Perspective).



Roger Oakland, international author and lecturer, is perhaps best known for his Understanding the Times ministry, which is billed as "An International Missionary Outreach Dedicated to Evangelizing the Lost  and Equipping the Church for Discernment." The goals and objective of Understanding the Times is five-fold:


Tragically, Oakland has failed on each of these points when it comes to Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, and Warren's Purpose Driven teachings.

In Calvary Chapel and Purpose Driven, Roger Oakland explains: "[I]t should have been obvious to anyone listening to messages by Pastor Chuck Smith, Sr. that he has expressed serious concerns about the Purpose Driven church growth movement. On numerous occasions he made the point that the Calvary way, was not the Purpose Driven way."

A serious misunderstanding is already apparent. Warren has repeatedly stressed that his teachings are not about church growth, but rather, about church health. Warren has explained on many occasions: "[T]he key issue for our congregations in the 21st century is church health not church growth. Focusing on church growth is the wrong focus" (Pastors.com, "Rick Warren Interview," August 2005). He has gone so far as to write an entire article titled Emphasize Church Health, Not Church Growth. And again, another article, Forget Church Growth, Aim for Church Health (11/10/2004).

Purpose Driven, clearly, is not about church growth (although that is often a side benefit). According to Warren, a healthy church is based on the Great Commandment (Matthew 22:37-40) and the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19-20)—both of which are about as New Testament as anyone can get. To illustrate his model for church health, Warren uses a baseball diamond around which church members are to be ushered.

• 1st Base is "C.L.A.S.S. 101" (Discovering Church Membership), which "covers salvation, baptism and communion, along with the purposes, targets, structure and affiliations" of the church. 

• 2nd Base is "C.L.A.S.S. 201" (Discovering Spiritual Maturity), which "focuses on the four basic habits every Christian needs to grow to spiritual maturity: time in God’s Word, prayer, tithing and fellowship."

• 3rd Base is "C.L.A.S.S. 301" (Discovering My Ministry), which seeks to help people discover their "unique S.H.A.P.E. for ministry" (in other words, "developing and using their God-given gifts and abilities in serving God and others"). This reflects Saddleback’s view that "every member is a minister."("S.H.A.P.E." is an acronym for how God made us, equipped us, and gifted us for serving Him. It stands for Spiritual gifts, Heart, Abilities, Personality, and Experiences.) 

• Home Plate is "C.L.A.S.S. 401" (Discovering My Life’s Mission), which equips people to share their faith with unbelievers. This CLASS is paramount because it relates directly to the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19).

• Pitcher’s Mound, which is worship (or Magnification), ties together the other bases because everything we do (membership, maturity, ministry, and mission) should be done in worship of God.

These stops along the baseball diamond reflect what Warren sees as God’s five purposes for the church as delineated in the Great Commandment and the Great Commission—membership, maturity, ministry, mission, and magnification (worship). All that Warren is saying is that every church should have balance in all five areas (i.e., give equal time and energy to all five).  In other words, church leaders should make sure that just as much attention is being given to spiritual maturity (doctrinal teaching), as is being given to mission (serving in the church), or magnification (worship), or any of the other purposes. 

Moreover, Warren believes that a healthy church can be large or small—sometimes very small! When/if growth happens, then that will be the Holy Spirit working in and through the biblically-sound/spiritually-balanced church: a healthy church. But growth should never be the final goal. In fact, most of the churches within the Purpose Driven network have between 100-200 members. The following text is from my interview with Warren:

As for Warren's role in the so-called Church Growth Movement (CGM), he has explained: "In the early 1980s, I used the term 'church growth' because that was what everybody was familiar with. But I stopped using the phrase around 1986 because of the things I didn't like about the church growth movement" (see Rick Warren, Making Ministry Healthy, Christianity Today). In other words, Warren deliberately left the CGM more than twenty years ago because it was indeed focusing on growth. And that was not something Warren was interested in.

But going back to Oakland, in his article he also listed the following reasons why he thought Calvary Chapel had distanced itself from Rick Warren and Warren's Purpose Driven teachings: "Differences in Eschatology," "Differences with regard to the Emerging Church," "Differences with regard to contemplative prayer and mysticism," "Differences with regard to church growth principles and beliefs." He not only gives a bullet-point list of these reasons (at the end of his article), but also explains them further, providing what he seems to feel is documentation that backs his assertions. However, a cursory look at Oakland's points will show that he has misrepresented Warren's views.


OAKLAND #1: "The Calvary Chapel view of the future compared to the 'Purpose Driven' view of the future is as different as day and night. One of the distinctives of the Calvary movement is a focus on the imminent return of Jesus Christ. Pastor Chuck has always been known for an emphasis on warning Christians to be alert and ready for the return of Jesus. He teaches that the Kingdom of God will be established only when Jesus Christ returns to this planet. He also emphasizes that the time period before the return of Jesus here on earth will be "as it was in the days of Noah."  From this perspective, the world actually gets worse and worse, not better and better. Rick Warren’s view of the present and the future is different from Chuck Smith’s. Warren encourages his followers to ignore Bible prophecy and spend their time and energy on the here and now, in order to establish a man made social plan (P.E.A.C.E. Plan) that will make planet earth a better place for everyone."
RESPONSE: This is absolutely untrue. Rick Warren teaches the exact same eschatology (or doctrine of future things) that is taught at Calvary Chapels: i.e., the pre-millennial, pre-tribulational rapture view of the end-times (standard for a Southern Baptist church).

In fact, the pre-millennial, pre-tribulational rapture view of the end-times is not just casually accepted throughout the church, but it is taught in the FOUNDATIONS maturity course of doctrinal teachings for members of Saddleback. The course's section on "The Second Coming" features segments on: Events of the End Times, Jesus Christ Is Coming to the Earth Again, The Tribulation, The Rapture, The Visible Return of Christ, The Millennium. Each of these parts are totally compatible with the eschatology of Calvary Chapel—and I say this as a current member of Saddleback, and also a former long-time attender of Calvary Chapel. Moreover, the importance of these doctrines to Saddleback is plain to see, given the fact that they are included in the book, which is sub-titled, "11 Core Truths to Build Your Life On."

As for Warren's P.E.A.C.E. plan, it is also misrepresented by Oakland. The plan is not a "man made social plan" designed to "make planet earth a better place for everyone" in any way that would undermine the biblical doctrines surrounding Christ's imminent return. The P.E.A.C.E. Plan is a vehicle designed to spread Christianity to unreached parts of the world, while at the same time meeting people's physical needs, using five methods for touching humanity:

The P.E.A.C.E. Plan is Warren's attempt to return evangelicalism back to the nineteenth century, a time when Christians not only preached the Gospel, but also demonstrated the truth/love of that Gospel by being socially active to help those in need. I interviewed Rick Warren regarding his P.E.A.C.E. Plan, and in his explanation of it, there was not a hint of anything about him trying to simply "make planet earth a better place for everyone." As the following interview with Warren shows (excerpted from my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him), Oakland has delivered a grossly distorted image of the P.E.A.C.E. Plan.


The PEACE Plan is not only about spreading the Gospel, but also living as a church in obedience to the commands found in James 1:27 ("Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world") and James 2:14-17 ("What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead").

OAKLAND #2: "With regards to the importance of Bible prophecy, Rick Warren has stated: 'When the disciples wanted to talk about prophecy, Jesus quickly switched the conversation to evangelism. He wanted them to concentrate on their mission to the world. He said in essence, 'The details of my return are none of your business. What is your business is the mission I have given you. Focus on that!' Speculating on the exact timing of Christ's return is futile, because Jesus said, 'No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.' Since Jesus said he didn't know the day or hour, why should you try to figure it out. What we do know for sure is this: Jesus will not return until everyone God wants to hear the Good News has heard it. Jesus said, 'The Good News about God's kingdom will be preached in all the world, to every nation. Then the end will come.' If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out prophecy."
RESPONSE: It is here that we may be seeing the crux of the issue between Calvary Chapel and Warren. Some individuals seem to be taking Warren's remark as a slap at studying biblical prophecy in toto. But what Warren is actually condemning is obsessive end-time speculation, the naming of dates, the constant harping on doomsday/Armageddon being just around the corner, etc., etc., etc. Such a comment, of course, would be highly problematic to Smith, who has built his entire ministry and the Calvary Chapel system on end-time warnings.

Since the very beginning of Calvary Chapel, Smith has repeatedly issued warnings about the end of the world and Jesus' return (see Chuck Smith: A Brief History, excerpted from my book End-Time Visions: The Road to Armageddon?)  In fact, he was one of the staunchest supporters of Hal Lindsey's The Late Great Planet Earth, which was filled with inaccurate (and eventually failed) predictions and prognostications (see this interesting article by Gary DeMar).  Clearly, there may be more than just a little sensitivity here regarding the issue of end-times speculation.

But back to the main thrust of Warren's actual comment, he is nowhere stating that prophecy is something which should not be studied, appreciated, or enjoyed. His point is that an unhealthy obsession with prophecy is where Christians must be careful, especially since Christ himself seemed to rebuke his disciples for asking him about certain aspects of the end-times that no one will ever know because it is not our place to know such things.

Warren is not expressing an overly-critical, unbiblical, or offensive sentiment. But for some individuals his word of caution comes dangerously close to stepping on the main theme of their preaching/teaching style, which rests almost entirely on a "You better get right with God, or you're gonna get Left Behind when the Rapture hits" foundation for presenting the Gospel.(This theory was given a measure of support in the fascinating comments made by Jacob Prasch of Moriel Ministries, who is another anti-Warrenite critic, see Moriel Ministries: My Way Is God's Way).

As for the sentence in Warren's quote that Oakland actually highlighted ("If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out prophecy"), it has nothing to do with establishing the Kingdom of God. It has to do with us accomplishing what we need to accomplish in obedience to God's commands, as God's children, with regard to what God wants us to do while we are here. When all is accomplished, according to scripture, Christ will return.

This remark by Warren, ironically, is quite similar to a comment I have heard many times during sermons delivered at various Calvary Chapels. It basically goes like this: "Did you know that Jesus is waiting to return until the Gospel is preached everywhere? And as soon as that last person accepts Jesus, then He will return. So, if you want Jesus to return, it's up to you to go out there and evangelize. Tell as many people as possible about Jesus because you never know who that last person is going to be. And whoever they are, as soon as they come to Christ, then it's all over, and Jesus will return."



OAKLAND #3: "Rick Warren’s Purpose Driven P.E.A.C.E. Plan is part of a plan that is intended to establish the Kingdom of God here on earth before Jesus returns. This Kingdom depends on human effort."
RESPONSE: This is nonsense. Nowhere has Rick Warren ever stated that his P.E.A.C.E. Plan has anything to do with establishing the Kingdom of God on earth before Christ's return. Such a position stands in opposition to what he has taught from the pulpit, and what is taught in the FOUNDATIONS doctrinal maturity classes at Saddleback Church.



OAKLAND #4: "Quoting from his [Warren's] speech: 'I stand before you confidently right now and say to you that God is going to use you to change the world. Some will say, 'That's impossible,' but I heard that line 25 years ago, and God took seven people and started Saddleback Church. Now we have a new vision and a whole lot more people to start with. The great evangelist Dwight L. Moody said, 'The world has yet to see what God can do with a man fully consecrated to him.' I'm looking at a stadium full of people who are telling God they will do whatever it takes to establish God's Kingdom 'on earth as it is in heaven.'"
RESPONSE: This is another grotesque misrepresentation of Warren's intended message (see previous excerpt of interview about the P.E.A.C.E. Plan). Warren is talking about establishing God's Kingdom (i.e., that aspect of God's presence within each of us) here on Earth, as expressed through those of us who follow Christ. As Jesus said, "the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21). And, of course, we also have the Lord's prayer, "your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven" (Matt. 6:10).

According to The Wycliffe Commentary, "A kingdom is not just a territory, nor a system of governmental machinery. Its basic existence is in the unity and loyalty of the people. Jesus asserted that the kingdom of God was already present and needed only to be recognized. He had brought the kingdom with him and was living among them" (p. 1056). And again, we have the Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, which explains: "The kingdom is 'among you' [an alternate translation], i.e., it is present in the Person and ministry of Jesus. This seems the way the words should be taken" (vol. 3, p. 259).

In other words, we Christians demonstrate the Kingdom of God (i.e., "the Person and ministry of Jesus") on Earth as we obey God's will, follow his commands of scripture, and reflect the character of Christ as we serve Him and serve others. That is what Rick Warren is saying. His comment has nothing to do with establishing the earthly Kingdom of God. Warren holds to the standard Southern Baptist/Calvary Chapel view regarding the establishment of Christ's earthly kingdom after the worsening of earthly conditions, which leads to the rapture of the church, the seven-year tribulation, and eventually the consummation of the ages marked by the final judgment after the 1000-year millennial reign.



OAKLAND #5: "It is important to understand that this type of teaching that Rick Warren heavily promotes is very similar to New Age teachings that say the end-times, according to the book of Revelation, does not have to happen if enough people come together, realize their unity with each other and with God, and strive towards global peace."
RESPONSE: Warren has made it very clear that he feels the New Age and everything connected to it is pure silliness. He has bluntly stated, "The so-called New Age has nothing new about it at all.  There is not one single new idea in this New Age thinking.  All it is a combination of very old lies that have been around for centuries, named by other things—paganism, naturalism, pantheism and all these different things. You reformulate them, throw the all in and go out on a limb and you've got New Age.  God says, Don’t do that. It’s just a combination of old lies" (Warren, "Developing Trust," part 3, April 20, 1997).

And in a 9/28/2005 issue of his Ministry Toolbox, Warren took another not-so-subtle swipe at the New Age, saying: "Mention the term "spirituality" today and many people will conjure up images of wearing white robes, sitting in a yoga lotus position, burning incense, and chanting 'ommmmm' with their eyes closed."

Warren has been especially critical of pantheism (God is all, all is God, we are God), a hallmark of the New Age Movement.  In a 1988 sermon, he declared: "[God] can be in many, many places all at the same time. He’s everywhere. That does not mean that God is everything. That’s pantheism. Don’t confuse the creator with His creation. He’s not everything but He is everywhere" (Warren, "Where Is God When You Need Him?," 1988). And consider these remarks from a 1997 sermon:

Even in The Purpose Driven Life, Warren denounces today’s "[m]any religions and New Age philosophies" that teach what Warren calls the Satan’s oldest lie: "that we are divine or can become gods." He also notes, "Let me be absolutely clear: You will never become God, or even a god," then adds, "God doesn’t want you to become a god; he wants you to become godly" (Warren, p. 172).

Clearly, Warren is not a New Ager of any stripe. So, when it comes to these "last days" in which we live, he is obviously not saying that "the endtimes, according to the book of Revelation, does not have to happen." This is Oakland putting words in Warren's mouth. Or, to use more precise language, he is setting up a straw-man argument. Warren, as previously noted, preaches the standard Southern Baptist view of the end-times, which effectively mirrors exactly what is taught at Calvary Chapels and by Chuck Smith.



OAKLAND #6: "Pastor Chuck has been very outspoken regarding his concerns about the Emerging Church. . . . On the other hand, it can be documented that Rick Warren’s view of the Emergent Church is different than Chuck Smith’s view. Warren has endorsed the Emerging Church movement. He wrote a foreword for a book written by Dan Kimball titled The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations (Kimball is a leader in the movement)."
RESPONSE:Oakland seems to hold a magnificently simplistic view of the Emerging Church—i.e., it is a single, monolithic, centralized, institution that has an all-encompassing set of doctrinal beliefs (and church practices) applicable to every church calling itself an Emergent Church, and every leader calling themselves a leader in the movement. But Oakland is wrong.

The Emerging Church movement is an extremely vast, non-regulated, de-centralized and disparate collection of multi-hued churches/people/teachings. Some aspects of the movement are good. Some aspects of it are resoundingly bad/unbiblical. Warren has never "endorsed the Emerging Church movement" as a whole. He believes that it is a very important part of what is happening across the Christian landscape, and that it is something everyone needs to watch, both the good parts of it and the bad parts of it.

It is true that Warren wrote the forward to Kimball's book. And it is also true that Kimball is "a" leader on the movement. But writing the foreword to Kimball's book is a far cry from endorsing everything that is done/taught by everyone in the Emerging Church everywhere. Warren understands full-well the various problems cropping up within the Emerging Church movement, and discussed some of these issues with me during my 2005 interview with him (see following transcript, excerpted from my book (Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him):


Clearly, Warren has reservations about various aspects of the Emerging Church. This is why he has never fully endorsed everything found within it. Oakland, however, has completely dismissed: 1) the actual nature of the Emerging Church as a widely diverse movement; and 2) the actual views of Rick Warren regarding the movement.

Moreover, with specific regard to Kimball's book, this was a collaborative volume with several different contributors—a key point that Oakland ignores. It is key because in a compilation book such as The Emerging Church, the material taken from various individuals is usually put together by the publisher, effectively keeping each author fairly ignorant about what is going on at the publishing house. It is common under such circumstances for each author to not see what the other authors involved have written. A person (for example, Rick Warren), is contracted to do a certain piece (like a chapter, commentary, side-bar, or foreword)—and that's it. Then, a year or so later, suddenly, there is the book. Most of it, if not all of it, is new to each individual author (this, of course, is not the case in a book written by a single person).

And I say this as someone who has been a contributing author to four major compilation works (The Kingdom of the Cults [1997 edition, ed. Hank Hanegraaff], Encyclopedia of Race and Racism, Baker's Encyclopedia of Cults and World Religions [not-yet-published], and Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide to Media Mirages and Establishment Lies). In all four instances, I never saw anything that the other authors had written. In fact, with regard to Abuse Your Illusions: The Disinformation Guide to Media Mirages and Establishment Lies, four chapters before my chapter on Mormonism and Racism, there is a chapter by ex-Christian pastor Dan Barker, who debunks the resurrection of Jesus and basically says it is a lie! I had no idea that this Barker individual was going to be included in the book, let alone what he was going to say about the resurrection. Does this mean that I now deny the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ and I am an atheist? Hardly.

This seems to be what happened with Warren in connection to Kimball's book The Emerging Church. Warren, in fact, has publicly explained: "[T]he more well known a person becomes, the harder it is to stay current with everyone who is using your name for their purposes. For instance, Zondervan publishers asked me to write a commentary on an 'Emerging Church' book, although I am definitely not a part of that group" (Rick Warren, Open Letter to Lighthouse Trails Research Ministry, May 31, 2005).

Furthermore, it must be noted that Warren's foreword in The Emerging Church is in support of the book as being an important contribution to the study of the Emerging Church. It is not necessarily an endorsement of either: a) the Emerging Church as a whole; or b) all aspects of the Emerging Church. In other words, although Warren may think that the Emerging Church is an important thing to be discussed, dealt with, and looked at (via the very book he contributed to), he may not agree with everything being taught in the book or in certain sectors of the Emerging Church. This is obvious from his interview with me (see above excerpt from my interview with Warren).

It is also noteworthy that after The Emerging Church was published, Warren publicly stated: "[W]hen the book came out—it had my name paired with Brian McLaren's on the cover! If I had known that Mr. McLaren [a more radical leader in the Emerging Church] was asked to be a commentator too, I would have declined, because I have some major disagreements with his views of the so-called 'emerging' movement'" (Warren, Open Letter to Lighthouse Trails Research Ministry, May 31, 2005).

Oakland missed all of this, or saw it and dismissed it, in his rush to condemn Warren.



OAKLAND #7: "Calvary Chapel movement has always been based on the systematic teaching of the Word of God. This is clearly what Pastor Chuck has emphasized and continues to emphasize. While there have been those in the movement in the past who have moved away from the Word of God towards the promotion of experiences in God’s name, Pastor Chuck has made it clear, this will not be tolerated."
RESPONSE: In this comment we see Oakland trying to equate "systematic teaching of the Word of God" (i.e., verse-by-verse Bible study) with God's ordained way of teaching the Bible. Any other way of teaching scripture (e.g., topical, or life-application) is for some reason less than biblical, and is somehow moving "away from the Word of God towards the promotion of experiences in God’s name." Nothing in the Bible, however, demands that scripture be taught using a verse-by-verse style. In fact, if one examines the sermons of Christ, they are not verse-by-verse (except perhaps when he taught in the temple), they are topical/life-application sermons filled with parables, figures of speech, and life illustrations.



OAKLAND #8: "Pastor Chuck in his Parson to Parson letter to pastors mentioned his concern with contemplative practices and Eastern mysticism that is an earmark of the Emerging Church. In his statement he asked the question: 'Should we look to Eastern religions with their practices or meditation through Yoga and special breathing techniques or repeating a mantra to hear God speak to us? If this is needed to enhance our communication with God, why do you suppose that God did not give us implicit instructions in the Scriptures to give us methods to hear His voice?' Rick Warren has clearly indicated that he is willing to investigate the ideas and methods being promoted for spiritual reformation and transformation that have eastern religious roots. These include the beliefs promoted by the proponents of contemplative prayer and other mystical techniques that are supposed to get the participant 'closer to God.'"
RESPONSE: This is an oft-repeated allegation against Warren based primarily on:


Regarding Warren's use of the term "contemplatives," he is using the word as a descriptive term for how some people like to worship God. In context, the word is set against various other descriptive terms for ways that Christians like worshiping God depending on their personality. For example, care-givers show their love for God by "loving others and meeting needs." Some Christians, on the other hand, show their faith/worship by "confronting evil, battling injustice, and working to make the world a better place" (like counter-cult ministers or pro-life demonstrators). Intellectual believers express worship to God "by studying with their minds." Then, Warren notes: "Contemplatives love God through adoration."

He is endorsing neither contemplative prayer in general, nor that specific kind of contemplative prayer that is sometimes associated with New Age practices. As previously noted, Warren thinks the New Age is bankrupt: "The so-called New Age has nothing new about it at all.  There is not one single new idea in this New Age thinking.  All it is a combination of very old lies that have been around for centuries, named by other things—paganism, naturalism, pantheism and all these different things. You reformulate them, throw the all in and go out on a limb and you've got New Age.  God says, Don’t do that. It’s just a combination of old lies" (Warren, "Developing Trust," part 3, April 20, 1997).

As for Brother Lawrence (c. 1605-1691), he was a Roman Catholic whose Letters and Conversations (written long before today's contemplative prayer movement) were published as Practicing the Presence of God. There is a wealth of Christian wisdom in this volume. And many conservative, Bible-based, doctrinally-sound Christians have recommended it. For example, A.W. Tozer—one of Christianity’s most celebrated preachers—wrote that Brother Lawrence "expressed the highest moral wisdom" in discussing sin and forgiveness (A.W. Tozer, The Warfare of the Spirit, pp. 95-96, quoted in Marilynne E. Foster, Tozer on the Holy Spirit: A 366-Day Devotional, under January 1).

Nevertheless, Brother Lawrence is vilified by assorted fundamentalists (and extreme anti-Roman Catholics) simply because: 1) he was a Roman Catholic; and 2) he used terminology that would eventually bear a passing resemblance to words/phrases employed by New Agers. But the truth is that Brother Lawrence lived long before there even was any New Age—and before there was any contemplative prayer movement with New Age implications. Consequently, he really has nothing to do with the New Age (although some New Agers might appeal to him just as they appeal to the Bible, or any number of other holy/spiritual writings).

The point of Practicing the Presence of God is to remind us of our need for constant awareness of God. Brother Lawrence stressed that everything should be done, even menial tasks, "for the love of God, and thus achieve a condition in which the presence of God is as real in work as in prayer" (The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, p. 158). This is why Warren refers to him when telling readers of his book that they should pray "without ceasing." Christians, according to Warren, should "carry on a continuous, open-ended conversation" with God all day, "talking with him about whatever you are doing or thinking," even "while shopping, driving, working, or performing any other everyday tasks" (Warren, pp. 87-88).

What about Warren’s apparent endorsement of Benedictine monks? All he says on page 89 of his book is: "[They] use the hourly chimes of a clock to remind them to pause and pray 'the hour prayer.’ If you have a watch or cell phone with an alarm, you could do the same." This does not seem like very much of an endorsement of anything Eastern, or New Age, Roman Catholic, mystical, or even Benedictine. The practice of hourly prayer goes back to long before the Benedictine Order was ever founded (a.d. 529) and before Roman Catholicism as we know it today even existed! Hours of prayer—initially placed at 9 a.m., noon, and 3 p.m., then midnight, as well as the beginning of the day and night—are mentioned prior to the fourth century by Tertullian, Cyprian, Justin Martyr, and Clement of Alexandria.



OAKLAND #9: [Quoting Smith]. . . . "In his statement he asked the question: 'Should we look to Eastern religions with their practices or meditation through Yoga and special breathing techniques or repeating a mantra to hear God speak to us? If this is needed to enhance our communication with God, why do you suppose that God did not give us implicit instructions in the Scriptures to give us methods to hear His voice?'"
RESPONSE: (NOTE: In Smith's letter quoted by Oakland, this remark is actually about the Emerging Church, not Rick Warren). It is not surprising that Oakland would bring up these additional issues. Many critics have accused Warren of not only endorsing contemplative prayer (i.e., Eastern mysticism), but also mantras (or 'vain repetitions') and yoga.

Concerning mantras, this charge appears to stem from a casual remark on p. 89 of The Purpose Driven Life, where Where recommends short phrases speakable in a single breath. He calls them breath prayers: "You are with me." "I receive your grace." "You are my God" (Warren, p. 89). A person is supposed to think about what these words mean during the day. It is a way for them to be in constant prayer—little reminders that God is near, that he loves you, and that you are to live for Him. Another example of a breath prayer that Warren gives is on page 299: "Father, help me to understand what is keeping this person from knowing you."

This does not sound very New Age. These prayers, in fact, are textbook Christian prayers—short phrases to keep people’s minds fixed on Jesus in the middle of their busy lives. Nothing about them resembles "vain repetitions" (or mantras), which Warren actually condemns directly on page 103, saying, "Jesus called thoughtless worship 'vain repetitions.'" Warren, of course, is referring to Matthew 6:7, where Christ denounced such false forms of worship as "much speaking" (or "babbling speech") uttered by Gentiles in a vain attempt to sway the will of their pagan gods. As The Wycliffe Bible Commentary explains, such prayers were an attempt "to overcome God’s unwillingness to respond by wearying him with words."

Warren, clearly, is not advocating anything connected to Eastern thought, mystical rites, contemplative prayer, mind-altering practices, Zen, or mantra-style chants when he talks about "breath prayers." One might just as well call them "one-sentence prayers," or "arrow prayers," or "quickie prayers." That's all they are. But Warren's critics refuse to acknowledge this fact and keep repeating the accusation.

As for yoga, this topic usually comes up in connection with Warren due to his 2004 appearance at National Pastors Convention in San Diego, where a "Stretching and Yoga" exercise class in the morning was made available to conference attendees. Did Warren endorse the yoga? Did Warren attend a yoga class? Did Warren plan the yoga and support it as an exercise option for participants? Here are the facts surrounding that event:
End of story.

Now, regarding yoga itself, and whether or not it is always anti-Christian (i.e., Can its physical movements be separated from its spiritual roots?), that is whole different issue on which Christians disagree. Some Christians say that the spirituality of yoga cannot be divorced from its physicality. Other Christians say that yoga's movements can be separated from its spiritual roots and be used as mere exercises (i.e., movements and stretches that can greatly improve strength, coordination, and flexibility).

My opinion (shared by many devout Christians) is that yoga can be, and indeed is, often taught in a wide variety of places as nothing more than a series of movements and stretches—i.e., just exercise. Most forms of dance and exercise are derivative, long removed from their origins. Ballet, for instance, can be traced back to the fencing. So is every ballet dancer actually endorsing violent attack moves and the art of war/dueling? Of course not. And a lot of modern dance and even hip-hop can be traced to tribal dancing, which often has a lot to do with a tribe's religious views. So are modern dance moves and hip-hop performers now endorsing pagan religions? No.

The same can be said for yoga. It is a series of movements, stretches, and coordination tasks that do not have to be related at all to anything spiritual or religious. Sticking one's body in a position that looks like a crane and seeing if you can hold it there for three minutes or so, and relax into the position, is not religious—it's painful (and, if you can do it, probably beneficial). This is something I happen to know a little bit about because I was a professional dancer. I understand the art of dance, how it is taught, and what it is like to experience different forms of dance.



OAKLAND #10: "Rick Warren has clearly indicated that he is willing to investigate the ideas and methods being promoted for spiritual reformation and transformation that have eastern religious roots. These include the beliefs promoted by the proponents of contemplative prayer and other mystical techniques that are supposed to get the participant 'closer to God.'"
RESPONSE: False again (see previous responses). Warren hasn't indicated any such thing. But the obvious question remains: If Warren truly doesn't advocate New Age practices of getting "closer to God," then what does he recommend for growing closer to God?

Warren answered that question way back in 1980 at his very first church service, an Easter service, wherein he declared that he had "a dream of developing people to spiritual maturity through Bible studies, small groups, seminars, retreats, and a Bible School." And in 2008, people at Saddleback are still getting closer to God the same way they were getting closer to him back in 1980: "Bible studies, small groups, seminars, retreats, and a Bible School."



OAKLAND #11: "Lighthouse Trails Publishing has documented many instances where Saddleback pastors and staff have shown their strong support for the practice of contemplative prayer."
RESPONSE: Lighthouse Trails Research Ministry has repeatedly proved itself to be one of the worst, most sensationalistic, heresy-hunting organizations littering the Internet. Its so-called apologetic materials are filled with half-truths, disinformation, misinformation, leaps of logic, flawed reasoning, and inept research (see my various articles on Lighthouse Trails).  Dave and Deborah Dombrowski, the founders of Lighthouse, excel at tying together all kinds of loose threads (sometimes related, sometimes unrelated), then from those loose threads weaving a tapestry of conspiratorial proportions that makes even my head spin.

In addition to their previously-cited weaknesses as competent apologists, the Dombrowski's leave no room for: 1) Christians who express views that differ from their opinions; 2) documentation that would contradict their pre-drawn conclusions; 3) and anything that would indicate there is not some world-wide New Age conspiracy involving Purpose Driven.

But for the moment, so as not to get side-tracked with the sheer glut of material that has come from Lighthouse, let us simply discuss contemplative prayer. Like many complex issues (e.g., the Emerging Church), contemplative prayer—also known as centering prayer—has many angles to it. The practice comes in many forms. Some forms are perfectly acceptable. Others are not acceptable. But these types of subtle distinctions, nuances, and complexities of thought seem to be utterly beyond people like the Dombrowski's (and Oakland).

The Dombrowskis and their ilk respond in a knee-jerk fashion to the mere mention of certain red-flag words. All they have to do is hear these words, and there is only one response for them—panic. They raise the heresy alert no matter who is involved, no matter what is actually being taught, no matter what else a person has said, no matter where there might be deviations from what they have read elsewhere during their cursory overview of the subject. They push forward, laying down blanket condemnation all around, usually coupled with bizarre word games that rest on the flawed notion that two things sounding alike actually are alike. This, however, is not necessarily the case (see the "Bizarre Word Games" section in my article Warren Smith: Self-Deceived On Purpose).

With specific regard to contemplative prayer, I submit the endnotes from my book on Warren, wherein I discuss this much maligned/misunderstood form of prayer, which as far as I know, has never really been discussed all that much at Saddleback. It has always been something far, far away in the background via loose affiliations. In the fifteen years I have been attending the church, I have never heard "contemplative prayer" (in any form) discussed: during weekend services, during mid-week Bible study, during small groups, during any ministry meetings, at any conference, or in any prayer group. My personal take on contemplative prayer is as follows:

OAKLAND #12: "It would seem to me that 'Purpose Driven' mixed together with a touch of mysticism could be considered a recipe for spiritual disaster. That is especially true in these days when so many Christians are willing to embrace eastern mystical practices like 'yoga' and other methods to pursue a state of silence or quietness in order to get into an altered state of consciousness. This is not the message that Pastor Chuck Smith or Calvary Distribution would want to promote."
RESPONSE: This is completely untrue (see above responses concerning Warren, the New Age, yoga, mysticism, and contemplative prayer). As for altered states of consciousness, making this accusation (even loosely against Warren) is irresponsible. Warren has never advocated any altered states of consciousness. Nor has Saddleback Church ever advocated/taught any altered states of consciousness—and I have been attending the church in a ministerial leadership position for nearly fifteen years.



OAKLAND #13: "Pastor Chuck, when asked why the movement has grown always has given the credit to the Holy Spirit. He has stated on numerous occasions that it is not by human effort or cleverly designed plans dependent of church growth experts. On the other hand, Rick Warren’s church growth plan has been carefully designed and orchestrated. Purpose Driven is part of a much bigger church growth plan, one that can be traced back to Peter Drucker.
RESPONSE: This is a terrible misrepresentation of Warren's view of why Saddleback Church has grown. If asked, Warren would say, like Chuck Smith, that all credit for Saddleback's size goes "to the Holy Spirit." In fact, on page 397 of The Purpose Driven Church, under Measuring Success, Warren writes: "Successful ministry is 'building the church on the purposes of God, in the power of the Holy Spirit, and expecting the results from God." Warren also stated: "Strong churches are not built on programs, personalities, or gimmicks. They are built on the eternal purposes of God" (p. 83).

What we see here is Oakland giving a less-than-accurate portrayal of the Calvary Chapel movement and how it all got started. (I am NOT saying that Smith has ever done this).

The Calvary Chapel system began in the late 1960s, during an era when churches were still very much entrenched in the music, service flow, and traditional attire accepted as appropriate in the early twentieth century (c. 1930-1965). Smith, however, broke away from convention, which in turn drew flocks of young people to him:


All of these things, according to numerous studies of Christianity in America, directly contributed to the success of Calvary Chapel. Smith must be credited with having changed the face of American Christianity by welcoming the unwanted masses, and eschewing aspects of traditional church that had no connection whatsoever to his heart's passion—telling people about Jesus, and making sure that God would accept them just as they were (long hair, barefoot, and dirty).

Was the Holy Spirit the bedrock cause of the growth? Absolutely. But these other factors (i.e., Smith's preaching style, personality, vision,  methods,  programs, outreach, and plans) are what the Holy Spirit worked through. The same thing can be said of Warren, who like Smith: 1) uses contemporary Christian music, rather than standard hymns; 2) allows casually-dressed attenders; 3) does not object to long hair; 4) uses a simple, non-intimidating preaching style; 5) dresses casually in the pulpit; 6) has an Internet ministry (instead of a radio program); 7) is personable, charismatic, and down-to-earth.

But all of these things are fairly common now, unlike in Smith's day, when they were radical departures from the way church was being done. In such areas, therefore,Warren has not really departed at all from what is today standard in countless churches (thanks, in part, to Chuck Smith who started such trends). Where Warren has departed from the way church is now being done is by use of his Purpose-Drive model of church health, coupled with twenty-first principles of leadership management, business-oriented organizational methods, and corporate-like church structuring.

BUT IT IS STILL THE HOLY SPIRIT leading, guiding, and blessing the church. The Holy Spirit is simply doing so through a new model (i.e., a new approach). This is exactly what went on with Smith who departed from the convention of his day.

Basically, what Oakland is saying here is that it was perfectly acceptable for Smith to be innovative and depart from the conventional way of doing church in the 1960s-1970s, while still having the leeway to credit his success to the Holy Spirit. But when it comes to Warren, who has tried to be innovative and depart from the conventional way of doing church, then Warren's way  is suddenly not the Holy Spirit. It is all man-made and humanistic. This does not seem very consistent or equitable. And borders, in fact, on being hypocritical.

What about Peter Drucker (b. 1909), the renowned writer, lecturer, and thinker who specializes in leadership management? He has been the subject of relentless attacks by innumerable Christians who have not taken the time, nor the energy, to actually investigate the man's life, views, and beliefs. Instead, his critics (usually Warren's critics), have taken snippets of facts or quotes from here and there and strung them together to paint a horrible picture of Drucker as some kind of New Age guru. But Drucker is no New Ager. And the leadership principles he has imparted to Warren are far from unbiblical. This linked information is taken from my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him (endnote documentation can be found in that volume).

OAKLAND #14:"[I]t is no secret that Purpose Driven is a cousin of Robert Schuller’s "possibility thinking" and Bill Hybel’s "seeker-friendly" approach."
RESPONSE: At this point Oakland is perpetuating the now-rampant Urban Legend about Rick Warren and Robert Schuller. This has been thoroughly debunked (see Warren and Schuller: Debunking An Urban Legend). Warren's Purpose Driven teachings are not a cousin, sister, brother, uncle, or aunt of Schuller's aberrational "possibility thinking." And I would challenge Oakland to produce any statements by Warren that would indicate he teaches "possibility thinking" in any permutation.

As for Bill Hybels and Willowcreek, Oakland again seems to have not done his research very well. Saddleback Church and Willowcreek developed independently along two separate threads within the much broader church growth movement (CGM), which Warren left in the mid-1980s, never to look back. He left because the CGM conflicted with Warren's focus on church "health" as opposed to church "growth" (see previously stated information near the beginning of this section).



OAKLAND #15: "In my view, the stand Pastor Chuck Smith made to stay with the Word of God and warn the flock about the imminent return of Jesus was biblical and the correct decision. I personally believe that those who go down the road of Purpose Driven will become less and less discerning regarding the end times scenario that is currently unfolding, which clearly reveals that Jesus may be soon returning.
RESPONSE: This remark by Oakland, which appears at the end of his article, reiterates what I believe may be a primary reason for the attacks made against Rick Warren and Saddleback by Calvary Chapel—i.e., Rick Warren has discouraged obsession with prophecy, end-times speculation, and doomsday/Armageddon prognostication. And these are the very things on which both Smith and Oakland have built their entire ministries. If this is the case, which I personally believe is very possible, then it is unfortunate that they would take such a course of action (for more information on doomsday date-setters/date-suggesters, see my book End-Time Visions: The Road to Armageddon?).



OAKLAND #16: "I also believe that it won’t be very long before Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven theology will join hands with Roman Catholicism so that together they may work toward their common goal of ushering in the "Kingdom of God."
RESPONSE: In his parting shot, Oakland reveals yet another hallmark of the Calvary Chapel system—it is very anti-Roman Catholic. During my many years in Calvary Chapel I often heard the Roman Catholic church referred to as The Devils Church, a Satanic Lie, the Whore of Babylon, etc., etc., etc. Warren, however, does not take such a harsh stand against Roman Catholicism, which is just one more strike against him in the eyes of Oakland/Smith..

But Warren is not overly enamored with Roman Catholics. His views of Roman Catholicism are very similar to those held by a number of conservative, Bible-believing, evangelicals including myself, Ron Rhodes, Gretchen Passantino-Cobern (Answers In Action), Hank Hanegraaff (president of the Christian Research Institute), and Dr. Norman Geisler, co-author with Ralph Mackenzie of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995). In this volume, Geisler—who is a well-respected evangelical apologist—discusses the many differences and 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).

Unfortunately, many Calvary Chapel leaders are vehemently anti-Roman Catholic, and their prejudice has often colored their view of other evangelical leaders—in this particular case, Rick Warren. For a quick, yet thorough look at Roman Catholicism from a balanced perspective, I recommend the numerous articles available from the Christian Research Institute on the subject (see resource list).

On a final note, I would be remiss to not mention that before Oakland published his diatribe against Warren, I made myself available to him through a mutual friend in ministry. Oakland was given my contact number/email. When I heard nothing, I sent an email to Oakland myself, expressing my willingness as a conservative, Christian apologist to discuss with him Warren's views and the teachings of Saddleback Church. Oakland never responded.



Even as I was finishing up this article, Roger Oakland was publishing on his website yet another attack against Rick Warren, Saddleback Church, and Purpose Drive. Consequently, I decided to delay the public presentation of this response until I could look over Oakland's newest remarks. My response to his "Purpose Driven Unveiled" now follows.

OAKLAND #17: "I have just completed two conferences for pastors and church leaders, one at the city of Antipolo near Manila and the other at Bageo. Because The Purpose Driven Life has been widely distributed throughout the Philippines (either for free or very little cost), the concept of the purpose driven Christian has reshaped the minds and the motives of Christian leaders who now desire to have mega-churches, just like Pastor Rick."
RESPONSE: It is here that I am again seeing what I have suspected all along—Rick Warren and his Purpose Driven teachings about church health (see previous responses) is crowding out the need for other styles/methods of preaching, teaching, and evangelism. To be more specific, it is replacing the tried-and-true method of calling the lost to repentance/salvation using a doomsday/end-times scenario theme, which relies on a "You better get right with God, or you're gonna get Left Behind when the Rapture hits"approach. (This theory was given a measure of support in the fascinating comments made by Jacob Prasch of Moriel Ministries, who is another anti-Warrenite critic, see Moriel Ministries: My Way is God's Way).

This approach, of course, is what many individuals have built their whole ministries on. But it is 2008, and what worked in the rough-n-tumble 1960s-1980s has become obsolete to many people in many parts of the world. In other words, the masses are tired of hearing that the end of the world is going be this year, next year, in five years, just around the corner, no further than ten years (probably). The names are as numerous as the failed predictions that they have been made: Hal Lindsey, Chuck Smith, Jack Van Impe, Edgar Whisenant, Harold Camping. The list of date-setters and date-suggesters (along with their dates) goes on, and on, and on. 

Warren's Purpose Driven approach, I believe, is basically stepping on territory that used to belong to the prophecy pundits. And, to be blunt, they don't like it. Let me be very clear—this is just my opinion. But it is a conclusion that seems to make sense, at least to me. But I certainly could be wrong. In order for me to know for certain what is motivating these individuals to say things that are so contrary to the plain facts, I would need the ability to read their hearts. And that is something only God can do.



OAKLAND #18: "While it is true, that the purpose driven movement encourages all to become purpose driven for the cause of good over bad, somewhere along the line, the social gospel that is being promoted has set the gospel according to the Scriptures aside, or at least, caused it to be lost in the zeal to eradicate AIDS, poverty and illiteracy."
RESPONSE: This is false. Oakland, it seems, is grasping at straws in a desperate attempt to sling as much mud as possible in Warren's direction. He appears to not even be trying anymore to keep up at least a facade of objectivity. He has just accused Warren, once more, of something false: i.e., bringing nothing but a "social gospel" to the world. And yet, Warren has directly condemned the "social gospel" and explained how that has nothing to do with what he is seeking to accomplish:


OAKLAND #21: "It is not my desire to attack or destroy other ministries. . ."
RESPONSE: I would disagree. I believe it is absolutely Oakland's desire to both attack and destroy other ministries—i.e., any ministries connected to Rick Warren or Purpose Driven.



OAKLAND #22: "My desire is to tell the truth and point people to the Word of God. In fact, I have been told recently that the problem I have created amongst a fellowship of pastors is because of "telling the truth."
RESPONSE: If Oakland desires to tell the truth, then he should start telling the truth. To date, he has not done so regarding Warren.



OAKLAND #23: "It is because I am concerned about the direction that purpose driven emerging church Christianity is leading Bible-believing Christianity that I feel called to warn the church—it is a church that is headed towards apostasy and doesn't even know it."
RESPONSE: Oakland has once more linked Purpose Driven/Emerging Church far too closely with the Emerging Church (see previous comments in the main "Oakland's Opinions" section).



OAKLAND #24: "Rick Warren was in Europe participating in the DAVOS discussion group. Someone sent me a link to a short interview that he gave that was aired on You-tube. When I watched Warren on that video clip, I realized his statement would help me show the Bageo Understand The Times delegates that I had not been taking things out of context nor was I exaggerating."
RESPONSE: In the DAVOS video clip (see .mp4 or .wmv), Warren says nothing unbiblical. Here are the points he makes in summary.


It remains unclear to me exactly why Oakland would become so flustered over this short video clip. Warren gives no endorsement to any kind of New Age, one-world religion. He does not deviate (doctrinally speaking) from any Christian beliefs. He never encourages people to stay in whatever religion they happen to be in. He at no point undermines the heart of the Gospel (the life, death, resurrection of Jesus). All he says, in a nutshell is:


And to top it all off, Warren was able to even sneak in a reference to his own motivation, which is Jesus. That is no small task in a highly secularized environment. And Oakland is objecting to this? Words fail me—finally.



Much to my sadness and surprise, Roger Oakland has continued to mount his attacks against despite having been made aware of this article and its contents.His website now includes these additional statements regarding Warren/Purpose Driven that are just as false as everything else he has said. My responses will follow:

OAKLAND #25: "News Alert—Rick Warren (Purpose Driven) and Brian McLaren (Emerging Church) are both well know leaders who suggest that Christianity needs to be modified or re-invented in order to be more effective in the twenty-first century. Both Warren and McLaren expressed their globalist views at the globalist DAVOS conference in Switzerland, January 2008" (Oakland, News Alert).
RESPONSE: Regarding the DAVOS statement, see OAKLAND #23 response. Concerning Oakland's accusation that Warren suggests "Christianity needs to be modified or re-invented," this implies that Warren is in some way wanting to change the doctrines/theology of Christianity, thereby making him a heretic/false teacher. But such an implication is misleading. Warren has no interest whatsoever in changing any concepts, doctrines, or biblical teachings that relate in any way to the foundational beliefs of Christianity (see my two articles The Doctrinal Essentials of Christianity—and Rick Warren and Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell).


OAKLAND #26: "The ideologies and theologies that have been presented by the emerging church and the purpose driven church (one of the greatest evangelistic tools for the emerging church) have opened the door to a much bigger delusion that is coming in the name of Christ. The catalyst for this delusion is "contemplative spirituality" along with the desire to stimulate the senses to become more engaged with 'God'" (Oakland, 2008 Commentary)
RESPONSE: Warren's book/teachings on the Purpose Driven Church have absolutely zero to do with the Emerging Church, and it is certainly not an evangelistic tool for the Emerging Church. In fact, most emerging church attenders would probably not be that comfortable with the purpose driven model because of its structured nature, music, and service style. The Emerging Church movement is something altogether different from purpose driven. But Oakland doesn't even understand what the Emerging Church is to begin with (see OAKLAND #6 response), so it is not surprising that he would make such a comment. What is shocking, however, is how a supposed servant of God in ministry can utterly ignore attempts to correct him and turn a deaf ear to truth.