"[Ex-cultists] are naturally sensitive to the danger of deception and sometimes begin to see evidence of cult belief in places where it simply does not exist. They read their own experiences into other people's lives and attribute cult meanings to words and phrases when the authors in fact are using them in the ordinary ways used by people who have no cult connection. . . .
When Mr. [Warren] Smith finds 'evidence' of New Age beliefs in The Purpose-Driven Life, he is reading his own past cult beliefs into it—without regard for what Pastor Rick actually is saying" (Jon Walker, vice-president of Purpose-Driven Ministries, letter to persons asking Saddleback Church about Deceived On Purpose, April 12, 2005).

---

---

One of the clearest messages communicated by Warren Smith during his lecture at Calvary Chapel, Sacramento was his opinion that we are on the verge of a cataclysmic spiritual upheaval of unparalleled pproportions. It will be a Satanically-inspired New Age domination of the globe wherein everyone will have to accept the New Age "Christ" (the Antichrist) as part of the one-world religion "New Spirituality"—or be eliminated! As Warren Smith has put it, "The Bible warns that the equivalent of an ultimate Category 5 spiritual disaster is on the horizon" (Reinventing Jesus Christ, Chapter 11 Update).

Smith made this very clear during his lecture, declaring: "This is where the persecution's gonna come. You're gonna start feeling it. You're gonna have, people are gonna start challenging you. It's coming on strong." He added: "[New Agers say] Christians are short-circuiting the flow of the Holy Spirit through humanity. And they need to be healed or eliminated. I'm sorry, that's their words. That's where we're at. Persecution is so close you can just feel it."

And who is leading the charge of the church into the destructive embrace of the Antichrist? None other than Rick Warren. Consider these statements that reflect in no uncertain terms exactly how Warren Smith sees Rick Warren:


To support his position, Warren Smith made a series of false accusations during his lecture, going so far as to declare that Rick Warren is "listening to another spirit" (Smith, Feb. 2008 lecture, Calvary Chapel, Sacramento). This was only one of many inaccurate claims and bits of deceptive information he imparted to his listeners.



SMITH #1: "I just heard [Lee Strobel] speaking at, unfortunately, the Crystal Cathedral. . . . He spoke and he said that . . . we need to experience God.  You hear a lot about that. We need to experience God. Well, guess what, when I was in the New Age, experience was the name of the game. Not the written Word of God. Experience. Actually, the New Age leaders say that if it's between experience and the written Word, always go with your experience. Wrong. That's how I ended up so far lost it was unbelievable."
RESPONSE: First, there is nothing wrong with saying a Christian needs to "experience" God. But as usual, Warren Smith is terrified of any word, term, or phrase that sounds in any way like something he heard, saw, or read while in the New Age movement. In context, as a Christian, Lee Strobel was saying nothing unbiblical. He has merely stressing the importance of having a living, breathing, vibrant relationship with God, as opposed to a cold, legalistic, set-of-rules, works-oriented, dried up, and stale religious imitation of a relationship with the Creator.

This is a classic way that Smith seeks to prove the so-called "New Age Implications of the Purpose Driven Church"—word games. It begins when Smith finds some word, term, or catch-phrase used by Warren (or a Bible translation), then finds that same thing said by a New Ager! He invariably concludes that the two sources are referring to the same thing. But similarity of term does not mean similarity of meaning or intent. Most religions, for example, use the word "God." Does it mean the same thing? No. And many religions refer to Jesus Christ. Do they mean the same thing? Hardly. The same can be said for similarity of symbols used throughout the world. Like words, symbols are highly fluid. They can mean different things, to different people, in different places, at different times. When it comes to words, they are merely symbols for meanings. Consequently, just because someone like Strobel might use the word "experience" for our relationship to God, it does not instantly mean that a New Age meaning is infiltrating his thoughts, especially when the context of his statement is his Christianity! Context is everything. The context of Strobel's faith/Christianity makes it clear that his reference to "experiencing" God is not New Age.



SMITH #2: "[O]ne of problems that I have with some of the big church leaders right now like, sorry, Rick Warren. He's giving generic things like, "It's helpful to know that Satan is entirely predictable." . . . Hello, that's not really too helpful. We need to go a little bit deeper than that."
RESPONSE: Every Christian has his/her place in the Body of Christ. Some are teach, some pastor, some write, some get involved with social issues, some minister to the sick, some counsel, some are prayer warriors. We are all different parts of the Christ's body: eyes, ears, hands, feet. But to Warren Smith, all of us (or at least all pastors/teachers) need to be as passionate about fighting the New Age as he is. If they are not as passionate, then they are somehow not fulfilling their role as a Christian leader. They are not being faithful. They are, in some way, aiding and abetting the enemy.

As admirable as Smith's concerns may be, he is failing to see that the entire evangelical world does not revolve around New Agers or exposing the New Age Movement. And not everyone who walks into a church is a former New Ager. For Smith this may be his all-consuming concern. And that is fine. But every Christian pastor or writer is not obliged to watch every little word/phrase they use in order to avoid some term/word/phrase that is being used by somebody else somewhere in New Age movement. Moreover, exposing the New Age as a ministry also is not something that everyone is called to do. That task belongs to niche ministries that specialize in the area of cults, the occult, and the New Age. 

To say otherwise is like demanding that all Christians picket abortion clinics with a fervor equal to those involved in the pro-life movement. It is like declaring that all Christians should volunteer equal amounts of time to homeless shelters as people called to work in the ghettos of the inner cities. But the truth is that no Christian can do all things equally: time-wise, energy-wise, or detail-wise. If Warren Smith has been called to expose the New Age, then that is what he should do. And he should allow other Christians the freedom to expose it, or not expose it, as they are led by God.



SMITH #3: "[I] noticed as I read through The Purpose Driven Life. . . . I found things like, when he introduced the word purpose, he introduced it by referring to a man named Bernie Siegel. Bernie Siegel is a New Age leader who has a spirit guide named George."
RESPONSE: This is a common objection against Rick Warren—i.e., he quotes non-Christians (e.g., New Agers, atheists, people of other religions, Roman Catholics, etc.). But this doesn't mean that he is supporting or agreeing with their entire worldview. Quoting Bernie Siegel doesn't link Rick Warren to the New Age any more than his quoting of the atheist Bertrand Russell ("Unless you assume God, the question of life's purpose is meaningless") links him to atheism.

Rick Warren feels, as do I, 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. For example, a true observation about the way people think or feel is a true observation—no matter who says it. So if I quote something that is true in order to make a point, then it really doesn't matter who said it, whether they were a Buddhist, an atheist, or a space alien! On my own website, for instance, I have quoted Oscar Wilde, who said: "Music is the art which is most nigh to tears and memory." Does this link me in any way 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 with Christianity. 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. The following is excerpted from my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him. 

Are we now going to say that John and Paul can (or should be) tied to Greek paganism? I don't think so.



SMITH #4: "Last month Schuller had what he called a "Rethink Conference." Think about that. "Rethink." What are we rethinking here. Well, I think we're rethinking the Christian faith."
RESPONSE: Actually, that is not what the conference was about. That conference was a political, cultural, religious, and social conference intended to pull together individuals from different walks of life to discuss their personal views on various issues. Non-Christians, politicians, biblically-sound believers, and those of other faiths were all invited to speak (see my article Kay Warren and Robert Schuller: And the Re-Think Conference).



SMITH #5: "Rick Warren denies that he has any real strong influence from Robert Schuller. Well, if you read my book. You'll see that that's not true."
RESPONSE: Here we have Warren Smith calling Rick Warren a liar—plain and simple. The factual story about Rick Warren and his connection (or lack thereof) to Robert Schuller has been fully documented, and debunks the charge that Rick Warren and Schuller share similar theologies, ideologies, and philosophies (see my article Warren and Schuller: Debunking An Urban Legend). It has been made so clear, in fact, that anti-Warren critics like Warren Smith have been forced to resort to blatantly calling Rick Warren a liar—and inventing a conspiracy of lies to explain away the facts that contradict deep doctrinal ties between Warren and Schuller. This is tragic and shows how desperately individuals like Smith want to make Rick Warren out to be a heretic, despite the truth and factual evidence. 

Smith made the same accusation about Rick Warren during his lecture at Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa (see my article Warren Smith: Still Self-Deceived On Purpose), saying with a sneer, "We had lunch with Johanna [Michaelson] back in 2003 when I was reading The Purpose Driven Life and seeing a lot of connections between Rick Warren—much to his denial—and Robert Schuller." You can hear the disdain in his voice (listen to sound clip). Given the inflection and tone of his voice, he might as well have just said, ". . . seeing a lot of connections between Rick Warren—much to his denial, that New Age, false teaching, lying, deceiver—and Robert Schuller." 

This fits well into Warren Smith's overall conspiracy theory about Rick Warren, the New Age, and the coming Antichrist (see Warren Smith: The Rick Warren-Antichrist Conspiracy), which paints Rick Warren as the one who will be leading the church into the Antichrist's clutches. (For information on the mindset an paranoia of people who live under the shadow of conspiracies, see Selling Fear: Conspiracy Theories and End-Times Paranoia by Gregory Camp.)

SMITH #6: "In The Purpose Driven Life, if you can imagine. Having come out of the New Age, when Rick Warren quotes Eph. 4:6, by saying about God, he rules everything, is everywhere, and is IN everything. Wait a minute! That's not what Ephesians 4:6 says. Paul's talking to believers.  And he's talking about the Holy Spirit that was sent to believers."
RESPONSE: For my response, see the answer to Smith #7 comment in my article Warren Smith: The Rick Warren-Antichrist Conspiracy. SMITH #7: "But to change that [i.e., Eph. 4:6]. To pick out one of the 15 different bibles that he uses and to come up with THAT particular Scripture, that God is IN everything—he denies that's what he means. Then, I would pose the question: "Why use it?" God is not the author of confusion."
RESPONSE: In this remark, Warren Smith is trying to make it seem as if Rick Warren searched high and low to find some Bible translation that he could use in order to push pantheism. But nothing could be further form the truth. This rendering is consistent with numerous Bible translations that seek to show the Christian doctrine of God's immanence:
Are all of these Bibles secretly advancing New Age pantheism/panentheism because they say God is "in all"? Not likely. God's immanence is being communicated by the New Century Version when it says, God is in everything (or when the other translation say God is in all). The rendering choice is NOT seeking to communicate some kind of New Age doctrine of pantheism or panentheism. But that is how Warren Smith is reading it because he is so hyper-sensitive to anything that sounds in the least bit familiar to him as a New Age word, phrase, or term. He is still looking at everything as a New Ager—which is not how the average person, including Rick Warren, is going to read the New Century Version (or any of the other versions listed above). Warren Smith is completely ignoring context. He is ignoring everyone else's paradigm and belief system (in this case, Rick Warren's as a Christian). Of course, if a New Ager were to use the term "immanence" (or "immanent"), they surely would be meaning something completely unbiblical. But Smith is not leaving any room for different meanings/intentions of different people who are speaking. To Smith, anyone who says immanence or immanent is spreading New Age teachings. But in taking that position, he condemns far more Christians than just Rick Warren.

Moreover, he is utterly missing how the English language can be used, and is not pausing to recognize the difficulties associated with this particular passage.  But to be fair, Smith is not alone in his worries. With the rise of the New Age in the western world, confusion and concern has been expressed over a number of Bible translations that seem to be saying God is indeed "in everything" and/or "in all" (see above). But when it comes to Ephesians 4:6, special care must be taken by those analyzing it and deciding exactly what is going on with the translations. The passage in total is referring to: 1) God’s sovereignty, 2) God's immanence, and 3) God's presence—with special attention being given to the Lord’s indwelling of all believers.

Paul first notes that there is "one God and Father of all" (i.e., there exists only one true God who is sovereign over all that is).

The apostle then uses the phrase "and through all," which speaks of God's immanence or presence throughout all creation. The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary observes: "'through all'—by means of Christ 'who filleth all things' (Eph 4:10; 2:20, 21), and 'a propitiation' for all men" (see the entry on Eph. 4:6 at www.bible.cc). The Wycliffe Bible Commentary reads: "He is through all, 'expressing the pervading, animating, controlling presence of that one God and Father" (p. 1310).

Now, we come to the final section of the clause that reads, "and in all." The difficulty arises here because the Greek literally reads: kai en pas (". . . and in all"). This is where most translations leave it, assuming that readers will see that in context it is referring to God’s presence in believers, as explained in The Eerdmans Bible Commentary (p. 1115) and The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (p. 1310),  which gives a more preferrable and accurate rendering of “in all you” (or rather, "in all of you").

All of the translations that leave the verse "in all" in deference to the literal Greek (see above translations noted) are not flawed per se, but are unclear/incomplete in thought. Only by paying special attention to the context, or by reading a commentary, does the meaning become clear. Otherwise it seems to simply be saying God is "in all" (not necessarily in a pantheistic sense, but more in the sense of God being "through all" as mentioned earlier in the passage).

The New Century Version, however, by taking the word "all" and replacing it with the synonym "everything" is flawed. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that there is no credible evidence to suggest that the translators of the New Century Version were deliberately seeking to imply pantheism. It seems more likely to have been a case of carelessness and a coupling of the "and through all" idea with the "and in all" phrase. If this is the case, then the verse is to be understood as meaning that God is "in everything" as a Creator intimately associated with his creations. This would be like referring to the head architect of a planned community, and saying that he is in everything—i.e., his creativity, design, and authority is in all aspects of the community's construction. He is in everything, metaphorically speaking, but not literally.



SMITH #8: "One of the defenses of his using that was, 'In 1997, Rick Warren said God is not in everything. That's pantheism.' Well, my question is, five years later why is he saying that god is in everything."
RESPONSE: The answer is: he's not saying it (see previous response). Rick Warren has consistently denounced the new Age movement and its doctrines, particularly pantheism.

With regard to pantheism, in a 1988 sermon, Warren 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:

Clearly, Rick Warren is not a pantheist. Even in The Purpose Driven Life (all editions), he denounces today's "[m]any religions and New Age philosophies" that teach what he 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" (Rick Warren, p. 172).

As for the New Age movement itself, he has stated as far back as 1989: "One of the most amazing things to me is the popularity of the New Age Movement. It takes more faith to believe in that than it does to believe in Christianity. It is the most illogical, irrational thing" (Rick Warren, October 8, 1989, "God's Purpose for Your Life"). And in a 2002 joint article with his wife, Kay, Rick Warren made yet another proclamation against the New Age movement

"[F]or other people peace means trying new age gimmicks, like gazing at crystals, or using aromatherapy, or sitting in a lotus position and contemplating lint in their navel and going, 'Ommmmm.' But that's not peace of mind either. Let me tell you what real peace of mind is. Real peace of mind is having a relationship with Jesus Christ, God's Son, and becoming friends with God" (Ministry ToolBox, issue #80, 12/11/2002)

Obviously, Rick Warren is not a New Ager. Far from it. In fact, there are a number of articles by various authors currently at pastors.com and at purposedriven.com that condemn the New Age movement, its beliefs, its agenda, and its proponents. Consider the following examples:

"Has Purpose Driven been influenced by New Age 'theology'? Not at all. Purpose Driven is founded on the same beliefs that disciples of Jesus Christ have held for the last 2,000 years. . . . In contrast, "New Age" is a catch-all label for a hodgepodge of primitive religious beliefs accepted by some people who are looking for salvation in something other than Christ. Many New Agers believe in pantheism—the idea that everything is God and God is everything. Notions of karma and reincarnation are fashionable in those circles. Some New Age groups teach that each person is a potential god, others that all religions are equally valid paths to one universal Ultimate Reality. 'But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we exist for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life'" ("Who We Are; FAQ").

On a very personal level, I can say (and prove) that Rick Warren stands diametrically opposed to the New Age based on his endorsements of two of my own books, both of which include lengthy and detailed refutations of: 1) the New Age movement as a whole; and 2) various doctrines promoted by the New Age. These two books are: Defending the Faith: A Beginner's Guide to Cults and New Religions; and its companion volume Cults, New Religious Movements and Your Family (see these reviews from Answers In Action).

The first book (Defending the Faith) refutes several New Age concepts/teachings: pantheism, Jesus as just an "Ascended Master," impersonal nature of the Holy Spirit, the "illusion" of sin (there is neither true right, nor true wrong; no actual good, and no actual evil), and the non-literal resurrection of Jesus. Regarding this volume, Warren stated: "Richard Abanes has done a brilliant job of describing complex theological truths in an easy-to-understand style. I enthusiastically recommend this book."

The second book (Cults, New Religious Movements and Your Family) features an entire chapter—the very first chapter, in fact—that is dedicated to refuting the New Age movement and its many disparate teachings. It is titled "Behind the New Age Craze" and includes: 1) a testimony from a former New Ager who became a Christian; 2) a history of the New Age movement's origins/spread; 3) a comparison of N Age teachings to the Bible; 4) an explanation of why/how so many people are drawn into the New Age movement; and 5) a lengthy list of recommended reading sources for people to learn more about the dangers of the New Age movement. Concerning this volume, Warren said: "If you are interested in cult-proofing your family, this is the book to read."

It doesn't sound like Warren is very much of a New Ager! In fact, Warren preaches/teachers standard, Southern Baptist, Bible based doctrines on every essential of the Christian faith, including those related to God, the Bible, the cross, sin, hell, and repentance (see my two articles The Doctrinal Essentials of Christianity—and Rick Warren, Rick Warren Preaches Salvation, and Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell). Finally, there is also the FOUNDATIONS course of doctrinal teachings that is given at Saddleback church (written by Tom Holladay and Kay Warren). It spends five pages explaining the historic, orthodox, creedal view of the Trinity. And the "Teacher's Guide" contains a full ten pages of discussion points to teach regarding classic Trinitarian theology. All of these pages, however, were ignored by Smith.



SMITH #9: "In relation to Acts, you know, in Acts 1, he [Warren] says Jesus says that prophecy is none of our business. Hello! That's how I got saved!
RESPONSE: Hello! That's not what Rick Warren ever said. Rick Warren has NEVER discouraged the study of prophecy. Here is what Rick Warren wrote in The Purpose Driven Life: "When the disciples wanted to talk about prophecy, Jesus quickly switched the conversation to evangelism. He wanted them to concentrate on their mission in the world. He said in essence, 'The details of my return are none of your business. What is your business is the mission I've given you. Focus on that!"

This small quote near the end of The Purpose Driven Life has caused endless gnashing of teeth by countless individuals who responded in a knee-jerk fashion, denouncing Rick Warren's audacity for daring to discourage the study of prophecy. But is that what Warren was doing? Is he condemning prophecy as a legitimate and rewarding aspect of Bible study? The Rick Warren haters obsessed with prophecy say "YES," and have used this short statement to accuse Rick Warren of practically wanting to gut the whole Bible of prophecy. But nothing could be further form the truth. In fact, prophecy is taught at Saddleback in the FOUNDATIONS maturity course of doctrinal teachings for members of the church. The course's section on "The Second Coming" features segments on:

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." The simple point that Rick Warren is making in his book is: Don't become obsessed with prophecy to the point of ignoring your mission on earth to serve God and serve humanity.

Nowhere has Rick Warren ever stated 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. As Acts 1:6-8 reads: 

"[T]hey asked him, 'Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?' He said to them: "It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Rick Warren, as is his way, has simply taken this verse and attempted to put it into his own, 21st century, down-to-earth, laid back, California, edgy way.



SMITH #10: "[R]obert Schuller wrote a new book] Don't Throw Away Tomorrow: Living God's Dream for Your Life. Who's endorsed it on the back cover? [New Age leader] Gerald Jampolski. Who was at the Crystal Cathedral three weeks ago, at Schuller's Crystal Cathedral talking about integrity and spreading the Gospel? Charles Colson, Lee Strobel, Rick Warren's wife, Kay Warren. Come on people, you know, what is going on here?"
RESPONSE: What's going on here? Well, it's not a conspiracy (see my article Kay Warren and Robert Schuller: And the Re-Think Conference).



SMITH #11: "One of the reasons that Lee Strobel and some of these other men who are very knowledgeable in the Bible, but don't seem to understand the New Age is because they've been involved with Schuller-esk teachings. And they've been so concerned, I guess, with getting bigger churches . . . [W]hen you have a huge church all sorts of things can go on. And you also can tend to idolize these guys who become sort of like Christian superheroes. But you have to measure what they say by the word of God."
RESPONSE: Here we have a number of accusations (false) and insults.

First, regarding Lee Strobel, to say that he doesn't "seem to understand the New Age" is extraordinarily ludicrous. Lee Strobel is one of Christianity's premier defenders of the faith and has demonstrated his knowledge of not only biblical doctrine, but also various religious alternatives to Christianity, including the New Age. And he has refuted them all in his apologetic writings, which include: The Case for the Creator, The Case for Christ, The Case for the Real Jesus, and The Case for Faith. In an article that Strobel wrote for Rick Warren's pastors.com, in fact, he denounced pantheism, saying: "Pantheism, the idea that the Creator and universe are co-existent, also falls short of accounting for the evidence, because it cannot explain how the universe came into existence. After all, if the pantheistic god didn't exist prior to the physical universe, then it would not be capable of bringing the universe into being."

Second, I have not seen ANY evidence or documentation that Lee Strobel has been influenced in any way to any extent by the teachings of Robert Schuller. Where is Warren Smith's evidence for this accusation? It appears he has none. But as is his way, Smith simply makes his baseless charges, which in turn causes division in the Body of Christ.

Third, there are plenty of scripturally-grounded, mature, committed Christians who embrace biblical absolutes, yet also support Warren.  

For example, the widely respected defender of the faith James K. Walker (Watchman Fellowship) has stated, "Warren has a strong commitment to the core doctrines of the Christian faith and an unmistakable passion for reaching the lost, equipping pastors, and strengthening local churches. 'Purpose-driven' is not New Age, it's New Testament."

There is also James Bjornstad—president, Evangelical Ministries to New Religions; and philosophy professor, Cedarville University—who in support of my stand on Rick Warren has stated: "[I]t is refreshing to see someone step forward and defend a ministry and a leader who has contributed as much to the cause of Christ and His church as Rick Warren has."

The late Luke P. Wilson, executive director, Institute for Religious Research, has likewise stated: "The Purpose-Driven Life is more theologically and missiologically balanced than some of its harsher detractors are themselves."

Other supporters of Rick Warren include: Christian apologist Lee Strobel, Ron Rhodes, evangelists Franklin Graham and Billy Graham,  the Christian Research Institute, and many other godly men/women devoted to God, scripture, and the purity of the faith, myself included.

Fourth, Warren Smith questions in a not-so-subtle fashion the spiritual integrity of Strobel and who knows how many others by accusing them of biblical compromise because they are "with getting bigger churches" and idolizing men such as Rick Warren. Once more, where is Smith's proof? What evidence is he offering to support such a serious charge? Basically, the answer is, none. This is not apologetics. This is not defending the faith. This is sin, specifically lying, causing division, and slander.

Scripture tells us that lying is not to be tolerated: "You shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another” (Lev. 19:11). "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies ” (Prov. 14:5). Lying, in fact, is an abomination that God hates (Prov. 6:17, 19). In this same passage that mentions "a lying tongue" and "a false witness that speaketh lies," we read that another thing God hates is "he that soweth discord among the brethren" (Prov. 6:19), which leads us to sin #2 — contention/strife/division. (according to the Wycliffe Bible Commentary, "sowing discord" actually means, "Literally, lets loose strife.")

Scripture forbids causing division, as Paul declared: "But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another" (Gal. 5:15). And again, we read: "For ye are yet carnal: whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and division, are ye not carnal and walk as men?" (1 Cor. 3:3). The destructive nature of division, of course, is that it weakens a house (see Mark 3:24-25). As Proverbs 16: 28 reads: "A perverse man spreads strife, and a slanderer separates intimate friends," which leads us to sin #3—slander and and bearing false witness against another Christian.

Slander is something God really, really, really doesn’t like. And I would imagine he gets especially ticked off when slander happens to be about one of his shepherds leading the flock. The scriptures regarding bearing false witness and slander are many, even equating a "false witness" with deceit (see Prov. 12:17). Consider, too, the following verses:
The obvious question is: What should be done about it? What should be done about Warren Smith?

Scripture tells us to expose sin, because it should be repugnant to us—that is a command from the Lord. Wherever we are, whoever we are, whatever we do, this does not change our simple instructions from scripture to expose sin where we happen to see it. For example, Nathan rebuked David for his sin with Bathsheba. We have a particularly relevant passage in Psalm 120:2, where the Psalmist prays: "Deliver my soul, O Lord, from lying lips and from a deceitful tongue." Both would apply to Warren Smith who, on top of lying and being deceitful, is spreading division by use of slander. And this is something we should all be praying that God will deliver his people from.

The Bible also indicates in the story of David and Saul that we are NOT to listen to someone who slanders another. We see this suggested when David humbly approaches Saul, and with a wounded heart, asks: "Why do you listen to the words of men, saying, 'Behold, David seeks to harm you?'" (1 Sam. 24:9). Saul, in other words, was listening to liars who were telling him falsehoods about David. Look how that situation ended up. All of these things, when viewed in light of the current issue, are directly related to preserving the unity of the Body of Christ, which we are commanded to guard:
Finally, it must be agreed that Warren Smith has now been exalted to the position of a Christian leader—after all, he is speaking to the church now in one of the most influential and widespread church systems in the world. And scripture states that a Christian leader is to be "blameless," and "of good behavior" (1 Tim. 3:2). But Smith is exhibiting either good behavior or blamelessness. Consequently, in my opinion, he needs to be removed from speaking as a leader in any arena.



SMITH #12: "In a song that Bob Dylan did back in the '60s, he said, 'don't follow leaders, watch your parking meters.' And that's pretty much, you cannot just follow leaders. The Holy Spirit has got to lead you."
RESPONSE: When I first heard Warren Smith make this remark, I couldn't believe my ears. It has added to his sins—i.e., the sin of hypocrisy. One of the very things Warren Smith condemns Rick Warren and others for is quoting nonbelievers, particularly nonbelievers who hold a non-biblical religious view (see above response to Smith #3). And here Warren Smith is, quoting and appealing to none other than Bob Dylan—i.e., the lyrics from his 1965 song "Subterranean Homesick Blues," from his Bringing It All Back Home album.

In 1965, "Dylan confessed to not having a specific belief in Jesus and even struggled with the relevance of it all. "Everybody talks about names that strike familiar chords. Jesus Christ. They say, 'Look at all the good he did.' But I ask, 'Where? How? When? For who?' And look at what they did to him. Everybody's talking about how he really felt, but it's such a long time ago, you can't really know. You really just have to believe. And that's a dangerous business, just believing. You have to sacrifice a lot" (Scott Marshall, "Bob Dylan's unshakable monotheism—Part I: The 1960s," Jewsweek). The above news story also revealed the following about Dylan's religious views in 1965:
Currently, Bob Dylan's religions views are still hardly compatible with Christianity. As a 2003 New York Times article revealed, "I believe in a God of time and space, but if people ask me about that, my impulse is to point them back toward those songs. I believe in Hank Williams singing 'I Saw the Light.' I've seen the light, too.'' Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion (John Pareles, "A Wiser Voice Blowin' In the Autumn Wind," New York Times, September 28, 1997). And more recently, in 2003, we learn the following about Dylan's current religious views:
Larry Charles made these observations based on Dylan's actions in recent years past that removed him far form Christianity, although he claimed at one time to have been a born-again Christian:
So, what we have here is a situation where Warren Smith apparently thinks it is just fine for him to quote not only a unbeliever, but an unbeliever who has claimed to be a born-again Christian, while still denying Christianity! But it is not okay for Rick Warren to quote an unbeliever. That is hypocrisy. And it also shows the validity of my response in Smith #3—i.e., "Rick Warren feels, as do I, 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.

For example, a true observation about the way people think or feel is a true observation (like Bob Dylan)—no matter who says it. So if I quote something that is true in order to make a point, then it really doesn't matter who said it, whether they were a Buddhist, an atheist, or a space alien! On my own website, for instance, I have quoted Oscar Wilde, who said: "Music is the art which is most nigh to tears and memory." Does this link me in any way to homosexuality? Hardly. Warren Smith quoted Bob Dylan, does that make him a confused, false born-again Christian, who has invented his own pesonal religion using snippets of Judaism, Christianity, and whatever else? Of course not.

Warren Smith, in making his remark about Bob Dylan, completely dismantled every criticism he has ever made about Rick Warren quoting unbelievers. Not only was it a self-contradictory remark that he failed to even see, but it also made him nothing less than a hypocrite. In my opinion, Warren Smith might do far better as an apologist if he started paying more attention to his own words, than the words of others.