I have known Don Veinot of Midwest Christian Outreach for many years. He has been a friend, a sort of long distance mentor by way of his publications, and a respected fellow-servant in the field of apologetics. Consequently, I asked him to endorse my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him. Veinot read the manuscript, liked it, discussed it with me, voiced a few concerns that we resolved, and in the end he decided that what I had to say about Rick Warren was important enough for him to support the volume (see his endorsement in this list of endorsements).

Suddenly, however, in direct contradiction of the reasons he gave me for wanting to support the book, Veinot pulled his endorsement via a letter to Harvest House publishers. It came as nothing less than a shock to me. Veinot sent me no advance notice of his decision, which would have been the polite thing to do. I had no idea whatsoever that there was even a problem, or that he was having any doubts about his decision. In other words, I was completely blind-sided by his actions, which in my opinion, were terribly inconsiderate of me and our "friendship."

Moreover, Veinot has now shown himself willing to reject truths that he has already recognized as truths, and has jumped on the anti-Rick-Warren bandwagon. This, in my opinion, marks a tragic day in the field of apologetics. I sent the following email to Veinot July 22, 2005. More articles on Don Veinot and his Midwest Christian Outreach will be forthcoming.
 

TO: Don Veinot (Midwest Christian Outreach)
FR: Richard Abanes
RE: Recent Actions

July, 22, 2005

Don,

I am shocked and hurt that I had to find out today (July 21, 2005) from a third party about you sending to Harvest House a letter wherein you pulled your endorsement for my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him. In my opinion, you have betrayed not only truth, but also the trust that many people have placed in you. And on a very personal level, you have betrayed me and our friendship—not just because you pulled your endorsement, but also because you didn't even have the courage, integrity, consideration, or common decency to either call me or email me so that we could face each other on this issue (However, I did notice that on your website, the letter to Harvest House reads "CC: Richard Abanes"—but I never received anything).

I feel like a soldier abandoned by his buddy. I asked you to watch my back during a fire-fight, and you agreed to do that, promising that you would stand by me as we went racing toward the front lines where the bullets were flying and the shells were landing. But then, when I turned around for some help, just as things were starting to get a little hot, I found out that you had fled the battlefield.

Why did you run, especially after we had spoken at length on June 22, 2005 about the whole Roman Catholic-Rick Warren issue? We discussed all of your concerns and I told you to go ahead and take some time, pray about it, think about it, and then let me know your decision. Finally, after you had indeed prayed about it and thought about it (over the course of two days), you told me to let your endorsement remain just as you had written it (see your endorsement now up at my website). Moreover, you said that you definitely wanted your endorsement to remain on the book because Warren was indeed being misrepresented in the areas I dealt with. And in direct reference to my material on whether or not Warren is a New Ager, you added that you thought there were areas which warranted sound criticism but that the New Age charge was not one of those areas (Don Veinot, email to Richard Abanes, June 24, 2005, exact statement available upon request, publication of quoted text from private emails is a violation of federal copyright law).

Is Warren now suddenly NOT being misrepresented in the ways I discuss in the book? Is he now suddenly a New Ager? How do Warren's recent statements on Roman Catholicism relate in any way at all to your original reasons for endorsing my book? You knew about Warren's views on Roman Catholicism, but you STILL wanted your endorsement to remain in full force, so why the sudden change of direction? (Warren, by the way, said nothing in the "Pew Forum of Religion" that you had not already heard him say elsewhere.)

Your current position does not match up with what you told me when you stated in very explicit terms that you had ALREADY gathered a great deal of pro-Catholic material from the pen and mouth of Rick Warren. This bothered you, to be sure, but you said that you STILL wanted to endorse my book because although you disagreed with him on Roman Catholicism, you felt it VERY important to only criticize him fairly—and my book dealt with unfair criticisms. You even remarked to me that we apologists work hard at not misrepresenting JWs, Mormons, Wiccans, and others by dealing with them as honestly as we know how to do from their own material and that Rick Warren deserved no less fairness from us (Don Veinot, email to Richard Abanes, June 24, 2005, exact statement available upon request, publication of quoted text from private emails is a violation of federal copyright law). You plainly stated that THIS was the reason why you wanted to endorse my book. Nothing has changed—except your sudden desire to pull the endorsement.

Additionally, with regard to Warren's position on Roman Catholicism, you gave me yet another direct reason for your endorsement that should have precluded exactly what you have now done. You plainly stated that your endorsement should stand as written despite Warren's views on Roman Catholicism because those views really had nothing to do with the content of my book. You declared to me that if you were confronted with criticisms, you would simply point out to people that it is not right to misrepresent Rick Warren or anyone else, whether we agree or disagree with them (Don Veinot, email to Richard Abanes, June 24, 2005, exact statement available upon request, publication of quoted text from private emails is a violation of federal copyright law). You have now contradicted yourself by: a) pulling your endorsement; and b) noting Warren's views on Roman Catholicism in your letter to Harvest House. You have not followed through with your promise to simply point out to people that it is not right to misrepresent Rick Warren or anyone else, whether we agree or disagree with them.

Again, I ask you: Is Warren now suddenly NOT being misrepresented in the ways I discuss in the book? Is he now suddenly a New Ager? How do Warren's recent statements on Roman Catholicism relate in any way at all to your original reasons for endorsing my book? Why the sudden change of direction? At this point, I also must ask: Did you buckle under pressure from your donor base? Did other anti-Roman Catholic ministries with whom you are closely linked put pressure on you? Did you find out that endorsing my book was causing too much friction between you and the various anti-Warrenites with whom you interact? I believe that the only possible answer to these latter questions is an undeniable yes.

In my opinion, you have: 1) not remained true to your word; 2) contradicted yourself; 3) been less than honest with a friend (i.e., me); and 4) compromised truth for the sake of popularity (as well as for the sake of the most popular bandwagon gaining riders in the apologetic/counter-cult community—i.e., attack Rick Warren). 

You know better, Don. But rather than remain strong in the Lord and in the power of his might, you have turned away from your previous commitment to me and chosen to not stand for truth. My book, as you already know, is not about Rick Warren's position on Roman Catholicism (you and I discussed this very issue during our lengthy telephone conversation of June 22, 2005). It is about the many ways he has been misrepresented by critics. You acknowledged this fact and THAT is why you endorsed the book. Now, you reverse your position.

To make matters worse, you have deliberately done what you spoke out against in your email to me—i.e., misrepresenting Warren. So you now fall under the condemnation of your own words about Rick Warren deserving no less than the degree of accuracy we give to JWs, Mormons, Wiccans, and others when we represent their views (Don Veinot, email to Richard Abanes, June 24, 2005, exact statement available upon request, publication of quoted text from private emails is a violation of federal copyright law). You fail to heed these words in your now-public letter that attacks Warren's so-called new "reformation." You misrepresent Warren's views by alleging that "The new Reformation he is currently pushing for is one which reverses the first Reformation" (Don Veinot, letter to Bob Hawkins, Jr., July 14, 2005).

You know from the manuscript that I sent you—and from my book which is now in print—that Warren's "reformation" has NOTHING to do with doctrine. He explicitly declares so in my book's interview with him, saying that the new reformation "is not about creeds, it's about deeds. It's not about belief, it's about behavior. We figured out the correct beliefs 500 years ago. We've got our doctrinal beliefs. Here's what the Bible says. Sola Scriptura. Sola Gratia. Sola Fide. Soli Deo Gloria. But now we need a reformation of behavior. What does the church do in the world?" And as Warren has explained, the new reformation that he is seeking to bring about is rooted and grounded in the Great Commandment to love our neighbors. It's behavioral—i.e., serving and loving others; showing our faith by our deeds (see James 2:18-26). Warren's goal is to change "not our beliefs," but "our behavior" toward the world's “hungry, hopeless, and helpless" (see "The Task Before Us Is Enormous, but God Is Equipping Us," Mar. 30, 2005, Ministry ToolBox, issue #200, online at www.pastors.com).

These statements, which also appear in my book, directly contradict your false accusation that "The new Reformation he is currently pushing for is one which reverses the first Reformation" (Don Veinot, letter to Bob Hawkins, Jr., July 14, 2005). You saw Warren's own words in the manuscript I sent you. But now, despite your knowledge of what he is really teaching about this new reformation, you accuse him of seeking to reverse the first Reformation! I offer a scripture for your consideration: "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor" (Exodus 20:18).

You've crossed the line, Don. I am so disappointed I have no words to express my grief. You, your board, and your ministry have lost a significant amount of integrity because of this action, at least in my eyes. Consequently, I can no longer endorse you, your research, or your ministry. You have gone the way of those who are now bearing false witness against a fellow Christian. I see in your recent actions the end of what has been a fruitful, honest, and godly ministry.

And I notice, by the way, that at the top of your "Advisory Board" list of persons (see sidebar on your stationery), you include Dr. Norman Geisler. Given your recent concerns about Warren, are you now going to act consistently and remove Geisler from your Advisory Board and stationery? After all, he co-authored with Ralph MacKenzie the decidedly pro-Roman Catholic book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995). Geisler's volume is endorsed by:

• Roman Catholic, Richard John Neuhaus;

• Roman Catholic, James Hitchcock;

• Roman Catholic, James Akin, who is an apologist for Roman Catholicism (see Catholic Answers); and

• the pro-Roman Catholic evangelical Chuck Colson who, along with Roman Catholic priest Richard John Neuhaus, drafted in 1994 "The Evangelicals and Catholics Together Document." Colson also received the $1,000,000 "Prize for Progress in Religion," given annually at the Parliament of World Religions by New Age financier, John Templeton!

Why are you allowing Geisler to be on your Advisory Board? Why are you allowing his name to appear on your stationery even though he obviously has pro-Roman Catholic leanings? In fact, PART ONE OF his book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals is dedicated to "Areas of Doctrinal Agreement" that lists 8 major areas of doctrine that he says we 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). EVANGELISM? Geisler even speaks favorably of what he calls "Evangelical Catholics"!

Personally, I have little to argue about with Geisler when it comes to Roman Catholicism. But it seems that you would not be able to say the same thing. So how is it that you can pull your endorsement for my book on Warren—just because of his rather tame views on Roman Catholicism—but at the same time put at the top of your Advisory Board a man who has written a pro-Roman Catholic book that includes "Evangelism" under "Areas of practical Cooperation" and goes so far as to talk about "Evangelical Catholics"!? How is your acceptance of Geisler consistent with your sudden concerns about Warren's position on Roman Catholicism?

Interestingly, on page 407 of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, Geisler positively cites Harold O.J. Brown as saying, "to the extent that a Catholic and Protestant are orthodox, there is more by far that unites them than divides them, particularly over against the monolithic secular culture of today." This remark is not far removed from the statement by Warren that you are now using as an excuse to pull your endorsement: "I started watching ETWN, the Catholic channel, and I said, "Well, I'm not as far apart from these guys as I thought I was, you know?'” (Rick Warren, as quoted in your letter to Harvest House).

So, again, I ask: Will you now at least be consistent in or actions and distance yourself from Norman Geisler by removing him from your "Advisory Board" and stationery?

The bottom line is that you KNOW my book speaks the truth about Warren and shows very clearly how people have misrepresented his views—that's why you endorsed it, according to your own words. Now, you have betrayed that knowledge. Your choice, more than anyone else's, has hurt me deeply. But I take comfort in knowing that love will prevail, godliness and integrity will be what lasts, and truth will overcome lies. And in the end, Christ will win out over petty jealousy, sensationalism, and compromise.

In your last email to me (the one in which you told me that even though you disagreed with Warren on Roman Catholicism, it was still the right thing to endorse my book), you summarized your reasons for endorsing my book by saying that striving for popularity and recognition has never attracted you, and that you do what you do because you believe it is the right thing to do. And that it really didn't matter what others thought about you—because you could still sleep at night (Don Veinot, email to Richard Abanes, June 24, 2005, exact statement available upon request, publication of quoted text from private emails is a violation of federal copyright law).

I will pray for you.

deeply grieved,

Richard Abanes



NOTE: In my personal email to Veinot, I quoted him directly, but these quotes have been removed and his statements paraphrased in order to abide by federal copyright laws that forbid publication of unpublished text from private emails.