GILLEY #1: "The Gospel According to Warren."
RESPONSE: The very title of this article sends a clear message. Rick Warren is preaching a false Gospel. It is not the "Gospel" according to God/scripture. It is the "Gospel," according to Rick Warren."

But just what is the Gospel, anyway, the biblical one, that is? Answering that question, of course, is simple: It is the life, death, and resurrection of biblical Christ (1 Cor. 15:1-4). That's it—and that is it in about the smallest nutshell anyone is going to find. We also have Galatians 3:1, which speaks of Christ being crucified for sinners—the heart of the Gospel.

So, does Warren teach the life, death, and resurrections of Jesus? Yes. At a recent Christmas service (December 2008), Warren declared: "God makes you alive with Christ when he forgives all your failures and sins. He did this by erasing the charges that were brought against us by the laws God established. He took those charges away by nailing them to the cross" (see Colossians 2:13-14). He also said. "Because Jesus was raised from the dead, we've been given a brand new life and have everything to love for, including a future in heaven--and that future starts now" (1 Peter 1:3-4).

That is the Gospel. Throughout his ministry, Warren has repeatedly and faithfully offered the Gospel via his preaching, books, and assorted Saddleback materials (see Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell).



GILLEY #2: "In his book The Purpose-Driven Life, his opening statement is, 'It is not about you,' then turns around and writes a whole book about 'you.'"
RESPONSE: Gilley has made a rather odd semantic error here. He is mixing up two different meanings of the word "you." Warren makes it very clear that his book is most certainly not about "you." That is to say, it is not a book meant to teach people how to get what THEY want, what THEY desire, what THEY feel is best in life for them. It is not a how-to manual for those who seek nothing more than a way to fulfill their own, self-centered, self-oriented, self-ish plans, hopes, and dreams. In other words, it is not about "you."

The book, instead, is about finding out what GOD wants for those whom he has created, what GOD'S desire is for those who by faith become his children via adoption into His family, what GOD says is best for our lives if we are ever going to serve Him and others. The Purpose Driven Life is, in essence, a guide for people that points them toward discovering God's plan for them. And it is based on countless biblical passages that deal with that very subject.

Now, obviously, there is a "you" in there somewhere. After all, we are talking about a person's relationship to God. There has to be a God and there has to be a "you, or else there is no interaction (no relationship). Consequently, Warren does talk about people, their hopes, dreams, feelings, thoughts, experiences, questions, and attempts at negotiating life.

For some reason, Gilley interprets this as the mark of a kind of "you"-ness that is unacceptable for a volume supposedly about God. He has failed to see, however, that anytime a "you" is pulled into the picture by Warren, it is only in conjunction with trying to show people that they are totally, utterly, and completely meant for use in this world by God and for His God's glory. Warren points to this biblical truth using his five purposes of The Purpose Driven Life:


Is Gilley actually saying that Warren is focusing here on "you" in a negative way? It sounds to me as if Warren is saying that anything having to do with "you" needs to be rooted and grounded in God/Christ rather than back in the "self," or back in the "you."



GILLEY #3: "He publicly cuts ties with Robert Schuller, then regurgitates some of the most odious things that Schuller has been teaching for thirty years."
RESPONSE: Robert Schuller, it is commonly known, has in many areas stepped well outside the bounds of biblical Christianity and into the realm of heresy and pseudo-Christian teachings. He embraces religious pluralism, for instance, going so far as to say that it is wrong to ask persons in other religions to abandon their faith in favor of Christianity. Schuller also views as acceptable the use of mantras and Transcendental Meditation (New Age), and advocates "positive thinking" as a path to spiritual wholeness/healing (Mind Science beliefs). Additionally, Schuller denies traditional Christian definitions of salvation, sin, the sinful state of man, and original sin.

As for Warren's involvement with Schuller, the supposed connection has been explained by not only myself, but many others (see Warren and Schuller: Debunking An Urban Legend). Gilley has no doubt heard the explanations, given his remark "He publicly cuts ties with Robert Schuller." But then Gilley continues to complain, "then regurgitates some of the most odious things that Schuller has been teaching."

This is an interesting charge. Has Warren truly regurgitated some of Schuller's "most odiuos" teachings, doctrines, beliefs, and ideas? Is Warren advancing Schuller's blasphemous concepts of sin and the atonement. Does Warren, liek Schuller, advance the equal validity of all religions? Does Warren teach, as Schuller does, that man is basically good?

In a short answer, no. The only thing from Schuller that has ever remained part of Warren's teaching style would be various pithy sayings that relate to innocuous concepts of living. I call them Schullerisms. Warren seems to find them useful because of their ease of memorization. They do not in any way deal with the doctrinal essentials of the Christian faith. None of them detract in the least from the historic, orthodox, creedal teachings of Christianity. Nor do any of the references to Schuller that Warren has made in some of his sermons/books refer to anything unbiblical.

For example, in one sermon Warren mentions how Schuller initially had no church building. But he kept looking for one (rather than just giving up), and eventually Schuller settled for a drive-in theater! This impressed Warren as a mark of "creativity," a great trait for a church leader to possess ((Rick Warren, "Handling a Failure in Your Ministry," Leadership Lifter, n.d.). 

Warren also has commented on Schuller's apparent ability to look beyond common logistical problems that arise in any church situation (Rick Warren, "How to Communicate Your Vision," Leadership Lifter, n.d.).

Another place we see Schuller would be in one of the questions that Warren used in 1980 to learn about how the unchurched felt about church. "Why do you think most people don't attend church?" was borrowed from Schuller, who back in 1955 asked basically the same thing of people. According to Warren, it was a good question to use in order to find out what needs were not being met by the church (Rick Warren, "Targeting Your Community: Understanding Who You Are Trying to Reach," c. 1997).

As for actual "Schullerisms" that Warren has repeated verbatim, these are limited to non-doctrinal observations Schuller has come up with about people. For example, in a 1985 sermon Warren cites Schuller's fairly harmless opinion that people should "make the best of a bad situation." There is certainly nothing heretical about that. And in a 1987 sermon, Warren referred to the oft-repeated Schullerism "Tough times never last; tough people do." Again, no big deal. Finally, as another example, we have a 1989 sermon in which Warren borrows Schuller's line "God wants to turn your scars into stars," which Warren used to illustrate the biblical truth that God can and does heal our emotional wounds when we come to Him—no matter how deeply we have been scarred by the world and sin (see Rick Warren, "Letting Go of Loneliness," part 5, Dec. 8, 1985; "How To Develop Staying Power," part 7, June7, 1987; "Healing Scars of Shattered Confidence," part 3, Apr. 9, 1989).

These are the same kinds of things Warren quotes—without attribution—in The Purpose Driven Life. The following comments, for instance, likely reflect Schullerisms/catch-phrasing: 

• "You need hope to cope" (PDL, p. 31); 

• "What is the driving force in your life (PDL, p. 27); 

• "Shift from local thinking to global thinking" (PDL, p. 300); 

• "I dare you to dive into the deep end" (PDL, p. 301); and 

• "The greatest churches in history are yet to be built" (PDL, p. 398). 

But such sayings, obviously, have nothing to do with any serious doctrinal/theological teachings. This is all fluff sentiment and/or motivation language. In other words, Gilley (and many other anti-Warrenites) are making a very large mountain out of a rather small mole hill. Interestingly, although Gilley claims that Warren is repeating "some of the most odious things" Schuller has taught, he gives no examples anywhere in the article that would prove the accusation.



GILLEY #4: "He claims commitment to the Scriptures then undermines them at almost every turn. He will tell his followers that he is not tampering with the message but only reengineering the methods, when in fact he has so altered the message as to make it all but unrecognizable."
RESPONSE: Unrecognizable? From my investigation, it seems that Warren's message is fairly clear and biblical—i.e., we were all created by God, and for God. And the answer to why any of us are here (what our purpose in life is) can only be found in a relationship with God, which is available exclusively through Jesus Christ (John 14:6), who died for our sins on the cross, then rose again from the dead, so that by grace alone through faith alone, those of us who accept his sacrifice will be saved unto God, and delivered from a Christless eternity (i.e., hell). This has always been, and continues to be, the message of Rick Warren (see Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell).



GILLEY #5: "This brings us to his most disturbing alteration, the gospel itself."
RESPONSE: The truth  is that Warren's ministry is about as textbook, Southern Baptist as you can get, and advances the full gospel (see Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell).



GILLEY #6: "To charge Warren with modification of the gospel is an ugly accusation, one that should not be made lightly.  What is the evidence for such an indictment?  . . . In the video that accompanies the "40 Days of Purpose," Warren leads his listeners in prayer at the end of the first session.  The prayer goes like this: "Dear God, I want to know your purpose for my life. I don't want to base the rest of my life on wrong things. I want to take the first step in preparing for eternity by getting to know you. Jesus Christ, I don't understand how but as much as I know how I want to open up my life to you. Make yourself real to me. And use this series in my life to help me know what you made me for."  Warren goes on to say: "Now if you've just prayed that prayer for the very first time I want to congratulate you. You've just become a part of the family of God." Warren would be hard-pressed to find biblical backing for this presentation of the gospel.  We find nothing here about sin, grace, repentance, the person of Christ, Calvary, faith, judgment, or the resurrection.  This is the ultimate in a mutilated, seeker-sensitive gospel:  the seeker comes to Christ in order to find his purpose in life, not to receive forgiveness from sin and the righteousness of God.  Then, to pronounce someone a full-fledged member of the family of God because he has prayed such a prayer (based on minimal, if any, understanding of the person and work of Christ), is beyond tragic.
RESPONSE: "Here we see the modus operandi of anti-Warrenites. Instead of taking a look at the innumerable messages that have come from Rick Warren/Saddleback wherein the Gospel is taught with great specificity, detailing such cardinal points of doctrine as the cross, sin, hell, repentance, and Christ's blood, people like Gilley with an ax to grind against Warren will locate one isolated blurb they can point to and say, "See, no gospel! There's not enough about repentance! He didn't mention the word 'cross' even once! See, Warren is preaching a false gospel. He's a heretic!"

But this is not how apologetics (i.e., defending the Christian faith) should be done. The full scope of an individual's teaching ministry must be analyzed. Moreover, the context in which someone says something must be taken into consideration. A good case in point would be this particular video that Gilley mentions in his attack on Warren.

Gilley is making a fundamental error in the way he is viewing the video tapes used in the Forty Days of Purpose campaign (and it is the same error many of Warren's critics make). As I explained in my interview with The A-Team Blog, the video by itself is "a very limited picture of what goes on during the campaign. Unbelievers are not isolated with the video in a closed room by themselves and told, 'Ok, have a good time, see ya in 40 days!' They are surrounded by Christians with whom they can talk and interact."

Most, if not all, of the people who are at the Forty Days meetings have been invited there by Christian friends/family who have, as far as I know, usually been witnessing to them for a while. Some of those who finally come to the meetings have been going to Saddleback for a while, but have not yet made a commitment to Christ. So, again, there is more to the picture than simply a few lines at the end of one video. There is more going on here than meets the critic's eye.

But Warren's critics are not taking any of these other factors into consideration. They are so quick to find fault with Warren that they are isolating his words from the reality in which they exist, and by doing so, they are able to construct yet another attack.

As for the actual text of the video itself, there is most definitely enough in there to have people who are present at the meetings make real decisions for Jesus Christ. I've seen it happen at Saddleback and I've heard of it happening at other churches.

Remember, Warren is talking to people who have "not previously begun a relationship with Jesus Christ" (not necessarily to people who know absolutely nothing about God, Christianity, the Bible, or the foundational concepts of the faith). As previously noted, many of these people have already been to Saddleback (or other churches), and have had Christians talking to them. 

Warren then asks these people "to open their hearts to Him." I've heard this invitation a million times (hyperbole) at Calvary Chapels. And I've also heard at Calvary Chapels a prayer siad that sounded very much like Warren's. He prays: "Do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? . . . I'd like the privilege of leading you in a prayer to settle this issue. . . . Let's pray. . . . 'Dear God, . . . Today I want to take the first step in preparing for eternity by getting to know You. Jesus Christ, I don't understand it all but as much as I know how I want to open up my life to You [again, I have heard this at other churches]. I ask You to come into my life [also a very Calvary Chapel-like phrase] and make Yourself real to me . . . Amen."

Is this a perfect sinner's prayer? I would say, no. Does Warren go through a systematic presenation of the atonement, the depravity of man, or the forenic act of God whereby Christ's righteousness is imparted to us. Of course not. But could someone sitting there in that group, hearing Warren's invitation, and then deciding to pray that prayer could very easily be saved—oh, yes, most definitely. I've seen it. In fact, I've seen less than this type of invitation being offered to potential converts at numerous churches, and the result was sinners saved. Context, context, context (see my above explanation of the video's context).



GILLEY #7: "Does Warren do any better in his book, The Purpose-Driven Life?  A little, but not much. Concerning eternity he tells his readers, "If you learn to love and trust God's Son, Jesus, you will be invited to spend the rest of eternity with him.  On the other hand, if you reject his life, forgiveness, and salvation, you will spend eternity apart forever" (p. 37). There is just enough truth here to be confusing, but the New Testament never tells us to learn to love and trust Christ in order to be saved.  We are told to repent (Acts 17:30) and place our faith in Christ (Ephesians 2:8-9), not "learn to love and trust."  Just how does the unbeliever go about learning to love and trust Jesus? These are fruits of regeneration, not means to regeneration."
RESPONSE: Gilley is splitting hairs at this point in a desperate effort to continue his assault on Warren. He is, in essense, telling Warren how to write a book; exactly how to phrase things; precisely what words to use. If Gilley wants to write his own book, then he can present the Gospel using whatever words he wishes to use. That is his right as an American. Sadly, he doesn't seem to want to allow that kind of freedom to Warren. The fact is that Warren did indeed present the gospel in various ways in The Purpose Driven Life, using totally acceptable language, as follows:

"God has chosen you to have a relationship with Jesus, who died on the cross for you." "God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. . . . If you want to know how much you matter to God, look at Christ with his arms outstretched on the cross." "When he paid for our sins on the cross, the veil in the temple that symbolized our separation from God was split from top to bottom." "In the Old Testament, God took pleasure in the many sacrifices of worship because they foretold of Jesus' sacrifice for us on the cross." "[Praise God] for what Jesus did for you on the cross. God's Son died for you!" "[S]acrifice is the essence of love. Jesus modeled this: 'Be full of love for others, following the example of Christ who loved you and gave Himself to God as a sacrifice to take away your sins.'" "The church is so significant that Jesus died on the cross for it." "[Jesus] was willing to die a shameful death on the cross because of the joy he knew would be his afterwards." "[God] wants his lost children found! . . . [T]he Cross proves that." "When Jesus stretched his arms out wide on the cross, he was saying, 'I love you this much!' . . . . Whenever you feel apathetic about your mission in the world, spend some time thinking about what Jesus did for you on the cross" (Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, pp. 58, 78-79, 86, 105, 112, 127-128, 132, 198, 288, 294).

This seems to me to be a fairly accurate picture of the Gospel. It might not be written The Purpose Driven Life the way Gilley would like to have seen it written (for example, in one long, extended chunk of text), but if that is the case, then Gilly should write his own book—and not falsely accuse other authors of not preaching the true Gospel.



GILLEY #8: "On page 58 Warren gives perhaps his most complete gospel presentation found in The Purpose-Driven Life. . . . It is worth noting that this gospel presentation is found on Day 7 (of the 40-day journey).  We are to assume that the content of Days 1-6 have led up to this invitation to receive Christ.  What Warren believes a sinner needs to know to become part of the family of God has presumably been presented in the first week of the journey.  But Warren has said nothing about who Jesus is, why He died on the cross, in what manner He is their Savior, the cleansing power of the blood of Christ, repentance or confession of sin, the consequences of sin, or again, the resurrection of Christ.  In a biblically illiterate, post-Christian era, it cannot be assumed that the unbeliever has any concept of any of these things."
RESPONSE: Here we have Gilley, in my opinion, being absurd. He is now telling another author not only what precise words he should have to used, but instructing that author on the order in which he should have placed those words in a book. Once more, Gilley should simply write his own books and be satisified serving God in his way, and rejoice in how God is using another individual's personality, vocabulary, and talents (or lack thereof) to serve the cause of the Gospel.

And I make this observation as an author. I have on many occasions read a book and thought, "Well, I wouldn't have put it that way." Or said, "Hmmm, I really think this should have come before that." But in the end, I look at a book's overall message, and if it is doctrinally sound, and seems to be drawing people closer to God, then it's certainly fine with me, even though I might think it is lacking here or there in a few places, or left wanting in precision at various points.



GILLEY #9: "This is especially disturbing in light of Warren's central message: find God and you will find yourself (purpose)."
RESPONSE: Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. It is shocking to me that Gilley, a graduate of Moody, would not be able to understand the basic thrust of Warren's book. I can only believe that he may have not wanted to see what Warren was actually saying. 

Nowhere in The Purpose Driven Life does Warren even come close to saying that finding one's purpose is basically finding "yourself." The main thrust of The Purpose Driven Life is that people are totally, utterly, and completely meant for use in this world by God and for His God's glory. Warren points to this biblical truth using his five purposes of The Purpose Driven Life:

It's all about God and our relationship to Him. Without God, there is nothing in life for us but a meaningless/purposeless existence (see Ecclesiastes). In a relationship with God, however, through Jesus Christ, we not only receive eternal life, but also purpose/meaning for our lives here on earth, as we serve God and serve others in the name of Christ. In essence, we discover  who we really are, according to God's plan for us, and find our true purpose for existing, according to God's desire for our lives. It is about understanding who God says we are.

Is Gilley actually declaring that such concepts are unbiblical? Does Gilley believe that we should not care at all about why God created each of us? Is Gilley saying that it doesn't matter at all what God has planned for us, or what God wants us to do, or what activities/services he has designed for us to give Him glory? If so, then Golley is the one who is advancing unbiblical doctrines, for we are told that God has indeed created each of us and has established our lives for His glory, designing good works and service in which we are to walk (for example, see Colossians 3:23-24).



GILLEY #10: "When this is undeniably the thesis of The Purpose-Driven Life [i.e., "find God and you will find yourself"], and the "Forty Days of Purpose" campaign, the unbeliever would naturally conclude that he is praying a prayer that will enable him to solve the problem of lack of purpose in his life.
RESPONSE: Actually, not so undeniable (see previous response).



GILLEY #11: "Where in the Scriptures is the gospel ever presented as Warren presents it?"
RESPONSE: Everywhere:


With regard to the 40 Days of Purpose campagin, see previous response here.



GILLEY #12: We are hopeful that Warren does not personally deny any of the essential elements of the gospel, but he certainly does not give them proper weight and he leaves much to the imagination of his readers.
RESPONSE: Gilley needn't just be "hopeful" any longer (see The Doctrinal Essentials of Christianiy—and Rick Warren").



GILLEY #13: Warren's popularity with the masses has risen to such levels that he has now been asked to write a monthly column for the Ladies Home Journal. . . .  Rather than preach Christ, Warren's message, as reflected in the title of his article is, "Learn to Love Yourself" [March 2005] . . . . Not only does Warren not share the gospel, the glory of Christ or any theological truth, he muddies the waters by offering anemic pop-psychology none of which is supportable from Scripture."
RESPONSE: Alright, now here we have a very interesting criticism by Gilley, who clearly has no idea how one might best use an opportunity like writing for a secular magazine as large as Ladies Home Journal. Gilley, it seems, would have had Warren blasting both biblical barrels at readers of Ladies Home Journal, decrying their utter depravity, sinful wretchedness, and then as a conclusion, offering to them the shed-blood of Christ by whose death and resurrection the righteousness of God could be imputed to their souls as a forensic act of Yahweh Adonai.

Unfortuantely, that kind of article would never have been accepted/printed to begin with. Moreover, most readers would have hit the first sentence of an article like that, then turned the page. So, Warren, very wisely decided to give some basic principles about how God sees us. He imparted biblical concepts that would perhaps motivate readers to want to take a closer look at God and his plan for them. This in turn might prompt some of them to read his book The Purpose Driven Life, which as I have already shown above, does indeed contain the Gospel message.

So, what about the actual content of the Ladies Home Journal piece? Truth be told, it's not as bad as Warren's critics have made it out to be. Warren made the follwing points:


Gilley feels that these are nothing but unbiblical snippets of pop-psychlogy mumbo-jumbo. But a quick look at how he is interpreting Warren's points will reveal that Gilley is actually seeing them through a heresy-tinted lens that is prejudiced against Warren. He, and many others, have put the worst spin possible on the article. For example, as another critic has said, Warren's remark about God accepting us unconditionally is tantamount to "the humanistic plea of a homosexual, lesbian, fornicator, or one living in sin unmarried with a 'partner,' who says to parents and concerned friends, 'Just accept me as I am, love me unconditionally.'"

But is this what Warren is really saying? Not at all. Consider the following comparison of the negative spins placed on the article by Warren's critics (specifically Gilley, but it reflects what many such critics have said), and the alternate interpretations of the text based on context and also, more importantly, based Warren's overall teachings, his sermons, and the position of Saddleback Church on these various issues.

GILLEY'S INTERPRETATION	OTHER INTERPRETATION
"To this audience he [Warren] tells them that God accepts them unconditionally.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  We are unacceptable to God in our natural state. . . . (Ephesians 1:3-14)."	Warren is not saying here that God accepts our sins! Nor is he intimating that God is perfectly fine with us continuing a sinful lifestyle. It is not a dismissal of one's need for salvation/repentance, but rather a reference to the fact that we need not clean ourselves up to approach God, which is a misconception held by many people. They feel that they are unworthy to come to God, when in reality, God accepts them as they are (i.e., unconditionally). Look at his words, "in his view we are all precious and priceless." This is a reference to our innate value as created human beings in God's eyes. And Warren's comment, "Focus on this and you will not waste any time and effort trying to be someone you're not," is a clear reference to the fact that we must not try to be like anyone else because we are who God has made us to be (looks, temperment, likes/dislikes, personality, etc.). The whole point is that God accepts us as individuals because he created us uniquely. This has nothing to do with God accepting our sins or sinful lifestyles.
"Nowhere in Scripture are we ever told to love ourselves.  We are told to love God with all of our heart, soul and mind.  We are also told to love others as we love ourselves (Matthew 22:37-40).  Some jump on this phrase, "as yourself," as proof that God commands us to love ourselves. That is not true. The Scriptures tell us we already love ourselves (Ephesians 5:28-29); we do not need to be encouraged to an inordinate self-love that amounts to self-centeredness.  As a matter of fact, the only passage in the New Testament that actually speaks of self-love considers it a sinful sign of the last days (2 Timothy 3:2).  Christ calls us to deny self (Luke 9:23) not love self."	In context, Warren is making a key point about God's love for us, and how we should feel about oursleves in response to that love. He begins by stating, "'The mountains and hills may crumble, but my love for you will never end,' says the Lord. God is not fickle and He does not have grouchy days." He then provides a comment by his wife, Kay, who at a certain point in her life, finally realized experientially the truth that God indeed loved her. The implication is: If God loves you, then you certainly have the right to also love yourself. It seems that Warren here is seeking help those persons who might actually hate themselves. Sadly, there are many people who do, in fact, hate/dislike who they are because of either terrible things that have happened to them, or horrific things that have been said to them (for instance, the adult who, as an abused child, was incessantly told that they were a worthless, good-for-nothing, flthy, stupid, piece of trash). Warren is trying to say to them that they can appreciate their worth as human beings, as unique creations of God, because God (as their creator) loves them. Therefore, they can "love," for lack of a better expression, themselves.
To tell the unbeliever to accept and be true to himself is to condemn him eternally. Should one who is dead in his trespasses and sins (Ephesians 2:1) be told to be content with his weaknesses?  Warren may be attempting to soothe the troubled hearts of his readers, but he is not pointing them to the Savior.	It is ludicrous to think that when Warren is telling people to be true to themselves, he is actually telling them to continue indulging in sins and/or a sinful lifestyle, giving no regard to God. It is very plain, in context, that Warren is talking about individual characteristics we all have as unique creations of God (i.e., some people like to sing/others like to read, some excel at business/others excel at creativity, some enjoy working with others/some enjoy working alone). This is why he references a person's S.H.A.P.E. (i.e., how they are hard-wired by God).  And as for Warren's remark about weaknesses, in context, he is pointing out that we made up of strengths and weaknesses and that we must recognize both these aspects of ourselves in order to fully be utilized by God in life. These aspects of who we are must be accepted if we are going to have a realistic picture of the person God has made us. He says "be content" with your weaknesses as marks of who you are. For example, in my own life, I am very, very weak at: 1) mathematics, 2) working with lots of other people, 3) doing one task repeatedly. I need to accept these weaknesses and understand how I can serve God in spite of these weaknesses. It has nothing to do with sin. It has eveything to do with personality.
Not a word can be found in Scripture about forgiving ourselves. This is a modern psychological invention, not a biblical principle.  God calls us to confess our sins to Him and He will forgive us (1 John 1:9).  We lack the ability and authority to forgive ourselves; that is God's prerogative.	With regard to forgiving ourselves, Warren is simply talking about letting go of guilt. As he says in the article, "When I honestly admit my errors and ask forgiveness in faith, He doesn't hold a grudge." This is nothing more than re-statement of Romans 8:1, "Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." Warren is basically saying, "If God forgives you, then you certainly should forgive yourself, and stop feeling guilt over mistakes you've made as long as you admit your errors and ask forgiveness in faith." But Gilley tries to make this something psychological, instead of biblical.
Rather than believe in self we are told to "believe on the Lord Jesus" (Acts 16:31). Rather than believe in self Paul confirmed that we are inadequate in ourselves (2 Corinthians 3:5), being mere earthen vessels (2 Corinthians 4:7).  Rather than believe in self we are told that anything we accomplish is through God's strength (Philippians 4:13). Rather than believe in self Paul said that he "boasted in his weaknesses, that the power of God may dwell in me" (2 Corinthians 12:9).	It is difficult for me to believe how someone like Gilley could take such a plain/simply remark by Warren and pervert it so outrageously. He has taken Warren's non-offensive attempt to help people have confidence in themselves based on the fact that God "created you with talents, abilities, personality and background in a combination that is uniquely you," and twisted it into some kind of blasphemous remark suggesting that people need not believe in Jesus. But Warren is only saying we should have confidence in our ability to be effective in the world, wherever we happen to be, because God created everyone with individual talents, abilities, personalities, and backgrounds. And that is something we need to remember when we feel, as Warren puts it, "a gnawing sense of insecurity and feelings of incompentence."

GILLEY #14: "How can this evangelical pastor, who has emerged as the most recognized Protestant leader in the world, one who is looked to for spiritual insight and guidance by millions, miss the mark so widely [in Ladies Home Journal]?"
RESPONSE: He didn't (see above).



GILLEY #15: "In The Purpose Driven Life Warren wants us to have no doubt that, when we stand before the Lord, 'God won't ask about your religious background or doctrinal views.  The only thing that will matter is, did you accept what Jesus did for you and did you learn to love and trust him' (p. 34)? On the contrary, what we believe is of utmost importance. Did the Holy Spirit inspire the Bible for us to ignore what it teaches?  Are the words of Jesus insignificant? Are the doctrinal truths of the New Testament epistles nothing more than filler? Concerning salvation, it does matter what you believe about Jesus, the cross, the resurrection, sin, judgment, the gospel and so forth. Warren is doing a great disservice to the church of God."
RESPONSE: Truth be told, it is Gilley who has done a great disservice to the church of God by ripping Warren's words out of context, then misrepresenting the message Warren was seeking to impart:


Warren and Saddleback is very concerned about doctrine with regard to the essentials of Christianity. But when it comes to non-essentials of the faith (i.e., doctrines on which Christians legitimately disagree, while still being Christians), then there is leeway. God is not going to care about these things when we stand before Him. He will not care whether we were a Baptist, a Lutheran, a Presbyterian, a Pentecostal, a Quaker, or a Calvinist. What God will care about is whether or not we knew the Jesus Christ of the Bible as our personal Lord and Savior.



GILLEY #16: ". . . . there is an alternative to PDL and other such programs. It sounds simplistic and old fashioned but it has God's stamp of approval. It is a return to the Bible. Our pulpits need to return to the unabashed exposition of Scripture. Our Sunday school classes and Bible studies need to toss the manuals and guides written about the Bible and open the Bible itself. In our local church we have dropped all commercial Sunday school curriculum—which has been watered down to the point of uselessness—and simply teach the Bible. Our 4-5 years old are being taught selected biblical stories. Ages 6-7 will go through the Bible from Genesis to Revelation in those 2 years. Ages 8-9 will go through the Bible yet again. Ages 10-11 are being taught hermeneutics and Bible study methods and applying those methods to the study of the epistles. Ages 12-13 are taught Bible-college-level courses on systematic theology. High schoolers are taught straight Scripture with emphasis on biblical discernment.  At this level many of them begin to teach children as well as their peers. All adult courses are focused on the study of Scripture, along with classes on church history, theology, and biblical living.  All sermons are verse-by-verse expositions of the Word. Certainly our teachers use commentaries and Bible study aids but it is the Scriptures themselves that are studied."
RESPONSE: Thus saith, Gary E. Gilley, whose personal way of doing church has "God's stamp of approval." In other words, it is Gilley's way or the highway. I wish pastor Gilley much success, then. And pray that his ministry is fruitful and that many souls are won to Christ. His non-Purpose-Driven church, Southern View Chapel, is located in Springfield. IL. And for those who would be interested in attending a church under the leadership of Gilley, I encourage you to pay him a visit. As for me, I will continue to pray that Gilley someday sees how he has misrepresented a fellow pastor in a number of ways.


GILLEY #19: "The gospel is not bringing people to Christ in order to meet their felt-needs. According to Scripture the gospel is the good news that lost sinners can be forgiven of their sins and receive the righteousness of Christ in exchange. This is the real need of humanity, the need for which Christ died. The new paradigm church would have no problem agreeing that Harry's true need is salvation from sin. But they do not believe that Harry will respond to such a gospel unless we dress it up with other enticing offers."
RESPONSE: Gilley has completely misunderstood "felt-needs," as defined by Rick Warren, and how they correspond to delivering a biblically-sound message. Gilley, like many others, seems to view preaching to felt-needs as a kind of soft-on-sin approach or a watered-down-gospel message approach that is designed to merely comfort/stroke listeners.

But Warren's "felt needs" approach to preaching is really just another term for "life application" preaching. It is making the Gospel message not only understandable, but in context of a person's life so they can see how being a Christian would affect their lives. Felt-needs preaching also is designed to show Christians how they can take biblical commands/teachings and put them into practice. This helps listeners be doers of the word, as James 1:22 says, rather than simply hearers of the word (for a more in-depth look at 'felt-needs," see my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him).


GILLEY #20: "Big is good, small is bad; or where have all the people gone? Most churches in America are small. Fifty percent of churches average fewer than 75 attendees on any given Sunday and only 5 percent attract more than 350 according to Barna's surveys. These statistics are not denied: it's their interpretation that is in question. Church growth gurus use these figures to prove that the church has lost its edge—she is not making a significant impact on society. But is this the case? . . . It doesn't take a mathematician to realize that if the percentage of Americans going to church has remained constant, yet megachurches are popping up almost weekly, then the giant churches are largely being populated by folks funneling in from small churches. Just as Wal-marts are killing mom and pop department stores, chain restaurants and groceries are doing the same in their respected venues, and the Mall has demolished 'downtown,' so the megachurches are doing a number on the small church."
RESPONSE: Here we see what might be, and I stress might be, motivating Gilley and so many others—sour grapes. A few things can be said at this point.


The problem here, at least to me, seems to be that Gilley is not pleased with the notion that Warren's way of doing things is bringing people into churches, while his non-Purpose-Driven church and other non-Purpose-Driven churches are either not growing at all. or growing at a much smaller rate. If that is the case, then even this is a moot point being raised because, contrary to what Gilley and many of Warren's critics think, Rick Warren loves small churches! As previously noted, Purpose-Driven is not about church growth, it is about church health. And there are many small, healthy churches. In fact, most of the churches in the Purpose-Driven network of churches have 100-200 people! During my interview with Warren in 2005, he explained:


Given Warren's words, as compared with those of Gilley, it seems that Gary E. Gilley is more concerned with numbers/growth than Rick Warren. Interesting.



GILLEY #21: "Additionally, the church is tempted to alter its message to correspond with what Harry wants to hear and thinks he needs. The end result is a felt-need gospel that appeals to Harry's fallen nature in an effort to entice him to come to Christ, the ultimate felt-need supplier, so that he is fulfilled and feels better about himself."
RESPONSE: See previous remarks concerning felt-needs.



GILLEY #22: "'Can churches really hide their identity without losing their religious character? Can the church view people as consumers without inevitably forgetting that they are sinners? Can the church promote the gospel as a product and not forget that those who buy it must repent? Can the church market itself and not forget that it does not belong to itself but to Christ? Can the church pursue success in the market place and not lose its biblical faithfulness'" (Losing Our Virtue, by David Wells, p. 202)?
RESPONSE: Under no circumstances should a church ever lose: its religious character, its calls to repentance, its identity in Christ, its biblical faithfulness. Neither Rick Warren, nor Saddleback Church has ever abandoned these important aspects of church (see "The Doctrinal Essentials of Christianity and Rick Warren" and "Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell").



GILLEY #23: "I believe the answers to these questions are self-evident."
RESPONSE: Indeed.