DESPITE THE EXTENT OF THIS ARTICLE DEALING
WITH GREG KOUKL AND MY DISAGREEMENTS WITH HIS VIEWS ON RICK WARREN, SADDLEBACK CHURCH, AND WARREN'S PURPOSE DRIVEN TEACHINGS, I CONTINUE TO HIGHLY RECOMMEND KOKL, HIS MINISTRY, AND HIS RADIO PROGRAM. KOUKL AND I ARE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS
WHO JUST HAPPEN TO DISGAREE MOST SERIOUSLY ON RICK WARREN
(AND THE ISSUES SURROUNDING HIM).

---

Greg Koukl, founder of Stand to Reason ministry, is one of America's premier defenders of the Christian faith. I can't count how many times I've listened to, enjoyed, and learned from, his popular radio show, which is normally filled with admirable apologetic content and a thoughtful presentation of issues concerning 21st century Christians. So let me say up front that I highly recommend his ministry and his radio program.

Nevertheless, we are all just human. And in my opinion, Greg Koukl has not been altogether accurate in his assessment's of the "seeker-sensitive" movement, specifically with regard to Saddleback Church and Rick Warren.

I initially voiced my concern about Koukl's views during a 2005 interview with The A-Team Blog. Koukl then replied to that interview via an Internet article titled "Am I on the Wild-eyed Fringe? You be the judge" (July 29, 2005).

This is my summation of the relevant material, plus my own rejoinder to Koukl's public reply. I begin with the relevant excerpt from my 2005 interview that caught Koukl's attention:

The points I raised against Koukl during the above interview  are, in summation, as follows:

1. In his commentary What's Wrong With Being Seeker-Centered?, Koukl directly criticized "seeker-sensitive" churches, which immediately brings to mind Saddleback Church, under Rick Warren, who is one of America's leading seeker-sensitive proponents (arguably it's most powerful/well-known proponent).

2. Koukl equated "seeker-sensitive" with being "seeker-centered," and that, according to Koukl, means that there is often "no Gospel at all" presented. As he plainly stated: "Most churches that try to be seeker sensitive end up being seeker centered." He then declared:


Notice Koukl's use of the term "purpose." This seems to be a not-so-subtle reference to Rick Warren and his "Purpose-Driven" philosophy of church health and personal spiritual health (see The Purpose Driven Life and The Purpose Driven Church).

3. Immediately following the above comment, Koukl goes on to explain: "I've talked with a number of churches who have gone through 'Forty Days of Purpose.' The problem is that there is no Gospel in those forty days of purpose. It's used as a technique to get to non-believers to the church but they hear a message of good news without any bad news." Once more, we have Koukl pointing his finger at Saddleback Church/Rick Warren as a prime example of what's wrong with the seeker-sensitive (or as Koukl puts it, "seeker centered") approach, which supposedly preaches "no Gospel at all." A resounding message comes through to Koukl's listeners: i.e., Warren's "Forty Days of Purpose" is just one example of the overall lack of any Gospel being preached at seeker churches, particularly those churches where, as Koukl says, "People are coming to have purpose in their lives, but they are not coming to get saved from sin. Lack of purpose isn't the problem; sin is the problem."

---

In response to The A-Team Blog interview, Greg Koukl posted to the Internet a reply ("Am I on the Wild-eyed Fringe? You be the judge") seeking to defend himself against what he apparently thought were unfair and inaccurate criticisms that I had made of his position. The following is my rejoinder to his remarks in "Am I on the Wild-eyed Fringe? You be the judge" (July 29, 2005).



KOUKL: "Am I on the Wild-eyed Fringe?"
RESPONSE: This is a straw-man argument (see definition). I never said Koukl was on any kind of "Wild-eyed Fringe." What I said (see above interview) was that Warren's many critics were making a variety of "wild accusations" that I listed, including the accusation that he is a "false teacher." And it was that accusation that I was attributing to Koukl, whose initial commentary made it very clear (at least to me) that he felt Warren, Warren's seeker-sensitive church (Saddleback), and certainly Warren's Forty Days of Purpose program, preached "no Gospel at all." That, in my book, would certainly qualify Warren as a "false teacher" (i.e., somoene who claims to be preaching the Gospel, but in reality, is not preaching a Gospel at all). Consequently, I considered that accusation by Koukl to indeed be "wild" (i.e., "marked by extreme lack of restraint or control" - see definition #23 @ web dictionary).



KOUKL: "I was a bit surprised, then, to learn that Abanes classifies me as one of Warren's chief critics on the wild-eyed fringe."
ABANES: Again, Koukl is using a straw-man argument (see above). That Koukl would resort to using a straw-man argument is surprising to me since he has often criticized the use of such tactics:


And yet, here is Koukl declaring that I have accused him of being on the "Wild-eyed Fringe"—whatever that is.



KOUKL: "The charge is that I am among those who are "making wild accusations against a fellow Christian to the point of calling him (or her) a liar, a non-Christian, a false teacher, a deceiver, or a New Ager." . . . For the record, I have never said such things about Rick Warren. Ever. So Richard Abanes has said that I said specific things I never said.
ABANES: This is accurate . . . . almost. Actually, I never stated that Koukl accused Rick Warren of all of these things. I listed Koukl with many individuals (named and unnamed) who have made a variety of accusations. Koukl, given the contents of his commentary "What's Wrong With Being Seeker-Centered?," is culpable in my book for having painted Rick Warren as a false teacher (i.e., one whose books, church, and preaching offers "no Gospel at all").



KOUKL: "The source of Abanes's criticism is a transcript of a radio commentary entitled 'What's Wrong with Being Seeker-Centered?' I invite you to read it yourself and make your own judgments about my posture towards Rick Warren. The first thing you'll note is that this commentary is not about Rick Warren. The central point of the piece is to make the distinction between 'seeker sensitive' churches and 'seeker centered' ones, and how those in the first category often drift unwittingly into the second category."
ABANES: To me, this is either back-peddling or soft-peddling. Rick Warren is perhaps the best-known, most influential, widely-heard preacher who advances the seeker-sensitive model of church services. Moreover, in Koukl's condemnation of seeker churches that have drifted toward being seeker-centered (those that preach "no Gospel at all"), Koukl makes use of the term "purpose," which is a direct reference to Warren's trademark catch-phrase about people needing to find their purpose and churches needing to base their structure/organization on purpose (see The Purpose Driven Life and The Purpose Driven Church).. Koukl says, "People are coming to have purpose in their lives, but they are not coming to get saved from sin. Lack of purpose isn't the problem; sin is the problem. It turns out that not even the Gospel is being preached."



KOUKL: "Instead of making disciples—the directive of the Great Commission—they focus their main church activity on evangelism. A seeker church in Florida was the foil for my comments, not Saddleback."
ABANES: If this is the case, then Koukl should have made that clear in his commentary.  Instead, he used terminology and references that seemed to point straight to Warren/Saddleback Church, especially his direct reference to Warren's Forty Days of Purpose program.



KOUKL: "Mr. Abanes seems to take my radio commentary as a broadside against Warren. It was not. In fact, Warren's name is never mentioned, nor is Saddleback Church, though there is a reference to other churches."
ABANES: It is true that Koukl never mentions Warren, by name; never mentions Saddleback, by name. But he didn't have to. For all intents and purposes, he indicted both Warren and Saddleback just as easily by: 1) saying "most" seeker-sensitive churches are actually "seeker centered"; 2) using the Warren-invented catch-term "purpose" to describe those places where "not even the Gospel is being preached"; and 3) making direct reference to Warren's Forty Days of Purpose program.



KOUKL: "In the middle of the argument I make an excursus giving an example of a weak Gospel message. I mention the "Forty Days of Purpose" campaign in which I say "there is no Gospel." Here's why I said that. Though its content is principally for discipleship (a virtue I have frequently pointed out), "Forty Days" is designed to be used aggressively as a tool for evangelism. The first home-group video has a segment dedicated to settling the eternal question of the Gospel before moving on to the main thrust of the program—fulfilling your God-given purpose as children in His Kingdom. Rick Warren leads viewers in a prayer to settle the first eternal question they face: "What did you do with my Son, Jesus Christ?" What follows is a word for word transcript of that portion of the video. . . . [transcript provided by Koukl] If what you just read is the Gospel portion of the "Forty Days of Purpose" campaign (which is the way Rev. Warren characterized it in the video), then I think I am within my rights when I say there is no Gospel in the "Forty Days of Purpose" campaign."
RESPONSE: Koukl is making a fundamental error in the way he is viewing these video tapes that are 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. 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, these critics 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 know Christians who have been talking to them. He then asks these people "to open their hearts to Him."

I've heard this invitation a million times (hyperbole) at Calvary Chapels, as well as the actual prayer that Warren 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 in to 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 the group hearing Warren's invitation decide to pray this prayer and be saved—oh, yes, most definitely, I think so. I've seen it. In fact, I've seen less than this be offered to potential converts and they were saved. Context, context, context (see my above explanation of the videos context).



KOUKL: "I don't think this is the way Rick Warren always characterizes the Gospel, but it is the way he characterized it in the "Forty Days" video. My criticism within the context of the commentary is a fair one, and I stand by it."
ABANES: Indeed. Warren has often given a more fully-orbed presentation of the Gospel (see Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell). But what Koukl failed to take into account with regard to the video was context. The context of the video in the setting of a group (see previous response).



KOUKL: "At STR we have never gone after Rick Warren specifically, as others have."
ABANES:True. Not specificlaly by name. But in his commentary on seeker-centered churches, it seems that Warren was taregted indirectly by inference and insinuation (as well as a direct reference to one of Warren's resources).



KOUKL: "We are concerned with the way he sometimes characterizes the Gospel (and this we have on the video-tape that went to millions of Christians for their home groups with the 40 Days of Purpose campaign), and also his questionable use of Scripture and 'free' translations, which is easily demonstrated (and something we've complained about with many other pastors not in the 'seeker' movement)."
ABANES: These are valid concerns. I have no arguments with Koukl here. And in opinion, if this is the case, then he may have simply lost the thread, so to speak, in his What's Wrong With Being Seeker-Centered? commentary, perhaps not realizing the extent of the heat surrounding Rick Warren, and how his words would be used to further the more hateful attacks being made against Warren and Saddleback Church.

For example, as I noted in The A-Team interview, in the article Seeker Sensitive Christianity, the author quotes Koukl's remark, "Most churches that try to be seeker sensitive end up being seeker centered. The church becomes for the seeker rather than Christians." This article then goes on to lambaste seeker-sensitive churches. And the prime example is Rick Warren: "The whole 'purpose' of Rick Warren's, The Purpose Driven Life propaganda extravaganza was big money for the author and it added more lost souls counted for Satan and NOTHING to the Kingdom of God." Koukl is also listed here along with some of the worst of Warren's critics: Richard Bennet, Joseph Chambers, Dan Norcini, and others.

Interestingly, again as I pointed out in my interview with The A-Team, I showed my criticisms of Koukl's approach to Rob Bowman, (director of The Center for Biblical Apologetics), who is a very experienced apologist and author in the area of Christian doctrine. He couldn't believe what Koukl had said, and actually went to read it for himself at teh Stand to Reason website. After reading Koukl's accusations, or rather, how Koukl phrased what he said—Bowman agreed with my assessment of Koukl's words (and their implications).



KOUKL: "Abanes simply has not represented my views accurately, nor can he justify his criticism of me from anything I've said publicly, privately, or in print."
ABANES: See my above responses.



KOUKL: "And even if I did misstep on this (which I don't think I have), why would this cause him to question my 'motives' or my 'concern for truth' when he knows I have a decades-long history to the contrary? This is ironic in light of the fact that Abanes's subject is the alleged unfair and inaccurate attacks on Rick Warren."
ABANES: I raised the question about "motives" and "concern for truth" after seeing so many people leveling so many unfounded accusations, baseless assertions, and mean-spirited attacks against Warren. It looked like Koukl was simply jumping on the bandwagon. Koukl, unfortunately, to use an old cliche, was at the wrong place at the wrong time. At this point, however, I am certainly willing to chalk up his words/views to a serious "misstep," rather than having lost his "concern for truth." So, for that overstatement on my part, with regard to Koukl, I apologize. But the remark still stands as applicable to plenty of others.



KOUKL: "Mr. Abanes has charged me by name with being among those who are 'making wild accusations against a fellow Christian [Warren] to the point of calling him a liar, a non-Christian, a false teacher, a deceiver, or a New Ager.' If I have not said any of those things, then Mr. Abanes should not suggest that I have. He's free to argue from inference if he is able to succeed in that line, but that's another claim entirely."
ABANES: As I have noted, I never stated that Koukl accused Rick Warren of all of these things. I listed Koukl with many individuals (named and unnamed) who have made such accusations. Koukl, given the contents of his commentary What's Wrong With Being Seeker-Centered?, was culpable for having painted Rick Warren as a false teacher (i.e., one whose books, church, and preaching offers "no Gospel at all").



KOUKL: "I have no reason to think this is Abanes's standard practice. I think he made a mistake here, at least with regards to me (I don't know about the others), and it probably is an innocent one. That's why I am not inclined to question his own motives or his concern for the truth. He has a noble history of valuable contributions to the body of Christ as far as I can tell, and no doubt that will continue. I do hope, though, that he's able to clear up this point of confusion regarding my views, judgments, and alleged accusations."
ABANES: I have no reason to think this is Koukl's standard practice. I think he made a mistake here, at least with regards to Warren, and it probably is an innocent one. That's why I am not inclined to question his own motives or his concern for the truth (anymore). He has a noble history of valuable contributions to the body of Christ as far as I can tell, and no doubt that will continue. I do hope, though, that he's able to clear up this point of confusion regarding his views, judgments, and accusations.