Warren
and Schuller:
Debunking An Urban Legend
Some of the
most impassioned and persistent criticisms against Rick Warren have
involved his supposed alliance with Robert Schuller (founder and
long-time senior pastor of the Crystal Cathedral)—even to
the point of CNN describing Schuller as Warren's mentor
(Larry King Live, March 14, 2005).
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 cult beliefs). Additionally,
Schuller denies
traditional Christian definitions of salvation, sin, the sinful state
of man, and original sin ((for information on Schuller, see this article by Joseph P. Gudel, and this profile by the Christian Research Institute).
Given Schuller's doctrinally aberrant views, it is no surprise that when he was described as Warren's mentor on Larry King Live, the
announcement raised more than one red flag among believers in the
historic, orthodox Christian faith. Consider these warnings that
have been issued by various persons:
"[M]uch
of the mystery concerning Warren's Purpose Driven theology
can be
cleared up when we realize the source of his ideas [Robert Schuller]. .
. . " [his] revered colleague."
"[L]et
us consider Schuller's followers like Bill Hybels and Rick
Warren."
"Warren
who went to (guess where) The Robert Schuller Bible College."
"[Warren]
has been heavily influenced by Positive Thinking guru Robert Schuller.
. . . Rick Warren is a devotee of Robert Schuller, having attended his
pastoral training course many times."
"[I
cannot] understand why any Bible believer could follow men such as Bill
Hybels, John Maxwell and Rick Warren, when they are speaking for a man
like Schuller."
"[Schuller]
is Rick Warren's mentor."
Countless alerts such as these can be found littering the Internet,
despite the fact that it has been shown time and again that such
accusations are built on gossip, faulty assumptions, misinformation,
partial truths, and baseless assumptions. This is what Warren had to
say for himself when I asked him about Schuller during our interview
together:
ABANES: So, there
is, in your opinion, no
way to be
saved outside of a personal faith in the historic, orthodox, Jesus of
the Bible?
WARREN: Absolutely
not. John 14:6. Very clear. I'm betting my life on John 14:6 ["I
am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except
through Me"].
ABANES: So you do
not endorse or adhere to Robert Schuller's teachings on things like
sin, salvation, and pluralism?
WARREN: Absolutely
not! Not only do I not endorse him—he's
wrong! He's just
flat-out wrong.
In my exclusive interview with
Warren in 2005, he expressed clear frustration over the
incessant linking of him to Schuller, calling it one of the "most overblown" things he has ever come up
against. We spent the next forty-five minutes talking about Schuller
and their "relationship." He then granted me
permission to access his personal files that contained private
correspondence between he and Schuller.
"Can I quote from these letters?, I asked.
"Yeah, sure," he answered. "I
don't care. Go ahead. You can quote whatever you like. I have
nothing to hide."
So what exactly is the tie between Schuller and Warren? How did the
rumors all get started? Why have they persisted? The following
explanation of the reality behind the anti-Warren propaganda is taken
from my book Rick
Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him:
This recounting of the historical events was read for accuracy by both
Kay and Rick Warren before being published and they approved it. Yet
the rumors persist about Rick Warren being heavily
influenced by Schuller, and that he is pluralistic/heretical like
Schuller. Warren has gone so far as to write personal letters to
various bloggers in an attempt to stop the tide of gossip over of the
Internet regarding this issue (for example, see this letter).
Unfortunately, Schuller is not helping the situation. On his Crystal
Cathedral/Hour of Power website, he is continuing to support the notion
that he had far more to do with Warren's rise to popularity than the
documentation suggests. The website boldly declares:
"We
are the home of the world's first Church Growth
Institute, launching the mega-church movement in the 20th
century.
Tens of thousands of pastors, including famous graduates Rick Warren,
Bill Hybels, Bishop Blake, Walt Kallestad, and Sundo Kim of Korea, were
mentored here."
And in an article titled "What
Will Be The Future of This Ministry?" (4/4/2004), Schuller proudly
boasted: "And
there's Rick
Warren, a pastor who today is phenomenal. He came to our
institute
time after time. . . . How God
has blessed him. And today Rick Warren is blessing millions
of people."
But
the truth (as shown with the above excerpt from my book) is
that Warren's so-called "time after time" visits to Schuller's Institute
for Successful Church Leadership
Crystal Cathedral amounts to
nothing more than a few visits Warren made to the Institute in order to
share his
testimony. But by putting his "time
after time" spin
on the real events, Schuller has found a convenient
way to
attach himself to one of the most influential and powerful leaders in
the evangelical church—i.e., Rick Warren.
And that, as
they say, is that, except for . . . . . .
WARREN
& SCHULLERISMS
For the sake of accuracy, a word must be
said here about
the fact that various terms, short
catch-phrases, and non-theology related concepts that can be traced to
Robert Schuller do indeed appear in The Purpose Driven Life
(and have sporadically cropped up over the years in Warren's sermons).
This is beyond question. They are what I call
Schullerisms.
The use of such phrases, in my opinion,
has been unwise on Warren's part, especially in The Purpose Driven Life,
where one can find non-attributed Schuller catch-phrases/terms
that seem to have been
used by Warren for their quickness and ease of memorization. This has
seriously muddied the waters when it comes to
exactly how
much influence Schuller has exerted over Warren. But a careful and
thoughtful reading of the material will show that the
"influence" on Warren by Schuller actually relates to nothing more
than:
a) the creative ways in which
Schuller built a nontraditional church; and
b) some of
Schuller's
non-doctrine related observations about the unchurched, and people in
general.
At this point, it must be stressed that
the
various Schuller-inspired catch-phrases and terms Warren used in The Purpose Driven Life
do
not in any way deal with the essentials
of the Christian faith. None of
them detract in the least from the historic, orthodox, creedal
teachings of
Christianity involving the
cross, sin, hell, or repentance. Nor do any of the references
to Schuller that Warren has
made in some of his sermons 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 very
non-doctrinal observations
that Schuller has come up with about people. For example, in one 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 types of
statements/observations/pithy catch-phrases that
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 these, obviously, have nothing to
do with any serious doctrinal/theological teachings. This is all fluff
sentiment and/or motivation language. In other words, Smith (and many
other anti-Warrenites) are making a very large mountain out of a
rather small mole hill.
A BLOGGING ENCOUNTER
In
February 2008, a heated exchange of words took place between myself and
a fairly well-known Warren critic named Chris Rosebrough, who has
posted on his blog
a number of articles critical of Rick Warren. It was not the first time
Chris and I had engaged in verbal combat regarding Warren. And when we
met online again at the Phoenix Preacher blog, our
interaction quickly became combative.
Our
subject of discussion was Robert Schuller and his connection to Rick
Warren. Back-and-forth we argued, obviously unable to hear
what
the other one was saying. And so the story would have continued, if it
had not been for Rosebrough
suddenly identified our point of misunderstanding. He posted the
following message, in hopes of trying one more time to see if there was
indeed a place where we could see eye to eye on the whole
Warren-Schuller issue:
Mr. Abanes,
I also want to postulate a theory about why we keep talking past each other on the Warren/Schuller issue.
Now that things have settled down, I went back and re-read what you wrote on the issue.
I think you mistakenly believe that I think Warren was influenced by Schuller's theology and doctrines. I actually do not think that.
I think the evidence shows that Warren was influenced by Schuller's "positive appeal to nonbelievers". This has to do with methodology not doctrine.
I think your article makes it clear that there was 'influence' on Warren by Schuller but that it was not doctrinal it was methodological.
Would you agree with that assessment? If that is a correct assessment then we may have some common ground.
I interpreted your vehement denial of a connection to Schuller as a complete denial of influence. You interpreted my insistence that there was a connection as me saying that Warren bought into his doctrines.
Now I may be stretching here but that may also be why Schuller still insists that he mentored Warren. If Schuller is bifurcating between methods and doctrines in his mind then he has a case for claiming he mentored Warren. He's in a sense trying to make the claim, "I taught Warren everything that he knows' and if in his mind he is talking about Warren using Schuller's methods 'of church growth' then I think he's got a strong case.
Is this interpretation closer to the truth? Help me out here.
It was surprised, to say the least. Chris, it seemed, was on to something. I eventually posted the following reply:
Chris Rosebrough: I think you mistakenly believe that I think Warren was influenced by Schuller's theology and doctrines. I actually do not think that.
RESPONSE: Yes. I thought you were talking about his doctrines/theology/soteriology.
Chris Rosebrough: I think the evidence shows that Warren was influenced by Schuller's "positive appeal to nonbelievers". This has to do with methodology not doctrine.
RESPONSE: Correct. From my understanding of the historical events, one of the problems facing the church (and Warren) in the late 1970s was a serious distaste for traditional church buildings/styles of worship/service flow. All of THESE particular methods were on the outs. I was there. I personally remember what it was like as I was searching for my own faith, and what I saw, and heard, and lived through. Traditional church, form-wise, was the killer. There were too many bad memories, thoughts, and feelings tied to "traditional church." It was not necessarily the actual foundational truths of scripture that were offensive. It was the "church" itself.
That's why I found Jesus upstairs in my parents bedroom while reading the Bible, after weeks of just reading the Bible, and having God speak to me through various means. I had no Calvary Chapel in the midwest. I lived in Catholic-country. But someone told me - read the Bible. That's all that was there for me in that area -- because there was no way I was going to go into one of those traditional churches. That was what it was like back then. But it was enough for me to just sit at Christ's feet and hear his voice.
So, back to Warren, when he visited Schuller's church while he was in seminary, he saw "church" being done (method-wise) in a totally unconventional way that seemed very, very acceptable to unbelievers who were burned out and antagonistic toward "traditional" church. This has nothing to do with doctrine, or the content of Schuller's message per se. In many ways, what Warren saw and embraced was the fact that there is not one right way to "DO" church or one right way to "PREACH" a message (remember, Warren comes from a staunch, long-line of Southern Baptists). So, this was extremely enlightening to him. Hence, Kay Warren's comment about Schuller having a "profound" effect on Rick.
Chris Rosebrough: I think your article makes it clear that there was 'influence' on Warren by Schuller but that it was not doctrinal it was methodological.
RESPONSE: My only caveat would be, that the methodology would not even be Schuller's. In other words Rick didn't see Schuller's methods, and say, "I'm going to use Schuller's methods." Instead, he saw Schuller using non-traditional methods, and thought, "Hey, if he can do that, then I can do that. I'm going to come up with my own BIBLE-BASED methods for doing church." Ding-ding-ding ---- The Purpose Driven Church.
Chris Rosebrough: Would you agree with that assessment? If that is a correct assessment then we may have some common ground.
RESPONSE: Basically yes, with the above caveat and explanation.
Chris Rosebrough: I interpreted your vehement denial of a connection to Schuller as a complete denial of influence.
RESPONSE: That would be incorrect, as my article on Warren & Schuller shows (see http://abanes.com/warren_schuller.html)
Chris Rosebrough: You interpreted my insistence that there was a connection as me saying that Warren bought into his doctrines.
RESPONSE: Correct. Because that is 99.9% of the time what is being said: i.e., that Warren has adopted any one or all of Schuller's notions such as pluralism, Schuller version of "self-love," so-called "possibility thinking," definitions of sin, etc. etc. These doctrines of Schuller are absolute, full-blown, heretical bunk. If I were a non-Christian, I'd use a different word. To use Warren's phrase, Schuller is "flat-out wrong."
Chris Rosebrough: Now I may be stretching here but that may also be why Schuller still insists that he mentored Warren. If Schuller is bifurcating between methods and doctrines in his mind then he has a case for claiming he mentored Warren.
RESPONSE: Yeah, I can see Schuller doing that. He'd still be stretching it though, in my estimation. I say this because it is my PERSONAL opinion that Schuller knows a good thing when he sees it, and let's face it, when it comes to power/influence, Warren is a good thing. And so, I think Schuller wants his church to ride Warren's coattails, so to speak. And in his mind, he's able to sort of push it because: a) Warren did indeed visit his church while at seminary; and b) Warren did give his testimony at Schuller's Leadership Institute during the early years when Warren's church was growing. I CANNOT PROVE SCHULLER IS JUST PLAIN LYING. But I make my analysis based in part on Schuller's character (a heretic), and also his incessant nagging over the years for Warren to come back and speak at his church. Warren has kept telling Schuller no, no, no, no (I document these interesting facts in my book). And in private communications between Warren and Schuller that I accessed, Warren chided Schuller for "causing confusion" in the Body of Christ (see article http://abanes.com/warren_schuller.html). But Warren, let's be honest, is a very big feather to have in one's proverbial cap.
Chris Rosebrough: He's in a sense trying to make the claim, "I taught Warren everything that he knows' and if in his mind he is talking about Warren using Schuller's methods 'of church growth' then I think he's got a strong case.
RESPONSE: There's the sticker. Warren never used Schuller's methods of church growth, except for a single question in Warren's survey that he borrowed from a similar survey that Schuller had taken. That's it. No more. Nada. After that, Warren came up with his own methods of church HEALTH, not church growth. They are two very, very, different things. In fact, that's why Warren left the whole church growth movement. Warren didn't want to focus on growth. That wasn't his concern. His concern was church health (see my article on Oakland and Hunt, http://abanes.com/cc.html, the first section is on church growth vs church health).
Chris Rosebrough: Is this interpretation closer to the truth? Help me out here.
RESPONSE: See above. If you can accept what I have said above. We have 100% agreement. We seem to be extremely close now.
R. Abanes
To my great delight and surprise, Chris then replied: "I agree with everything you've said on the Schuller issue. We have 100% agreement and I think you should post this in on your site."
I close this article with one of my favorite verses of the Bible: "[W]ith God all things are possible" (Matt. 19:26).