Warren Smith is a former New Ager who for many years has produced material exposing the false teachings of not only the New Age Movement, but also various other religious belief systems based on unbiblical forms of spirituality. By serving God in this way, Smith has been of great service to the body of Christ. Unfortunately, Smith is now most notable for his concentrated and persistent attacks against Rick Warren (author of The Purpose-Driven Life and The Purpose Driven Church).

At first, his observations were fairly conservative, alerting people to the possibility that there might be some New Age overtones to a few of the things Rick Warren was preaching. However, these preliminary concerns have now evolved into a full blown conspiracy theory featuring Rick Warren as the man who is going to lead the church into a spiritual trap of unimaginable proportions and incomprehensible consequences. It will be a Satanically-inspired New Age domination of the globe wherein everyone will have to accept the New Age "Christ" (the Antichrist) as part of the one-world religion "New Spirituality"—or be eliminated! As Warren Smith puts it, "The Bible warns that the equivalent of an ultimate Category 5 spiritual disaster is on the horizon (Reinventing Jesus Christ, Chapter 11 Update).

Smith's main work against Rick Warren is Deceived On Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose-Driven Church. It is arguably one of the worst apologetics-related volumes to ever gain popularity in the Christian community. The book does not rest on a thoughtful presentation of the facts, but instead, is built on the following:

In Deceived On Purpose, Smith condemns Rick Warren for all manner of New Age heresies and beliefs using the above tactics. The result has been a growing mistrust of Rick Warren in certain segments of the Christian community, as evidenced by a growing number of believers who, after reading Warren Smith's book, consider the Saddleback Church senior pastor a heretic. Consequently, I  feel the need to make at least some observations on Smith's accusations in the hopes of preventing needless division within the Body of Christ. 

This article represents just a partial listing of the countless problems that fill Deceived On Purpose. To catalogue all of the errors would itself require the writing of an entire book, which is not possible (given my limited time and energy). The following material, however, will more than sufficiently show that Smith's volume is not only unreliable, but also irresponsible in its claims and accusations against: a) Rick Warren; b) The Purpose Driven Life; c) Warren's P.E.A.C.E. Plan; and d) Warren's Purpose-Driven model of church health (i.e., the way Rick Warren describes a healthy church in The Purpose Driven Church).

Guilt by association is a negative propaganda tactic designed to lay guilt on someone for a particular teaching/action/belief simply because that someone in question has associated with (or continues to be associated with) another person who is guilty of a particular teaching/action. The most common way to use "guilt by association" is to first build a very strong case against one individual, then accuse a second individual of the same things simply because they have been in association with the first individual. This line of reasoning might best be illustrated by the following example:

Clearly, in this example, we have George being labeled a racist simply because of his association with Johnny—even though no direct quotes are available to show that George does indeed share the racist views of Johnny. This "guilt by association" mode of critiquing someone is blatantly evident in Deceived On Purpose: New Age Implications of the Purpose Driven Church.

The first indication that Smith is using "guilt by association" can be plainly seen in: a) Smith's surprisingly small number of Rick Warren quotes; and b) Smith's extremely limited number of primary research documents relating to Rick Warren.  In Smith's 211-page book, which includes 304 endnotes, Rick Warren is cited (by endnote count), only 46 times. Moreover, all of these 46 endnotes are taken from just 4 sources: 

1) The Purpose Driven Life, 

2) a 2003 email to church members, 

3) The Purpose Driven Church, and 

4) a single 2003 sermon (the Nov. 2, 2003 sermon that keeps being referred to by other anti-Warrenites, which includes a video relating to Ken Blanchard).

In addition to this small number of Warren quotes (and sources), there are only 2 more citations/sources taken from Saddleback Church releases/publications, each of which is quoted only once: 1) a Weekend Message Application Guide titled "Our Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan"; and 2) the church's Foundations course of doctrinal teachings.

Smith, in other words, does not use a very large sampling of quotes from Warren/Saddleback in a book that is supposed to show the "New Age Implications" of Warren/Saddleback. To make matters worse, the relatively few quotes that Smith does use from Rick Warren (and/or Saddleback Church) are consistently misinterpreted, taken out of context, or perverted to mean something that Warren never intended (see "FLAWED CONCLUSIONS" section).

What about the rest of the book's 256 endnotes? These are citations and quotations from a wide assortment of New Agers and non-Christians. Oddly, they are quoted more often, just as often, or nearly as often as Rick Warren! (Many of the endnotes also are devoted to quoting The Message paraphrase of the Bible, which is supposedly New Age—according to Smith). 

Smith's book, in reality, is a volume about the New Age Movement, with Rick Warren quotes sprinkled here and there in an attempt to link Warren to the variety of true New Agers that Smith is so very familiar with—especially the heretic-liberal Robert Schuller (for information on Schuller, see this article by Joseph P. Gudel, and this profile by the Christian Research Institute). Schuller is by far the most discussed person in Deceived On Purpose. So excessive is Smith's treatment of Schuller that he could have easily titled his book Deceived by Schuller! 

Consider the following tally of endnote references, bearing in mind how comparatively few times Warren/Saddleback is directly quoted:

For a book that is supposedly about Rick Warren and his Purpose-Driven teachings, Rick Warren is not quoted very often when compared to how many times other individuals are are cited. In fact, in order to prove his points, Smith goes so far as to quote himself a total of 12 times (from other books he has written on the New Age Movement)—more times than he even quotes Warren's extremely important volume The Purpose Driven Church (only 7 endnote references)!

Smith's book, in other words, is really focused on Schuller and assorted New Agers, not Warren, who seems to be a mere afterthought thrown into the mix via "guilt by association" links. Smith often forges these links by referring to isolated words, phrases, or terms used by Rick Warren that also happens bear a passing similarity to words, phrases, or terms used by various New Agers (see the "BIZARRE WORD GAMES" section and also the "SCHULLERISMS" section at the end of this page).

This tactic  was even criticized by Roger Overton, who is himself known as a critic of Warren's Purpose-Driven teaching/preaching. Overton boldly criticized Smith's use of guilt by association in his insightful review of Deceived On Purpose that was posted at The A-Team Blog (see Overton's Review). Overton rightly observed: "Mr. Smith claims, 'Rick Warren is not the victim of any 'guilt by association.' (174) However, the only evidence that Mr. Smith is able to offer is completely circumstantial."

Much to Warren Smith's credit, he actually admits as much in his introduction—albeit far more reservedly—by saying in reference to his "evidence" that "[s]ome of it is rather circumstantial" (p. 9). But Smith then claims that "[s]ome" of his evidence is "strong." This latter claim, however, is an exaggeration. The truth, as Roger Overton noted, is that most (if not all) of the so-called "evidence" offered by Smith is circumstantial. 

Circumstantial evidence, of course, is "evidence" that is not drawn from direct observations of a fact. This perfectly describes what Smith does. Consider, for instance, Smith's accusation that Rick Warren is some kind of devotee of Robert Schuller—i.e., a sort of disciple of Schuller's who has adopted most (if not all) of Schuller's theology and assorted unbiblical teachings. What "strong" evidence does Smith offer? Well, it's not very strong at all. His "evidence" basically narrows down to the following:

1) a visit by Warren to Schuller's Institute in 1979, along with a comment by Schuller about Warren visiting "time and time again" (see "PARTIAL TRUTHS" section); and

2) a small sampling of non-theology related statements by Warren that reflect some relatively innocuous remarks made by Schuller (see "SCHULLERISMS" section at the end of this page).

Deceived On Purpose does not offer a single quote by Rick Warren that shows he has truly adopted any theological or soteriological teachings from Schuller (i.e., teachings that relate to God, sin, salvation, the atonement, other religions, pluralism, or self-esteem)—not a single quote! Smith is merely repeating what has become the favorite against Rick Warren by his fiercest critics—Rick Warren is a devotee of Robert Schuller who was mentored by Schuller. Thanks to the Internet, this rumor about Warren has now gained Urban Legend status and will not die, despite the fact that it has been debunked again, and again, and again (see Warren and Schuller: Debunking An Urban Legend).

SUBJECTIVE OPINIONS (back to list)

One of the most obvious weaknesses in Deceived On Purpose is Smith's inability to remain objective. Every writer certainly has his/her own bias. But these should be set aside as much as possible to achieve as fair a look as possible at a person/group being analyzed. Smith, however, makes no attempt to set aside his personal feelings, past experiences in the New Age, subjective notions, and doctrinal prejudice (e.g., that the King James Bible is the best Bible).

Everything that has anything to do with Rick Warren is interpreted by Smith through the lens of his own Ex-New Ager-tinted glasses. For instance, rather than reading a statement by Warren in the way that Warren clearly meant it to be taken (based on Warren's broader teachings and beliefs), Smith will read into it what a New Ager might have meant—often in direct contradiction to Warren's views expressed elsewhere. On other occasions, just because Rick Warren did not phrase something (or write something) in a way that Smith would have phrased it (or written it), then Smith assumes that Warren's words are either New Age-tainted or Schuller-tainted. 

Smith goes so far as to make a variety of criticisms based on nothing more than his own personal opinions about what he thinks should be said/written in books dealing with spiritual matters. Because Rick Warren did not include some of these things, then Warren Smith considers him heretical/deceptive. In other words, Smith's personal ministry to expose the New Age (a worthy calling) becomes the standard by which he measures Rick Warren's fidelity to truth and scripture. This highly subjective approach can be seen in the following examples.

EXAMPLE #1: Smith criticizes several Christian authors—including Rick Warren, Billy Graham, Jerry Jenkins, and Max Lucado—who contributed articles to From the Ashes: A Spiritual Response to the Attack on America, which was published in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. The secular publisher of this book (Rodale, Inc.) contracted various persons from a variety of spiritual belief systems to talk about their view of 9/11 in light of their own spiritual beliefs. Non-Christians asked to make contributions included New Ager Neale Donald Walsch. Smith understandably (and correctly) slammed Walsch for calling all people (including Christians) to acknowledge the New Age belief that "We are all one" and for encouraging everyone to embrace "new spiritual truths." But then Smith goes beyond appropriate commentary, by complaining: "[W]hat a great opportunity it was for Christian leaders—particularly in this book—to contend for the faith by exposing the New Age teachings that were behind Walsch's seemingly 'positive' exhortation.... If the Christian leaders in From the Ashes contended for the faith by responding to Walsch's New Age challenge, they could use the situation to delineate the significant differences between New Age teachings and the teachings of biblical Christianity. . . . Walsch's challenge was a great opportunity for these Christian leaders to contend for the faith. . . . But other than one lone pastor in Iowa, I am not aware of anyone else publicly responding to Walsch's challenge" (pp. 15-17).
RESPONSE: Smith is implying that Warren and others have somehow compromised, or at the very least dropped the ball, by not condemning the specific statements Walsch made in From the Ashes. But there are two problems with his criticism here. First, and most obvious, is the fact that critiquing Donald Walsch was not what Warren and the others were contracted to do. Second, who is Smith to say what another minister should, or should not, say? Or how some another servant of Christ should, or should, not run their own ministry? Smith has a ministry, which is dedicated to exposing New Age teachings, and that is wonderful—but he does not have the right to impose his ministry or his way of doing things on other servants of God. Nor does he have the right to imply that someone else is compromising just because they don't talk about, or point out, what he thinks should have been talked about, or pointed out.

EXAMPLE #2: "As I approached reading The Purpose Driven Life, I hoped that Rick Warren would include 'contending for the faith' as one of God's purposes for His people. It seemed obvious that if the Church was going to be at all effective it could not continue to pretend that the New Age wasn't happening. I wondered what Rick Warren might say. . ." (p. 17).
RESPONSE: Again, we see Smith reading Warren's material with a mindset that exalts Smith's own personal ministry to a place of such importance that he feels everyone must address those same things that concern him. But nothing obliges Rick Warren—or any other author—to write about "'contending for the faith" as Smith defines it or as Smith would do it. Using Smith's line of reasoning, we could just as easily read his sentence from the perspective of all kinds of ministries:

Clearly, this is not the way to view the ministries of our brothers and sisters. Smith seems to be forgetting that the Body of Christ is made up of hands, eyes, feet, legs, ears, and arms (1 Corinthians 12:11-13). We all have our place. The foot cannot expect the hand to behave like a foot, and the eye cannot expect the ear to start seeing (1 Corinthians 12:19-21). If Smith wants to write a book titled The Contending for the Faith: How to Combat New Agers & Live Righteously, then by all means, he should do so. But he cannot denounce others for writing books that they want to write, which may not include things that Smith finds most important to him.

EXAMPLE #3: "'Before you were born, God planned this moment in your life. It is no accident that you are holding this book.' (Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Life, 2002). . . . [W]hen I was involved in the New Age movement I had been greatly misled by a number of seemingly 'meant to be' types of these experiences. I would later find out that many of these experiences had been cleverly orchestrated by a deceptive spirit world to make me think that what was happening in my life was coming from God" (pp. 13, 18).
RESPONSE: It is unfortunate that Smith had to endure the kind of manipulation he endured while ensnared in the New Age. But as tragic as that experience must have been, it does not legitimize his attempts to draw a link between what Warren's statement about "no accident" and a similar quote by New Ager Neale Donald Walsch, who said (in reference to his own volume Conversations with God): "'[T]his book has arrived in your life at the right and perfect time'" (cited by Smith, p. 15). Unlike Walsch, Rick Warren is talking about God's sovereignty, foreknowledge, and predestination. He is saying that God is in control of all things, that nothing surprises Him, and that it is no "accident" that readers have a book in their hands about Him. For those who accept Christ, their reading of the book was the Spirit leading and guiding them to salvation. In fact, right after Rick Warren's "no accident" comment, he cites Ephesians 1:11, which is about the inheritance Christians are predestined to receive from God: "It's in Christ that we find out who we are and what we are living for: Long before we first heard of Christ, . . . he had his eye on us, had designs on us for glorious living, part of the overall purpose he is working out in everything and everyone." Rick Warren is making his statement from a Christian perspective (see my articles The Doctrinal Essentials of Christianity—and Rick Warren, Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell and Rick Warren Preaches Salvation). Knowing that Rick Warren is a Christian helps us accurately interpret his statement. If a New Ager had said the same thing, of course, they would have meant something else. In apologetics, looking at the person who is speaking is key to understanding what that person means when they say something. This is a standard practice in discernment. One must first see what someone believes theologically/doctrinally to rightly understand any other statements they make.

EXAMPLE #4: Smith clearly prefers the King James Version of the Bible to any other translation, especially Eugene Peterson's The Message, which is used quite frequently by Rick Warren. Smith tells a very touching story about his first KJV that was given to him and his wife, saying: "[I]t was this kind woman's King James Bible that we continually turned to for support and counsel" (p. 37). Smith further explains: "More than anything, though, the teachings and the doctrines of the King James Bible have always rung true. . . . [T]he King James Bible had met us right where we were at. . . . It helped save our lives. . . . Having only used one Bible all of these years, I wanted to understand why Rick Warren felt the need to use fifteen different Bible versions and paraphrases. . . . I couldn't really relate to what Rick Warren was saying about 'limitations' and overly 'familiar' verses. . . . In The Purpose Driven Life he rarely referred to the King James Bible. . . . The King James Bible had not 'complicated' the 'Good News' for my wife and I when we were lost in the New Age—it had provided much needed clarity by exposing the deceptiveness of our New Age teachings" (pp. 38-39).
RESPONSE: These remarks by Smith typify his reasoning—i.e., if he cannot relate to something, or if he has not experienced something for himself, then it must be untrue and/or it must be New Age. In this instance, Smith cannot comprehend how anyone might possibly not be as enamored with the KJV as he and his wife are. Smith also seems unable to fathom how someone might actually be brought closer to God by another translation than the KJV, or even a paraphrase, like The Message. Consequently, Smith sets out to prove not only that The Message is New Age, but that Rick Warren has New Age leanings for liking it.

Throughout Deceived On Purpose we also find another problem that might best be summed up as a series of flawed conclusions. Smith habitually will make a list of facts and/or bits of information that are in themselves accurate, but then, when analyzing the data, he ends up making conclusions that are either unwarranted or not fully substantiated.

For example, Smith makes quite an issue out of how The Message (Bible paraphrase by Eugene Peterson) uses the phrase "above and below" (Colossians 1:16). He writes: "When I was in the New Age, it was well understood that the words 'above and below' had metaphysical/New Age connotations and were routinely substituted for 'heaven and earth.' In fact, the term 'as above, so below' was a commonly accepted New Age phrase. . . . I [also] discovered that Peterson had actually inserted the entire phrase 'as above, so below' into his paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer" (Smith, p. 30). Smith goes on to suggest that Peterson is probably pushing the New Age false teaching that there is a "Oneness" to all that is (i.e., pantheism, see Smith, p. 35).

But Deceived On Purpose actually does not include a single quote from Eugene Peterson himself that would prove the assertion that Peterson's use of the phrase "as above, so below" means something New Age. It is all an assumption/conclusion Smith reaches via his own experiences with, and fears about, the New Age. Smith asks several leading/accusatory questions to make his point: "How come Eugene Peterson inserted a universally accepted, mystical New Age term right into the middle of the Lord's Prayer?" "[W]hy does a derivative of the saying show up in his paraphrase of Colossians 1:16?" "Even if you thought there was some 'good' reason for using the term 'as above, so below,' why would you?" (Smith, pp. 34-35).

In answer to Smith's last questions about the use of "as above, so below" (especially with regard to Eugene Peterson and Rick Warren): Why wouldn't you? Nothing has proved by Smith except: 1) the phrase is used in The Message; and 2) the phrase is used in the New Age. What Smith did not provide was a clear link between the two. 

It does not logically follow that anyone will be drawn into the New Age simply because Peterson used "as above, so below" in The Message (see Colossians 1:16 and Matthew 6:9-13). After all, heaven is indeed "above" and earth is indeed "below." This is not such a drastic perversion of the biblical text as Smith makes it out to be. In fact, and quite ironically, Peterson just might have derived this phrase from none other than Smith's favorite King James Bible, where Jesus himself states: "Ye are from beneath; I am from above" (John 8:23)!

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

Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life (or The Message, for that matter) is not a refutation of the New Age. Nor is The Purpose Driven Church an expose on the New Age Movement. Consequently, neither book is written with an overarching concern to stay away from terms that might hint at something New Age—especially if it's a word or term that nobody, generally speaking, would consider New Age. Even if Peterson was indeed trying to slip some New Age catch-phrase into the Bible and Warren fell into the "trap" so to speak. It is highly doubtful that readers would see any pantheistic parallels in just four words.

More realistically, however, with specific regard to Peterson and Warren, a phrase like "as above, so below" would not be known to either of them as being New Age. Neither of them specialize in the area of cults (or the New Age). Such detailed information about the phrase, in fact, would be unknown to just about everyone except a New Ager, an ex-New Ager, or a researcher of the New Age. It could very well be a coincidence. Or, Peterson might have indeed heard it somewhere, and it subsequently stuck in his mind as poetic sounding, then he used it. But rather than opting for this possibility, Smith's fears and anxiety have gotten the best of him and he has launched into exposing his conspiracy theory—not caring that in order to do that, he is slandering others. 

Interestingly, with regard to Peterson's understanding of the term, "as above, so below," Warren Smith admitted the following during a 2008 lecture at Calvary Chapel, Costa Mesa (he made a similar remark during a lecture delivered at Calvary Chapel, Sacramento):

"I actually know somebody that contacted Eugene Peterson and told him, 'Hey, that's a New Age saying,' . . . and he said that Eugene Peterson corresponded back and said, 'If I had known that, I wouldn't have used it.' Go take a look at The Message today. It's still in there. These guys are not pulling back these things that are clearly confusing."

What Smith seems to be missing here is that it is not confusing to anyone else except him! He is the one obsessing over this word here, and that phrase there. The magnitude of the problem is a creation of Warren Smith's own mind. No one else is even thinking along those lines. Smith is being consumed by subjectivism and bias. As he himself revealed in his book: 

"I tried to imagine what it would be like for a confused New Ager today coming into a Purpose-Driven Church that uses The Message, and finding this popular New Age phrase right in the middle of the Lord's Prayer. Or . . . be handed a copy of [Warren's book] . . . only to find an abbreviated form of the same New Age phrase. . . . This hardly seemed to be the way to introduce the Gospel of Jesus Christ to an unbelieving New Ager" (Smith, Deceived On Purpose, p. 35).

For Smith to expect Warren's books, indeed any book, to conform to his own personal standards of the right/proper words (based in his subjective experiences in the New Age), is unrealistic and biblically unsupportable. And it shows a fairly substantial measure of hyper-sensitivity on Smith's part. However, to clear up any remaining questions about whether or not Warren is in any way seeking to spread pantheism (or the New Age agenda in general), we need only look at what he himself has stated on these subjects. 

With regard to pantheism, in a 1988 sermon, Warren declared: "[God] can be in many, many places all at the same time. He's everywhere. That does not mean that God is everything. That's pantheism. Don't confuse the creator with His creation. He's not everything but He is everywhere" (Warren, "Where Is God When You Need Him?," 1988). And consider these remarks from a 1997 sermon:

Clearly, Rick Warren is not a pantheist. Even in The Purpose Driven Life (all editions), he denounces today's "[m]any religions and New Age philosophies" that teach what he calls the Satan's oldest lie: "that we are divine or can become gods." He also notes, "Let me be absolutely clear: You will never become God, or even a god," then adds, "God doesn't want you to become a god; he wants you to become godly" (Rick Warren, p. 172).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It doesn't sound like Warren is very much of a New Ager! In fact, Warren advances standard, Southern Baptist, Bible based teachings relating to every essential doctrine of the Christian faith, including those associated with God, the Bible, the cross, sin, hell, and repentance (see my two articles  The Doctrinal Essentials of Christianity—and Rick Warren, Rick Warren Preaches Salvation, and Saddleback Church: The Cross, Sin, and Hell).

Finally, there is also the FOUNDATIONS course of doctrinal teachings that is given at Saddleback church (written by Tom Holladay and Kay Warren). It spends five pages explaining the historic, orthodox, creedal view of the Trinity. And the "Teacher's Guide" contains a full ten pages of discussion points to teach regarding classic Trinitarian theology. All of these pages, however, were ignored by Smith. To make matters worse, when Warren Smith did pull something from this important doctrinal manual, he twisted and perverted its contents—i.e., he lifted one obscure word from a single page ("fresh") and using a convoluted word game, tied it to an equally obscure 1948 book by New Age luminary, Alice Bailey (see the following section on BIZARRE WORD GAMES).

PARTIAL TRUTHS (back to list)

Smith also tends to use only partial truths—either deliberately or due to faulty research. And the parts of various stories that he usually leaves out are invariably the parts that would show why Warren is not at all guilty of any New Age views (or doctrines aligned with Robert Schuller). 

Consider, for example, Smith's use of the now oft-repeated story about Rick Warren and his wife driving in 1979 from Texas to California in order to attend one of Schuller's seminars. Smith makes it all sound rather sinister, as if it points to Warren's adoption of Schuller's teachings and views on, well . . . just about everything. Smith makes it sound as if the 1979 journey was the beginning of Warren turning into a virtual Robert Schuller clone:

"While still in seminary he [Warren] and his wife drove all the way from Texas to California to attend Schuller's Institute for Successful Church Leadership. As a new pastor and a "graduate" of the Schuller Institute, he [Warren] started his church within a half-hour of the Crystal Cathedral. Schuller's influence on the young pastor was pervasive and 'profound.' Schuller had recently boasted that Rick Warren had come to his Institute 'time after time'" (Smith, p. 142).

This sounds fairly damning to any trusting reader. But here's a few things Smith conveniently left out.

1. Warren's trip to Schuller's Institute was just one of MANY trips Warren took all over the country to see what was going on at various churches in the so-called Church Growth Movement of that era. Attending Schuller's seminar was part of Warren's studies on church growth during his last year at seminary! As Rick Warren explained in a now-public letter to Steve Blackwell, "In 1979, while in seminary in Texas I was given 3 scholarships to attend 3 different pastor’s conferences in California. One of the 3 conferences was held at Garden Grove Community Church. It was a good conference and challenged to “start where people are” when sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ. I still think that is a good idea. However I also noticed that the church did not seem to take them much further spiritually" (for full text, see letter to Steve Blackwell).

2. Smith makes it sound as if Warren's decision to begin his church in California had something to do with Warren wanting to be close to Schuller. Smith clearly implies as much in his remark about Warren starting "his church within a half-hour of the Crystal Cathedral." But nothing could be further from the truth. Warren and his wife, Kay, prayed for months about where to go, deciding on the Saddleback Valley (in Orange County) because it was one of the most unchurched areas of the country. It also was slated to have a tremendous population explosion. Moreover, Rick Warren actually received a letter from Herman Wooten, the area superintendent for Southern Baptist churches in Orange County. Wooten wrote: "Dear Mr. Warren, I understand you're thinking about starting a new church. Have you ever considered California? Have you ever considered starting a church in the Saddleback Valley?"

3. Smith's comment, "Schuller's influence on the young pastor was pervasive and 'profound'" comes from a remark made by Kay Warren in a Christianity Today article (Nov. 18, 2002). It has been abused by Warren's critics, who interpret it as some kind of proof that Warren has adopted Schuller's doctrines. But this remark by Kay, from which far too many inferences have been drawn, only indicates: 

» Schuller's ministry was nontraditional, and 

» Schuller's "positive appeal to unbelievers" was so captivating that it encouraged Warren to also take a nontraditional approach to doing church. 

In other words, Warren saw that "church" did not have to be done in the same way it had always been done. This was a profound realization. And THAT was the major "influence" Schuller had on Warren who, contrary to popular gossip and urban legend, has NEVER adopted ANY doctrinal specifics from Schuller (see Warren and Schuller: Debunking An Urban Legend).

4. Finally, what about Schuller's recent boast about Warren coming to his Institute 'time after time'"? Well, this is a convenient way that Schuller has found to attach himself to one of the most influential and powerful leaders in the evangelical church—i.e., Rick Warren. In fact, Schuller's Hour of Power website is now even claiming: 

"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" (see Hour of Power). 

But the truth is that Warren's so called "time after time" return actually boils down to a just few visits Warren made to the Institute in order to share his testimony—that's it (see Warren and Schuller: Debunking An Urban Legend). Warren has flat-out denied that he was mentored by Schuller (again, see Warren and Schuller: Debunking An Urban Legend).

None of this is discussed/revealed by Smith in his book Deceived On Purpose. So now the question is: Just who is deceiving who at this point? 

Moreover, Smith for some reason does mention at all the one man who may have had the greatest influence on Warren (other than Warren's father)—W.A. Criswell, who was "one of America's greatest expository preachers" (see The Criswell Legacy). Warren viewed Criswell with incredible respect and admiration. Criswell knew Warren very well. In fact, Criswell wrote the forward to Warren's The Purpose Driven Church! And it was Criswell who laid hands on Warren, and according to Warren's own words, confirmed to him via a word of prayer, Warren's calling as a pastor! (see the story in my book Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him). 

Other men who have influenced Rick Warren spiritually, include: "Rev. Charles Spurgeon, C.S. Lewis, Francis Schaeffer, and William Wilberforce" (Rick Warren, letter to Steve Blackwell). Why did Smith ignore this very important influence on Warren?

BIZARRE WORD GAMES (back to list)

One of the most interesting ways that Smith seeks to prove the so-called "New Age Implications of the Purpose Driven Church" is via some rather bizarre word games that he plays. Smith will find some word, term, or catch-phrase used by Warren, then find that same thing said by a New Ager—Smith invariably concludes the two sources are referring to the same thing (see the "above and below" phrase discussed in the previous "FLAWED CONCLUSIONS" section). 

Take, for instance, how Warren Smith uses word games to identify Eugene Peterson's The Message paraphrase of the Bible as a New Age tool of deception. Smith objects to the use of the word "Master" in The Message in reference to Jesus because "Master," as a descriptive title, is also used by New Agers in reference to their own unbiblical "Jesus." To Smith's troubled mind, this is a clear indication that The Message is a polluted version of scripture that is helping to usher in a "soft" view of God, which in turn will make everyone ripe for the Antichrist's appearance (or Maitreya, the New Age false Christ).

But this type of reasoning is ludicrous. Similarity of words/terms does NOT necessarily mean similarity of thought or meaning. Most religions, for example, use the word "God." Does it mean the same thing? No. And many religions refer to Jesus Christ. Do they mean the same thing? Hardly. The same can be said for similarity of symbols used throughout the world. Like words, symbols are highly fluid. They can mean different things, to different people, in different places, at different times. When it comes to words, they are merely symbols for meanings.

Consequently, just because someone (or a Bible paraphrase) uses the word "Master" for Jesus, it does not instantly mean that a New Age meaning is infiltrating the text, especially when the context is a Christian Bible, and the word being used does indeed accurately apply—i.e., Jesus is indeed our Master. Context is everything. The context of the scriptures make it clear that "Master" being used in The Message is indicative of Jesus as Lord. 

Using Warren Smith's method of discerning truth from error, we can make anything/anyone problematic (or New Age). Consider Warren Smith's favorite version of the Bible, the King James Version. It uses "Master" in reference to Jesus, too. In Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1, for example, kurios (normally translated as Lord) is rendered Master. The word "Master," of course, is widely used within the New Age Movement, just as Smith says. So, using Smith's reasoning, the King James Version is just as New Age as is The Message. And since Smith has already admitted that the KJV is his favorite Bible, then Smith is apparently as much a New Ager as Rick Warren (or anyone else who favors The Message).

Let us also consider use of the word "unicorn" in the King James Bible. It is found Numbers 23:22, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9, Psalms 92:10, and Isaiah 34:7. But this word is not even in the Hebrew text, which reads re'em (or "wild ox"). And unicorns, as everyone knows, are not real. They are mystical creatures that must be conjured up in the imagination through New Age visualization—just like a demon is conjured up through a spell! Moreover, unicorns are often found as New Age decorations. And they are usually used as symbols for New Age groups! So, shouldn't we assume that the KJV is really a New Age inspired Bible version—and that any one who uses it is a New Ager? Again, Smith is condemned by his own words.

Clearly, by using such a method of analysis, no one is safe from charges of heresy! Yet this is exactly how Smith is able to make so many New Age accusations against Rick Warren. For instance, Smith makes a HUGE deal out of the fact that Rick Warren has a P.E.A.C.E. Plan and that New Ager Neale Donald Walsch also has presented a PEACE Plan (which Walsch hopes will usher in a New Spirituality that breaks down belief barriers/doctrinal differences between religions). The problem, as Smith says in Deceived On Purpose, is that Rick Warren has inspired "millions of Christians to get behind his 5-Step P.E.A.C.E. Plan . . . a 5-Step P.E.A.C.E. Plan that, on paper, bore an eerie resemblance to the 5-Step PEACE Plan proposed by Neale Donald Walsch and his New Age 'God'" (Smith, p. 142). 

What does Smith fear? He explains that in the "Note to Readers" for his book Reinventing Jesus Christ, saying: "[H]idden away within this Peace Plan, and buried beneath all of their positive exhortations for love and peace and oneness, was another plan—a plan that was unknown—even to many of them. It was a plan to eliminate biblical Christianity and all of its followers." 

Panic! Sound the alarm bells! It's a conspiracy! Run! Here comes the Antichrist!

Truth be told, "on paper," Rick Warren's plan actually doesn't bear any similarity to Walsch's plan—except for the fact that they are each called a "peace plan" and they each have five points (and the word "peace," of course, has five letters). Here are the plans—

WARREN'S PLAN	WALSCH'S PLAN
P - Plant Churches (now called Promote Reconciliation)	P - Permit ourselves to acknowledge that some of our old beliefs about God and about Life are no longer working.
E - Equip Servant Leaders	E - Explore the possibility that there is something we do not understand about God and about Life, the understanding of which could change everything.
A - Assist the Poor	A - Announce that we are willing for new understandings of God and Life to now be brought forth, understandings that could produce a new way of life on this planet.
C - Care for the Sick	C - Courageously examine these new understandings and if they align with our personal inner truth and knowing, to enlarge our belief system to include them.
E - Educate the Illiterate	E - Express our lives as a demonstration of our highest beliefs, rather than as a denial of them.

Smith considers these similar plans? Again, they have no more in common than their name and 5 points! Smith is acting like there have never been any other 5-point peace plans. The fact is that there have been numerous 5-point peace plans and other "peace plans" covering all kinds of things. The term "PEACE PLAN" is a simply great term to use. And 5-points is a perfect number because it fits the acronym points: "P - E - A - C - E" = five. Consider these PEACE Plans. (Would Smith say they, too, bear an "eerie resemblance" to Walsch's diabolical plot?):

• 1939—"Pope Pius XII issues his 5-Point Peace Plan" (WWII). 

• 1970—"President Nixon announced a new 5-point peace plan" (Vietnam War).

• 1987—"The Dalai Lama Proposed a Five-Point Peace Plan for Tibet."

• 1989—"Israel's acceptance of Secretary of State Baker's 5-point peace plan" (Middle East).

• 1989—"[New South Wales Premier Bob Carr] advanced a so-called five-point peace plan"
              (labor troubles).

• 1996—"The Richard Kluger 5-Point Peace Plan" (US Govt. vs. Tobacco Industry).

• 1997—"The UN endorsed a 5-point peace plan for Zaire."

• 2004—"Sudan Accepts Blair's Five-Point Peace Plan"

• 2004—"Iraqi deputy PM to visit Tehran Saturday" [After 5-Point Peace Plan Drafted].

To draw such a slanderous comparison between Walsch and Warren over a similarity of the name "PEACE Plan" is rather silly, and would be somewhat amusing if Warren Smith were not causing so much division and mistrust within the Body of Christ.

Smith plays the same word game with "dream" (Smith, p. 178). It is true that Rick Warren has talked about his dream for the P.E.A.C.E. Plan (and also in reference to the building of his own church). And Schuller has often used the word dream in his teachings regarding church leadership, church growth, and New Age concepts. But this does NOT mean the two men are using the word dream (or th