Rick Warrens meeting with Chris Rosebrough and Bob Dewaay
A concerned reader commented-
Tim,
What do you know regarding Warren's latest conference and the "generous" invitation he extended to his detractors in the discernment community to be his guests at the latest 3-day conference on the grounds of Saddleback? (all-expenses paid)
I ssume you were included in the list of those invited, as you have boldly taken on the subject of Warren yourself -- as well as his staunch defender Richard Abanes.
Warren seems determined to sway his detractors and draw them into his his circle. This is without a doubt a very smooth move on his part, extending the hand of friendship to those who have tirelessly exposed the darker purposes of the Purpose Driven movement. Clever and diabolical are two terms that come to mind as describing Warren's ploys. And foolish is the word that would best describe those who accepted his invitation... To think they'd "find something" in their time there to report back to their constituents was a little naive on their parts, I believe. Knowing Rick and his ability to put his best foot forward, I'd have thought better of our watchmen than to oblige themselves to Warren by accepting such an invitation. To think he'd invite their participation in this event if he thought they'd be able to find an ounce of anything unorthodox, offensive or false to report back to us about.
I'm deeply concerned about those who accepted Warren's invitation to attend this 3-day conference. Chris Rosebrough, for example. He began live-blogging from the event but then mysteriously disappeared from the scene. If you'll go on Chris's website, his latest post is a Thank-you to Rick Warren and Saddleback for their generous hospitality and Rick's genuine sincerity. Chris mentioned Bob DeWaayas being present there withhim, and the two of them together being treated to a gracious "one on one" meeting with Warren, from which it was determined that he was SOOOO sincere, SOOOOwilling to consider their grievances with him (so "conciliatory"...)
What's going on here??? What were these guys thinking in accepting Warren's deceptive overture to them? Did they think they would be impervious to his wiles, that they would be able to resist his charm, his disarming manner, his and "sincerity"?
I am most concerned. I am wondering how many of our illustrious watchmen took the bait to attend this conference that was deliberately designed, one might reason, to win their trust of Warren and thus discount all the negative reporting of Warren's unbiblical goals, agenda, aspirations. We already know that that Warren weilds a charm that is disarming, and are we not fools to engage it, and to ingratiate ourselves to him for his "sincere generosity" and "hospitality"?
What can you tell us about the discernment community's response to Warren's unexpected 11th hour invitation to be his guests for a three-day immersion in carefully planned presentations and warm-fuzzy experiences?
I'm searching for some word from within the discernment community, some post-conference respoonse, and finding nothing (so far). Have we not just been played? I suspect that Warren may have succeeded in convincing his opponents that he is a harmless and lovable character after all, and the consummate gentleman, his knowledge of politics having served him well.
Ingrid has had precious little to say recently besides remarking that Chris Rosebrough was asked by Warren to shut down his live blogging of the conference (with which he complied). Where is any comment post-conference from within the discernment fold? All I'm finding is silence, and it's a little disconcerting.
What do you know about any of this, Tim? Can you tell us someething? Perhaps I'm asking prematurely. I suppose there may be some response show up later today...
Here is my responce-
The post this person was referring to was here-
http://www.extremetheology.com/2008/05/thank-you-to-ri.html
I expressed my concerns to Chris about this publically on his website. I also spoke to Chris a couple of times on the phone to get some more information on what is going on. After my conversation with Chris I must say I at this point I am not concerned but I will be interested on how Chris responds to all this as well as how Bob Dewaay responds.
I however would not have went to the meeting for the following reasons.
1. Rick Warren is famed for how charming he can be. I believe Rick has a deceptive spirit around him though. For more on this turn your Bibles to Danial 8:23-24.
2. Rick Warren and what he does is very much out in the public. He is a member of the Council of Foreign Relation and spoke at the Davos conference with Emergent Church leader Brian McLaren
read this article by Joe Farah and the Davos article by Herescope.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53030
http://herescope.blogspot.com/2008/01/rick-warren-brian-mclaren-at-davos.html
I really dont have anything to say to Rick Warren but repent and stop deceiving the thousands of churches in the Body of Christ with all his false teachings and associations.
I do not believe anything outside of a direct act from God would convince Rick Warren to repent and cease his false teaching and leading the Body of Christ astray.
But God is still a God of Miracles. He is also a God that will turn you over to a reprobate mind if you dont repent.
Out of all the people invited( which the list included Deb and Dave Dombrowski, Ingrid, James Sundquist among some others) only Chris and Bob decided to go on Rick Warrens dime.
Im sure Saddleback and Warren checked damage control and sought the blogs and website's with the most hits so he could get the most bang for his buck.
Warren may be a lot of things but he is a brilliant businessman and knows how to do damage control.
Sad but I think no matter how Chris or Bob respond this is a win-win for Rick Warren because he paid their way.
At least thats my opinion.
Ingrids refusal publicly on her website stated it best I thought.
http://www.sliceoflaodicea.com/?p=741
I was personally not invited to this meeting and would not go anywhere with Rick Warren picking up my tab. I would not spend a penny of that guys money period.
The bad thing about all this was that Abanes has run rampant on Chris blog with his usual half truth's and lying tongue.
Richard even stated that this meeting was cancelled on another website because no one took Warrens offer which of course was not a true statement.
I asked Chris if he knew of any meeting that was supposed to have included Richard Abanes, he stated he hadnt heard of any other meeting that would have included Richard.
Read my comments about that here
http://nogoofyzone.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/richard-abanes-spokesperson-for-saddleback-and-rick-warren/
Maybe Richard is not as close a confidant as I have thought he was with Rick Warren.
But who really know's Richard spins sometimes so quickly you get dizzy following what he originally says.
Richard does like to inflate the truth.
Anyway I spoke to Chris today and he has stated he is working on a article and it would be up on his blog soon.
So of course its best to let Chris speak for himself , which Im sure he will do.
I have heard nothing about a response from Bob Dewaay and I dont know him. But I would hope that he will respond as he is lead by the Lord.
Again Im not exactly sure of what would motivate anyone to sit at a table outside of a public arena with Rick Warren.
Most of all not on Ricks dime.
We''l see how this all plays out. Though I commend Chris and Bob for taking the time not just to react. But to sit and think prayerfully about how they will respond.
If I had a tape of this meeting it would be out on U Tube whenever I got it and let the public take away what they will from it.
But Chris and Bob are accountable to God to respond as they see fit.
We will see what happens.
Tim Wirth
posted by Tim Wirth | 6:31 PM
4 Comments:
R. Abanes said of this meeting,”I applaud Dewaay for his candor, honesty, integrity, and spirit of genuine care/concern, and openness to hearing what Warren actually believes theologically. I am hoping that many individuals will see that this is all little more than an issue of ministry philosophy, rather than the emergence of some bizarre Warren Smith-esk, conspiratorial, one-world, New Age religion with Warren playing the lead Pide Piper!”
I am a good friend of Pastor DeWaay and attend his church. Bob DeWaay’s position on Rick Warren has not changed. Bob Dewaay never hated Rick Warren, he had concerns about his teaching - a ministry philisophy that doesn’t preach the gospel or confess Christ. THis is not just some minor issue. Bob’s concern about Rick Warren was and still is that Rick Warren does not preach the gospel, not that he doesn’t believe it. Here is a statement prepared by Pastor DeWaay concerning the issues raised in this blog. K. Jentoft
May 31, 2008
I wrote my book, Redefining Christianity, assuming that Rick Warren actually believes the Saddleback Church’s statement of faith, but that he refuses to preach it because he wants to be popular with the world and grow his movement. I still think that could still be true—I give him the benefit of the doubt.
At the Saddleback Church conference he was speaking of winning souls for Christ and talking about his father’s legacy of building churches and winning souls. More than likely he believes Baptist doctrine. But along the way he was derailed by reading the church growth theory of Donald McGavran. While in seminary I studied under a disciple of McGavran. McGavran’s book was required reading. His philosophy hinges on this idea: “people do not become Christian for theological reasons, but for sociological ones.”
Rick Warren believed McGavran and set out to study people to find out what makes them tick so he could get them into church — thus “Saddleback Sam.” Purpose Driven is a franchise system to multiply this idea into other churches. Warren tells pastors that they do not have to change any doctrine to join his movement. The reason for that is that doctrine becomes unimportant because it is no longer taught. I don’t think Rick Warren changed his Baptist doctrine either; he just doesn’t allow it to determine what he teaches and what he does. When we met that is what I challenged him about.
So I have not moved in my beliefs nor have I changed my position on any doctrines I have preached.
I will not allow myself to be pitted against any of Warren’s critics. I read Warren Smith’s book and spoke with him on the phone. He is a wonderful brother. The New Age implications are in Rick Warren’s movement and are helping lead toward a One World church. But because he has publicly made statements besides his statement of faith that he believes there is a literal hell and that people without Christ will go there, I don’t believe Rick Warren is a true New Age believer, and neither does Warren Smith. Warren Smith simply says there are New Age implications to what Rick Warren is doing, and I agree with him.
Tomorrow morning I will make a statement clarifying what I mean when I said that we did not have theological disagreements in our meeting. Rick Warren did not disagree with my positions on doctrine in our meeting. But he did not comment on everything I said. Please read my book, because in it I point out that Rick Warren privately affirms orthodox Christian theology—he did so again in our presence. So this is not news worthy.
To set the record straight, for those who think I am suddenly okay with Rick Warren – I am not. I asked him to preach Christ and honor the idea of scripture alone – and I pointed out that he cannot have a “reformation” based on general revelation.
These are huge issues and he did not say he was going to change anything—but he did not disagree. Do Warren’s supporters really think that having an orthodox theology in private is all that God expects of a preacher? Do they think we should not hold Rick Warren accountable to sola scriptura? Do they think that we can have any old ministry philosophy even if doing so totally changes the definition of the church and her message from how the Bible defines them?
I challenge Rick Warren’s supporters to step up to the plate and demand that Rick Warren repent, as I requested him to do in my book. That statement is posted at http://www.twincityfellowship.com/special/appeal.pdf Otherwise they have no business claiming that I agree with them.
Bob DeWaay
R. Abanes has said of this meeting,”I applaud Dewaay for his candor, honesty, integrity, and spirit of genuine care/concern, and openness to hearing what Warren actually believes theologically. I am hoping that many individuals will see that this is all little more than an issue of ministry philosophy, rather than the emergence of some bizarre Warren Smith-esk, conspiratorial, one-world, New Age religion with Warren playing the lead Pide Piper!”
I am a good friend of Pastor DeWaay and attend his church. Bob DeWaay’s position on Rick Warren has not changed. Bob Dewaay never hated Rick Warren, he had concerns about his teaching - a ministry philisophy that doesn’t preach the gospel or confess Christ. THis is not a minor issue of insignificance. Bob’s concern about Rick Warren was and still is that Rick Warren does not preach the gospel, not that he doesn’t believe it. Here is a statement prepared by Pastor DeWaay concerning the issues raised in this blog. K. Jentoft
May 31, 2008
I wrote my book, Redefining Christianity, assuming that Rick Warren actually believes the Saddleback Church’s statement of faith, but that he refuses to preach it because he wants to be popular with the world and grow his movement. I still think that could still be true—I give him the benefit of the doubt.
At the Saddleback Church conference he was speaking of winning souls for Christ and talking about his father’s legacy of building churches and winning souls. More than likely he believes Baptist doctrine. But along the way he was derailed by reading the church growth theory of Donald McGavran. While in seminary I studied under a disciple of McGavran. McGavran’s book was required reading. His philosophy hinges on this idea: “people do not become Christian for theological reasons, but for sociological ones.”
Rick Warren believed McGavran and set out to study people to find out what makes them tick so he could get them into church — thus “Saddleback Sam.” Purpose Driven is a franchise system to multiply this idea into other churches. Warren tells pastors that they do not have to change any doctrine to join his movement. The reason for that is that doctrine becomes unimportant because it is no longer taught. I don’t think Rick Warren changed his Baptist doctrine either; he just doesn’t allow it to determine what he teaches and what he does. When we met that is what I challenged him about.
So I have not moved in my beliefs nor have I changed my position on any doctrines I have preached.
I will not allow myself to be pitted against any of Warren’s critics. I read Warren Smith’s book and spoke with him on the phone. He is a wonderful brother. The New Age implications are in Rick Warren’s movement and are helping lead toward a One World church. But because he has publicly made statements besides his statement of faith that he believes there is a literal hell and that people without Christ will go there, I don’t believe Rick Warren is a true New Age believer, and neither does Warren Smith. Warren Smith simply says there are New Age implications to what Rick Warren is doing, and I agree with him.
Tomorrow morning I will make a statement clarifying what I mean when I said that we did not have theological disagreements in our meeting. Rick Warren did not disagree with my positions on doctrine in our meeting. But he did not comment on everything I said. Please read my book, because in it I point out that Rick Warren privately affirms orthodox Christian theology—he did so again in our presence. So this is not news worthy.
To set the record straight, for those who think I am suddenly okay with Rick Warren – I am not. I asked him to preach Christ and honor the idea of scripture alone – and I pointed out that he cannot have a “reformation” based on general revelation.
These are huge issues and he did not say he was going to change anything—but he did not disagree. Do Warren’s supporters really think that having an orthodox theology in private is all that God expects of a preacher? Do they think we should not hold Rick Warren accountable to sola scriptura? Do they think that we can have any old ministry philosophy even if doing so totally changes the definition of the church and her message from how the Bible defines them?
I challenge Rick Warren’s supporters to step up to the plate and demand that Rick Warren repent, as I requested him to do in my book. That statement is posted at http://www.twincityfellowship.com/special/appeal.pdf Otherwise they have no business claiming that I agree with them.
Bob DeWaay
Posted by J & J Bible Ministry at 9:50 AM 1 comments
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Bob DeWaay - My Visit to Ask Rick Warren to Preach Christ
In May, one of the pastors at Saddleback Church invited me to attend a Purpose Driven conference—at Saddleback’s expense. Their only caveat was that I say nothing until the end, at which time I would be able to comment about why I disagree with the Purpose Driven movement. I declined on the grounds that I had already studied the movement and had no need to hear more from its proponents. When I saw the lineup of speakers I realized that it would have been exasperating to listen for hours to what I have already rejected. Rick Warren’s chief of staff e-mailed back and offered to have me come only on Thursday in order to talk to Warren in person. Since the Bible says that we should be ready to give a reason for our hope in the gospel (1Peter 3:15) I decided to go.
I arrived in time on Thursday to hear the last hour and a half of the conference, which featured Warren promoting his PEACE plan. It was typical of many other Warren speeches I have listened to. He spoke about meeting with world leaders and how he plans to help them solve problems in their countries. He gave reasons why 1 billion Christians are the best hope of solving the world’s biggest problems. What was lacking was any commitment to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ clearly to all people. That was exactly what I planned to urge Warren to do when I met him. Listening to his speech only reinforced that commitment.
After the speech (and some seriously loud, ear-splitting music) I was able to meet up with fellow Warren critic, Mr. Chris Rosebrough, who had attended each day of the conference. We waited for about an hour while Warren held a press conference—he eventually appeared for our meeting with about a half dozen others.
At the beginning of our meeting Warren asked us to share our “stories” with him. Both of us had come out of bad doctrine and faulty movements to become gospel centric. I shared my experience of learning church growth theory at seminary and showed him a first edition copy of his book The Purpose Driven Church that was required reading for me in 1996. I also shared how discouraging it was to study church growth teaching when our inner city church was shrinking at the time. I shared how I found hope and inspiration from John MacArthur and that I chose his ministry model rather than church growth theory.
After sharing our stories I made the main point I had hoped to make, which was an appeal to preach Christ. To make sure he understood what I meant, I shared the gospel itself according to the four points I use in my own sermons: 1) Who Christ is; 2) What Christ did; 3) Why we need Him; and 4) What He expects of us. I filled in the details as follows: Jesus Christ existed as God and with God from all eternity. He was born of a virgin and lived a sinless life. He performed many miracles to prove He indeed was the promised Messiah. He predicted His own resurrection from the dead and was indeed raised. That makes Him unique and unlike any other religious leader. It proved His claims. I then proceeded to share that He died for sins, shedding His blood on the cross to avert God’s wrath against sin for those who believe. He bodily ascended into heaven and will return to judge the wicked world. What He expects of us is to repent and believe the gospel. To repent means to turn away from sin, self, religion, the world—and anything else we have been trusting—and to put our trust only in Christ.
Pastor Warren responded neither positively or negatively to that but specifically asked us why we were opposing him. Our answer was that we did not hear him publicly preach Christ in a forthright manner. Chris shared his experience of listening to the Purpose Driven message Warren himself taught and hearing lots of material that challenged him to do more and do better—but not hearing about the forgiveness of sins. In that regard Chris specifically mentioned the lectures at the Saddleback summit he had just attended. I thought he made a very good point that also pointed to the need for gospel preaching.
The second point I made was the need to adhere to sola scriptura (Scripture alone). I specifically told him that his Purpose Driven Life was an amalgam of scripture and human wisdom gleaned from general revelation and that the body of work is presented as a seamless whole to his readers regarding what God expects of them. I gave as an illustration his exposition of Romans 8:28, one passage he correctly interprets and applies. I said, therefore, what he said about Romans 8:28 is binding because it came from what God said in the Bible. But the problem is that everything else is presented in the same manner, like “keeping a journal.” I told him that God has not commanded us to keep a journal, so we can safely ignore that. But his readers are given the impression that everything he says in the book is what God wants them to do.
I also pointed out the serious problem with “confused universal application.” I explained to Warren that he takes Bible passages that apply only to Christians and applies them to everyone in general. That creates confusion and possible false assurance. His reply was that the book was originally intended only for the congregation at Saddleback so it was written to Christians. We did not take up a debate on that point, wanting to stay on the issues of preaching Christ and sola scriptura, but I think that claim is questionable in light of other things I have heard him say about how the book came to be. Besides, there are statements in the book early on addressed to non-Christians.
I gave him copies of my book and the Purpose Driven discernment tool, which we publish on our Web site.[i] He took both. So he has in his possession detailed arguments against his Purpose Driven movement.
The final point that I made concerned building a ministry on general revelation (what can be observed in nature as opposed to specific revelation, which is only found in Scripture). I said, “You cannot have a new reformation grounded in general revelation.” His response was, “But Jesus told us to do good works.” My response back was that Christians doing good works do not appear any different than people of other religions doing good works. I then said that the only two things the church has to offer that people cannot get anywhere else are salvation and sanctification. Neither of those can be gained through general revelation.
I did not get a chance to go into more detail on that point because that was the end of our meeting. But it is a very important point. For example, SHAPE, and PEACE are grounded primarily in general revelation. General revelation can help a person solve problems, but it cannot make him holy in the sight of a holy God! Better living in this life while facing God’s wrath in eternity is not what Christianity is about. We must preach the gospel first; changed lives are then the result of God’s work of grace, not the use of human wisdom.
One of the disconcerting things about dealing with Rick Warren is that in spite of many problematic, public teachings, he claims to agree with orthodox Christian doctrine. His church Web site does have an essentially orthodox statement of faith.[ii] When I researched for my book Redefining Christianity, I found that the deeper I dug into the movement, the more conservative it appeared. Warren and Purpose Driven appear liberal in public (at least to us critics) and conservative in private. I describe this phenomenon as “file cabinet orthodoxy” in chapter 8 of my book.[iii] In our private meeting he again asserted that he believes orthodox theology. He said, “I am not a hyper-Calvinist, I am a Kuyper-Calvinist.” (Abraham Kuyper was a Reformed theologian from the Netherlands.)
Some people have questioned the wisdom of speaking with Warren and feared that I would be subjected to a “dialogue” that would lead to “consensus” after the manner of the Hegelian synthesis. Nothing like that happened. Warren mostly listened to what we had to say and did not attempt to recruit us for his movement. The one point he would not listen to was when I brought up the damage that is being done to churches and Christians by pastors who have joined the Purpose Driven movement. He claimed that he is no more responsible for what is done in the name of Purpose Driven than Luther is for what is done in his name, or Calvin for what is done in his name. I do not agree with the analogy because, as I show in chapter 3 of my book, Purpose Driven sells material that influences pastors to remove “resisters.” But wanting to keep on the topic of gospel preaching and sola scriptura, I did not argue the point until the meeting with his chief of staff, which happened after the meeting with Warren. There, we had more of a debate and I was able to share a horror story about what happens in the name of Purpose Driven.
There was no rancor or animosity from either side during the meeting. Warren is in person as he is in public, which is warm and accessible. Our problem is not with his personal demeanor, but with his ministry philosophy which pushes gospel preaching and Bible teaching out of churches. Purpose Driven is about making a version of Christianity that is inoffensive to the world and thus attractive to people so they attend church. But the gospel is offensive to Jews and foolishness to Greeks (1Corinthians 1:23). However, it is God’s means of salvation. We were able to urge Rick Warren to start preaching it. He did not say whether he would or would not. I expected him to say that he is already preaching Christ but he did not make that response to us.
Anyone will be able to see if he does start preaching Christ; they merely need to listen to his public speeches before mixed audiences. If he does not, then nothing has changed. I stand by the analysis of Purpose Driven as explained in my book and other writings.
[i] Available here: http://cicministry.org/ It is free.
[ii] http://saddleback.com/flash/believe2.html
[iii] Redefining Christianity – Understanding the Purpose Driven Movement, (21st Century Press: Springfield, MO, 2006) 164. Available here: http://www.cicstore.org/servlet/the-1/Redefining-Christianity--dsh--Understanding/Detail
Distributed by www.ChristianWorldviewNetwork.
I wonder if John Macarthur was invited? Or any of the really big names? (al mohler etc?)
Of the two men, Bob seems the most willing to take the consistent line and the post by Richard Abanes lauding Bob's 'open mindedness' seems to have gotten Bob's attention. But Chris now seems convicted that he has been too 'mean' to Rick and other false teachers, and this is exactly what we were concerned about. He says he is going to retool his Alittleleaven blog too, because of the 'tone.'n (Tell me, how do you say "you whitewashed tombs full of dead mens' bones!" with gentleness and respect?)
I just listened to him (and Mike Corley by his agreement) diss everyone who expressed concern about his public fawning praise of Rick Warren. This is pouring salt in the purpose driven refugees' wounds. The best I can come up with as an explanation for that is that he has NO idea how insensitive this was to the church who has been persecuted in the name of purpose.
here is a quick transcript of some stuff he said on Mike Corley's show a few days ago:
from the 6-9 mike corley program
a quick bit transcript that bother me (there are more parts that bother me besides this, but just this one for now)
He spent some time (intro'd at 11 minutes into the podcast, and finished up at 29 minutes in) complaining about those who expressed their alarm, concern, hurt, and frustration over his (rather over the top IMO) thank you to RW. Says they 'threw him under the bus.' Never mind that we all kind of felt he threw US under the bus by his building up o of RW and what we saw as stroking RW's ego with what looked to me like a big old public smooch. Kiss the ring...
Then went on:
Mike Corley:"has this been a turning point for you Chris? It was for me when I went to this Emergent Conference out in Austin last year...God really convicted me of some of the... posture and approach that I was taking on some things."
Chris: "yeah it really made me take a step back and a hard look at maybe the tone that I had used in the past"
[I cannot think of a place where either Chris or Mike have been TOO HARSH to EMERGENT or RW or ANYONE for that matter!]
Chris "And my concern is that I've played in and I've participated in something that doesn't honor Christ...even though I was defending the gospel and I think there was a group of people who follow my blogs who their expectation of me is that I would slice and dice rick warren up...and feed it to them as if they were little piranhas or something"
mike "me too me too...I had one person who called me and I appreciate the fact that he had the courage to call me, most people don't want to talk to me directly... and I said 'what did you want me to do?...Fly out to seattle and punch mark driscoll in the mouth, say God bless you, and leave?"
[hmm... talk about a little defensive false dichotomy there. There's no 'middle ground' between speaking positively about someone who is in the wrong, and being violent toward them? they are sounding a little too much like the RW defenders and those who try to take Ken Silva apart every day over at CRN(mis)info.]
IN any case, RW succeeded in sowing division among the discernment ministries. The reason you haven't heard anything is because they all don't know what to do, but many of them are concerned about this 'change in tone' idea and how it is EXACTLY what RW was aiming at. I have also heard that the Emerging church has tried to do the same thing with its critics just to slow them down. Develop 'relationship' so that the nasty discernment people will be less focused on correcting them at every turn. I sure hope someone will take the plunge and get the ball rolling here regarding the RW meeting and Chris's dissing of the purpose driven refugees, for which RW is definitely responsible, along with his little clones which seem to be everywhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home