09 April 2010

On the Piper-Warren Connection

by Phil Johnson

o (in case you hadn't heard) Rick Warren will headline the list of speakers at next October's Desiring God Conference.


Of course I think it's a bad turn of events, and I didn't find Dr. Piper's rationale for handing his platform over to Warren satisfying at all. I was surprised when I heard about it, but on second thought, I have to admit that it is consistent with Dr. Piper's modus operandi. Last year some people were appalled, others delighted, when Doug Wilson spoke at the conference. The year before that, the blogosphere was all abuzz with strong passions for months because Mark Driscoll would be the featured speaker. In 2007, it was John MacArthur, who (let's face it) is hardly a John Piper clone.

So Piper likes to feature speakers from outside the boundaries of his own circle of close fellowship, and that's a good thing, within limits. But Piper's choice of Warren as a keynote speaker proves his idea of where those limits lie is vastly—perhaps fundamentally—different from mine.

Furthermore, as much as I differ from Piper on the question of who deserves his imprimatur, there's at least an equal measure of difference between what I think is the proper way to respond to Piper and the way some of his most vocal critics have responded. I'm appalled and ashamed at how some on my side of this debate have expressed their disagreement with Dr. Piper.

It seems to me the whole controversy reflects in microcosm why the evangelical and fundamentalist movements of the 20th century have both failed so egregiously.

Let me explain why. Here are some observations about John Piper, Rick Warren, the critics, and the biblical duty of separation—separation both from false teachers (Romans 16:17; 1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9; 2 John 7-11), and from deliberately, incorrigibly disobedient brethren (2 Thessalonians 3:14-15; 1 Corinthians 5:11).

John Piper
I love John Piper. People often ask me what living preachers I listen to besides John MacArthur. John Piper is my clear first choice. He's also one of my favorite authors. The Justification of God: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 was the first John Piper work I ever read, and I was hooked. His chapter in Still Sovereign by Thomas Schreiner and Bruce Ware is worth the price of the whole book. The chapter is titled "Are There Two Wills in God?" and if more Calvinists would read that chapter and digest its contents, it would settle most of the interminable debates about the optative language Scripture uses to speak of God's "desire" for the repentance of reprobate people. I have written elsewhere about how deeply I appreciate Piper's The Future of Justification. His Don't Waste Your Life is as profound as it is brief and pithy. I've never read any book by Piper that I would give a negative review to. I've never listened to a sermon by him without being impacted by the power of truth.

Furthermore, I greatly respect and appreciate Dr. Piper for his courage and persistence as a defender of the faith against Open Theism, not to mention his diligent defense of biblical authority against the juggernaut of egalitarianism. He's one of the most bold and large-hearted preachers alive today. For those and many other reasons, my appreciation of Dr. Piper runs deep.

Obviously, though, I disagree with him on some fairly important issues, mostly related to his belief that the charismatic gifts are still fully operative. It is this facet of Dr. Piper's theology, I think, that makes his judgments often seem subjective—even arbitrary. Consider, for example, his fascination with "holy laughter" at the height of the Toronto Blessing—and his persistent reluctance to condemn that movement despite the vast damage it was causing. (Did he ever actually denounce the Toronto phenomenon? I didn't hear about it if he did.) That is just one example of what I would regard as a glaring lack of discernment in some of his judgments.

Holy passion and sacred delight in God are wonderful virtues, of course, and these constitute the centerpiece of Dr. Piper's message. But true delight in God is the polar opposite of hedonism, and copious passion per se is not necessarily righteous. (Nor is a quiet or restrained expression of one's feelings a sign of indifference.) As a matter of fact, ungodly passions are a massive problem in the church today, especially in the charismatic fringe. I wish Dr. Piper were more vocal in warning against that kind of imbalance.

Furthermore, human passion and biblical discernment can be like oil and water—a truth Dr. Piper acknowledges in principle. Unbridled passion and feelings-based judgments are deadly to discernment. Hang onto that thought, because it will come up again later in this post. It's a principle that works both ways.

Rick Warren
I can't think of anyone who would make a finer poster-boy for the pragmatic, spiritually impoverished, gospel-deprived message of modern and postmodern evangelicalism than Rick Warren. He is shallow, pragmatic, and chameleonic. He is a spiritual changeling who will say whatever his audience wants to hear. He wants desperately to be liked and accepted by Muslims, evangelicals, and everyone in between. The length to which he will go to indulge his ecumenical bent is seen in the fact that he was one of a handful of professing evangelicals who signed "A Common Word Between Us and You," a declaration of spiritual accord between Muslims and Christians. His church's Easter service at Angel Stadium last week was headlined by the Jonas Brothers (who sang a love song from a Disney movie as if it were a song of praise to God). And Warren's sermon on the resurrection was a paean to Possibility Thinking—assuring people that God wanted to do a miracle to revive their broken dreams. That, Warren said, is the meaning of the resurrection. (And, "Remember, God isn't mad at you, He's mad about you.")

Warren has squandered too many opportunities to proclaim the gospel accurately and muffed too many questions on national television to be given a platform by one of the leading figures of Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and similar movements whose central goal, after all, is to undo the damage Warren's philosophy has caused in the evangelical movement.

The massive problems with Warren's ministry philosophy are well documented. The same with his practice of softening, omitting, or denying key gospel truths about sin, judgment, the wrath of God, and the necessity of repentance. A preacher doesn't have to affirm heresy or overtly deny truth in order to be dangerous. It is entirely possible by one's behavior to distort or obscure the gospel message. All Peter did to earn a public rebuke from Paul was change seats at the dinner table (Galatians 2:11-14). But in context, that seriously compromised the gospel. Deliberately and repeatedly giving short shrift to the greatest truths of the gospel is at least as serious an error as Peter's hypocrisy.

Warren's private reassurances to John Piper shouldn't trump the fact that he does not actually preach the gospel plainly, boldly, thoroughly, unashamedly, and in a way that is faithful to the Word of God. If he privately believes something other than what he has said in his books and sermons, that makes him more culpable as a hypocrite. His belief is better than his practice? Let's not make that sound heroic.

On one level I share Dr. Piper's curiosity. I'd love to hear Rick Warren explain how someone who believes what he professes to believe could possibly justify the pragmatic philosophy of ministry he has been championing for thirty years. But that's something I'd prefer to hear in private. I would never give such a man a platform at a national conference, in front of thousands of impressionable disciples, to make an apologia for his pragmatic ministry philosophy or his truncated gospel.

In fact, it pains me deeply to see Dr. Piper himself making such an apologia for Warren, assuring viewers (without any substantiation other than their private conversation) that Warren is "deeply theological," and "at root . . . doctrinal and sound." Jesus said, "Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit" (Matthew 12:33). That's fitting advice for a situation like this.

No matter how Dr. Piper may qualify his endorsement of Rick Warren (and he didn't seem to be qualifying it very much in the live Q&A the other night), many of Dr. Piper's admirers do assume Warren now has Piper's full imprimatur. Some of the dialogue in various online forums and social-networking sites demonstrates that.

The critics



Speaking of Twitter chatter and Facebook feedback, I can't touch on this whole subject without pointing out that the tone of some of the criticism leveled at Dr. Piper is simply revolting. Within fifteen minutes of Dr. Piper's live webcast the other night, I had to delete a comment on my Facebook page from a woman who called him a clown. Over the past week I have deleted an average of two or three comments each day that were personally insulting or deliberately disrespectful toward Dr. Piper. One woman expressed a hope that his sabbatical would be permanent.

It intrigues and disturbs me that most (not all, but most) of the overtly impertinent comments have come from women. There's evidently a growing regiment of self-appointed discernment experts consisting of women who give lip service to the authority of Scripture. They would unanimously affirm that Scripture reserves for men the teaching and ruling elders' roles in the church. They would, I presume, deplore the ordination of women to such positions of authority. They are not offended by Paul's statement in 1 Timothy 2:12; rather, they would say amen to it. And yet in practice they have no compunction about posting angry, loud condemnations and insistent demands for the removal of a pastor of John Piper's stature. These things ought not to be.

Anyway, I remarked on the radio this week that I think a lot of Dr. Piper's critics have been too shrill, too hysterical, too trigger-happy, too eager for immediate reprisals, and too disrespectful to Dr. Piper. The reactions to that comment have been chilling. I wonder if some of Dr. Piper's critics would have been happier if I had called for his deportation to Siberia. One blog (wholly written, evidently, on a keyboard with a defective shift key) labeled my position "LUKEWARM," claiming I was trying to stay "SAFELY IN THE MIDDLE AS TO NOT ISSUE ANY DECISION WHATEVER." A woman who relentlessly tried to pick a fight with me on my Facebook page finally took her beef to Twitter, where she complained that I was determined to stifle her passion.

Well, as I said above, some passions need to be stifled, and raw passion is a detriment, not an aid, to true discernment.

I've made the argument many times that sharp words and sarcasm aren't always inappropriate, but they are certainly inappropriate as a first response to a man of Dr. Piper's stature. No wonder the self-styled "discernment" community is so odious to milder-tempered Christians.

Separation
It was, however, Dr. Piper himself, not his critics, who first raised the specter of separation. He mentioned the subject twice in his apologia for Warren. First, he said one of the reasons he invites occasional bad-boy types to speak at his conferences is that he hopes the Young, Restless, Reformed movement will not imitate the overzealous separatism of the twentieth-century fundamentalist movement.

I agree that this would be a bad thing, but seriously: Does that really look like it's a looming danger?

The answer to hyper-separatism is not no separatism at all.



That, of course, was the error of neo-evangelicalism, a movement closer to Dr. Piper's own roots. Neo-evangelicalism reacted to the extreme militancy of certain angry fundamentalists by repudiating separatism altogether. That philosophy (for which Christianity Today and the National Association of Evangelicals were tireless cheerleaders) steadily and systematically moved the boundaries of the evangelical movement further and further out, until there were effectively no boundaries at all. The mainstream of the movement abandoned its own principles. The movement traded the gospel for shallow political goals. A man of Ted Haggard's weak character and loose doctrine rose to the highest position of leadership. Good feelings and friendly relations eventually trumped almost every evangelical truth. Finally, the emerging generation began to trade the pragmatism and shallowness of their evangelical parents for a postmodernized brand of religion that at least offered the illusion of more depth and tradition.

Together for the Gospel, The Gospel Coalition, and the so-called Young, Restless, Reformed resurgence of Calvinism all gained their strength chiefly because they effectively answered the trends that had been spawned by evangelicalism's attempts to broaden its base by becoming more and more inclusive. A return to that practice will in very short order utterly nullify any gains those movements have made.

The fact is, Scripture commands faithful Christians to confront, rebuke, and correct those who twist or reinvent the gospel—not to ask them to speak at our most important conferences. If they fail to amend their errors (as Rick Warren has consistently done), there comes a time when separation is mandatory. The neglect of that duty (and in many cases, a refusal to comply) has destroyed countless churches and evangelical institutions, not to mention the broad evangelical movement itself. Let's bear that in mind.

Dr. Piper also raised the issue of "secondary separation" near the conclusion of his remarks about Rick Warren. The fact that he brought the issue up at all demonstrates that he knew his invitation to Warren would be divisive. That's another reason I'm very sorry and disappointed that he made this choice—especially if (as it seems) he extended the invitation to Warren during his first conversation with him, without seeking counsel or affirmation from others (especially his partners in T4G and TGC).

But Dr. Piper's friendship with Rick Warren doesn't instantly and automatically make Dr. Piper an enemy of the faith. People have already called for a boycott of his books, reprisals against those who are perceived as "LUKEWARM" in their response to Piper, and practically everything short of assassination. In their minds, those who balk at the cry for some kind of nuclear strike against Piper are guilty of utter apathy and inaction.

That's a ridiculous point of view.

So is the opinion that no response whatsoever is actually the best possible response. Piper influences people who are under my pastoral care. It would be unconscionable for me to ignore what I am convinced is a dangerously misleading and potentially hurtful decision. But there are several valid, biblical responses that lie between the extremes of sheer apathy and shrill vigilantism. The best option, in a case like this, is to explain as carefully as possible why I disagree with Dr. Piper's decision, plead with Dr. Piper to reconsider the trajectory he has set, and do everything possible to make the boundaries between the gospel and all other messages as clear as possible. If Dr. Piper continues on this trajectory of ever-broadening boundaries, the time may come when his influence would become such a danger that total separation from him would be necessary. I frankly don't envision that, given Dr. Piper's passion for the gospel. But more shocking things have happened.

Meanwhile, I'm not obliged to invite Dr. Piper to speak to my flock in order to prove that I'm not practicing secondary separation. Without utterly anathematizing him, I can certainly temper my enthusiasm in recommending his teaching to impressionable people. I do still have a duty to regard him as a brother rather than an enemy or an apostate (cf. 2 Thessalonians 3:15), and I owe him respect and honor as one to whom those things are due (Romans 13:7).

From my perspective it looks like Dr. Piper is repeating the worst errors of the neo-evangelicals, and his critics are imitating the worst misconduct of the hyper-fundamentalists. I find myself in unfamiliar territory—in the middle—pleading for more restraint, more biblical discernment, less raw passion, and less impulsive behavior on both sides.

I'll see you at T4G next week.


See also:

Phil's signature

233 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 233 of 233
takeheed said...

Phil,
I think it would have been fairer of you to give the whole quote (made by someone else and not by me) that I highlighted in red rather than a selective one- in full it reads ‘I don’t know what to say to this. Piper is saying he’s [Rick Warren's] sound because of the church he has, peace plan, etc?! What has happened to John Piper? This is craziness and he knows it. The size of his church doesn’t prove he’s doctrinally sound, and the peace plan… I won’t even dignify that by addressing it. I’m just stunned'.
The person that made that comment is absolutely right in suggesting that it is craziness for John Piper or anyone for that matter to say that Rick Warren is 'sound' because of the [size of] the church he has and because of his [social-package] peace plan.
As for Rick Warren being as you forcefully put it a ‘hell-bound heretic’ I don’t think you’ll find me referring to him in those precise terms in the talk I gave.
In relation to Dr Piper, nowhere in my article was I personally disrespectful to him and in the light of this matter concerning his invite to Rick Warren I concluded with these restrained words ‘and so my concern about the ministry of John Piper continues to grow’.

Unknown said...

I was not going to write at first, but I wanted to encourage my brothers and sisters out there to not lose an eternal perspective, esp. this side of eternity!!! While many are in controversy (understandably so) over this topic, Satan is just smiling as another lost soul dies without our Jesus Christ. The Lord has sure shown me over the years how the sin of idolatry can be very subtle in my life until something like this happens and that sin is revealed. Our God is powerful and NOTHING is impossible with Him! I just wanted to send that encouragement to keep on keeping on.
Jenni Lynn-- thank you Pastor Piper for your contagious passion and love for the Word of God and for ministering grace into many lives! :)

candy said...

Some thoughts about the last bunch of comments.

"John Piper will succeed in extracting sunbeams from this cucumber." What does that mean?

Mary Elizabeth Tyler. I want to say, Mary Tylor Moore, but I won't. You clearly stated the concerns of the decline of Billy Graham's adherence to the Gospel. It is sad isn't it.

Not only John Crowder, but John Scotland staggers drunkenly among his own delusional ideas of the work of the Holy Spirit. None of their ideas include the Word of God it seems, and if they slur their words, they seem to think they have a handle on some sort of holiness. They seem to never get around to proclaiming the Gospel. Too bad they are drinking two bit rot gut.

As a Reformed and formerly seeking person of Reformed Charismatic avenues of ministry, I have to say that it seems like Reformed Charismatics seem to be a bit more lax on doctrinal purity and more interested in the "broader circle" as someone put it earlier. Why is that? I have to confess that it makes me want to just adhere to Sola Scriptura.

Aaron said...

Pastor Pants,

The difference is that if you regularly preach the Gospel you'll never be invited to such places so you'll never be in such a predicament.

donsands said...

"..he [Billy Graham] didn't try to replace concepts like sin and our guilt before God with humanistic notions of "broken dreams" and low self-esteem." -Phil

That's spot on. he was a great brother in Christ. When he finally goes home to be with the Lord, there shall be a great genuine sorrow throughout the Body of Christ. I think second only to when Joni finally dies.

Billy Graham is beloved by His Savior. he was weak, only in his great heart of love for people. And that's not so bad.

I recall Billy being interviewed by David Frost.

David said, "You are a good man."
Billy said, "I am a worm."
David said, "No, you're a fine man, and you will surely go to heaven."
Billy said, "Oh, I know I'm going to heaven. And I'm praying you will also go David."

He was full of grace and truth, and love.

God works through us weak sinners, and yet we are responsible to hold the Gospel up without apology. Billy did this. And yet in his later years he weakened.
I wonder if I shall?

Have a terrific Lord's day.

Coram Deo said...

material principle of sola fide, not formal principle...that would be sola scriptura.

In Christ,
CD

Gabby said...

Phil Johnson - thank you so much for your insightful and charitable answer to a difficult question. You've given me some food for thought, though I must confess there are so many troubling things about, not so much what he 'claims' to believe as he states on his website, but what he practices by diluting and dumbing down the Gospel to such an extent that one must almost set aside logic and reason in order to believe that he does indeed believe in substitutionary atonement, justification by faith and belief in Christ alone for salvation. As John MacArthur stated, there's no blood, no repentance, no acknowledgment of the depth of our depravity and therefore no glory given to Christ for His suffering and His finished work to save His people from their sins. Someone said (I'm sorry, I can't remember who) there's the crown but no thorns, victory but no blood, an empty tomb but no glorious resurrection.

Misty- you're very welcome. That question has troubled me for 4 years now, and I'm very grateful that this site provides a safe and honest venue for such questions, where venom and malice are absent but charity and truth are present.

Bart McCurdy - I'm here in Dallas and I'll be attending the Psalm 119 Conference next month, along with my daughter and son-in-law. :)

Douglas said...

"But some may say, I have mistaken the way myself, although I take it upon myself to teach others. It is probable many will think this, and it is very possible that I have. But I trust, whereinsoever I have mistaken, my mind is open to conviction. I sincerely desire to be better informed. I say to God and man, "What I know not, teach thou me!"

Are you persuaded that you see more clearly than me? It is not unlikely that you may. Then treat me as you would desire to be treated yourself upon a change of circumstances. Point out to me a better way than I have yet known. Show me it is so, by plain proof of Scripture. And if I linger in the path I have accustomed to tread, and am therefore unwilling to leave it, labour with me a little; take me by the hand, and lead me as I am able to bear. But be not displeased if I entreat you not to beat me down in order to quicken my pace: I can go but feebly and slowly at best; then, I should not be able to go at all. May I not request of you, further, not to give me hard names in order to bring me into the right way. Suppose I were ever so much in the wrong, I doubt this would not set me right. Rather, it would make me run so much the farther from you, and so get more and more out of the way

Nay, perhaps, if you are angry, so shall I be too; and then there will be small hopes of finding the truth. If once anger arises, [aute kapnos], (as Homer somewhere expresses it,) this smoke will so dim the eyes of my soul, that I shall be able to see nothing clearly. For God’s sake, if it be possible to avoid it, let us not provoke one another to wrath. Let us not kindle in each other this fire of hell; much less blow it up into a flame. If we could discern truth by that dreadful light, would it not be a loss rather than gain? For, how far is love, even with many wrong opinions, to be preferred before truth itself without love! We may die without the knowledge of many truths, and yet be carried into Abraham’s bosom. But if we die without love, what will knowledge avail? Just as much as it avails the devil and his angels!

The God of love forbid that we should ever make the trial. May he prepare us for the knowledge of all truth, by filling our hearts with all his love, and with all joy and peace in believing!" - John Wesley

LORD Jesus Christ, please help all of us.

Philippians 3:12Not that I have already obtained this or am already perfect, but I press on to make it my own, because Christ Jesus has made me his own. 13Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, 14I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus. 15Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you. 16Only let us hold true to what we have attained.
17Brothers, join in imitating me, and keep your eyes on those who walk according to the example you have in us. 18For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.

Help me grow in maturity, because I for one am so far from maturity in these things.

Please forgive me for the sins of snarky, shrill, hurtful, cynical cricitisms. Hurt people hurt. Please help us.

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Rick Frueh said...

From all observations Rick Warren considers himself a bridge builder to lost people a la Billy Graham. That has led him to seriously compromise on many levels.

John Piper seems to be very charitable, which can lead to some levels of compromise in practice as well. The entire thing is just another manifestation of the current Christian mess.

Yvonne Wilber said...

Hey don't be a Jonas Bros hater! Those guys love Jesus. Why can't a "love song" be sung to Jesus? I've heard Travis Cottrell sing John Denver's "You fill up my senses" to Jesus. If Warren wants to "headline" the Jonas Brothers, where is the sin in that?

Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lou Martuneac said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lou Martuneac said...

Phil:

Yesterday you posted a comment and from the Bible, 2 Thess. 3:14 in particular made a somewhat personal application of that passage to what Piper did with the invite to Warren. This was the excerpt from your comment from April 10 @ 2:40pm

Yet, as noted above, I think Rick Warren’s ministry philosophy is deplorable, as is his willingness to tone down or avoid the hard truths of the gospel (which he nevertheless affirms as true). So for now, I regard him a disobedient brother a lá 2 Thessalonians 3:14.”

This morning I interacted with you on that Scriptural principle in a sincere and non-abrasive manner.

But now either you or maybe one of your blog partners pulled my comment(s) that addressed the Scripture you brought to bear on what Piper has done with Warren. Why? Why is the Scriptural approach deemed unfit for this discussion?

I’d appreciate some indication why you or a Pyro blog partner had these comments on 2 Thess. 3:14 expunged from the thread. Is a Scriptural application forbidden ground in this discussion? I know its not, but then why was ours deleted?


LM

PS: My second comment with the link to my blog I did say that if you wanted to delete I’d understand that, but why does a frank discussion of what the Bible says, in my first, which you raised have to be removed from view along with yours?

Me :) said...

Nice balanced assessment. Thank you! May the Lord be glorified!

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

This thread is probably dead by now, but I just wanted to write something that occurred to me.

All this criticism of Piper and Warren have set up a can't win situation for Piper and Warren.

Suppose Warren gives an eminently suitable sermon or message that meets or exceeds DG reform orthodoxy.

The Warren critics will simply discount it by saying that Warren is just being his usual chameleon self with his file cabinet orthodoxy. Warren and Piper can't win.

Suppose Warren gives a "lousy" message or sermon. Then the critics will say, "See, I told you that John Piper shouldn't have invited Rick Warren."

So whether Rick Warren delivers a terrific message or a lousy message, he can't win, and neither can John Piper. It's not nice to be put in a can't-win situation.

--------

Another thought: Rick Warren could offer to decline the invitation after having accepted it. This takes John Piper off the hook, and stops all the hard-hitting and harsh criticism of Piper.

And if you were Piper, would you accept Rick Warren's declination to speak at DG 2010?

THEOparadox said...

TUAD,

Yeah, the thread has probably dried up . . . but what an amazing thread it was.

I think there IS a possible win here. Rick Warren can stand up at the conference and REPENT PUBLICLY for distorting the Gospel. He can recant his wrongs and declare his intention to set out on a new, Biblical course - perhaps stepping down from his church for a season. Piper would then be vindicated entirely.

Repentance is a always a win (at least for the repenter and all who cherish the Truth).

Blessings,
Derek

Truth Unites... and Divides said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kirby L. Wallace said...

At my blog, I have never, even once censored a comment. And even in the face of some of the vilest and most foul-mouthed retorts imaginable.

I believe in two things: free speech, and enough rope.

Maybe Piper is just giving the guy an opportunity to out himself so that we do not have to do it. Maybe he just believes in giving a guy a fair shake. Either way, while I'm not real pleased with the decision, I can't really find a lot of fault as I am in no way qualified to judge.

This conference, I think it is safe to say, is attended to and by those who are likely mature enough to reason correctly and will be minimally impacted by Warren's bull, and may even have their faith strengthened through confirmation of long held suspicions - straight from the horse's mouth.

As I say in my blog's "comments disclaimer", I think fools speak best when they speak for themselves. So sally forth, Warren. Break a leg... just make sure it's your own.

Ken said...

So for now, I regard him a disobedient brother a lá 2 Thessalonians 3:14.

Phil,
Thanks for that very balanced and well written answer to Gabby. Both your post and your answers in the comboxes are grounded in the word and have the right balance of both apologia (apologetics, truth, doctrine, sound theology) and agape (love, gentleness, grace). I Peter 3:15; Jude 3, 21

Ken Temple
fellow FIRE member

Unknown said...

Phil,
I have a tangential question about some something mentioned in your blog article. You said, "Consider, for example, his fascination with "holy laughter" at the height of the Toronto Blessing—and his persistent reluctance to condemn that movement despite the vast damage it was causing."

I have never seen any documentation for Piper being at all enamored with the Toronto Blessing, although I have seen words to that effect several times, including at SharperIron.org. I have been a member of Piper's church for decades and have not been aware of Piper's positive interest in the Toronto Blessing. Whether he ever outright repudiated it I do not know. Perhaps this is something I just never caught going by.

Would you, or anyone here, please give me a link to some sort of documentation of Piper's being fascinated by or approving of the Toronto blessing?

If it is not true, it would be well for people to not keep saying it. If I am wrong, I apologize for not believing it.

Lynda O said...

Great article, Phil, and interesting discussion -- I learned a lot about both Piper and Warren.

What about the opposite scenario, where a liberal, non-evangelical church invites a conservative speaker? Apparently John MacArthur stopped by Memphis earlier this week, just before that T4G conference. Three large, very liberal, non-evangelical churches -- which are so open-minded they stand for nothing; they have women preachers and other practices MacArthur is clearly against -- got together and invited him to speak, and he spoke at a large United Methodist church. (I would like very much to see MacArthur in person, but between recovering from surgery last week and that this event would be too crowded, I didn't go -- maybe I'll get to see MacArthur when he comes to Little Rock sometime.)

I'm not sure what to make of it, though, as I wonder what MacArthur spoke about to such a group -- and I don't understand the liberal mindset enough to know why they would have invited MacArthur in the first place. Anyway, if Rick Warren has any ability to negatively influence the people at John Piper's conference, perhaps MacArthur had a positive influence on some of the liberal people coming to hear MacArthur. Or maybe they just see him as a celebrity and like to hear him talk since they've seen him on Larry King or whatever?

Dan J said...

Hi Phil,

I have always have appreciated your evenhanded approach to difficult questions, and your comments above are helpful and edifying as always.

I'm posting only a thought: you mentioned Paul's rebuke of Peter for changing seats. It's important for us to remember that in doing so, Peter was giving the impression that those uncircumcised Gentiles were "lesser brothers" or not "fully justified." He was violating the truth of justification by faith through a shrinking of the circle, not through a widening of the circle. He was saying, "The boundary is no longer repentant trust in Christ, it's repentant faith plus x." Piper's invitation of Warren is an invitation to someone who affirms orthodox soteriology, as has been pointed out, but who does not properly teach other true doctrines. I worry that in this case, Piper is the Paul and those who call for separation are the Peters.

I don't like the way Warren teaches, and I think his ministry philosophy hurts people, and I hope his friendship with Piper will change the way he does his ministry, but firmly placing him outside the boundary of those with whom we can fellowship is risking a subtle fall into a "judaizing legalism."

Grace & Peace,
Dan Julian

Anonymous said...

I have deep respect for John Piper. I have deep respect for Phil Johnson...i would like to believe that Rick Warren is like pragmatic Apollos who needed a wise couple (Priscilla and Aquila to take him aside in private and "explain to him the Way more adquately".To be honest i think Rick can explain the gospel theologically to the dot at any given conference when put to the spot...but he just chooses not to because it will cause offence and its just not like him to rightly divide the word of truth.Do people get saved because of the pragmatism he exudes...well God can save anybody despite the preaching they hear.If God can use a donkey...he can use anybody in a multi coloured summer shirt...but it behooves us to handle the gospel with respect and truthfully...and not as hirelings.Somebody take Rick aside and have a good old chin wag...yeah purpose driven chin wag about the gospel. Acidri's Blog.

Unknown said...

Phil: Well said. This post was long but worth the time to read. It's a model of how to faithfully and publicly contend for the truth. It calls John Piper out without a hint of compromise, but the tone is respectful and brotherly. It is also a grown up and direct assessment of the danger men like Rick Warren represent to the clarity of the Gospel message.

Unknown said...

i'm just glad we can talk about it...

Brian and Inna White said...

As a Calvinist I am a firm believer that the Lord has ordained Rick Warren to come and speak at John Piper's church!

Brian and Inna White said...

Gentlemen, as a Calvinist I am a firm believer that God has ordained Rick Warren to come and speak at the conference. Let's see what comes of it!

James Beane said...

In new model theology God's primary attribute is benevolence, which overrides and supersedes His holiness, justice, wrath, and sovereignty. The new-model God is a judge only in the sense of being a “defender of His people.” His sole concern is” the freedom and peace of the people.” Moreover, the new-model church is not to confront the world, but to make known the love of God, to say, “your sins are forgiven”, as Jesus did, and to offer the resources of the Spirit to all who want to learn how to love and enjoy God and their neighbors”
If ever there was a user-friendly theology, this is it. But it is not biblical, and there is nothing really new about it. It is simply retreaded liberalism. These are the same arguments and the same teachings that liberals have promoted for years – only now they are designated “evangelical”. Don't let the label fool you. Spurgeon wrote, “It is mere cant to cry, “we are evangelical; we are all evangelical,” and yet decline to say what evangelical means. “ You may believe anything, everything, or nothing and yet be enrolled in the “Evangelical” army – so they say. Will there arise no honest, outspoken evangelicals among Dissenters to expose and repudiate this latitudinarianism? Are all the watchmen asleep? Are all the churches indifferent?

User-friendly churches....Their approach to ministry is so undoctrinal that they cannot educate their people against subtle errors. Their hatred of controversy puts them in a position where they cannot oppose false teaching that masquerades as evangelicalism. In fact, new -model theology seems ideally suited to the user friendly philosophy. Why would the user-friendly church oppose such doctrines?

But oppose them we must, if we are to remain true to God's Word and maintain a gospel witness. Pragmatism does not hold answers to the dangers confronting biblical Christianity. Pragmatism is carnal wisdom – spiritually bankrupt and contrary to the Word of God.

...The only hope is a return to Scripture and sound doctrine. As Evangelicals we desperately need to recover our determination to be biblical, our refusal to comply with the world, our willingness to defend what we believe, and our courage to defy false teaching. Unless we collectively awaken to the current dangers that face our movement, the adversary will attack us from within, and we will not be able to withstand. History will repeat itself, and the same disaster that ravaged the church a hundred years ago will strike our generation.

“Yet surely, there must be some who will fling aside the dastard love of peace, and speak out for our Lord, and His truth. A craven spirit is upon many, and their tongues are paralyzed. Oh, for an outburst of true faith and zeal! ( Charles Haddon Spurgeon. May 1889)

as Quoted from John McArthurs's book "Ashamed of the Gospel" third edition, pages 202, 203, the chapter entitled "Interlude"

Brandon said...

http://contrast2.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/warren_piper.jpg

taken from http://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/rick-warren-the-chameleon/

gigantor1231 said...

Phil

Wouldn't you say that it is true that Rick Warren teaches a different Gospel? He teaches the unsaved that God is happy with them if they are doing what he made them for. He aligns himself with unbelievers, even blatant God haters i.e. the muslim faith (one example among many) and he maintains that we worship the same God! He omits the truth from his teaching and twists words to his own convenience!(and you know that these examples are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg!)
How is this not a different Gospel Phil?
While I too am cautious to apply Galatians 1: 6-10 it certainly seems that Warren is the exact person that this would apply to since it says;

'if ANY MAN (capitalization via me.) is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ga 1:9). LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.

It does not delineate between the saved and unsaved, brothers or non brothers, it applies to 'ANY MAN'! So, what say you?

Tim said...

The old Landmark practice of "Pulpit Affiliation" was a means of avoiding this very thing but "Landmarkism" was labeled as fundamental fanaticism at it's worst and quickly burned at the stake.
I've never been accused of being politically correct or gentle in rebuke so I'll close with this thought: Why are you surprised that it bit you? That's what snakes do when you pick them up.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 233 of 233   Newer› Newest»