Bad Theology

In which I seem to be beating a dead horse.

I have two reasons for posting this today.

The first is blog related: something over two years ago, this blog turned a corner. Until then, I hadn’t had a clear purpose. I had begun blogging just because I could, and to see . . . whatever there was to see. All that changed when I decided to make the blog a journal of “what I’m reading now.” You could say it has become a purpose-driven blog, but I’d appreciate it if you didn’t. Subsequently, I have decided to amputate the back half of the blog and move forward whatever seems worthy (which, from a cursory glance, doesn’t look like much). This seems worth saving.

The second is immediate relevance. Rick Warren may be old hat to most of us, but there are still places previously untouched by his pragmatic philosophy that are just catching up — viz, certain hick communities in rural America that have clung to antiquated notions of the sufficiency of Scripture and preaching. One of my friends who happens to be just that backwards has informed me that his church is slouching towards Saddleback. So the following quote is as relevant now as it was four years ago.

This comes from the comments section of a now-defunct blog. It was written by Jerry Wragg, whom I quote in full and with his permission. It’s rather lengthy, but it really sums up the problems with Warren and PDL quite well, while avoiding the inflammatory rhetoric some of us have not resisted so well.

The issue with Warren is not that he never says anything orthodox, or that reading his book will convince you that he’s some kind of heretic. The problems stem from two critical disciplines:

(1) Warren’s articulation of how God saves . . .
(2) Warren’s continual misuse of scripture to wrestle points from a text that aren’t there . . .

Reading Warren’s books won’t reveal these problems in every chapter, but they clearly emerge upon even a simple reading of some portions.

(1) He articulates that “more people have come to Christ by feeling the presence of God than by all our apologetic arguments combined.” Not only is this an unverifiable assertion, but an unbiblical one. No one is saved by either of the above. Sensory encounters with “God” are subjective and effect nothing salvifically. Apologetical arguments cannot save a sinner anymore than sheer human willpower. And lest you think Warren’s “context” will vindicate such declarations, the chapter where the above quote is found is about creating an environment where the “emotional barriers” of the unchurched can be removed by carefully crafting the progression of the worship service’s music and sermon to achieve that end. Clearly, Warren’s point is that preaching scripture and exhorting the will does not help in breaking down the emotional barriers which keep people from having a conversion encounter with the living God. The implications of such teaching are inescapable. He believes that sinners are converted by having an emotionally dramatic encounter with “God”, and it is the church’s role to fashion an environment that facilitates such an experience. Whatever he may say about believing in Jesus, or putting one’s faith in Christ, is undermined, indeed nullified, by manipulating people into subjective “feelings” or “thoughts” about themselves and God. Only the scriptures can bring the necessary clarity for man to see himself as he truly is, and for understanding his need before a holy and awesome God (Hebrews 4:12). What if someone’s “emotional barrier” is the absolute truth of scripture itself (see Romans 1:18f)? How do I remove it without eliminating their only possible path to God? In fact, this is Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 1:22-25, where the very truths that unbelievers resist (Warren’s “barriers”) are those over which they must “stumble” in order to be saved! No one should pretend to “remove” the barriers between people and God. Only God can remove the barriers, and He does it via the Spirit’s convicting work in the hearts of sinners as they are drawn to Him in mercy and grace. If all we do is remove alleged emotional barriers by crafting worship services to make people “feel” close to God, we haven’t done anything truly spiritual at all. Only God can save, and He commands us to proclaim His holy justice against sin, His love and mercy toward sinners, and His redemption accomplished in His Son, Jesus Christ. I’ve been to Warren’s church and heard him speak. It was certainly a demonstration of the philosophy he espouses.

(2) Rick Warren has a very well documented habit of using only selective portions of passages and verses to teach his principles for Christian living. He has even boasted of his use of multiple “versions” in order to bring clarity to his sermons. What pretends to be a heart for clarity is soon discovered as nothing more than shoddy workmanship and poor exegesis.

Some examples will make the point:

a) His gross misuse of Luke 4:14-30. Mr. Warren used this text during an interview in Preaching magazine to illustrate how Jesus’ preaching always ministered first to the hurting, downtrodden, impoverished, and captive of society. In the interview, Warren claims to have patterned his own preaching, not after conventional methods from a book, but after the approach Jesus used in Luke 4. Unfortunately, Warren fails to mention what the actual context of the passage indicates, namely, that Jesus was announcing Himself as the Messiah who brings salvation to those who acknowledge their spiritual condition as being “poor”, “blind”, “downtrodden”, and “captive”. Amazingly, Warren goes on in the interview to say that preachers who follow Jesus’ method are sure to attract and sustain large crowds just as He did. Never mind that shortly after giving the sermon in Luke 4, Jesus was abruptly silenced by His congregation and almost thrown off a cliff!

To mold this passage into a primer on preaching palatable messages designed to “touch” hurting people is shocking naivete at best, or shameful, pragmatic manipulation of the truth at worst.

b) Warren uses the KJV translation of Proverbs 29:18 in an attempt to prove his statement that “To accomplish anything you must first have a mission, a goal, a hope, a vision.” Looking at the original language, the verse more literally says “Where there is no prophetic vision the people cast off restraint” (ESV, et.al.). Warren can often be found using one verse that gives an impression in English which fits what he wants to say even as other translations render the verse more literally. Doing this enough times leaves people with the notion that they can pick and choose whatever “paraphrase” or English version suits their fancy as they study the Bible. This may “preach” well, but it dishonors God’s intended meaning and leads congregations into dangerous waters without clarity.

c) Chapter 10 of Warren’s book speaks of the blessing of surrendering to God. Using Job 22:21 to support his premise, Warren interprets the verse as saying “Stop quarreling with God. If you agree with him, you will have peace at last, and things will go well for you.” In total disregard for context, he teaches a generic principle from the words of one of Job’s deplorable counselors, Eliphaz. These words were the result of a false view of God’s justice and its relationship to human tragedy, and were later condemned.

d) Mr. Warren often applies passages universally without reference to the specific ancient context (a common error in poor Bible teaching). His use of Isaiah 44:2, again, corroborates this tendency. When God says, “I am your Creator. You were in my care even before you were born,” Warren applies the words directly to all believers as a specific universal promise. By avoiding the second half of the verse, he can manipulate the meaning rather than unfold to whom the promise was exclusively made (Israel). Every serious Bible student knows that all scripture has implications for all believers, but to treat every text as if it is speaking the same command, principle, or truth to us today in the same way is disastrous.

Just because one can read Warren’s books and not see glaring error on every page does not warrant offering him a hardy endorsement either. Some have counted at least fifty similar examples of Warren’s eisegesis. A medical doctor with a history of even ten examples of gross negligence in the proficiency of his discipline is cause for revocation of his/her practice. Shouldn’t we expect much more from a man of such influence who claims to speak for God?

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to consider my thoughts. I’m not against the man personally, just deeply concerned for the purity of Christian doctrine and the power of God’s truth in evangelism.

Evangelical icon worshippers — those who have not already skedaddled, that is — will be relieved to know that this will probably be my last mention of Billy Graham for the present time.

Compromise with people of all theologies was a common thread running through Billy Graham’s ministry. In the effort to garner support for his evangelistic crusades, it seems there was no heresy he was not willing to let slide. As time passed, it was not merely his associations that were unorthodox; as the following account* of his embrace of inclusivism will demonstrate, his thinking was altered as well.

   Achieving common ground with the Roman Catholicism is one of the things for which Mark Noll commends Graham. But agreement with non-evangelicals has gone still further. In 1978 McCall’s magazine quoted Graham as having said, ‘I used to believe that pagans in far countries were lost if they did not have the gospel of Christ preached to them. I no longer believe that.’ That statement alarmed supporters BGEA and Christianity Today was quick to claim that the evangelist had been misquoted. Subsequent disclosures would appear to show that it was Graham’s paper rather than McCall’s which was inaccurate, for a Graham interview with Dr Robert Schuller on 31 May 1997 put the matter beyond doubt. Schuller has attained fame as the promoter of a liberal ‘self-esteem’ gospel which he preaches in his Crystal Cathedral in California. In the course of his discussion with Graham, conducted by means of a television link-up, Schuller asked for the evangelist’s view on the future of Christianity. Graham answered by giving his belief about the final make-up of the body of Christ. That body would be made up, he affirmed,

from all the Christian groups around the world, outside the Christian groups. I think that everybody that loves or knows Christ, whether they are conscious of it or not, they are members of the body of Christ. And I don’t think that we are going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at one time. I think James answered that — the Apostle James in the first Council in Jerusalem — when he said that God’s purpose for this age is to call out a people for his name. And that is what he is doing today. He is calling people out of the world for his name, whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world or the non-believing world, they are members of the Body of Christ because they have been called by God. They may not know the name of Jesus but they know in their hearts that they need something they do not have, and they turn to the only light they have, and I think that they are saved and they are going to be with us in heaven.

   Surprised by this, Schuller was anxious for clarification: ‘What, what I hear you saying, that it’s possible for Jesus Christ to come into human hearts and soul and life, even if they have been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you are saying?’
   ‘Yes, it is’, Graham responded in decided tones. At which point, his television host tripped over his words in his excitement, and exclaimed, ‘I’m so thrilled to hear you say this: “There’s a wideness in God’s mercy”.’ To which Graham added, ‘There is. There definitely is.’

—Iain Murray, Evangelicalism Divided (Banner of Truth, 2000), 73–74.

* Those who doubt the veracity of this account can easily find video of the Graham-Schuller exchange on YouTube.

Asahel Nettleton on emotionally manipulative preaching:

Terrific [calculated to terrify] sermons and other means are artfully contrived to stimulate the feelings of ignorant people. In compliance with the call given at the period of the highest excitement, they repair to the anxious seat by scores. As their fears are soon aroused, they are generally as soon calmed; and in a few days many profess to entertain hope. Many such converts soon lose all appearance of religion; but they become conceited, secure, and Gospel-proof; so that, while living in the open and habitual neglect of their duty, they talk very freely of the time when they experienced religion.

—Bennet Tyler, The Life and Labours of Asahel Nettleton (Banner of Truth, 1975), 289.

There is no greater example of this method than Nettleton’s famous contemporary Charles Finney. Later in life, Finney himself would confess,

I was often instrumental in bringing Christians under great conviction, and into a state of temporary repentance and faith . . . [But] falling short of urging them up to a point, where they would become so acquainted with Christ as to abide in Him, they would of course soon relapse into their former state. [source]