John Piper with Rick Warren: Compromise?
By Trevin Wax on Apr 9, 2010 in Reformed Theology | 
Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
A couple weeks ago, John Piper announced that he had invited Rick Warren to speak at the Desiring God conference this fall. His announcement caused an uproar in some parts of the Reformed blogosphere. Some even questioned Piper’s commitment to the gospel, wondering out loud if he is a “wolf” in sheep’s clothing.
The debate over Piper’s choice of Warren reminds me of my days in an independent Baptist school. In fundamentalist circles, it’s not enough to separate from those who disagree with you (even on minor issues, like the style of music in church or which Bible translation you use). You have to go the extra mile and separate from those who refuse to separate. It’s called “second-degree separation.” For example, someone who is convinced that all Catholics are apostate would not only withhold fellowship from Catholics, but would also withhold fellowship from people who fellowship with Catholics.
The Piper brouhaha is a Reformed expression of this same phenomenon. It is a sign that there some who are pitching their tents in the far corner of the Reformed cul-de-sac, unwilling to entertain the notion that there are other people with legitimate building permits in the same neighborhood.
(Before I make a few comments on this debate, perhaps we should take a deep breath and realize that blog comments may not always be an accurate indicator of where a discussion is headed. It is possible that Piper’s opponents are merely a small, but vocal number and that they do not necessarily represent the majority of those in the Young, Restless, Reformed movement.)
Here are a few of my thoughts regarding this controversy:
1. Willingness to learn from people you disagree with is not a sign that you’re waffling on your firm convictions. It’s a sign that you’re steadfast.
Piper knows what he believes. That’s why he can share the stage with someone he respectfully disagrees with. Piper extended this invitation, not because he is waffling on his theological positions, but because he knows right where he stands.
Insularity is often bred by insecurity. When I was in high school, I constantly questioned my teachers about certain affirmations that didn’t add up. I was puzzled as to why certain books were off limits, or why the preaching of many evangelical leaders was forbidden. The more I sought to understand the rationale behind the interdictions, the more I came to understand that it was an insecurity masked by dogmatism that kept us in our cul-de-sac.
It’s ironic, but true: The more you forbid people to read or hear from those outside your circle, the more you communicate the insecurity of your own position. Your followers will eventually entertain this notion: If they think I could so easily adopt another point of view on this matter, maybe their position isn’t as rock-solid and self-evident as they make it out to be.
2. You can disagree with Piper’s choice and yet still love Piper.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t disagree with Piper’s choice. (It seems lost on people that the title of this conference is Think! The Life of the Mind and the Love of God. Warren’s presence at Desiring God will make Piper’s devotees do just that.) Rick Warren has been speaking a lot lately about the need to use our minds for the glory of Christ. It makes sense to me that he would be invited to a conference about the life of the mind.
Some may disagree charitably with Piper’s choice. That’s okay. In fact, if we never disagree with the people we look up to, we ought to consider where our allegiance lies. But disagreement over this issue should not be cause for attacks and accusations and the withdrawal of fellowship.
Let’s remember that discernment takes place when you occasionally hear voices you disagree with, not when you “Amen” everything coming from someone who sings off the same sheet of music.
3. When you use the word “heretic” to refer to anyone who disagrees with you, you don’t have a good word to use to refer to someone who actually fits the bill.
Can we be slow to label people as heretics? The term “heresy” is generally reserved for cultists and those who deny the Trinity. Jerry Falwell once said that “limited atonement” was a heresy. He was criticized for using the “h-” word so recklessly. Ironically, many of the Calvinists who hammered Falwell shoot he “h-” word at Warren, Falwell, and just about anyone else who isn’t as Reformed as they are.
Rick Warren is not a heretic. You might disagree with his emphasis, the way he does church, or his method of biblical interpretation. But he is a brother. Save the “h-” word for people on their way to hell because of their rejection of clear Christian teaching.
4. Trajectories go both ways.
Some worry about a liberal trajectory in evangelicalism. Rejecting the authority of Scripture is indeed a perpetual danger. We should avoid compromising our convictions about the inspiration of the Bible. We should beware of theologies that would take our focus off Christ crucified and raised for our salvation.
But there can be a fundamentalist separatist trajectory as well. That trajectory, while rooted in a desire for gospel-centeredness, eventually leads to a legalistic separation from brothers and sisters who disagree with us on other issues. The fundamentalist survival mechanism kicks in, and we begin to find our identity in finding additional things to protest.
Once we’re on the separatist trajectory, we exaggerate differences and distinctions in order to provide justification for our group’s existence. We also tend to see “holiness” and “rightness” in terms of the doctrines that set us apart from other Christians, rather than the beliefs we hold in common with other Christians that set us apart from the world.
Piper’s choice of Warren indicates that he is aware of the separatist trajectory and hopes the Reformed movement will not go that direction.
5. Renewal of evangelicalism will not take place without bridge-building.
Evangelicalism is a bigger movement than the Reformed Resurgence. While the YRR movement may signify the beginning of a renewal of evangelicalism, such a renewal will not take place without significant bridge-building.
The evangelical movement has been compared to a village green. If the Reformed simply stand off to the side and castigate those who don’t interpret Scripture the same way, then they will move into increasing irrelevance. Instead, the Reformed need to be part of the conversation – a broader conversation, where “Together for the Gospel” means more than “Together for Calvinism.”
Piper is right to build bridges to the wider world of evangelicalism. Renewal will not take place in a corner, but in all of evangelicalism’s neighborhoods, as gospel-centrality and brotherly love spread through the streets.
6. No matter what we think of Piper’s choice, we could all use a good dose of humility.
There are many who have labeled Piper’s critics were as “out-of-line”, “legalistic”, “angry”, “close-minded”, etc. Perhaps those labels are accurate in some cases.
But let’s not be Pharisaical in the way we call out Pharisees. It’s way too easy for us to be reactionary towards those we see as reactionary. Those of us who support Piper’s decision can be just as self-righteous as those who condemned his choice. We can begin to think, Thank God I’m not like those grumpy legalists!
Not only is there plenty of self-righteousness out there, and I confess that when I look into my heart, I find plenty of self-righteousness in here. We all need the humility that comes from the gospel.
© Copyright by Trevin Wax | Print This Post | Share (Twitter, Email, Facebook)
Trevin,
Great article, every word of it.
Matt
Matt Svoboda | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Amen.
Thank you, brother.
Alex | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Thank you Trevin for a wonderfully balanced post. We all need to be reminded of the need for greater humility.
Marcus | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Trevin a breath of fresh air indeed! There is fine line between discernment and legalism. Thank you.
Amy | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
I’m new to your blog, linking up through Justin Taylor’s this morning. Very refreshing and accurately reflects my own sentiments. I’m always amazed at how divided evangelicals really are over countless issues. T4G or not, evangelical churches are in trouble.
Rob | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Trevin,
Well said. It is one thing to be discerning, it’s quite another to be tribal. This “brouhaha” reminds me of Mark 9:40. We need to humble ourselves and realize that there are those who, though not in our “tribe”, are nonetheless for the Lord. That’s a good thing.
Chuck | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
I grew up with one foot in the fundamentalist world (Christian school) and one foot in the evangelical world (the churches I attended), and you’re right, Trevin, this debate seems like “deja vu all over again” as Yogi Berra might say.
I wonder how much of the YRR “watch-blogger” type responses we saw have former ties in fundamentalism. They may have shifted doctrinally to Calvinism and from KJV to ESV, but their methods are still pure IFB.
Great article, especially points 1-6.
Josh C | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
These principles speak to the Christian community at large. Great insights, couldn’t agree more. Thank you!
Brent Brady | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Piper’s decision to invite Warren and the overreaction by the fringe of the Reformed community, will ultimately be a blessing in disguise. To often, those from a more Wesleyan or Scot McKnight perspective love to broad brush the resurgent Reformed movement, as being “neo-Reformed” and dogmatic and arrogant.
Piper’s gesture serves as a good antidote to these caricatures that are too often drawn by those who are less than happy about the young Reformed movement. This will take the wind out of their sails as Piper being one of the most influential Reformed leaders, shows a willingness to engage and listen to those he is not completely in line with. This is a healthy step forward.
Ryan | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Thanks Trevin for this wise, sensible approach.
I’m a “young, restless” Reformed guy who came up within the confessing Reformed (Presbyterian) world. In other words, I was reading Edwards before I read Piper.
It’s been a great joy to see the breadth of Reformed conviction spread beyond these walls, such as to my A29, Sovereign Grace, and SBC brothers.
But among some of my friends who have been “converted” to this way believing, it would be useful to look at our history–all of it. Not just the things we like about a Calvin or Spurgeon, but also our historic divisions–even/especially the ones that continue today.
My fear is that in our zeal we look through rose-tinted lenses and miss our historic blind spots, things which if we saw them could keep us from repeating sorry aspects of our history, or teach us how to handle them better.
When I observe debates like this one, or certain confessional attack dogs in the PCA going after Keller, it feels like Old Side/New Side with 21st century flavoring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Old_Side-New_Side_Controversy
I love the Reformed faith and am proud to confess and proclaim it. I also know our history. Unfortunately, the Reformed world has a sordid history of infighting. This betrays the Gospel that we claim to love. The Gospel should check our pride at every step, and give us the tools to charitably critique ourselves and our movement.
Steve Lutz | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Great thoughts, Trevin. Thanks for taking the time to craft this well-thought-out & intelligent response.
Aaron Armstrong | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Thanks Trevin for this thoughtful, thorough, and humble post. Thanks for applying the gospel in a deep and needed way to this discussion, to your own heart, and encouraging us to do the same.
Jonathan McIntosh | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
I am up for defending Piper’s choice and even defending Rick Warren — a little. The truth is — as my friend Phil Johnson pointed out today — that the PDC/PDL version of “evangelicalism” is actually the specific reason T4G and the Gospel Coalition are needed today — to remedy a sloppy version of the faith through the core truths the orthodox in all denominations can and should affirm.
On the “willing to defend Warren (a little)” side, I repeat my concern voiced a week ago at WHI.org blog — every one of us who say we are “reformed” started out in churches which were either intentionally or unintentionally milk-drinking churches and not meat-eating churches. And it was in those environments that we all got saved, all were found by the Gospel. It’s entirely useful, I think, to see Rick Warren and his movement(s) as the front door of the faith and not the center of the promised land and still uphold an orthodox view of things.
The question that I think is valid, however, is “how much is too much?” Or in this case, “too little”? I don’t doubt that Rick Warren will speak well publicly at DG. I have never seen him not speak well — he knows how. He likes people and it shows when he speaks. But let’s imagine that he delivers some sort of Reformed manifesto on the topic of “The Life of the Mind & the Love of God”.
That would actually raise more questions than stifle critics since he has a bully pulpit already and cannot frame such a thing in his current flood of messages.
So I’m conflicted. I think there’s something about loving people which Rick Warren himself gets somewhat right and which we, the chosen frozen, don’t often have an ear for (let alone a real voice for). I think in that context, Piper’s invite here gives “us” (insofar as there is an “us”) to hear something from someone who is doing things we wish we knew how to do in spite of our serious differences with him.
Let’s see if we can get even that much right.
Frank Turk | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Trevin,
You always seem to be a humble voice of reason within the YRR movement. The love of Christ and genuine common sense always shines through in your posts and comments in the blogosphere.
For that, I thank you sincerely.
Ed Goodman | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
I’m kind of on the fence regarding your post here. On one hand, I am likewise disgusted by certain ‘reformed’ fundamentalists that have burned Piper/Warren at the stake here. For a more balanced and charitable disagreement, I’d reference what Challies and Phil Johnson have written about this.
But on the other hand, I have to disagree with how you throw around the term ‘reformed’. Clearly you are using it in an ‘everybody who is at least a quasi-Calvinist is reformed’ sense. But that shouldn’t be the case.
I don’t dare try to get into a discussion here about what it exactly means to be ‘reformed’, but it appears –at least to some extent– that the term ‘reformed’ is being personally defined and then used against the very ones who are closer to its distinctives.
Historically speaking, ‘Reformed’ has as much to do with methodology as it does with doctrine; it has as much to do with purifying Christ’s church from defilements as it does proclaiming the sovereignty of God in salvation; it has as much to do with striving for precision in all matters of faith and practice as it does with conservative-leaning principles of interpretation. Some essential aspects of being ‘reformed’ entail a striving for purity, precision, and an open rejection of practices/people who fail to align themselves with the Word of God in matters of faith and practice (methodology).
So to me, in a way, it sounds like you are taking an erroneous definition of the term ‘reformed’ and are using that definition against those who are much closer to its distinctives. To me, it doesn’t make much sense to chastise the ‘reformed’ crowd for actually acting ‘reformed’. That is, their repudiation of Warren is much more ‘reformed’ than is the open acceptance of him, despite how we disagree with their spirit (which I do; their harshness and hate is shameful).
So then, are you also then going to call out those who openly accept this invitation as ‘pitching their tents in the far corner of the Reformed cul-de-sac’? There’s much more warrant to that statement, IMO, than to what you’ve done here –all attitudes and harsh words aside.
The separation and rejection of Warren is very purely a ‘reformed’ response to this situation. How anyone can affirm that Piper is acting wisely here and claim that their view is ‘reformed’ is beyond me. But at the same time, the tone, spirit, and manner in which this separation/rejection has been handled by many is very purely the opposite of Christian love altogether. So we need to deal with both sides: those who accept Warren, and those who reject him with hate. To take one side to task over the other, while using this term ‘reformed’, is somewhat hypocritical, IMO.
Nathan White | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Huge point missed here.
Much of the discernment is correct here… “IF”
If he had not have endorsed RW as solid.
This is HUGE, I say again Huge.
Dr. Piper has taught and exposed through his writings and teachings a complete dichotomy between Biblical Theology and what RW and his movement teaches.
There is a complete Black and white difference, with no gray areas.
But after years teaching this, to now fuzz clear and distinct lines, and color gray where it is either black or white, is plain wrong.
Warrengate reflects more of a political move, than a Biblical dealing.
However to recklessly attack is wrong.
But just as wrong (not as mean) is to ignore that Biblical values are being crossed out here, and there is a hard line.
Michael Adams | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Trevin:
Great article. Thank you for at least coming closer to some rational thought. I was thoroughly frustrated to read all the outrage regarding this decision. It’s classic fundamentalism 101 – to want to separate with all those who don’t agree with every doctrinal point. And frankly, THAT’S NOT Jesus or the Gospel. So thank you for providing some rational thoughts.
John Alexander | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Amen Trevin, Amen.
Chris Meirose | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Thanks, Trevin. I think this is the best assessment of the Piper / Warren controversy I’ve read (and believe me, I’ve read way too many assessments).
Barry Wallace | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Well thought-out and written, and a big Amen to Frank Turk as well.
D.J. Williams | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Trevin,
I also respect the balanced posture of your post. However, it would quickly become unbalanced if the presupposition that Warren is not a heretic was wrong.
Webster defines heretic as one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine.
In the case of a confessing evangelical, the Bible would be the standard of belief and doctrine.
Let’s take a look at just a few components of Warren’s ministry:
* Warren endorses Roman Catholic mystics in his PDL book
* Warren embraces New Age sympathizer Leonard Sweet and Red Letter Christian Tony Campolo, both by definition, hold heretical positions on a variety of subjects.
* Warren advocates the removal of church members that will not conform to the PD church growth model which turns a congregation into a crowd for the sake of unbelievers.
* Warren asked the god of Islam for forgiveness.
* Warren’s Celebrate Recovery program is a Christianized version of Alcoholics Anonymous, whose founder was steeped in bondage to spiritualism and communed for decades with unclean spirits.
*Warren’s PEACE plan is communitarianism / religious socialism
*Warren’s SHAPE program is based on Jungian psychology. Jung practiced
necromancy, and had daily contact with disembodied spirits, which he credited as the source of much of his writings. Jungian philosophy also impact A-A’s 12 step program.
*Warren believes that Roman Catholicism is a legitimate expression of Christianity.
*Warren declared that the future of the world is not secularism, it’s religious pluralism.
*Rick Warren’s worldly approach to ministry and his famous Scripture twisting, by default, denies the sufficiency of Scriptures.
By the Biblical standard, any of these issues would conflict with the Biblical standard. Any of these issues would create a heretical position antithetical to the Scriptures and would require rebuke and correction.
Not endorsement or a tacit wink of approval.
What one does defines what he truly believes.
John Piper took a great liberty in not verifying Rick Warren’s statements. He has erred in judgment and example by doing so. There is still time to repent and restore.
We are all like sheep.
Jim | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Thank you for a thoughtful and gracious article on this overblown (probably) issue. I stumbled upon some blog by accident right after this news came out and was shocked at the some of the most grotesque, jarring, and reckless use of words that betrayed attitudes of the heart as deep as the Pharisees in Jesus’ day. Religious moralism is rampant and is as deceptive as it is deadly in some ‘Reformed Circles.’
David Taylor | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Thank you for the example of humility displayed. It is always refreshing to hear a fellow like minded believer respond with grace.
mike | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for reminding everyone involved (including this Wesleyan woman) that we’re one family in Christ. Love this blog, even when we don’t agree.
Darcyjo | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Well spoken Trevin – very well spoken.
I’m a bit conflicted like Frank Turk here but I think you provide a well balanced view on this thing.
And for some reason I find myself agreeing with Frank a lot these days – pray for me please!
David Wayne | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Trevin:
The biblical mandates (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Rom. 16:17-18) are clear and are applicable to the man Rick Warren for obvious reasons. There is no subjective decision to make. One must chose to disregard the plain teaching of Scripture to invite and give Warren a national platform where he has a ripe opportunity to deceive the unsuspecting that would otherwise not be reached if Piper had not given him the venue to do it from. We would all do well to be reminded of Paul’s parting admonition to the elders at Ephesus,
“For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them,” (Acts 20:29-30).
Warren IMO is not a wolf, but he is a man who from within the body of Christ has arisen and is “speaking perverse things to draw away disciples.”
With Piper this invitation to Rick Warren is the latest in what is become a track record of aberrant theology and/or questionable practices. Charismatic theology, thinking the Toronto Blessing is a blessing, embrace of Mark Driscoll in spite of his disgraceful filth speech; and now this. Is this not a pattern that now necessitates the mandates of 2 Thess. 3:14-15?
John Piper is not an enemy and I do not appreciate those who might portray him as one. He is, however, a brother who has gone horribly wrong in theology and practice with the Warren invite being the latest and most stark example. If members of the body of Christ do not take biblical steps to admonish and withdraw from to restore him he will eventually make even worse decisions than this one with Rick Warren.
If men love the brethren, John Piper in particular, they will admonish him. If he remains unrepentant they will withdraw from him…have no company with him that he may be ashamed and Lord willing repent of this error.
LM
Lou Martuneac | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
FWIW:
In his classic, Biblical Separation: The Struggle for a Pure Church, Dr. Ernest Pickering wrote,
“When our brethren do things that are wrong—caused by an incomplete knowledge of or deliberate disobedience to some teaching of Scripture—we should not merely continue fellowship with them as those who have done nothing wrong, but we should warn them, remonstrate with them and seek to recover them to a Biblical position. . . . If one should ask, Does 2 Thessalonians 3 teach secondary separation?—then the response would have to be given, It depends on what you mean by secondary separation. . . . It is the principle of refusing to condone, honor or utilize persons who continually and knowingly are following a course of action which is harmful to other believers and to the welfare of the churches.”
LM
Lou Martuneac | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Dear Trevin:
I was looking over Wikipedia’s (for what that’s worth!) synopsis of John Piper’s views, as I hadn’t researched him much. And I found a few things that I would disagree with. I already know that I have some disagreements, too, with Rick Warren.
But I liked your article because it does point to the (sometimes) “morbid hobby” that some of us Christians make in wanting to draw distinctions between ourselves and others in order to withdraw from fellow (imperfect) believers.
Being a pastor, I can already confess that I have written apology letters to congregations I have served, renouncing things that I later came to understand were misrepresentations of Scripture. For instance, I felt led to formally retract and apologize for a sermon I gave once that argued against tithing.
Under the worst scrutiny, of course, many could have chosen the David of that moment, and written him off as a heretic, liberal Pastor. And maybe they would have been right to do so.
But God is still God, moving His people forward in the midst of the temporary insanity of sin and unbelief. I can testify to that, and to the necessity of a gracious orthodoxy, of which I am not only a believer, but an obvious beneficiary.
Grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
David
It’s actually quite tragic
David MacKenzie | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Trevin,
I am a recovering Pharisee that was reared in the fundamentalist movement. I can honestly say that God has freed me from that yoke and I for one have no desire to seperate from either Pastor Rick or Pastor John. This has the potential to be a great opportunity for God to be glorified and the gospel to be put on display to a world that needs to see unity in the body of Christ.
I firmly believe that these noisy critics of Pastor John are in for a rude awakening when they get to heaven. I’m trying to make my peace, where I can in good conscience, here below.
Keep the good stuff coming,
Mike Hall
S.D.G.
Mike | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Brother Mike:
Warren routinely misuses Scripture: The Bible is a tool that Warren manipulates to cover his own ideas with a veneer of divine authority. For example, in the Purpose Driven Life he quotes from 15 Bible versions and paraphrases, picking and choosing the one that fits his pragmatic need. This process often wrenches texts out of context.
Warren promotes extreme ecumenism: He has forged ties with the Roman Catholic Church, the Baptist World Alliance and the United Nations. Warren is involved with and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Warren said, “I see absolutely zero reason in separating my fellowship from anybody,” Noting he has theological differences with many of the diverse denominations that invite him to speak, Warren added, “That doesn’t stop me from fellowshipping with them.” When he heard of the SBC’s withdrawal from the Baptist World Alliance, he added, “I thought, ‘This is silly! Why would we separate ourselves from brothers and sisters in the world?’” (Rick Warren, Global Baptists Are in This Together.) Warren signing the Yale Center for Faith and Culture document for unity among Christian and Muslim faiths.
There is much, much more. Do none of these give you pause about fellowship, cooperation with and/or endorsing the ministry of Rick Warren? Is there not just cause for obeying the God-given mandates to withdraw from him that he may be ashamed?
LM
Lou Martuneac | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
What ever happened to followers of Christ and unbelievers? Everybody’s gotta have separate teams these days. 1 cor 1:12-13
wpwhite | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
I am so weary of the bomb throwing at fellow believers. Thanks Trevin for building bridges.
Eric Peterson | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Missing one big point: Exposing an audience for which you’re the gatekeeper (that makes them a flock you’re shepherding, in some sense), to a heretic and giving that heretic the opportunity to speak to them, is unwise, period.
Jay | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
Best thing yet on this controversy. I liked Frank Turk’s comment too. Wish you had been able to moderate some of the comments better. Some bomb throwers snuck in. OK so perhaps seeing such comments here, side by side with the original post and other good comments, is in essence “giving them enough rope to hang themselves.”
DrewK | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
Great post thank you for all of these thoughts. I was greatly helped by this post.
Russ | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
Jay:
You wrote, “Exposing an audience for which you’re the gatekeeper…”
The Apostle Paul had this admonition for the elders at Ephesus,
“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them,” (Acts 20:28-31).
Hobnobbing with unbelievers through the Manhattan Declaration opens the door for “grievous wolves [to] enter in among you.” Furthermore, “of our own selves” men, such as Rick Warren, have arisen “speaking perverse things.” Al Mohler and Ligon Duncan have given Christian recognition to the deadly “enemies of the cross of Christ,” (Phil. 3:18). John Piper is giving a platform, his own, for the “perverse things” of Rick Warren.
LM
Lou Martuneac | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
DrewK:
You wrote, “I liked Frank Turk’s comment too.”
Frank Turk is exhibiting elements of the mindset of the “new” New Evangelicalism, which is the natural result of disdain for the biblcial mandfates of separatism.
If you like Frank’s comments, you’re half-way to falling in love with new evangelicalism.
LM
Lou Martuneac | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
Great stuff Trevin! Was not aware of your fundamentalist background- I too attended a fundamental baptist church right after conversion, was raised catholic before that. I have come to appreciate all former experiences, while at the same time knowing where I stand today. God bless brother
John
corpuschristioutreachministries | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
God wants us to discern evil with our spirits not the intellect. Satan wants us to know good and evil with our carnal mind(temptation of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil) not our spirit in which our conscience of right and wrong resides. We are to try the spirits (not minds) whether they are good or evil.
This whole coverstion is a delight for the evil one. He has convinced these people to try and have a meeting of the minds and not of the spirits. The mind can rationalize to the wrong conclusion (there is a way that seems right to man but therein are the ways of death)The heart of man is where the understanding begins not the intellect (Matt 13:15).
You could go point by point in the 6 point message and point out the error of each one.It is a grief to see this error creep into this lost generation. If space permitted I would do so. If requested I will go point by point if one is interested in the truth.
I share this out of a love for the Lord and a broken heart over the error of the above message.
Steve | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
Amen brother.
Steve | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
The church is to be kept pure. “Come out from among them and be ye separate saith the Lord and touch not the unclean thing” To allow one who teaches error to dwell among them leavens the whole lump. However once one is leavened then a little more leaven will be accepted as “bridging the gap”. How do you bridge the gap between purity of truth and error ? However if both parties have been leavened with error, then it is easier to accept one anothers view because the ability to spiritually discern has been clouded.
Steve | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
gosh and gee willikers, so many of you miss the point entirely. It isn’t that Piper is conversing with Warren or even has a friendly relationship with same, it’s that by placing his name ALONGSIDE and standing ALONGSIDE Warren he might lead undiscerning or as yet immature Christians to the empty trough of Warrens well. We are to influence those who have gone astray, not lead other TO THEM. It isn’t guilt by association, it’s taking responsibility for our associations and seeing to it that we do not expose others to danger.
yeeeesh.
mich | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
Hi Trevin,
I enjoyed very much your article. You should translate and include it in your Romanian blog version because the word with “h” is too easily used overhere.
keep the good work!
Mihai | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
Great Post Trevin. Looking forward to seeing oyu next week!
Weston | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
Blessed are they that mourn for they will be comforted. When you see what is happening here it is very sad indeed even to the point of grief and tears. How can two walk together unless they be agreed ? He that that ears let them hear. Not all hear the truth Mich. You and a few others see what is happening here and it grieves you. Me too. May God open their understanding to see their error. Peter didn’t compromise with Annanias and Sapphira. In order to protect the flock from their error creeping into the early church he kept them from staying as leaven in the church. When we invite one with an unscriptural view to speak – we give a sense of sanction. Will there be a rebuttal with the truth ? Our Lord did not have a discussion with Satan in the wilderness. He spoke the truth and Satan fled. If one holds to the same truth then they will rejoice or one may repent and acknowledge the truth. But the unwise error in allowing an unscriptural stance to be presented to the flock is aquiescence to the spirit of error and therfore disobedient to the Spirit of Christ.
Steve | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
I appreciate your point of view. I have been suspect of Warren’s comments the past few years, but know sometimes they may have been taken out of context. It is difficult to work through all of the different variations and perspectives of God’s truth. I met a woman this week who seems to have a sensitive connection to the unseen world. She is big on spiritual warfare, and though sometimes I think that she may go too far when focusing on slaying demons in Jesus Name, she has a great devotion to Christ and faith in His power.
Phil Brown | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
We are to take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Lets carefully look at the first point:
“1. Willingness to learn from people you disagree with is not a sign that you’re waffling on your firm convictions. It’s a sign that you’re steadfast.”
This statement can be taken several different ways thus it is qualified by the follow up statements:”Piper knows what he believes. That’s why he can share the stage with someone he respectfully disagrees with. Piper extended this invitation, not because he is waffling on his theological positions, but because he knows right where he stands.”
-Question, Why is he on the stage ? so that others can hear the message of error besides himself ? Will he publicly rebuke the errors ? What fellowship has light with darkness ? Yes we are to be friendly towards all but do we learn error from one who rejects the truth of God’s word ? After the first and second admonition we are to reject a heretic, not to give him a platform to spew his error. ” Cease my son to hear the instruction that causes to err … The subtle one who slips error into our thinking will eventually leaven to whole lump.
The next statement is very subtle but lets examine it:”Insularity is often bred by insecurity. When I was in high school, I constantly questioned my teachers about certain affirmations that didn’t add up. I was puzzled as to why certain books were off limits, or why the preaching of many evangelical leaders was forbidden. The more I sought to understand the rationale behind the interdictions, the more I came to understand that it was an insecurity masked by dogmatism that kept us in our cul-de-sac.”
– Satan reasoned with Eve giving her the idea that God was witholding something from her and that God is restricting her from something.Security comes from holding to God’s Word warning us not to step into an area that we are not capable of handling (no matter how clever we think we are – which is pride)God definitely wanted to insulate Adam and Eve from something they couldn’t handle.We are to discern with our spirit not the intellect. Adam and Eve lifted up with pride wandered outside God’s parameters and their spiritual discernment died.Their carnal eyes were opened but their spiritual eyes dimmed and lost their security.
And lastly:”It’s ironic, but true: The more you forbid people to read or hear from those outside your circle, the more you communicate the insecurity of your own position. Your followers will eventually entertain this notion: If they think I could so easily adopt another point of view on this matter, maybe their position isn’t as rock-solid and self-evident as they make it out to be.”
– Once we have been born again we need not fill our minds with the knowledge of error. We are to reject it. Now your statement may be true for unbelievers but I assume you are not talking to unbelievers here.The sheperd should protect his flock from error not lead them into it. Should we fellowship with someone in the darkness of error or stand in the truth and bring one out into the marvelous light ?
Steve | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
God bless thee for this article, well done.
Quaker Anne | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
After seeing some of the comments here, it would be a good idea to go back to the basics and study what genuine repentance is and what it means to be born again.
Steve | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
After seeing many of the comments here, I regret subscribing to the comments feed. (Lookin’ at you, Steve and Lou).
Steve Lutz | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
Tsk, tsk, tsk… all this talk of heretics and apostates. PCA pastor, Jason Stellman, on his blog Creed Code Cult, in discussing an intramural squabble said the following which applies here. “For example, I have not heard even the most ardently Reformed patristics scholar argue that Augustine believed in the sinner’s justification on the basis of the imputation of an alien righteousness received through the instrumentality of faith alone, distinct from baptism (and the Bishop of Hippo is supposed to be the biggest proto-Protestant among the various early church fathers!). My point is that the gospel is that ‘God sent his Son into the world to save sinners.’ While I believe that the mechanics of that salvation are most biblically set forth in the Westminster Standards, to insist that all who reject our system of doctrine are therefore preaching a false gospel is patently ridiculous. Such a position would condemn John Piper, Charles Spurgeon, Martin Luther, and pretty much all of the early church fathers to bear the “anathema” of Galatians 1:8. In a word, we need to distinguish between full-on heresy on the one hand, and error on the other. ‘Not all who wander are lost.’”
So, as a Catholic, I’m pretty much used to perjorative labels, and I find they are usually superficial, knee-jerk comments. I’m hoping Pastor Stellman’s quote will give reason to reflect. Was Augustine, a Catholic bishop who wrote supporting purgatory, baptismal regeneration, deference to the bishop of Rome, etc., an apostate heretic? Trevin’s right; it’s nearly ALWAYS proper to withhold the apostate and heretic labels.
Brian | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
Ditto to what Brian said here about Stellman’s quote. I’m a PCA guy so I have a little bit of familiarity with what Stellman is dealing with. He has been involved in the Federal Vision conflict, which as far as I can tell is mostly confined to the PCA and some other presbyterian/reformed groups and though he has stood his ground against what he believes is an aberrant position, he has refused to descend into ad hominem attacks and some of the more hostile rhetoric that frequently goes with these things, to the point of complimenting and affirming the good character of his opponent. There is a hermeneutic of charity and truth that Christians are obligated to abide by and that Trevin has exhibited here, and I also think that Phil Johnson showed in his response, though he landed in a different place than Trevin. Can’t say the same for many others who have voiced their opinions.
David Wayne | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
Steve Lutz:
Your problem is not with me, it is with the Scriptures that speak to the issues.
LM
Lou Martuneac | Apr 10, 2010 | Reply
your very correct Brian, many reformed do not see the reality of many reformers holding to a sacramental theology along wiht a strong stance on justification by faith.
corpuschristioutreachministries | Apr 11, 2010 | Reply
Even John Calvin wouldn’t be Calvinistic enough for some of these commenters.
Brian | Apr 12, 2010 | Reply
Glad to read this.
Dan Lower | Apr 24, 2010 | Reply
Warren will not preach his ecumenical pragmatic doctrine at DG conference. Warren is the greatest chameleon of all time. He is whatever he needs to be depending on the audience whether it is one or millions. How I know? Years and years of working/consulting in the church growth movement before I really got saved. Warren has one of the most winning personalities of all time. He could charm a dog off a meat truck.
I could spend hours listing all the problems with Warren’s doctrine and his pragmatic alliances but in the end, it would do no good because most of you are so sold out to following men you would never get it. You have so much invested in Piper that he cannot possibly be wrong.
Quite frankly, Warren has much more to gain from this alliance than Piper for a myriad of reasons. And it will only serve to make Warren and his pragmatism more acceptable in areas of Christendom where he isn’t. And that is exactly what Warren wants.
lydia | Apr 25, 2010 | Reply
Lydia:
Well said. I have reproduced your comment in a thread here at my blog.
LM
Lou Martuneac | Apr 25, 2010 | Reply
Lou, In reference to your comment, “Your problem is not with me, it is with the Scriptures that speak to the issues”, you need to appreciate that not all of the evangelical world (and in case you are wondering I am not a follower of Warren or Piper) interprets the scriptures in the same way that you do. As Trevin suggested as the end, you need to take a healthy dose of humility and realise that your flavor of Christianity is not the only one.
Harry | Apr 26, 2010 | Reply
Thanks for the refreshing reflection and dedication to open our hearts and minds to the possibilities that we in fact may or may not know it all relating to sound doctrine and as well as the ability to embrace others who love Christ who are not in our camp.
Pastor John Wilson | May 3, 2010 | Reply
One of the good aspects of Rick Warren’s ministry is he does not let himself be distracted by the snipers and the snarling critics. He soldiers on in his mission, calling sinners to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. Lord God, bless us and keep us to do the same.
Bob | May 5, 2010 | Reply
Hallelujah, brother for defending the Gospel!
Why is this dicussion even an issue if Warren was solid?
And then, that fact that it is taking up so much of people’s ‘preaching of the Gospel’ time, speaks mountains.
We do speak the truth in love, but speak it, w must. Keep defending that narrow way by keeping it narrow and speaking up against those that try to widen it. It will not be widen and be able to be “The Way”.
Mrs. Narrow | May 8, 2010 | Reply
Hallelujah, brother for defending the Gospel!
I should have made more clear whose comments I was responding to….it is to Michael Adams. Scroll below my here to see his truth-filled comments. And let me add that because we live in an era that preaches loving people so, so much, many in the church have gotten to loving people first, God second. It is what we do if we compromise the Gospel; that whole mistake is a corruption of the Gospel.
Mine here first:
Why is this dicussion even an issue if Warren was solid?
And then, that fact that it is taking up so much of people’s ‘preaching of the Gospel’ time, speaks mountains.
We do speak the truth in love, but speak it we must. Keep defending that narrow way by keeping it narrow and speaking up against those that try to widen it. It will not be widen and be able to be “The Way”.
1. Huge point missed here.
Much of the discernment is correct here… “IF”
If he had not have endorsed RW as solid.
This is HUGE, I say again Huge.
Dr. Piper has taught and exposed through his writings and teachings a complete dichotomy between Biblical Theology and what RW and his movement teaches.
There is a complete Black and white difference, with no gray areas.
But after years teaching this, to now fuzz clear and distinct lines, and color gray where it is either black or white, is plain wrong.
Warrengate reflects more of a political move, than a Biblical dealing.
However to recklessly attack is wrong.
But just as wrong (not as mean) is to ignore that Biblical values are being crossed out here, and there is a hard line.
Michael Adams | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Mrs. Narrow | May 8, 2010 | Reply
One more posting to clarify where my comments end and Michael’s begin….so sorry.
Hallelujah, brother Michael, for defending the Gospel!
I should have made more clear whose comments I was responding to….it is to Michael Adams. Scroll below my here to see his truth-filled comments. And let me add that because we live in an era that preaches loving people so, so much, many in the church have gotten to loving people first, God second. It is what we do if we compromise the Gospel; that whole mistake is a corruption of the Gospel.
Mine here first:
Why is this dicussion even an issue if Warren was solid?
And then, that fact that it is taking up so much of people’s ‘preaching of the Gospel’ time, speaks mountains.
We do speak the truth in love, but speak it we must. Keep defending that narrow way by keeping it narrow and speaking up against those that try to widen it. It will not be widen and be able to be “The Way”.
Michael’s comments:
1. Huge point missed here.
Much of the discernment is correct here… “IF”
If he had not have endorsed RW as solid.
This is HUGE, I say again Huge.
Dr. Piper has taught and exposed through his writings and teachings a complete dichotomy between Biblical Theology and what RW and his movement teaches.
There is a complete Black and white difference, with no gray areas.
But after years teaching this, to now fuzz clear and distinct lines, and color gray where it is either black or white, is plain wrong.
Warrengate reflects more of a political move, than a Biblical dealing.
However to recklessly attack is wrong.
But just as wrong (not as mean) is to ignore that Biblical values are being crossed out here, and there is a hard line.
Michael Adams | Apr 9, 2010 | Reply
Mrs. Narrow | May 8, 2010 | Reply
Even the prodigal son’s father killed the fatted calf and celebrated his return, yet the son who had not strayed resented it. Y’shua said that the father celebrated because the brother who was dead was alive again and was lost but now was found.
How will the world know G-d loves them if we “kill” our own? We may not agree with other believers about all things but if we continue to love them the world will know that G-d loves them and that Y’shua died for their sins too.
April Romero | May 16, 2010 | Reply
Read the article and I thought it was nonsence. Piper is wrong, the reformation was all about seperation, they can repent and join the true Church,, but why would true Christian ever be where the truth is miss used! We seek truth not herecy as we have been made new 2 Corinth 5:17.
Name | Aug 12, 2010 | Reply
I found this example to be nonsence. The reformation is a great display of the regenerate/justifiedelect fighting for the truth. Christian to seperate and be with each other and continue to seek after teh truth. The reformser departed and established teh truth Church of Christ with the truth gospel -Galatians 1:8]. Scripture also imforms us not be be unequely yoked. And not to have fellowship with the world. etc etc. piper you are not to have fellowship with Warren!
Name | Aug 12, 2010 | Reply
To those who rant on about Warren, Piper, the world, and separation. Love God – Love Others – Make Disciples as you go and then, please, get back to the rest of us … The Reformation was about separation…oh brother…(literally)
John Wilson | Aug 12, 2010 | Reply