Interview with Richard Abanes- Part Two: New Age Spirituality
July 27, 2005 Posted by Roger Overton
Okay, let's get into the content. In general, I've seen three main criticisms of Rick Warren and PDL- New Age spirituality, use of Scripture, and being seeker-sensitive. Let's start with the New Age issues. Having just read Warren Smith's Deceived on Purpose, it seems there's a very convincing case to be made that Robert Schuller is closely tied with New Age thinkers and teachings.
He is. I call Schuller a heretic-liberal. His doctrine is terrible. Let me be very clear about that. He compromises biblical truths, rejects the idea that people in other religions need to convert, has diverged significantly from the orthodox doctrine on sin as well as the sin nature, and preaches such a watered down gospel that it is no gospel at all. He also has not only allowed non-Christians in his pulpit, but also has persons boldly professing other faiths to teach from his pulpit. Schuller has whole litany of doctrinal problems.
Rick Warren's been accused of being mentored by Robert Schuller…
Yes, well, this is one of those Urban Legends that just will not die. It is about as true as the Proctor & Gamble Satanism rumor (http://www.bibleistrue.com/roarlion/nlpg0999.htm) or the Madeline Murray O'Hare FCC petition rumor (see http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/madalyn_ohare.htm). It's completely false.
So, what exactly is the relationship between Robert Schuller and Rick Warren?
At this point is almost non-existent. It all started way back in 1979 when Warren, in his last year of seminary, paid Schuller's Institute a visit (he visited a lot of different churches that year because he was studying church growth). He thought it was great how Schuller was doing things in a non-traditional way (e.g., holding church in a drive-in). Then, once Warren came to California, he shared his testimony at Schuller's Institute a few times—that's it! Schuller was nice enough. He encourages Warren, prayed for Warren, and hoped the best for him. They became friends, but in about the mid- to late 1990s, Warren started noticing that Schuller had some doctrinal problems. He subsequently broke off the connection with Schuller. In my book I quote from various private letters that Warren wrote to Schuller telling him about some of his serious errors. Schuller did not really change, and well, that was the end of that.
And what sort of impact has that relationship had on Mr. Warren's teachings?
No doctrines at all. Once in a while, Warren has repeated a few Schullerisms—e.g., you need hope to cope—but these are fairly generic concepts that really have nothing to do with doctrine. I list a few of them in my book. Truly, I see no real impact at all on Warren's teachings from Schuller, and I've been listening to Rick for ten years (not to mention the fact that i have transcripts of just about every message he has delivered for the last twenty years). As I previously noted, Warren just liked Schuller's willingness to do church in a decidedly non-traditional way. This approach appealed to him. But that's about it, except for, if memory served me correctly, a single question that Warren used in his survey of the unchurched—i.e., “Why do you think most people don’t attend church?” Schuller used this same question in a survey he conducted in 1955. No big deal, really
In his article “A Regular Purpose-Driven Guy,” Tim Stafford quoted Kay Warren (Rick's wife) speaking about Robert Schuller. “He had a profound influence on Rick,” Kay says. “We were captivated by his positive appeal to nonbelievers. I never looked back.” So does the “profound influence” she spoke of only refer to Schuller's church-growth ideas?
The kind of assumptions and bizarre extrapolations that have been taken away from this isolated statement by Kay have been nothing less than ludicrous. I cover this extensively in my book under a heading called “The Kay Quote.” Actually, it's even less than “Schuller's church-growth ideas.” It really has a lot more to do just with Rick's pleasant surprise over the way Schuller did church—i.e., in a completely non-traditional way. That profoundly influenced him, sure. It showed him that he did not have to go along with a crowd. It had nothing to do with doctrine. In fact, the issue of “growth” was even part of it all because Warren, as he has said many times, is not particularly interested in “growth” for the sake of growth. Warren is more interested in church “health.” He sees growth as just a by-product of church health. This is all stated very clearly in The Purpose Driven
Church—but critics somehow miss it. The thing that he noticed about churches that most influenced “growth” was the simply fact that most growing/large churches had enjoyed the presence of a consistent pastor for many years.
In PDL, Rick Warren uncritically quotes several questionable figures that Robert Schuller also quotes. For example, Theosophist George Bernard Shaw (PDL, 33) and New Age thinker Aldoux Huxley (PDL, 248). Even if these quotes don't tie Warren to Schuller, don't they tie him to New Age thinking?
No. These quotes do not tie Warren to New Age thinking any more than his quote of the atheist Bertrand Russell (1872–1970)—“Unless you assume God, the question of life’s purpose is meaningless”—ties him to atheism.
Warren feels, and I do too, that a person does not have to be a Christian in order to make an astute observation, or say something that is true. All “truth”—wherever it may be found—is God’s truth. So if I quote something that is true in order to make a point, then it really does not matter who said it, whether it was a Buddhist, an atheist, or a space alien! On my own website, for instance, I quote Oscar Wilde, who said: “Music is the art which is most nigh to tears and memory.” Does this tie me to homosexuality? Hardly.
Christians as far back as the first century were quoting pagans in hopes of communicating the truths of the Gospel. They saw that unbelievers, including the Greek philosophers, had made astute observations about God and possessed some truths consistent with
Christianity. In the Gospel of John, for instance, we find the Greek word logos (“Word”) being used to describe Jesus. Logos was a Greek philosophical term that represented “reason” as a sort of bridge between the unreachable God and earthly matter. Hence, Jesus, as the eternal logos, is the bridge between God and man. Like John, Paul the apostle also quoted various pagans in his attempts to share the good news of Jesus Christ with the unbelieving world (I talk about Paul's extensively in my book).
Are we now going to say that John and Paul can (or should be) tied to Greek paganism? I don't think so.
On October 26, 2003, after speaking at Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral, Bruce Wilkinson spoke at Saddleback Church. According to Warren Smith, Wilkinson “told everyone that they should “find out what their Dream is.” Wilkinson emphasized, as he did at the Crystal Cathedral, that each person's Dream is connected to everyone else's dream because it is really “God's Dream.” He warned that when people don't “do” their “Dream” it can negatively impact everyone else's Dream for “generations” afterwards. Each person must look to the Dream that is in their heart, see it as “God's Dream,” submit the Dream to God and then “commit to that Dream.” He said that if the Dream is in your heart it is “probably” what God wants you to do.” (123) This teaching sounds incredibly unbiblical, however, Rick Warren claimed that Wilkinson's talk was “based out of the principles of the Bible that are taught in [Wilkinson's] book.” Was Warren Smith wrong or does Rick Warren really believe we will find “God's Dream” in our heart?
This question reveals a very serious problem—not with Warren, or Wilkinson, or even Warren Smith. It reveals a problem with terminology that leads to confusion. Really vague terms like “dream,” if not clearly defined, can mean all kinds of things to all kinds of people. Schuller has used the “dream” term. Wilkinson has used the “dream” term. Warren has used the “dream” term. And a host of others have used the “dream” term, including the lead “Mamma” character in the Broadway musical Gypsey, who sings: “I have a dream! A Dream about you, baby!” Well, I think that what we have are multiple uses of the term “dream.” In other words, we have a kind of conceptual mess.
So there is a major communication problem going on if Schuller is talking about a “dream” of self-esteem, Wilkinson is talking about a “dream” of getting whatever you want through the proper prayer formula, and Warren is talking about a “dream” of finding your purpose in life whereby you serve Christ with all your heart, soul, mind and strength! See what I mean?
Rather than speaking for any of these men, I would simply say that at Saddleback—in all my years and experiences there—I have only heard WARREN speak of his “dreams” or the “dreams” of church members in a way that is biblically acceptable (i.e., simply as a way of expressing one's hopes for the future, especially in connection with what a person hopes to do for God). As far back as 1980, Warren was using this “dream” language—not in connection AT ALL with Schuller or Wilkinson. At his very first Saddleback service, Warren declared his dream for the church, saying:
• “It is a dream of a place where the hurting, the depressed, the frustrated, and the confused can find life, acceptance, help, hope, forgiveness, guidance, and encouragement.”
• “It is a dream of sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ with the hundreds of thousands of residents in south Orange County.”
• “It is a dream of welcoming 20,000 members into the fellowship of our church family—loving, learning, laughing, and living in harmony together.”
• “It is a dream of developing people to spiritual maturity through Bible studies, small groups, seminars, retreats, and a Bible School.”
• “It is a dream of equipping every believer for a significant ministry by helping them discover the gifts and talents God gave them.”
• “It is a dream of sending out hundreds of missionaries and church workers all around the world and empowering every member for a personal life mission in the world.”
Clearly, we see in his earliest years, how Warren was using this term “dream.” In the complete absence of any evidence to the contrary, I suggest that Warren is still using the term in a similar way—i.e., as one's greatest, most personal, intimate, heart-felt hopes for the future as it relates to serving God and changing the world for Christ. Will we find that in our hearts??? Well, we are not going to find it under a rock, or in a book, or at some rally. God reveals to us, in us, what he wants us to do for him—i.e., our dreams for serving God. I would offer Psalm 37:4-5 as a biblical passage that supports how I believe Warren is using the term.
Warren's use of “dream” is one thing, but he did also practically endorse Wilkinson's use of “dream.” Did he ever withdraw that endorsement or try to distance himself from Wilkinson on this matter?
At this point—not having read The Dream Giver by Wilkinson—I am really not so sure that Wilkinson is saying anything contrary to scripture. His website about the book says that is meant to invite readers “to follow their hearts and find their destiny in an inspired Life Dream that is uniquely theirs.” That certainly is compatible with Psalm 37. Everybody has a dream of some kind—to own a business, to graduate from culinary school, to retire by age 55, to take a world cruise, to build the best house in Laguna Beach, to . . . . [fill in the blank]. It sounds like Wilkinson is simply saying, find in your heart, a dream that is consistent with serving God.
His website also says, “Through the principles and examples set forth in the book, readers learn how to overcome the obstacles to fulfilling their destinies. And living the lives for which they were created.” Notice the last part—”living the lives for which they were created.” To me this is pointing to the purpose(s) that God created us for. For example, I was created to be an author. Warren was created to be a pastor. Others were created for . . . who know what? That is what each one of us must find as we delight ourselves in God and seek to serve him with all of our talents and gifts.
But I have not read the book. This is all just based on very sketchy information. I don't see Wilkinson's statements, at least at this point, as problematic. My previous answer was simply to show that terms like “dream” can be used in many different ways, which is something that Warren Smith and others are forgetting. So, instead of really trying to find out what is being said, they leap on the worst of all possible meanings and try to tie it into the New Age, false teachings, Satan, the anti-Christ, the coming one world religion—you name it. But that is not good research.
Again, I have not read Wilkinson's The Dream Giver. I have only seen snippets of it. I see nothing horrible or unbiblical. I think, at least at this point, that folks like Warren Smith read EVERYTHING with an eye toward finding something in it that is New Age. They see a New Ager under every rock and hiding behind every bush in much the same way that people obsessed with spiritual warfare see a demon everywhere. Again, that is not could research—and it shows an inability, or an unwillingness, to thing carefully through such issues. It's a very knee-jerk, emotional response.
Related posts:
- Interview with Richard Abanes- Part One: Marketing
- Book Review: Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him by Richard Abanes
- Assessment of the Abanes Interview
- Interview with Richard Abanes- Part Four: The Seeker-Sensitive Movement
- Interview with Richard Abanes- Part Three: Scripture
- Book Review: Deceived on Purpose by Warren Smith
Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Miscellaneous, Religion (General), Roger's Posts, Theology
content rss
July 27th, 2005 at 11:36 am
Sounds like a bunch of Clintonian spin to me.
Big Chris
Because I said so
July 27th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
You know - Schuller's church claims to have mentored Warren:
http://www.hourofpower.org/Jubilee/who_are_we.cfm
That's why people might think it's so. If it's not so - I would be curious as to why Warren hasn't demanded Schuller remove the claim from his website. Maybe he has and Schuller refuses?
If it's completely false it would seem that Warren could take legal action to have his name removed.
July 27th, 2005 at 3:46 pm
July 27th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Davey, I'm not sure if he could take legal action or not. If he can, I'm not sure why he would. I'm sure he's got plenty of better things to do with his time and money than waste it on an erroneous comment by Schuller.
July 27th, 2005 at 7:47 pm
For those interested, here's a critical review of Wilkinson's book, The Dream Giver:
http://www.erwm.com/DreamStory.htm
If anyone else finds critical information on this book, please post it here.
July 27th, 2005 at 9:10 pm
The point really is that Mr. Abanes says it's total fiction like the Satanism or O'Hare links - and yet Schuller claims it on his web page. If Warren really believes Schuller to be a heretic-liberal I would think he would have a problem with being linked like this. At least enough to say so himself.
So I guess the conclusion is simply that in addition to being a heretic-liberal, Schuller is also a blatant liar. Is this what's being said?
July 27th, 2005 at 10:05 pm
Yes, essentially. Warren doesn't call him a liar, but on page 29 of Richard's book, Richard asked Warren “Is Schuller your mentor.” Warren replied “No! Never has been, never would be!” Between Warren and Schuller, I'm far more likely to trust Warren.
Even so, I think an example from my own life might be helpful. A few years ago I was mentored by a pastor at my old church. As it turns out, this pastor has almost completely embraced postmodern thinking. So, I was mentored for around six months by a postmodern pastor. So what? If you read my writings on this blog or elsewhere you'll find that I'm very critical of postmodernism. In other words, that mentor didn't have any effect on my theology. Just because one's mentored by somebody doesn't mean there's necessarily an ideological connection.
July 28th, 2005 at 7:27 am
Thanks Murdock. I guess the real concern, based on your example, would be that you would never say it was total fiction that you were mentored by this pastor. You would instead explain the situation just as you did.
But if Warren says an emphatic 'no', then that's the answer.
July 29th, 2005 at 6:30 pm
I've often wondered why numerical growth has come to be (perhaps has always been?) associated with spiritual health
July 29th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
Decent question. Perhaps because I grew up in a smaller church, my assumption was always the opposite. I assumed that people were going to larger churches for unhealthy reasons, and that the churches therefor were by and large more spiritually poor than the smaller churches.
August 7th, 2005 at 5:25 pm
Hi all,
Pastor Ken Silva, a known critic of Rick Warren, has now begun responding to me by calling into question my entire “walk with Jesus”! Interesting and predictable. See
February 25th, 2008 at 8:15 am
I read The Dream Giver, and it's a powerful new book, I bought it from imobiliare iasi, by the best selling author of The Prayer of Jabez, it invites readers to follow their hearts and find their destiny in an inspired Life Dream that is uniquely theirs.