Assessment of the Abanes Interview

July 30, 2005 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009). Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (569)

Let me first say that I consider Richard a friend. I found
his work on Mormon history, One Nation Under Gods, to be extremely well
done. From my perspective, Richard’s generally a good researcher and
journalist, and he’s been accessible when I’ve had questions for him over the
past few years. However, as much as I hate to say it, I think he dropped the
ball on this issue.

Marketing

We looked at four issues- marketing, the New Age, Scripture,
and the “seeker-sensitive movement.” Some people have gone to town with just
the marketing; associating Rick Warren with Scientology. I find this laughable.
I’ve seen nothing immoral or unbiblical about how PDL has been marketed.

New Age Spirituality

Much more has been written about Rick Warren’s alleged
connections to the “New Age.” Usually this has to do with his connection to
Robert Schuller. Richard did a fine job in this interview and in his book
showing that there is no significant connection. As far as I’m concerned, the
“New Age” criticisms of Rick Warren lack enough evidence to sustain them. I am
concerned about Warren’s endorsement of Bruce Wilkinson’s “Dream” theology, but
I think that has more to do with Warren not being critical of a friend than
with some New Age worldview.

Scripture

The problems really start at Scripture. I think the
justifications for the abundant use of The Message don’t cut it. Accuracy must
come before readability, and in many cases, including some of Rick Warren’s
citations, The Message sacrifices accuracy and makes a mockery of the text. It
would be acceptable to use it on occasion as a commentary, but not to
the degree that Rick Warren depends on it to make his points as a legitimate
translation. Tim Challies recently wrote an excellent post on how Scripture
should be used in books. It would wise for all of us to follow this model,
especially Rick Warren.

I asked Richard a specific question about an article by Don
Veinot and Mike Mahurin that examines how Rick Warren twisted Scripture in one
passage of PDL. In Richard’s long rambling response he never once interacted
with the article I asked him about. His defense of the PDL text in question
fails to take in account the arguments made by Veinot and Mahurin, and because
of that, I believe their arguments still stand.

In responding to that question and the one that followed,
Richard committed the Slippery Slope Fallacy. “Busenitz rails against Warren's
use of Prov. 17:4 and a verse from Jude to say, “Please people, stop your
gossip! It's ungodly. It's sin. And it divides us as a church!” Well, as I
said in one of my previous answers, fine, as long as Busenitz and others spend
an equal amount of time going after every single pastor/teacher/radio
preacher/televangelist who has EVER mis-used and/or misapplied: Rev. 3:20-21,
Jer. 29:11, Matt. 18:18-20, and 2 John 1:10-11.” Given the opportunity, I’m
sure Mr. Busenitz would, but simply because he criticizes one pastor’s misuse
of a passage doesn’t mean he is then responsible to criticize every pastor’s
misuse.

I think Richard effectively showed how Rick Warren’s use of
Proverbs 17:4 was at least acceptable, though I’m still not convinced about
Jude 19. While he’s right that Busenitz messed up the citation, there’s still a
huge difference between a “false teacher” and a “gossip.”

Richard pulled out some troubling quotes from Gary Gilley’s
articles on PDL. The problem is that I specifically asked about Gilley’s
criticisms of Warren’s use of Scripture. Richard wrote off all of Gilley’s
arguments as a dislike for paraphrases. However, Gilley’s arguments show how
the paraphrases, specifically The Message, did not accurately reflect what the
text says. They were then used to support Warren’s points that would not be
supported by a real translation. This is a prime example of one of Richard’s
straw men.

The Seeker-Sensitive Movement

As Richard pointed out, critics generally have not used
“seeker-sensitive” as Rick Warren uses it. However, I think there’s a problem
with Warren’s definition, “First, so that people without any religious
background will understand everything that takes place.” The Gospel should be
“seeker-sensitive” in this way, but not church services. This is where such
services do become “seeker-centered,” because you are now limited from doing anything
a new visitor might not understand.

Simply because Rick Warren happens to agree with Norm
Geisler, Ron Rhodes, Richard Abanes, and Hank Hanegraaff, doesn’t mean his
position on the Roman Catholic Church is correct. To view them as a
denomination is indeed troubling. While the Pew & Power Forum quote has
been used beyond its merit, that doesn’t dismiss the concern over being excited
that PDL is helping Roman Catholic Churches grow. I’d much rather them grow
than a mosque, but that doesn’t it make it good.

On several occasions Richard equivocated between criticisms
and name-calling; a practice that lent itself too easily to building straw men.
He did this with both John McArthur and Greg Koukl. He then also used his straw
men to question their motives and concern for truth. Of course, this is what
Richard complained was being done to Rick Warren throughout the entire
interview- tu quoque.

I have plenty of comments I could put forward on Richard’s
abuse of Greg Koukl, but I will let Greg handle most of that himself. I am very
disappointed, though, that Richard would ask Rob Bowman what he thought Greg
meant instead of asking Greg himself. Richard has never contacted Stand to
Reason to make sure he had it right. Instead, he went to print taking Greg out
of context and only afterward says he and Greg should talk.

While I agree there’s no “sinner’s prayer” in the Bible
(which may be another strike against Warren), I still contend there’s “no
Gospel” in the 40 Days of Purpose video that Greg cited. Just because Richard
thinks people are getting saved through it doesn’t mean the Gospel is
accurately presented. But apparently that doesn’t matter.

Overall

I’m disappointed. I think Richard set out to do a good thing
in setting straight many of the absurd and unsustainable criticisms of Rick
Warren. In the process, though, he went too far. Apparently the only legitimate
criticisms of Rick Warren are those made by Richard himself. Any other critic
is “anti-Warren” and their motivations are suspect. Richard should know better.
He’s often been cast as “anti-Mormon” for his writings on the LDS, but he
doesn’t fit the label, and neither do half the critics Richard lambastes fit
Richard’s characterizations.

In regards to Rick Warren, I don’t think the marketing and
New Age critiques stand (unless his endorsement of Bruce Wilkinson is
included). I do, however, believe his general approach to using Scripture is
dangerous in respect to his use of paraphrases, particularly the Message; as
well as specific uses of Scripture as cited in the interview. I also have
concerns about Warren’s view of the Roman Catholic church and his lack of
presentation of the Gospel in the 40 Days of Purpose video. Richard cites a few
instances where Warren did preach the Gospel well. This makes the video all the
more troubling since he obviously knew better and had opportunity to edit his recorded
message.

What does this mean? Rick Warren is… the average American
pastor. He’s not a false-teacher, heretic, liberal, whatever. He’s wrong in a
few areas; he’s made mistakes as we all have. When we make mistakes, though,
it’s best for us to acknowledge them, repent, and seek reconciliation. To my
knowledge, Rick Warren has not done that in regards to any of these
issues.

Would I ever recommend PDL? I have in some select
circumstances. I would never recommend it as an evangelistic tool, but I think
there are some instances when it is a good basic discipleship tool. As with
most discipleship tools, it teaches some necessary truths but further training
is required.


Update: Greg Koukl has posted his response.
Phil Johnson has posted his response to Tim Challies' interview.
Richard Abanes has responded to Greg Koukl. (my reaction is in the comments of this post.

Related posts:

1. Book Review: Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him by Richard Abanes
2. Interview with Richard Abanes- Part One: Marketing
3. Interview with Richard Abanes- Part Four: The Seeker-Sensitive Movement
4. Rick Warren and the Purpose-Driven Controversy
5. Interview with Richard Abanes- Part Two: New Age Spirituality
6. Interview with Richard Abanes- Part Three: Scripture

Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology