Maitreya and the Coming World Order

August 9, 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 (570)

Always make sure you’re near a television, or you just might miss him. Who? The Christ. Not Jesus the Christ, but Maitreya the Christ. I first heard about Maitreya in Warren Smith’s book, Deceived on Purpose. I as I stated in my review, Smith is incredibly knowledgeable about New Age spirituality and he tried to link Maitreya to Rick Warren (which he failed to do). Last Thursday I discovered Air America on my radio dial. This led to several hours of entertainment until I heard a rather creepy commercial. It was proclaiming the coming of Maitreya to the world; as well as his spokesman, Benjamin Crème, to Los Angeles on August 8^th.

You can learn more about Mr. Crème and Maitreya at their website, Share International. The commercial made several claims that you can find on the site, such as Maitreya being the one who all the world religions have been waiting for. According to Mr. Crème, Maitreya has been on earth for almost 30 years and has appeared to many, performing miracles of healing. He has been proclaiming “sharing and justice”, which is why (I’m guessing) Mr. Crème was interviewed on an Air America program. This intrigued me, I’d never heard a false Christ lecture before; so Amy (Face), a couple of her friends, and I went to hear Mr. Crème this evening.

Before the lecture a man played many songs on his guitar featuring the words and teachings of Maitreya. The evening was billed by the emcee as one that “could be life changing” and referred to it as an outreach event. After Mr. Crème was introduced, he looked at every individual in the audience giving each a personal blessing. He said nothing, but while this occurred audio was played from messages of Maitreya as recorded by Mr. Crème through “mental overshadowing or telepathy.” During this time we were instructed to “meditate or hold a high thought.” This lasted ten-fifteen minutes. We were told by the recording (Maitreya’s words) that we would “find the qualities of Jesus in Maitreya” because Jesus was a Christ. However, Maitreya’s “method of manifestation is more simple… I am with you and in you.” We were called to make Maitreya part of ourselves and allow him to manifest through us and know God.

“I would point the way to the new direction which man, if he would survive, must take: First, men must see themselves as brothers… sons of the one father.” Poverty, according to Maitreya (through Crème), is a crime that fills him with shame. The solution involves saving people from starvation and needless death. This is to be accomplished by listening again to the “true voice of God within your hearts.” Maitreya can’t fulfill his plan on his own though, “I need your help. I call on you to aid me in my task.” We were told that the success of his mission depends on us. If we will succeed, we must know that we are gods. When the blessing ended I looked up (I’d diverted my eyes from Mr. Crème’s “blessing”) to see some people with arms raised forward, and many with their eyes closed.

After the blessing, Mr. Crème began his lecture. Frank Sontag, a radio host at 95.5 KLOS, introduced the lecture. It was well over two hours, even though it was only scheduled to be ninety minutes. According to Mr. Crème, New Age teachings have come from “evolved,” “perfected” men. Most of the early teaching can be found in Theosophical writings, such as those of Alice A. Baily. They have been proclaiming the end of the Age of Pisces and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius (queue the theme song). The New Age, according to Mr. Crème, is about looking forward in a fresh way in relation to the new alignment of the solar system according to the Zodiac. As the Age of Pisces declines, the energy that alignment gave us dissipates. As a result, all of the social structures built on the energy of Pisces will collapse and chaos and confusion will ensue if we fail to adapt to the new Age of Aquarius. It is at such times as this that war occurs, because “war is used by people who don’t know what to do.”

We are not at the end of the world, as many Christians would suggest. Rather, we are at the end of an Age. According to Mr. Crème, the world goes on for infinity, however, it will end when every grain of sand is perfected in its being. The Christ inaugurated the Age of Pisces through Jesus, and now he has returned in Maitreya to inaugurate Aquarius. Each age teaches us some necessary quality for our evolution. Pisces gave us the quality of individualism. We learned that human freedom and justice are “God given rights.” The United States likes the idea of freedom, but not equality. Justice is like what the Soviet Union did from 1913 until its collapse. It was an “experiment in justice.” It imposed equality on the physical plane through brotherhood (comrade).

Apparently Ronald Reagan was wrong- the Soviet Union was not evil, market driving forces are. They are “based on a scam” that “benefits the rich at the expense of the poor.” This evil has led to other evils, such as twenty-four countries owning nuclear weapons- particularly the United States and Israel. This will drive use to the edge of self-destruction. The way to get rid of terrorism is to get rid of greed, market-driven economies, and, especially, the G8.

Maitreya is the personal name of a man who is so pure and advanced he can “embody the Christ principle- love.” He is the head of other similarly evolved/perfect men who are the Masters of Wisdom. These men are here to advise the rest of us how we may evolve. Over the last 150 years our evolution has quickened, so Maitreya decided he could return. In 1945 he said he would return on the condition that some measure of peace would be restored, which means that sharing governs the world economy. However, in 1977 he decided to come whether we were ready for him or not. He took on a body that he had been creating for 7 or 8 years (no mother or father) and took up residence in the highest place of the Himalayas.

Incidentally, he wasn’t the first Master of Wisdom to come to us in our times. In 1975 five Masters entered the world, and shortly after two more followed. We were told only of one, named Jesus, who lives in Rome and is responsible for bringing together the Christian churches. Maitreya has “overshadowed” all of the religious teachers of the world- Jesus, Krishna, Buddha, etc., in order for us to be taught how to live- that “all of us are absolutely divine, not one more divine than another.” He has had many disciples, including President Roosevelt who instituted some of Maitreya’s plan in the formulation of the United Nations.

Maitreya is returning soon, maybe 2025 or 2050, Mr. Crème didn’t know for sure. He did know, though, that he’d be appearing on television. Also, if we fail to save the planet we would live in some dark corner of the universe in intense pain. To save the world, we must embrace “peace and justice.” This will be a good thing because human nature is to be happy and joyful.

My initial question, before anything had even started, was what the connection was between the New Age and socialism. I had no idea that almost the entire lecture would be an advertisement for socialism. Not just that, but also how corrupt and evil capitalism is. The New Age elements borrowed a lot from Buddhism- once we evolve and are perfected we can become a Master of Wisdom. Take out Maitreya and the Masters of Wisdom, and you wouldn’t find much difference between what Mr. Crème said and Brian McLaren’s teachings (which are also similar to Buddhism). Another interesting similarity- one of their brochures, “What Can I Do?”, lists several websites that are advancing Maitreya’s plan. You might have heard of some- www.moveon.org, www.one.org.

Posted in Culture, Main Page, Religion (General), Roger's Posts 9 Comments »

Being Made Equal

August 8, 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 (570)

Students who do poorly in school can no longer be looked at as low achievers,
only different. In a column on Fox News, Teachers Back Away
From Red Ink, it was pointed out that teachers are switching to purple ink
from red in order to make low grades less intimidating and damaging to the student.
Here's some excerpts:

A growing number of the nation’s educators are stocking up on purple pens
for grading papers and passing on the traditional red, which they say can be
intimidating and damaging to a student’s self-confidence.” Teaching should
always be a positive practice. Red seems to stand out in such a negative
way,” said Dorothy Porteus, school support specialist with the New York
Charter Schools Association. “Little guys internalize the red and it doesn’t
make them feel good.” Porteus, who taught elementary school for 20 years, said
a teacher should coach kids to do their best, not scare them into thinking
they’ll never be good enough. She equates using red ink with drawing a frowning
face on a student’s work.” They put all this effort into something and by
marking it up with red, in some ways it is like tearing their hard work to
shreds,” she said. “They look at the red and think the teacher is upset with
them, and this greatly influences their attempt to do their next paper.”



Michael Barone, who is often a voice of reason in politics, pointed out that, “This
is ridiculous, because the only reason we associate red with bad in a classroom
atmosphere is because that is the color that has been used to correct papers
for decades,” he said. “If teachers now switch to purple, in time purple will
become negative, and then what?”



The color “red” in regards to corrections of academic work is a social
construction. (It should also be noted that red can be a sign of greatness, as
in the Red Sox.) So now purple will be a color of disapproval in the same
manner red has been. Frankly, I’d feel that having a paper turned back to me
with purple all over it (aside from disappointing) would be far too girly. Of
course, that too is a social construction.

In short, changing grading colors isn’t really changing anything. However, the
motivation behind the change is an indication of socialistic ideology infiltrating
our education system. It’s not preparing students for their futures; it’s
making school more like a support group than an educational venture.

Posted in Culture, Main Page, Roger's Posts 1 Comment »

Engaging the Culture as Christians

August 4, 2005 Posted by Amy HallcloseAuthor: Amy Hall Name: Amy Hall
Email: galatians611@aol.com
Site: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=664873664
About: See Authors Posts (240)

I just finished reading The Right Questions by Phillip Johnson (no, not this one—this one).  Johnson is devoted to one key enterprise:  defeating naturalism.  His goal is to separate science (the study of empirical evidence) from naturalist philosophy (the idea that nothing exists beyond the physical) so that scientists will be willing to follow the observable evidence of nature where it truly leads–to a Designer.  The results of his efforts are incredible.  The ideas have spread, and the movement is gaining credibility in the secular world.  I've even begun to see articles in prominent secular publications actually present and address the arguments for intelligent design rather than simply dismiss them with a scornful laugh (see this previous post for a discussion about one of these recent articles).

How has Johnson made such a difference?  Nancy Pearcey, in her foreword to The Right Questions, notes some characteristics of Johnson's strategy that have increased his effectiveness in reaching the culture around him.  She sums up all these characteristics by saying, “If Christians need to get out of the naturalist's chair in their professional convictions, they also need to get out of it in their day-to-day practices and strategies.”  In other words, Johnson's leadership in the intelligent design movement is directed by biblical humility, grace, kindness, respect, and selflessness, reflecting his sincere belief and trust in God.

Here, again, I think we in the blogging world can learn from Johnson's ideas and example, so I'll take a couple of days to reflect on the characteristics described by Pearcey and then apply them, as I'm able, to our situation.

The first thing Pearcey recognizes is that Johnson, rather than spending all of his time speaking to the Christian community, has worked to develop close relationships with top-level atheist evolutionists.  I see three points to note about this.  First, as GL noted in his comment here yesterday, ideas can't spread if we're only talking amongst ourselves.  If the purpose is to change the culture, we have to engage the people who disagree with us.  This means we need to get into the trenches and make an effort to develop relationships with other bloggers and with people in our “real lives” who are interested in discussing issues from an opposite point of view.  This is a very practical step you can take today.

Second, interacting with those who disagree with us keeps us honest.  We're far more careful about accurately and precisely explaining our ideas when we know we'll be challenged on any sloppy or inaccurate thinking–not to mention exaggerated claims.  There have been times when I've edited out parts of my posts as I'm writing them because I'm not confident I have sufficient evidence to back up those claims when they inevitably come under fire.  I know also that, to my benefit, any wrong thinking I do will be revealed as such by those who disagree, bringing me closer to the truth I constantly seek.  This issue of intellectual honesty is a big reason why I'm grateful for those of you who take the time to disagree on this blog.  I'm constantly aware you're there, and this keeps me on my toes.

Third, seeking real relationships with those of the ideological opposition keeps us civil.  It's hard to be rude or demeaning toward people you know personally.  The relationships teach you to separate respect for the person created in God's image from your disagreements.  Since you care about those whose ideas you're refuting, you quickly learn to represent the opposition fairly and to respectfully engage them on the issues without losing the strength of your convictions.  In the end, you'll be much more likely to fulfill one of my favorite biblical exhortations, 1 Corinthians 16:13-14:  “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.  Let all that you do be done in love.”

Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page 8 Comments »

The Third Mission to the West

August 2, 2005 Posted by Amy HallcloseAuthor: Amy Hall Name: Amy Hall
Email: galatians611@aol.com
Site: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=664873664
About: See Authors Posts (240)

Os Guinness spoke a couple of weeks ago at Hollywood Pres on “The Third Mission to the West”–the first mission being the conversion of the Roman Empire, the second I wrote about briefly here, and the third consisting of our current efforts to bring the people of our increasingly secular culture to a sincere trust in Christ.  Though Guinness's talk was directed toward people in the entertainment industry, I wanted to share a few of his ideas with you, as I found much of what he said encouraging and directly applicable to readers and writers of blogs.

We're all in the blogging business because we desire to help shape our culture either directly–by writing our own thoughts, or indirectly–by increasing our knowledge and awareness of the ideas that are out there so we can be fully prepared to engage the people in our lives on the topics of the day.  For us Christian bloggers, our greatest desire is to shape our culture in a direction that makes Christ more easily visible so as many lives are changed by Him as possible. 

Guinness noted this is a difficult task in our society because of the current inflation of voices and ideas.  Everyone is speaking and no one is listening.  As sources of information increase dramatically, the value of each voice tends to go down.  There is no time for people to reflect on what they hear as every idea is quickly followed by the next, and so few ideas penetrate hearts.  Even worse, to change a whole culture in a democracy (as opposed to the monarchies of the past), one has to change not just one mind, but everyone's mind; so ideas take hold slowly.

When Guinness then spoke about how to effectively move beyond these limitations, I began to see the incredible opportunity we bloggers have before us.  We are perfectly positioned to effect the kind of change he described.  First, he said, we need to win the minds and hearts of the gatekeepers (of the media, especially) who will be affecting so many others.  Second, the power of networks vastly outweighs the power of individuals or institutions–single, ordinary voices joined together with others can bring about incredible change. 

This is exactly what we've all been building as bloggers.  We have become gatekeepers of a sort–our words reach hundreds (and in some cases, thousands) of people; and as our voices interconnect, as we build each other up, as we persuade and debate, as we create communities of blogs interacting with the truth and each other and we spread the message of Christ with all its implications for every aspect of life, the culture will be changed.

Of course, we will achieve just as little or as much as God grants us with His power.  He is the ultimate source of change.  But I do believe He honors and works through our efforts to serve Him.  Just as Paul strategically moved throughout the Roman Empire, so we now, as bloggers, have the opportunity to strategically move throughout our culture and continue in the Great Commission in our own unique way.  As Guinness said, “Think of a third mission to the West and what it means to you where you are.”  As in the great missions of the past, he says, we must express affirmation of the beauty and truth of the Gospel and God's power, confrontation of ideas that have gone astray from the truth, and a powerful demonstration of lives changed by the work of Christ, living in a way that reflects His glory and love.

None of this can be accomplished on our own.  This all begins and ends with prayer and appeals to God.  But, as with all faithful servants of God throughout history, we must do the best with what we have been given in this time and place and remind ourselves that nothing is impossible for God–even His using ordinary people like you and me to collectively reach the world.

I'll be blogging some more about engaging the culture this week.  I hope this will be an encouragement to you all.

Posted in Amy's Posts, Apologetics, Culture, Main Page 3 Comments »

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 (570)

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.

Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology 9 Comments »

Interview with Richard Abanes- Part Four: The Seeker-Sensitive Movement

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 (570)

The last area for us to cover is
the “Seeker-sensitive” aspect of Rick Warren's ministries. First, I
think it may be helpful for you to define for us what you and/or Rick Warren
mean by “seeker-sensitive.”

Don Veinot recently withdrew his endorsement of your
book, not because of anything you wrote per se, but because he doesn't want the
appearance of endorsing Rick Warren. The reasoning he offered has to do with
some comments Warren's made about Roman Catholicism: “And, you know,
growing up as a Protestant boy, I knew nothing about Catholics, but I started
watching ETWN, the Catholic channel, and I said, “Well, I'm not as far
apart from these guys as I thought I was, you know?'”



I am very, very disappointed in Don Veinot. And I am not going to discuss him
in this interview, except to say that my official response to his decision and
reasoning can be found on my website, in my new article/open letter to him
titled “Don Veinot: Broken Promises Under Pressure” (see http://abanes.com/donveinot.html).
However, I would like to comment here on Warren's remark, which has been blown
WAY out of proportion by Warren's hyper-sensitive attackers. Lighthouse Trails
Research Project, for instance, has declared: “Rick Warren Speaks at the
Pew & Religion Forum and belittles the Five Fundamentals of the Faith,
shows his adherence to Catholicism. . .”

Additionally,
in response to learning that a Roman Catholic church was holding a
“Purpose Driven Conference,” the director of the Purpose Driven
ministry, Pastor Brett Schrock, said, “We're excited by this because
we're seeing God unify his churches.” Does Rick Warren believe that Roman Catholicism is
just another denomination and is that belief part of what the Purpose Driven
ministries are doing?

• Busenitz says “[t]he seeker-sensitive movement (which is encapsulated in
The Purpose-Driven® Church) emphasizes marketing techniques and business
strategies as the primary method for healthy church growth”—WRONG. Here's
what Warren says: “A lot of books and conferences on church growth fall
into the 'How  To Build a Wave' category. They try to manufacture the wave
of God’s Spirit, using gimmicks, or 
programs, or marketing techniques they try to create growth. But growth
cannot be produced by man! Only God makes the church grow. Only God can breath
new life into a valley of dry bones. Only God can create a waves—waves of
revival, waves of growth, and waves of spiritual receptivity. As Paul pointed
out about the church at Corinth “I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but
God made it grow” (The Purpose Driven Church, pp. 13-14).
•Busenitz says “[a]s a result, seeker-sensitive churches tend to minimize
the Gospel message in order to soften topics such as sin, repentance, divine
wrath, and eternal punishment. The goal is to make unbelievers feel comfortable
until they are ready to accept Jesus”—WRONG. Here's what Warren says via
his purposedriven.com
website about this very issue: “What does Pastor Rick teach about sin, the
need for regeneration, and the necessity of repentance? Some people assume that
a church with lots and lots of visitors must somehow be watering down the
gospel in order to attract such crowds. They apparently think it takes a
Christianity-lite to draw crowds. But the New Testament records that Jesus drew
enormous crowds (called “multitudes”) without compromising his
message. He did it by being clear, practical, and loving. And he did it by
speaking in ways that those listening to him could understand. That’s one
reason Billy Graham has always drawn such large crowds to his evangelistic
events. Being sensitive to unbelievers or the unchurched in no way means you
have to compromise the message of Jesus. It simply means you think through ways
to communicate with them that will help them understand eternal truth. In other
words, you remove any unnecessary barriers – those not rooted in theology –
that keep people from hearing and understanding the Good News. For example, you
might add air conditioning to your church building – removing a barrier that
would keep some people from coming to your church – but you still preach on the
centrality of the cross – a non-negotiable element – even if some people view
it as a barrier. When unchurched people are going to be present in a service,
any wise preacher considers their struggles and asks God how to apply his Word to their lives.
We’ve found that the unchurched aren’t asking for watered-down messages;
they’re looking for practical truth to guide their lives. The purpose driven
message is that our hope lies in Christ, who died for our sins and rose again,
breaking the bonds of death forever – and that all who believe in his name
shall have eternal life. This is not a watered-down gospel; it is the gospel!
 (“Who Are We: Frequently Asked Questions,” purposedriven).
•Busenitz says: “Biblical sermons are often replaced with short talks,
videos, and skits—anything that the audience will find more enjoyable and
entertaining”—WRONG. At Saddleback Church the weekly sermon is never
replaced by anything. There is always a straightforward 45to 60-minute sermon.
On some weekends scattered throughout the year, this sermon is punctuated by
one to three short videos, testimonies, skits (two to five minutes each), or a
combination of these, which illustrate the main points of the sermon. I should
know—I am there every week and have been attending since 1995 on a regular basis.

•Busenitz says: “Success in the ministry is measured in
terms of numbers of people in attendance”—WRONG. This is an absolute,
bold-faced . . .  inaccuracy. Here's
what Warren says: “Saddleback is not a story of numbers. It’s the story of
individual lives changed one at a time. Every number represents a real person
 transformed by the power of Jesus Christ” (Rick Warren, May 3, 2000,
interview, Baptist Press). Numerical attendance, it is secondary, if not tertiary,
to Warren. His main interest is church HEALTH, not church GRWOTH. In fact,
numerical growth  is only one of five ways that Warren measures church
success. He lists ALL of the different ways a church should grow, saying,
“Every church needs to grow warmer through fellowship, deeper through
discipleship, stronger through worship, broader through ministry, and larger
through evangelism” (see The Purpose-Driven Church, p. 48).

Anyway, this is all my way of saying let us not limit God to a set formula.
Again, if Greg wants to talk about this issue, all he has to do is call me. He
knows who I am and can contact me anytime. In fact, I even substituted once for
him when he had to be absent from his show. So, I would have no problem going
through this whole seeker thing. Maybe we could all go out to dinner and just
hash (no pun intended) it all out. I'd be open to that—as long as you guys pick
up the tab!  : —)

One last question: Do
you think there are any significant criticisms of Rick Warren and/or PDL? Or,
are all criticisms “irresponsible,” “uncharitable,” and
“absurd?”

All I want is for people to, first of all, raise criticisms in a Christ-like
manner. It is so unnecessary to get mean-spirited and nasty. Second, I would
ask people to be fair. Warren should not be held to some kind of unreachable
standard of perfection that no other pastor is held to. Third, I wish people
would simply make sure to get their facts straight and not just repeat
everything they hear on the radio, see in some self-published pamphlet/book, or
read on the Internet. That's all. Anyone with legitimate criticisms of Warren
should indeed voice them and offer constrictive criticisms. We all need each
other. None of us are perfect. Corrections will always have to be made.

Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology No Comments »

Interview with Richard Abanes- Part Three: Scripture

July 29, 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 (570)

Okay,
let's move on to Warren's use of Scripture. On page
325 of PDL Warren stated that he, “deliberately used paraphrases in
order
to help [the reader] see God's truth in new, fresh ways.
English-speaking
people should thank God that we have so many different versions to use
for
devotional reading.” Wouldn't accuracy of the translation be a better
criterion for choosing a version rather than if it's fresh?

Sure, I would have no problem agreeing that the “accuracy
of the translation is a better criterion for choosing a version rather than if
it's fresh”—except maybe for people who, unless you were to use some kind
of new/fresh translation or paraphrase, would end up not reading the Bible at
all.

Finally, I think Warren was absolutely correct when he said that we miss
“nuances and shades of meaning” in most translations since we are
going from very detailed languages like Hebrew and Greek into English (p. 325).
That's why we have commentaries (and translations/paraphrases). Warren, in my
opinion, also was correct when he stated that sometimes we become “so
familiar” with a particular translations that we repeat each memorized
verse like robots and stop listening to what that verse may be saying (p. 325).
Warren, it seems, was simply trying to help bring scripture alive to people who
either: a) were not accustomed to reading the Bible at all; and/or b) had fallen into a
sort of complacency with regard to their devotional Bible reading. He was
trying, as a pastor, to breath new life into people's dead or dying spiritual
lives and help make the Bible “fresh” to them. This is not the
unforgivable sin that so many people are trying to make it out to be.

There's a concern, though, that paraphrases like The
Message (which I consider to be more of a commentary) don't accurately convey
the meaning of the text enough. Doesn't using such paraphrases help contribute
to the Biblical illiteracy we find in our churches?

Well, this is a concern for me, too. But paraphrases, like
The Message, seem to be conveying the text well enough for a whole lot of
people who are either: a) at least starting to read “a” Bible (any
Bible) again; or b) actually get saved! Really, now, let's stop for a moment
and consider your question, then ask ourselves another question: “How well
is the meaning of the text being conveyed by the KJV to 21st century
non-Christians who have no idea what scripture is saying when it uses words/terms
like “divers,” “not suffer,” and “quick and the
dead”—not to mention the unending thees, thous, sayeths, and thereuntos.
Even some of the more up-to-date versions (e.g., the NASB and NIV) can be
problematic for some people.

Bible memorization, good Bible translations, biblical study, doctrine—it's all
great, awesome, necessary, and important. But anything that we look at with an
unhealthy reverence, including some Bible translation, becomes idolatry. That's
all I am trying to say. We need to hold all of these things in a proper
perspective. This is one of the ways that we can be sure to avoid substituting
mere “religion” for what should be a living, growing, and thriving
relationship to Christ.

Don Veinot and Mike Mahurin examine some peculiar
assertions by Warren in their article “The Purpose Driven Claim.” On
page 10 of PDL Warren lists several (supposedly Biblical) examples of people
being transformed by God in forty days, such as Noah during the flood, Moses on
Mt. Sinai, and Jesus in the Wilderness. As the article effectively shows, none
of these incidents in Scripture support the claims Warren made. Furthermore,
Nathan Busenitz cites several examples of where God didn't use forty days,
“Abraham learned patience while he waited for God's promise seed (Isaac)—a
wait that lasted many years, not forty days (see Gen 21:2-3). Jacob learned
humility, being forced to trust God, in one night while wrestling with an
angel. This was preceded by fourteen years of working for Laban (Gen
32:24-30)…” (Fool's Gold, 51) This seems to directly contradict Warren's
claim that “Whenever God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes, he
took 40 days.” (PDL, 9)

I am reminded at this point of Matthew 23: 23-24: “Woe
to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of
your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important
matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced
the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a
gnat but swallow a camel.”

I think my point is clear—nobody has it all perfect. Mistakes will happen,
overstatements will be voiced, hyperbolic remarks will be made, and flawed
appeals to scriptures will be given. Why? Because we are all sinners saved by
grace. Are these critics saying that they have it all nailed down and perfect
when it comes to scripture? Wow. Amazing. Good for them. Warren, however, is human. So at times he unwisely used hyperbole in
The Purpose Driven Life—for example, when he probably should not have
“whenever” God wanted to transform someone he used 40 days. This is
very likely because he is a preacher, rather than an author. So, how should we
respond? Crucify him, of course! How tragic. Gnats and camels . . . . gnats and
camels.

In an earlier, shorter version of his chapter
in Fool's
Gold on PDL, Nathan Busenitz says, “On page 165, the author encourages
his
readers not to spread or listen to gossip. He then says, “If you listen
to
gossip, God says you are a troublemaker. 'Troublemakers listen to
troublemakers' [Prov. 17:4]. 'These are the ones who split churches,
thinking
only of themselves' [Jude 1:16].” Yet Proverbs 17:4 does not directly
mention gossip (but rather evil speech and lying) and Jude 1:16 is not
speaking
of gossipers at all, but rather false teachers (regarding their
grumbling,
pride, and flattery). Again, Warren strings two out-of-context verses
together
(citing only half of each verse) in order to make his point. While the
point may
be valid (that gossip is wrong), it cannot be exegetically validated
from
Proverbs 17:4 or Jude 1:16. This type of hermeneutic is destined for
disaster.” Isn't he right?

To be perfectly frank, I read this whole argument and simply
thought, “how sad,” given the fact that so many people are lost and
dying on their way to hell in a hand basket. Warren's book is clearly trying to
call people to Jesus and teach them about how to live a godly life. But rather
than seeing this aspect of the book and rejoicing in the countless truths in
The Purpose Driven Life, Nathan Busenitz spends his time nit-picking at every
little passage/word in Warren's book, including this little one (three
sentences long) that condemns gossip, which I would think is a view that Busenitz
might want to support. He even admits that warren's point—i.e., “that gossip is wrong”—is
valid. But, of course, he then says, “it cannot be exegetically validated
from Proverbs 17:4 or Jude 1:16.”

Interestingly, the NIV renders this verse “A wicked man listens to evil
lips; a liar pays attention to a malicious tongue.” Isn't gossip something
that comes from “evil lips”? Would you categorize the lips of a
person who gossips as “good,” or “pure,” or
“holy”? I wouldn't. And what about the NIV's use of the term a
“malicious tongue”? Can we not attribute gossip to a “malicious tongue”? I think application of
Prov. 17:4 to gossip is perfectly acceptable, even though as Busenitz is
careful to note, it does not “directly” mention gossip. Busenitz,
however, apparently wanted to use this verse to attack Warren—and did it. But
the only way he could do it was to include that little qualifier
“directly.” That kind of attack mode, in my opinion, is totally
uncalled-for.
 

Oh,
and by the way, just to shed a bit more light on Prov. 17:4,
the Keil & Delitzsch commentary (vol. 6, p. 255) notes the meaning
of this
verse, saying: “[W]hoever gives ear with delight to words which are
morally reprobate, and aimed at the destruction of neighbors, thereby
characterizes himself as a profligate [i.e., a troublemaker].” Keil
& Delitzsch also quote Luther, after Jerome, on the verse: “A
wicked man
gives heed to wicked mouths, and a false man listens willingly to
scandalous
tongues” (also on p. 255)—Hmmmm, sounds like gossip to me.

Next, we have Busenitz referencing Warren's subsequent statement about those
who gossip—i.e., “'These are the ones who split churches, thinking only of
themselves’ [Jude 1:16].” Busenitz then observes: “Jude
1:16 is not speaking of gossipers at all, but rather false teachers (regarding
their grumbling, pride, and flattery). Again, Warren strings two out-of-context
verses together (citing only half of each verse) in order to make his
point.”

As we have already seen, Busenitz goes way too far in condemning Warren's
application of Prov. 17:4 to gossipers. Using Prov. 17:4 in reference to those
who spread and listen to gossip is perfectly acceptable given the verse's broad
parameters. But what about Jude 1:16 (endnote #16)? Well, unfortunately for
Busenitz, Warren actually does not quote Jude 1:16. In his main text, Warren
quotes Jude 1:19 (at least in my version of the book). Moreover, Warren's
endnote #16 also refers to Jude 1:19—not Jude 1:16.

Can it be???? Horror of horrors, Nathan Busenitz made a mistake?!!!
Shocking. Unforgivable?
How dare he make a mistake? How dare he misquote a man of God and say a
Bible
verse appear where no such Bible verse appears!!! (okay, I'm joking a
bit here
to make a point). Clearly, Busenitz is not perfect. Warren is not
perfect.
People make mistakes. Misapply verses. Read things wrong. Go to far
with some Biblical passages—whatever. As brothers and sisters in Christ
we are supposed to cut
each other a little slack. But that is not what Busenitz does when it
comes to
Warren. And I really don't understand why not.

People like Busenitz, however, seem to thrive on this kind of stuff—gnats,
gnats, gnats. It's all really tragic to me that so many people are spending so
much time attacking the littlest things and making them into some extraordinary
marks of Warren's evil ways. It's terrifically sad, given how much work there is to do in the kingdom of God that
is really important. But now, thanks to Busenitz, at least we all can rest easy
knowing that Jude 1:19 is not specifically talking about gossipers, but rather
false teachers, who are doing things (saying things) and acting in ways that
all of us Christians should be careful to avoid. Wow. Big deal.

What has Busenitz really accomplished here—especially since he did not even get
Warren's reference right? How has he furthered the kingdom of God? Was his
nit-picking really necessary? How does Busenitz deal with others who have made
far worse errors in their hermeneutics (see above biblical references that I
list)? And what about Busenitz himself—is he perfect in his Bible
interpretation? Where do we draw the line separating minor flaws in people's
teachings that should be overlooked from major doctrinal errors that need to be
corrected/exposed? These questions to me are far more important to start
looking into than whether Rick Warren used Jude 1:19 to perfection.

Gary Gilley's two-part article, “The Purpose-Driven
Life: An Evaluation,” cites a list of passages that Warren twists to make
his points. Most of these are twisted, it seems, because Warren chose to use a
paraphrase that doesn't accurately convey the meaning of the text. Gilley's
points are powerful, “Once we believe we have the right to change the
meaning of God's Word to suit our agenda, there is no limit as to how far the
misrepresentation of God's truth can go. This is exactly how virtually every
cult and heresy is started. It should disturb us even more to discover that so
few Christians care.” How can Rick Warren justify such treatments of
Scripture?

Well, unfortunately, I have not read Gilley's articles
closely—I've only skimmed them. So I cannot really go into great detail about
all of the verses he mentions. But I will say that Gilley's alarmist tone reminds
me of far too many of Warren's critics who, rather than seeking to be balanced,
are fixated on digging and digging and digging to find every possible problem.
Has Gilley devoted equal time to full-blown non-Christians and non-Christian
groups? Has he spent as many hours pouring over the writings released by
Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and other “cults”? I certainly can't
find such material. Gilley seems more interested in attacking people within
church. This is odd, and I believe, very telling.

But Gilley blows this issue up, going so far as to link Bible paraphrases and
Warren's use of them with statement like: “This is exactly how virtually
every cult and heresy is started.” Such a remark, however, is an
overstatement in the extreme. It shows Gilley's crippling ignorance of cults, cult formation, the dynamics of a cult, the
structure of a cult group, characteristics of cults, and particularly the
motivation, behavior, and teaching tactics of a cult leader. I must admit,
however, that making these kinds of
sensationalistic statements provide good reading material and will draw the
attention of many people—but it is very irresponsible.

Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology 1 Comment »

Praise the Lord Who Reigns Above

July 29, 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 (570)

Praise the Lord who reigns above
and keeps his court below;
praise the holy God of love
and all his greatness show;
praise him for his noble deeds,
praise him for his matchless power;
him from whom all good proceeds
let earth and heaven adore.

Celebrate th' eternal God
with harp and psaltery,
timbrels soft and cymbals loud
in this high praise agree;
praise with every tuneful string;
all the reach of heavenly art,
all the powers of music bring,
the music of the heart.

God, in whom they move and live,

let every creature sing,

glory to their Maker give,

and homage to their King.

Hallowed be thy name beneath,

as in heaven on earth adored;

praise the Lord in every breath,

let all things praise the Lord.


-Charles Wesley, 1743, inspired by Psalm 150.

Posted in Main Page, Poetry/Scripture/Liturgy/Etc., Roger's Posts 8 Comments »

The Parking Lot Gospel

July 28, 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 (570)

Our method of evangelism, I believe, is directly related to
our view of the Gospel and how it relates to the people who need it. Typically
we are concerned with how best to communicate the truths of the Gospel in way
that is understandable to our audience. There is often a line drawn between two
general groups, those who wish to be more “confrontational” and those who wish
to be more “relational.” At times, people on one side will look at the other
and criticize them for missing some aspect of the message. The
“confrontational” group is usually deemed unloving and the “relational” group
is usually deemed as leaving people ignorant of their sin.

When we look at the Biblical examples of evangelism, we see
both relationship and confrontation. Take, for example, the Samaritan woman at
the well in John 4. Jesus first spoke to the woman’s personal moral problems.
In relating to her, he was both personal and confrontational, pointing out her
adultery. When she asked the theological question about where to worship, Jesus
was extremely confrontational- telling her that she worships what she does not
know and that salvation is from the Jews.

Another prime example is Paul’s witness to the
Thessalonians. “For we never came with words of flattery, as you know, nor with
pretext or greed—God is witness. Nor did we seek glory from people, whether
from you or from others, though we could have made demands as apostles of
Christ. But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her
children. So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with
you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become
dear to us.” (1 Thessalonians 2:5-8 ESV) The model here is very loving, but
that love is necessarily tied to the content of the message.

There are two examples I think we should consider of
contemporary churches not living up to this Biblical model. This is not an
attack on these churches, but I believe it’s necessary for us to understand the
mentality of evangelism at work here and where they fall short. The first I
have very little information on. According to Paul Sperry, “After 9/11, Dar al-Hijrah [a
mosque] tried to strike up an interfaith dialogue with area churches. The
neighboring Church of Christ, for one, was willing to participate — that is,
until the mosque wanted its pastor and flock to accept Islam. The church, along
with a neighboring church, nonetheless have agreed to allow the growing mosque
to use their parking lots during Friday prayer services, which draws some 3,000
Muslims from around the Washington area. But for their generosity, the 9/11
mosque would be out of business.”

We don’t
have the name of the church, their reasoning, or likely all of the facts. But
based on what’s here, I have a couple observations. 1) This is different from
letting a non-Christian use your driveway. They aren’t parking there to go
grocery shopping; they’re parking there to worship a false god. 2) Were it not
for these churches, supposedly, the mosque would be out of business. So out of
kindness, these churches have aided the worship of a false god indefinitely. It
may be relational, but it’s in no way Biblical.

The other
example is much more close to home. A new Mormon Temple just began running Open
House tours in Newport Beach. Out of love for their Mormon neighbors, the
leadership at Mariners Church decided to let the LDS use the church parking lot
for overflow parking. I’ve been in contact with Jeff Brazil, Mariner’s Pastor
of Communications, over the issue. He’s graciously offered the following
statements to explain their reasoning:

“The decision to let people visiting the
LDS temple use our west parking lot for overflow on weekdays for the
next three weeks basically comes down to our uncomplicated belief
we're called to do our best to be radical, Christ-like lovers of others…

“Beyond that is just our overall sense of a biblical imperative and
promise that people this side of Eden will know us by our love, and our love
alone. And that love — and love alone — will conquer all…”

When I first heard about this, I assumed they had a strategy
for reaching out to the people who would be parking on their lot. However, not
only do they not have a strategy, they have banned other Christians from
distributing literature on their property. Seasoned ministers to Mormons have
attempted to work with them, but they’ve refused. Out of love they have decided
to help people hear the false gospel of Mormonism and restricted them from
hearing the true one. I’m not questioning their motives, which appear to be
genuinely good, but their actions don’t line up with the Biblical examples of
evangelism.

Over 154,000 tickets have been distributed for touring the
temple. Inevitably, thousands of people will pass through Mariners’ parking lot
on their way to hear a very compelling deception. The LDS are very good at what
they do. They have a strategy that works especially well when no truth is
presented to counter them. Over the next few weeks (the remaining time of the
open house) a huge opportunity for Christians to work together in proclaiming
the Gospel up against the false one of Mormonism will be missed.

As I stated in the beginning, I believe our views of
evangelism are directly related to how we view the Gospel and the people who
need to hear it. Without an accurate understanding of the necessity of the
Gospel and the fate and value of those who deny it, we will tend toward one end
or the other- we will either be too confrontational without showing genuine care
for the lost, or we will be too relational without ever boldly speaking the
full truth of the Gospel.

Both of these churches are examples of the latter, and
I fear that the explanation for churches in general reasoning this way is a
capitulation to the postmodern ideas of pluralism and tolerance. Our churches
are under attack by a culture that seeks to water-down the message of the
Gospel, so that it is no longer bad news or good news. Our view of the Gospel and
the weight of the penalty lost souls will face has become deficient. In
gentleness and respect, we must prepare ourselves for the defense of the Gospel
(1 Peter 3:1-16) and passionately contend for the faith passed down to us (Jude
3).


Update:
Pastor Jim was ministering at the temple last Saturday and has weighed on the Please Convince Me Blog.
Doug TenNapel also shared his thoughts on the issue.

Posted in Apologetics, Culture, Main Page, Mormonism, Roger's Posts, Theology 7 Comments »

Interview with Richard Abanes- Part Two: New Age Spirituality

July 27, 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 (570)

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.

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.

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.

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.

Posted in Interviews, Main Page, Miscellaneous, Religion (General), Roger's Posts, Theology 12 Comments »