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."

Well, this is question that perfectly illustrates partly why I have become in some ways so frustrated with critics. The term "seeker-sensitive" has already been defined by Warren in The Purpose Driven Church. He has also talked about it in various articles and interviews. But few critics are going back to these sources. Instead, they keep repeating rumors, gossip, and preconceived notions about what "seeker-sensitive" is (or what 'seeker-sensitive" is at churches other than Saddleback). When I ask critics exactly what Warren teaches regarding "seeker-sensitive," they cannot even define it per Warren's teachings—let alone quote what Warren actually has said on the issue. But they certainly do voice their own opinions about what it means, then make false accusation after false accusation.

So allow me to quote Warren: "A seeker service is an evangelistic service specifically designed for two purposes: First, so that people without any religious background will understand everything that takes place, and second, so that members are proud to bring their non-believing friends to it. Our members are constantly on mission to bring their friends and neighbors to these weekend seeker services" (Rick Warren, "Why do you emphasize seeker services?,"  Issue #177, 10/20/2004, http://www.pastors.com/RWMT/?id=177&artid=7484&expand=1). And here's something Warren teaches that you will not find quoted by ANY critic: "You might wonder if we've attracted all these visitors by watering down the Gospel, but we haven't! Being seeker sensitive does not mean compromising the message—it just means you communicate it in words that non-believers understand! Jesus drew enormous crowds (called "multitudes") without compromising the message. He was just clear, practical, and loving" (Rick Warren, "Why do you emphasize seeker services?,"  Issue #177, 10/20/2004, see above URL).

 In other words, Saddleback “seeker-sensitive” services do condone sin, water down the gospel, or avoid mentioning the cross. The sermon is simply delivered in a way that helps 21st century seekers (unbelivers) and saints (believers) better understand things like "sin" and equally important biblical truths. And to help do this, "seeker-sensitive" services try to remove anything that might distract visitors: e.g., worship songs with lyrics that they cannot understand, unnecessarily long prayers, lengthy offerings, uncomfortable gaps of silence between speakers, apparent confusion by leaders about what comes next, and a service length that visiting non-Christians cannot handle thanks to their shortened “attention span” in this age of sound clips, MTV, network news briefs, and commercials. In other words, we must be considerate to visitors. This is called being "seeker-sensitive."

In The Purpose Driven Church, Warren further expalins: "Attracting seekers is the first step in the process of making disciples, but it should not be the driving force of the  church. While it is fine for a business to be market driven (give the customer whatever he wants), the church has a higher calling.  The church should be seeker sensitive but it must not be seeker driven. We must adapt our communication style to our culture without adopting the sinful elements of our culture or abdicating to it" (pp. 79-80). How many critics have you seen quoting this passage? None. Why?

Most criticisms of the "seeker-sensitive movement" focus on it's typical watering down of the Gospel and Christianity in general. How does Rick Warren remain true the Gospel, as you contend he does, while also being "seeker-sensitive?"

It's easy to remain true to the gospel and yet be seeker-sensitive because being seeker-sensitive has NOTHING to do with changing or softening the gospel message! (see previous answer). Being seeker sensitive is all about presenting the gospel in a way that unbelievers can understand it. Look, when I preach the gospel to a Buddhist, I do not approach them in the same way as I would approach a Mormon, or a Wiccan, or and atheist. Jesus met people where they were and adjusted his interaction (i.e., the way he communicated truth) to them. His core message did not change, but he most certainly changed the way he communicated it. Being seeker-sensitive is a generalized way to preach the gospel to today's unbelievers. That's all. The good news (i.e., the gospel) is the same.

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. . ."

For the record, Rick Warren does not adhere to Catholicism. He is a classic Southern Baptist. I'm not sure now many times this must be said in order for people to hear it. Moreover, he does not say in the interview what Lighthouse Trails Research Project (LTRP) claims he says. The Deborah and Dave Dombrowski of LTRP play loose with the facts and change reality to suit their purposes. Warren simply states: "[G]rowing 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?" That's it.

Clearly, Warren is not saying that he adheres to Catholicism. He is contrasting how far away from Catholicism he thought he was as opposed to how far away from Catholicism he really is. As he puts it, he learned that he was not as far away from it as he "thought" he was. This is a far cry from saying that he adheres to Catholicism. Where did the Dombrowskis get that idea from? Apparently, from their own imagination.

Interestingly, Warren is saying nothing in the interview that has not already been said by the likes of Dr. Norman Geisler, co-author of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995). In this volume, Geisler—who is a well-respected evangelical apologist—discusses the many differences AND similarities between Protestants and Roman Catholics. In fact, PART ONE OF his book is dedicated to "Areas of Doctrinal Agreement" that lists eight major areas of doctrine that he says evangelicals share with Roman Catholics (120 pages worth). And on top of that, his entire PART THREE is dedicated to "Areas of Practical Cooperation" that includes social action, educational goals, spiritual heritage, and evangelism (see pp. 359-429).

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?

I want to reiterate here that I do not speak for Warren. Nor am I a spokesperson for Saddleback. But I would say, based on what I have seen and heard, that Warren views Roman Catholicism in a way that would be similar to how many other evangelicals view it (e.g., Norman Geisler, Ron Rhodes, myself, and Hank Hanegraaff [president of the Christian Research Institute]). It is indeed a "Christian" denomination, but one that has some serious doctrinal problems when it comes to church authority, Sola Scriptura, salvation, the priesthood of all believers, and various other issues (e.g., communion, baptism). There are some monumental differences between Protestantism and Catholicism. But there are also a great many beliefs we share (see Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals).

In response to the very first question of this interview, I believe you made an irresponsible error. You said, "making wild accusations against a fellow Christian to the point of calling him (or her) a liar, a non-Christian, a false teacher, a deceiver, or a New Ager is quite another thing. It is sin—plain and simple. And people who have
made such false accusations need to be held accountable, especially the more influential critics of Warren such as John MacArthur, Todd Wilken, and Greg Koukl—three men whose ministries have done a great deal of good. But now their irresponsible accusations about Warren have really caused me to question their motives and their concerns for truth. At the very least, they have been terrifically careless in making the comments that they have made." I don't believe these men ever said anything you've accused them of here. They've never called Rick Warren these names or questioned his motives (the only name-calling I could find was Wilken explaining why he thinks Warren is a liberal). It's one thing to claim that these men are wrong in some things they said, but it's another thing entirely to question their motives and "concerns for truth," especially after all the good you believe they've done. That's uncharitable at best.

I don't think I have been uncharitable at all. On the contrary, they have been not only uncharitable, but also irresponsible.

Todd Wilken, for example, as you have rightly noted, calls Warren a liberal—and goes so far as to make a direct comparison between Warren and the liberal-heretic John Shelby Spong (see my response at http://abanes.com/wilkenliberals.html). Wilken is comparing Warren here with a full-blown heretic; a non-Christian who denies virtually every tenet of Christianity. This is an absurd charge. Warren is a conservative Southern Baptist—ethically/morally, politically, and theologically. Even mentioning Warren and someone like Spong in the same breath is ridiculous.

And John MacArthur, on a widely-viewed CNN broadcast, accused Warren of adopting a “feel-good kind of approach” to preaching—wrong. Warren's sermons have nothing to do with trying to make anyone "feel good." MacArthur further alleged of Warren, “This is telling people exactly what they want to hear, telling people that God agrees with you. God wants you to be what you want to be. And this is pretty heady stuff, to tell somebody that the God of the universe wants them to be exactly what they want to be.” In other words, to put it in bottom-line terms, MacArthur is saying that Warren is preaching a false gospel (at least that's how it sounds to me). But what Warren has REALLY has said is the exact opposite. In 1993, Warren declared: “You become what God made you to be. . . . You will never be fully satisfied in life until you begin to be what God made you to be. . . . Find out what God made you to be and be it. . . . You cannot conform to the will of man if you’re going to be what God wants you to be" (Rick Warren, “Building on My Strengths: The Purpose-Driven Life,” part 3, May 9, 1993). Clearly, there is nothing here in Warren's words about us telling God what we want to be. MacArthur is spreading absolute falsehoods about Warren's views. Moreover, MacArthur's apparent spokesperson, Nathan Busenitz, is equally careless in making false accusations against Warren. In his article, "A Sense of Purpose: Evaluating the Claims of The Purpose-Driven Life" (at MacArthur's "Grace to You" website, http://www.gty.org), Busenitz cannot even properly define "seeker-sensitive" services as a concept taught by Warren (and Saddleback).

• 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).

What about Greg Koukl? Let's go on to your next question . . . bearing in mind that preaching no gospel at all is basically being a false teacher.

You say you deal with their accusations in your book. I want to deal specifically with Greg Koukl's since I work for him and your comment seems to impugn his entire ministry. You quoted him once, "Some critics, though, have alleged there is "no Gospel at all" to be found either at Saddleback's seeker services or in Warren's book. "It's the Gospel without the bad news. People are coming to have purpose in their lives, but they are not coming to get saved from sin."" (123) The citation for this quote is from a radio commentary transcribed on the STR website. In the commentary, Greg is talking about how, in general, "seeker-sensitive" services tend to become "seeker-centered." Not once does he mention Saddleback or any of Warren's books. It is only after the quote you pulled that Greg briefly mentions the 40 Days of Purpose church program. You took Greg's quote out of context to make your point- attributing to him something he never said, and in this interview used that as a basis to slam Greg and his ministry. Do you have any other quotes to substantiate your accusations against Greg?

Ok, here's my take on this criticism I have made.

It would be the height of naivete to think that Koukl is speaking in some kind of sanitized vacuum where people are just going to hear his comments about "seeker-senstive"  services and innocently ask, "Gee, I wonder who he might be talking about??" Go to Google and enter in "seeker-sensitive" and see what name pops up the most—ding, ding, ding—Rick Warren. And Saddleback Church is probably the second most well-known seeker church in the world, probably just after Willow Creek. People hearing Koukl are going to almost immediately think of the seeker church that is right now on everyone's mind—Saddleback Church.

For example, in the article "Seeker Sensitive Christianity" (see http://thenarrowway.net/seeker.htm), the author first quotes none other than John MacArthur to slam seeker-sensitive churches, only to follow-up MacArthur with Koukl, who said: "Most churches that try to be seeker sensitive end up being seeker centered. The church becomes for the seeker rather than Christians." This article then goes on to lambaste seeker-sensitive churches. And who is the prime example?—" The whole "purpose" of Rick Warren's, The Purpose Driven Life propaganda extravaganza was big money for the author and it added more lost souls counted for Satan and NOTHING to the Kingdom of God. I wonder how many ridiculous seminars the Apostles or their contemporaries attended? I have been stunned into tears by many so-called brethren of mine upon hearing of their being "jazzed" by Warren's Godless tripe!"

In other words, Koukl has only added more fuel to the anti-Warren fires by targeting "seeker-sensitive" churches, specifically Warren since he actually mentions Warren and the 40-days of purpose program. In full context, Koukl very quickly moves from decrying seeker-sensitive services with "no gospel" in them to Warren's "forty days of purpose." He makes the following statements: "[W]hat is the nature of the Gospel
that is going out in the service to the mass gathering? Well, it’s no Gospel at all. It is the seeker Gospel. It’s the Gospel without the bad news. It is the good news with no bad news. People are coming to have purpose in their lives, but they are not coming to get saved from sin. Lack of purpose isn’t the problem; sin is the problem. It turns out that not even the Gospel is being preached. I've talked with a number of churches who have gone through 'Forty Days of Purpose.' The problem is that there is no gospel in those forty days of purpose. It's used as a technique to get to non-believers to the church but they hear a message of good news without any bad news."

It sure sounds to me like Koukl is just falling in line with saying that the true/full Gospel is not being taught/preached by Warren—in either his writings or his sermons. Did Koukl use those precise words? No, and he didn't have to, in my opinion. But what he said was more than enough to get that point across. A person does not always have to say something explicitly to communicate a very explicit message. I'm sure you know Rob Bowman, who is a very experienced apologist and author in the area of Christian doctrine. He couldn't believe what Koukl said, and actually went to read it for himself. And, sure enough, after reading what Koukl said—or rather, how Koukl phrased what he said—Bowman agreed that he was indeed saying what I was alleging in my book. So, let's say Koukl didn't mean to make it sound the way it sounds (at least to me and Bowman). Okay. I can buy that. But then he needs to make some kind of clarification because his short commentary his being used to slam Warren right along side of other anti-Warrenites. See, for example, Koukl being listed here  (http://www.sounddoctrine.net/LIBRARY/Apologetics/  Seeker_Sensitive_Movement_Churches.htm) along with some of the worst of Warren's critics:

•The Adulation of Man in The Purpose Driven Life by Richard Bennet
•"The Purpose Driven Life": A Modern Day "Golden Calf" by Joseph Chambers
• The Purpose Driven Life – Guidance or Misguided? By Marshall C. St. John
•What’s Wrong with Being Seeker-Centered? By Gregory Koukl
•Willow Creek: Conversion Without Commitment by Laura M. Kaczorowski
•A Critique of the "Seeker-Sensitive, Purpose-Driven" Church Model by Dan Norcini (10-part series)

Do you mean to really tell me that Koukl was NOT referring to Rick Warren, Saddleback, or purpose driven when he referenced the "seeker Gospel," which he describes as "no Gospel at all"? I'll tell you what. If Koukl makes some kind of clarification announcement/statement that really clears this thing up, I'll make an adjustment to my book in a subsequent printing. better yet, you have Koukl allow me to come on the show and we'll see what happens. I am all for coming together and taking about these issues rather than fighting about them. That is more than fine with me—it is preferable.

Let's look at what Greg did, in fact, say. Greg was referring to the fact that there is no bad news presented in the 40 Days of Purpose video's presentation of the Gospel. Here are some lengthy excerpts from the video transcribed (www.afcmin.org/rickwarren.htm). I don't see sin or any form of bad news being presented, nor an admission of guilt or request for forgiveness in the prayer. And yet after the prayer, Warren says, "Now, if you've just prayed that prayer for the very first time I want to congratulate you. You've just become a part of the family of God." That sure sounds like the Gospel's been compromised.

To me it does not sound like Koukl is referring to JUST the 40 Days of Purpose program. The way he has worded his commentary, he makes it seem as if Warren's 40 days of Purpose program is just one example of the overall approach of seeker-sensitive services and purpose driven teachings at Saddleback. He seems to use the 40 days of Purpose program as being indicative of the entire seeker-sensitive approach at Saddleback and of Warren's writings on living the purpose driven life. But the 40 Days can't and shouldn't be used in this way. It is a very limited picture of what goes on during the campaign. Unbelievers are not isolated with the video in a closed room by themselves and told, "Ok, have a good time, see ya in 40 days!" They are surrounded by Christians with whom they can talk and interact. Now, as for exact statements, it seems to me that there certainly is enough in the videos to have people make real decisions for Jesus Christ. I've seen it happen at Saddleback and I've heard of it happening at other churches.

I think that we are now entering into a whole separate discussion that is very broad and complex—i.e., How much of the gospel is enough of the gospel? If I mention "hell" once, then is that enough? If I say "sin" three times, then is that enough? Do I need to say sin LOUDLY and point my finger, or can I say it softly? Do I have to tell someone—"In order to really be saved you MUST say, 'I admit my my wretched state, oh God, and my utter guilt before you, please forgive me'"? Or, is it possible for someone to be justified before any real prayer faith is even spoken (which by the way is the Calvinist position) so that the actual words ultimately spoken are of little import since they are really after the fact? if someone is praying a prayer like the one that Warren gives, isn't this evidence itself that internally they already HAVE admitted their guilt and want forgiveness? These are questions that Christians have been debating for ages.

Look at what Warren says. He is talking to people who have "not previously begun a relationship with Jesus Christ" and proceeds to ask them "to open their hearts to Him." I've heard this a million times (hyperbole) at Calvary Chapels! And the actual prayer says: "Do you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? . . . I'd like the privilege of leading you in a prayer to settle this issue. . . . Let's pray. . . . 'Dear God, . . . Today I want to take the first step in preparing for eternity by getting to know You. Jesus Christ, I don't understand it all but as much as I know how I want to open up my life to You [again, I have heard this at other churches]. I ask You to come in to my life [also a very Calvary Chapel-like phrase] and make Yourself real to me . . . Amen."

Is this a perfect sinner's prayer? I would say, no. Could someone sitting there in the group pray this prayer and be saved—oh, yeah, definitely, I think so. I've seen it. In fact, I've seen less than this be offered to potential converts and they got saved. On several occasions, for example, I saw Raul Ries get to the pulpit after about 1/2 of worship and not say a word, just say: "I really feel led right now to just say that some of you out there, right now, know that God is talking to your heart, and he's calling, and you know you need to give your life to Jesus right now. So, I want you to pray this pray with me right now. BANG! Forty people (if not more) are getting saved right in front of my eyes as they start praying. No message. No talk on sin. No asking for anyone to admit guilt. God was working in them. Calling them. Drawing them. It was time. I think this happening a lot with the forty-day thing. We cannot start saying, "Here is the formula that must be followed for people to really be saved. Here's what you must say or else it won't work." God is WAY bigger than that. Oh, and as an aside, with regard to the sinner's prayer, it is not even biblical. There is no sinner's prayer in the Bible.

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?"

I'd say that there are some legitimate minor to barely moderate criticisms. But I see nothing that I would consider "significant" and still legitimate. Not all of the criticisms are "irresponsible," "uncharitable," or "absurd?" I've made my own. For I example, on more than one occasion I have openly stated that I personally hate The Message. But Rick and a lot of other people at Saddleback use it. Well, okay, whatever. When people ask me, I tell them my opinion. There's one example.

As I have said before, in other forums, I am not really interested in defending Rick Warren. That is NOT why I wrote the book. Defending "Rick Warren" the man is just a side benefit of defending truth, being honest about what a brother in Christ really teaches, and correcting misperceptions about a leading evangelical pastor. The way people have mistreated, criticized, and misrepresented Warren would be shameful no matter who was the target of so much hate—and I do mean hate.

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.