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.