What does Rick Warren Really Believe?

A lot has been made of the Rick Warren’s theology. Many have look at his various books, “Purpose Driven Life” and “40 Days of Purpose” to better understand what he believes. As a pastor, a good place to look is at his church’s website. The following is from the link http://www.saddlebackchurch.com/flash/believe.html where we find what Saddleback Church wants to tell the world what they believe. The list is more a group of statements than a coherent statement of doctrine. But one should not be surprised since Warren’s new saying is “Deeds not Creeds” and it is reflected in this statement of belief.

What’s interesting is that there is a link to a more complete statement which includes Bible verses. Why doesn’t the second page just replace the first? The following is the good, the bad and the ugly of the first list of what Saddleback believes.

The Good

“Jesus is coming again” is the most correct statement.

“Through His Holy Spirit, God lives in and through us now” is a good statement. However does the Holy Spirit live is all of us and how did the Holy Spirit get there?

While “Nothing in creation ‘just happened.’ God made it all” is a good statement it is not particular a Christian statement.

“Grace is the only way to have a relationship with God” is another statement that looks good until you start trying to define what grace is. Grace is God giving us what we do not desire. It’s 100% God and 0% us. We desire nothing from God. What is missing here is God’s mercy where God doesn’t give us what we desire. Since we all are desiring of God’s present and eternal punishment for our sin, it is God’s mercy that we have been given life in Christ and the gift of eternal life with him.

The Bad

“God is bigger and better and closer than we can imagine” tells us nothing about God. This is statement that a Mormon or a Muslim could affirm.

“Nothing in creation ‘just happened.’ God made it all” looks good on the surface until you ask the question “Did God make sin?” God made creation, but God did not make sin. One must be careful on what we attribute to God.

“Heaven and hell are real places. Death is a beginning, not the end” is a true statement, but it doesn’t tell why some go to one place over another. Also, what does “Death is a beginning, not the end” mean? If someone dies and spends eternity in hell, this is not a reassuring statement.

“The church is to serve people like Jesus served people” makes the church sound like a Boy Scout troop and Jesus is ultimate Boy Scout. The Church is the body of Christ and consists of those who place their faith in him. While the Church serves person, that is not the primary purpose of the Church. The Church is proclaim the Gospel of salvation in Christ’s name. Anything else is a distant second. As for Jesus, he served us by dieing on the cross for the sins of the world. This is something only Christ can do.

The Ugly

“The Bible is God’s perfect guidebook for living” sounds like the Boy Scouts Handbook for Christians. The Bible is more than just a “guidebook”. The Bible is about Law and Gospel, sin and grace. It is about man’s fall into sin and God’s salvation brought through Christ. To call the Bible a guidebook is to trivialize the Bible.

”Jesus is God showing himself to us” doesn’t even come close to describing who Jesus is and what he has done for us. This statement implies that Jesus and God are the same person, just that Jesus was God in human form for a brief point in time that that God the Father and Jesus are one in the same. This is called Modulism and was condemn as a heresy by the early Church. Also, there is nothing in this statement about who Jesus is and what he has done for us.

“Faith is the only way to grow in our relationship with God” completely misrepresents what faith is. Faith is the ability to accept that Christ did for us. It is a gift that comes through hearing the Gospel. This statement also confuses justification and sanctification. It is the active work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the Word of God causes our relationship with God to grow. We cannot do anything to grow this relationship.

“God has allowed evil to provide us with a choice, God can bring good even out of evil events and God promises victory over evil to those who choose him” is a very dangerous statement. First, this statement implies that God is responsible for evil. Evil is a consequence of sin and man’s action. This statement also implies that man can choose not to do evil. While the first part of the second sentence is true, the second have is just plain wrong. We cannot choose God. We are dead in sin. It is God who chooses us.

What’s Missing

First, sin is missing. There is no mention of our sin and our sinful nature causing a complete separation between us and a holy God. No matter how good we try to act, we cannot do anything that will justify God’s mercy towards us. The result of our sin is that we are distended for eternity in hell. This is not a very “user friendly” statement.

Next, Christ’s atonement is missing. Without Christ’s death for our sin, there is not way that we can experience God’s mercy. In order to appease God’s holy demand for the payment of sin, Christ lived a perfect life to that by fulfilling the Law so that his death will provide the forgiveness of sin for the entire world. This is greatest expression of love.

Finally, salvation is a gift of God. We cannot even believe in Christ since we are dead to sin. The gift of salvation is based on God giving us the faith to the believe. It’s 100% God in Christ, and 0% us.

Comments

[TK]

This is very good! I hope you will submit it to the upcoming Lutheran Carnival that I am hosting!

[ttm]

How does a self-defined post-emergent Christian define the purpose of church organizations? Are they primarily to present the good news to the lost? To help the newly found to grow spiritually? Or something else?

And what of churches that continually raise the bar in terms of what is expected of members?

What is the point of going to any church if our eternal status is based not on what we do, but on faith and God's grace (100% God and 0% us)?

I assume, since you are human, you will not have watertight, absolute answers. But would you attempt some answers for a Christian who is finding difficulty embracing any traditional denomination's theology and any new-fangled movement's "dialogue"?

Thank you.

P.S. If you are like the emerging church leaders I discovered in Blogworld, you will now post blog rules which do not allow for "anonymous" posts, will prohibit comments which are "not nice" and do not agree with the blogmaster's personal philosophy, and will delete my comment as quickly as possible.

I am hoping that post-emergent Christians operate by a different set of rules!

[Steve]

TTM:

I’ll try to answer your questions to the best of my abilities.

How does a self-defined post-emergent Christian define the purpose of church organizations? Are they primarily to present the good news to the lost? To help the newly found to grow spiritually? Or something else?

The best place to define what the church is and its purpose is in the bible. .
First, the Church is the body of Christ which consists of all believers in Christ. There is the physical Church that we see and the eternal Church, which consists of all the saints throughout the ages.

The local Church is a group of believes who gather for worship and teaching as their primary focus. There are many other activities that the Church and believers will engage in but they secondary to preaching and teaching. In Acts 2:42, we see what the first Church did: Apostles’ teaching, fellowship, breaking of bread (Holy Communion) and prayer. Also, we see that the believers provided for each other (Acts 2:44).

Here, I am referring to the Church catholic, not any specific tradition.

And what of churches that continually raise the bar in terms of what is expected of members?

This question could be taken in two ways. First, if the believers are not living in accordance with scripture, then the Church has the mandated responsibility to bring the believer to repentance and if necessary, excommunication if the sin in so severe and the believer remains unrepentant for it (Matt 18:15-17).

Second, there are many that create extra burdens that are not in scripture. It may be in what they wear, eat and drink, or what they to or entertainment. Here, this is wrong since they are placing additional requirements that are not commanded in the Bible. As long as the activity does not cause one to sin, then it can be acceptable.

A common one is for drinking. While drunkenness is a sin, drinking a beer or a glass wine is not, otherwise, Jesus would have sinned. This is what Paul refers to as Christian freedom that we have in Christ. However, this freedom does require me to not exercise it if it causes a fellow believer to sin. (Romans 14:1-8)

There a “little Pharisee” in all of us who want to make rules so that we won’t sin. However, these rules can take greater importance than what the Bible commands us to do and not to do.

What is the point of going to any church if our eternal status is based not on what we do, but on faith and God's grace (100% God and 0% us)?

Our eternal salvation is a gift of God’s through, but we can lose our salvation through unbelief. We gather with other beliefs to receive the gifts of God, His Word spoken, His Body and Blood for the Forgiveness of our Sins, and to encourage others in the faith.

However, by not attending worship and the assembly of believers, unbelief can come. Unbelief is the rejection of the faith that God has given us to believe in Christ. We can, over time, fall into unbelief. Jesus taught this in the parable of the Sower and the four types of soil. In one soil, the seed grows but then dies due to the hard times and he has no root while in another soil, the seed grows then dies from the cares of this world (Matt 13:3-9, 18-23)

I assume, since you are human, you will not have watertight, absolute answers. But would you attempt some answers for a Christian who is finding difficulty embracing any traditional denomination's theology and any new-fangled movement's "dialogue"?

The focus of my writing this blog is to have people focus on Christ. Period. Anything else is secondary.

If you are like the emerging church leaders I discovered in Blogworld, you will now post blog rules which do not allow for "anonymous" posts, will prohibit comments which are "not nice" and do not agree with the blogmaster's personal philosophy, and will delete my comment as quickly as possible.

I am hoping that post-emergent Christians operate by a different set of rules!

Disagreement is good as long as it is done in a mature manor. If you point out something that I wrote is not consistent with scripture, then I will accept your finding and post my error. I’m more interested in remaining true to scripture than my personal philosophy.

[ttm]

Thank you so much for your succinct and humble responses, Steve. You have given me a lot to think about. I apprecicate your willingness to answer my questions and will consider what you've said in light of my own search of Scripture.

[Pastor David]

What a wonderful, much needed critique!

I have long held the conviction that Warren's theology (and that of most mega-church pastors) is basically the theology of self-help. That is, sure they acknowledge a "higher-power;" but mainly because that will help you better "realize yourself" and have a successful, happy life.

[Nancy]

Just amazing you would spend effort, time and expense to "evaluate" another's intention.
Are you envious, perhaps?
No wonder the world rejects the Christian Church when we critize one another under disguise of "knowing it all."

[Chris Rosebrough]

Nancy,

The purpose of this site and these posts is not to evaluate anyone's intentions. It is to evaluate their doctrine and teaching in light of God's word.

Scripture tells us to 'test everything'. We're merely obeying that directive. If you would like to offer us a Biblical counter-point to our observations we would like to hear it.

Come let us reason together and see what God's word will teach us in this matter.

[james okamoto]

Aren't we being a little hyper critical here? I have a hard time with Christians that just nit pick and criticize other churches/denominations without looking into the bigger picture. If you were to ask Rick Warren about his beliefs about sin, and salvation etc you would probably find that they are closer to yours than you think. He is not trying to trivialize the Bible by putting it in a lay person's terms, and his book isn't meant to be the same as Luther's Catechism.

[Ian Stapleton]

Philippians 3:15-16 Therefore let us,as many as are mature, have this mind, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal this even to you, Nevertheless, to th degree that we have already attained, let us walk to the same rule, let us have the same mind.

Paul's context here is moving onto maturity and we all have to agree that we are at different levels of this, both in our own fellowships, let alone the body of Christ. Now Rick Wareren's web-site seemed to speak or depict nothing different from any other pentacostal or charismatic web-site does I have checked out. Even your comment on his, I can't understand, they are all fundamental basic doctinal teachings of both Christianity and scripture, are they not??? I am a pastor of a small non-denomination apostolic fellowship, that Christ is Saviour and Lord, I believe in God's order for the church, I believe in freedom of the Spirit and of the Power of God in both my individual and corporate life. Basically I believe all thet the bible says, nothing more nothing less, 1 Cor 4:6. I sit on the local ministers association with men and women of different denominations from catholics to pentacostals. Do I agree whole heartedly with everything they believe, No! Do I agree with the fundamentals, Yes! To the level that we have attained we relate.
So getiing back to I can't understand your issue, are you agreeing or diagreeing, you haven't made your self clear here.
The Holy Spirit does live in us, Acts 2:38, 1Cor 6:16, 2Cor 4:7, 2Cor 6:19, Eph 2:22, 1Pet 1:5
God did not create sin, Didn't God create Lucifer Is 14:12-20, the tree of knowledge of good and evil Gen 2:17, He sends strong delusion 2Thes 2:11, and of course Col 216 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, wether thrones or dominions or principalities and powers were created through Him and for Him. We must begin to get a revelation of God'd justice, righteousness and TOTAL AUTHORITY.
Grace, well it is Eph 2:8 it is through faith in this grace that saves and continues our relationship. Jn 1:16 And of His fullness we have all received, and grace for grace. It is grace that calls, it is faith in grace that saves and it is grace that grows us.
If someone dies and spends an eternity in hell might not sound like a reassuring statement to you, but it is the truth. It reassures my commitment to Christ.
We are to serve, didn't Jesus wash the disciple feet. Now I now that this might seem strange, but it was through their service and concern to one another that brought the numbers to the Lord daily, Acts 2:37-47.
So these are comments on some of your comments. If we look at the moves through the ages, 1700's Martin Luther restored justification through faith, 1800's John Wesly the born again experience, 1900's pentacastals the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 1960's charismatic restored the gifts, 2000 the word faith movement, and now the apostolic, or the simplicity of the early church is being revived around our nations. Our God is a God of newness, refreshing and revival, do any of us have all the answeres. Again if the fundamentals are correct, then God will sought out the rest.
Now whilst I agree I do not agree with large crowded venues with preformance like attributes I will not condemn them for they are doing a service in some way, this is at the level people know, but as long as we are sincere with Him, He will lead us into all truth, some just learn to walk faster than others. Maybe we need to concentrate more on our own relatiionship with the Lord. What is of God will stand, what is not will fail. My dear friend, be in peace, God has it all under control!
We are the church, the believers, 1Pet 2:5, Eph 2:22. We are His body and it's time we come together.
Blessings in His almight name.

[Aaron Menchaca]

I think this critique was written by a person who came to the task with an intention to critize; that was the goal, and not a neutral evaluation of Rick Warren's theology (or of Saddleback). This is like a kid that tells her dad "I love you, dad" and his dad thinks to himself:

1. My child is presumtious is thinking they can know what "love" is. She didn't first explain to me what love is, all the ins-and-outs of what involves true love (like her being willing to put me first, understanding that love is not simply an emotion). She probably doesn't understand, so her sentiment is flawed.

2. She didn't say anything about my wife - so does she hate Linda? Why does my daughter hate her mom? She only said "I love you, DAD", not "I love you dad and I love mom too". I have a hateful daughter.

There are some outright silly statements in this critique like:

"What does 'death is a beginning, not the end' mean?" Obviously the first part of Saddleback's statement "Heaven and hell are real places" should clear that up. The critic here is for a moment pretending the first part doesn't exist, or that a reasonable person wouldn't be able to link the two parts into a whole statement.

"This implies that Jesus and God are the same person" in response to the Saddleback statement of Jesus being God showing Himself to us. Wasn't it Jesus that originally made that claim in John 14 to Philip? The statement is conveying that scripture perfectly.

The critic asked why the second page didn't just replace the first (the second page being more comprehensive, with scripture)? I think that's really the central problem that the critic has with the list - this list of beliefs doesn't cover everything. That's only a bad thing if it clearly warps a fundamental principle or teaching of scripture, which it doesn't (until the critic invents it in his comments). Seriously, what's the criteria of a doctrinal statement on a website, as long as the truth is being taught in the actual church (especially with a second page easily accessible that is more comprehensive)?

I think readers of this website would be better served with an intelligent critique of a serious issue.

[Aaron Menchaca]

I looked at my first entry and realized I wasn't clear on what I was comparing in Mr Newell'S critique to that scenario of the daughter and father; I was saying Mr. Newell's reasoning in his piece was like the reasoning of that made-up father.

Also, I looked again at his piece. He says that the statement that God made everything in creation could imply that God made sin. Since when is sin a part of creation? Creation in the bible has to do with air, water, land, people - things that are measurable scientifically. Who on earth would imagine sin to be a part of creation? Sin is an untangible moral/spiritual issue which is committed by a member of creation (man), but is not a part of creation. Sin entered the world because of Adam and Eve's disobedience, after creation had been established. Sin is an act or thought outside of God's perfect will, that goes against God's holiness. I'm not sure if the writer understands the nature of sin.

Once again, I think the writer was trying to just bring a minister down without cause.

[Steve Newell]

Aaron,

Thanks for your comments. What I was doing was to show that if a church places their "statement of beliefs" on their website, word chooses can lead to wrong conclusions. In your statement, you filled in all the blanks that were not stated in Saddleback's statement on this point. If someone did not understand the impact of the Fall and how sin as corrupted all creation, they could assume that God, who created everything, is also responsible for sin. This assumption by that individual would be wrong. Many people don't think of creation as at the time of Adam and Eve, but creation as it now.

I would disagree with your statement that sin is intangible. We see the effects of sin everyday. Just read about every single death. This is the tangible effect of sin.

The purpose of my post was not to bring down Pastor Warren, but to exam what his church posts on their website as a statement of their faith and to see it is consistent with Holy Scripture. I believe that this exercise should be done on all church websites.

[Regina Kinton]

In your first paragraph under the 'Good', you incorrectly identified grace as "God giving us what we desire". Should be 'deserve'. We deserve death and eternal separation from the Father, but He in His mercy, has shown us grace! What we don't deserve, but what we desire and must show to others!

[David Henderson]

you are being very hard on Rick Warren. None of us would want to be evaluated by a brief statement on a website. This is not fair. jealousy is a terrible thing and you should get over it.

[Cynthia Curran]

RIck Warren is kind of worn out for most people these days. I read both of his books and never understood how he became so popular in the first place. In fact, his church appears to be made up of middle aged people on the whole since he doesn't attract much hispanics or asians which on average tend to be younger than the white population in his area. This presents problems about 15 years from now for his church as demographics gradually changed. This means that Saddeback like Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa and Crystral Cathedral in Garden Grove attedance will drop from what it is now. But too many people follower his growth methods thru out the US. In fact, if Rick Warren was smarter he would have started a church in the Phoenix area in Maricopia-since Maricopia has outspace Orange County in growth for about 20 years now. After, the 1970's, OC growth switch from people moving from other states to people moving from other countries. One reason why Rick would have been smarter according to his own philosophy to have located his church in the Phoenix suburban areas rather than Orange County.

[Andrew]

I know this is an old post, but with all the controversy of RW being at the Desiring God Conference, I figure I would respond.

This post is a little harsh and I think the disagreement here is in semantics. One example is when you criticize the church for saying that the Bible is a guidebook. Here's the definition of guidebook:

"a handbook with information for visitors to a place, as a historic building, museum, or foreign country Also called guide"

Wouldn't you say the Bible is the ultimate guidebook for humans living in the universe? Doesn't it tell us the purpose of life and the universe? (to glorify God) Anyway, I'm not going to say something about ALL of your points. I just think you have been a bit to critical with him. Many of the critiques of RW have come across as a little too... cynical. Or like they have to dig really really deep to find any little thing to disagree with.