(Read Monday’s column Purpose-driven ignorance of sin’s main source?)

One may wish John Piper had said more in response to Rick Warren’s address at the recent Desiring God conference. But in fact Piper did have some reactions, and seemed to question whether Warren’s strong emphasis on “here’s what you do” was necessary.

Yes, I wish he’d said something like: it can be worse than not necessary when you ignore man’s sin nature and assume someone already knows the Gospel.

But thank God Piper did say something.

And conversely, Piper simply acted as though the main issue with Warren’s talk is that listeners should remember different pastors do things differently. I don’t think his comparison of Warren with C.J. Mahaney was very fitting — Mahaney may be more application-heavy than Piper, but each pastor ties his topic back to the Gospel. Warren did not. As noted yesterday, he said many true things, but the whole theme of discernment, as well as many Scripture texts, were taken horribly out of context: the context of the verses’ full meanings, and the context of the Gospel.

Here’s my partial transcription of the Oct. 1 panel discussion audio/video (both available here).

Moderator David Mathis: So guys, let me dive in right away with the message that we just saw.

(Very noticeable audience laughter, joined by chuckles onstage. A few onstage look to Piper, who simply smiles and nods.)

Mathis: (Pauses for more laughter, then asks John Piper and Buck Parsons for reactions.

Buck Parsons: Well, David, um — I’m almost afraid to say what I think I should say, because I’m afraid of, uh, what people I love will think highly of me when I say that I was actually just amazed by how much, you know, Biblical content, and just helpful, simple straightforward, um, admonition and challenge we received from Rick this evening. I’d never heard Rick preach before. I don’t know if I’d ever heard him speak.

[…] I was blown away by a man and just on his simple, childlike faith and dependence on Christ. It was beautiful to see. […] That meant a lot to me as a young pastor.

(He describes more positive reactions, before the mic is handed to John Piper.)

John Piper: Oh my, um. It was a remarkable message in many ways. But I think the one thing I’ll say is how intimidating this must feel, to all of us. The guy is unbelievable communicator. Right? What he means by application is something he does like nobody else. He’s got everything broken down — just five steps here, and three steps here, and five steps here, and they’re all insightful, and rooted in the Bible. And they make me feel utterly unable to do it.

So I think that what I should say to — he thought you were all pastors, you could tell he was talking that way. But a lot of you are. But what I want to say is: nobody believes that you should be you more than Rick Warren, and that you shouldn’t be him. And so if you come away from that feeling, “That was at ten o’clock last night, at a desk, quoting fifty Scriptures from memory, and having alliteration and having lists? I’m quittin’. I’m just quittin’.” Then just take heart, because that’s the way I felt.

[…] Let me go at a little theological piece that might just explain that a little bit.

You know the part where he talked about application, and there were fourteen life applications in my week, and I can only manage one? And so — teach your people less, and work the application piece more.

Um — there is a certain approach towards application there, that isn’t me. Meaning: you give the message, give the doctrine, you give the content, and then you turn towards, “now, let’s make a covenant with each other, let’s get five things, and we’re gonna check on you next week.” And he builds an unbelievable effective ministry that way.

There is another way to think about transformation and it is that — if roots go down deep, and a tree gets healthy, it bears fruit. And that you might, week in and week out, so feed your people, so thrill your people, so deepen your people, that they’re bearing fruit in thirty years when the person who did the thing each week doesn’t.

If he were here, he’d get all over me about that, you know? And he’d say, “Oh oh no, no, I’m not excluding that! It’s both/and, it’s either/or.” And that’s right. But I’m saying, I’m on the or side here. And if C.J. Mahaney were here, he’d get on my case too. He’d say, “Piper, you need to apply more. Give another ten minutes of your sermon to application.” And I say: “Okay, that’s right, C.J., okay.” And I’d try, and I just never have time.

So, I just want you to be encouraged that if it feels like Saul’s armor, to try to imitate that, he probably is. He is him. He is him. And one of the big issues with any big shot that you put up, people tend to feel like, “Okay, to have a successful church, we’ve got to do it this way.” And I just want to say: it ain’t necessarily so. Just relax with who you are and just give it all to Jesus, and learn, learn, learn as much as you can from Rick.

I can’t help doubting the thoughts of most attendees were, “gee, I wish I could communicate as easily as that spiritual giant with all his lists and alliterations, Rick Warren.”

Warren has gotten way popular by assuming the Gospel — often doing the easier work of faulting the church for past ills (actual and otherwise), and talking about Gospel fruits in social justice and such, while leaving other Christians with the less-popular task of preaching about repentance, God’s holiness, Hell, etc. Why can’t Warren play bad cop for a while, for a change?

Here’s a sequel to my column from last tax day. But this time Rick Warren has come and gone (by video) at the Desiring God conference this weekend, leaving attenders and bloggers alike to discern — one might hope with grace — what he said, or didn’t say.

One in-depth summary of Warren’s address comes from a friendly source: The Gospel Coalition. Contributor Owen Strachan overviewed what Warren said, then offered some reflections. Based on those, it unfortunately seems that everyone who faulted Warren not for compromising or rejecting the Gospel, but merely assuming the Gospel, was close to correct.

[T]he talk would have been benefited from a stronger organizing principle, namely, the gospel.  The word was rarely mentioned.  Jesus Christ was quoted and noted, but His centrality in all things had less place in the talk.  This is not to say by any stretch that Warren does not love Jesus Christ and preach His death and resurrection.  It is to say, however, that greater connection to the gospel as the foundation of Christian thinking and spiritual effort might have been made in this particular talk.¹

For a crowd of pastors and theologians, Warren emphasized the need to battle for one’s mind. Yet some have noted Warren’s penchant for trying to find a way to agree with almost everyone — at the expense of ignoring disagreements. As Michael Horton noted in April:

Pastor Warren tailors his appeals to his audience.  To Calvinists, he stresses his support for the “solas” of the Reformation.  Yet he tells prosperity evangelist David Yonggi Cho, “I’ve read your books on Vision and Dreams – speak to pastors about how you hear the voice of the Holy Spirit?…What advice would you give to a brand new minister?…Do you think American churches should be more open to the prayer for miracles?” (“Breakfast With David Yonggi Cho And Rick Warren,” Pastors.com).

[…] When USA Today asked him why Mormon and Jewish leaders are involved in his pastoral training programs, Rick Warren reportedly said, “I’m not going to get into a debate over the non-essentials.  I won’t try to change other denominations.  Why be divisive?” (USA Today, July 21, 2003).

But if Satan is really after our minds, as Warren said, wouldn’t some “divisiveness” be fitting?

Near Strachan’s end, he concludes that still no one knows why Warren is so inconsistent — and perhaps even (I am saying this, not Strachan) hypocritical, switching between modes so easily.

The talk also failed to settle questions, some of them weighty, about Warren’s ministry.  Clearly, the pastor felt no need to pull his punches on such controversial matters as his church’s massive baptismal numbers, preaching to “felt needs,” and the Saddleback approach to ministry and the church more broadly.  It would be fair to say that many attendees would want to hear Piper and Warren cover some of the motivations of Warren’s ministry and the more noteworthy concerns of the neo-reformed community related to it.  For example, why, if Warren reads rich, largely gospel-driven theology does it seem, at least in some places and times, that his ministry eschews this kind of theology?

I need to listen to Warren’s message myself. I imagine that, per many people’s predictions, he will be engaging and indeed even Biblical. For someone who already assumes the Gospel, there will be plenty of positive points. But for me, it will be very hard to separate what I hear from Warren in Talking-to-Christians-at-a-Conference-about-Thinking Mode from Warren’s other modes that depend on his audience — and which assume audience members know the Gospel.

(Loosely continued from yesterday’s column, Law and love — did Jesus contradict God?)

How many steps is it from confused Christianity to non-Christianity? When it comes to the question of how Jesus Christ and His love relate to God’s Law, it’s only a few:

1. Biblical truth: Jesus came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17).
2. Step down, still true, but less clear: Jesus came not to uphold the Law, but to fulfill it.
3. Step down, questionable: Jesus came not to uphold the Law, but to love.
4. Step down, more questionable: God now doesn’t uphold the Law, but only loves.
5. Step down, un-Biblical belief: God doesn’t punish breakers of the Law, but only loves.

In just one simple, four-step process, with slight modifications — perhaps over generations, perhaps over only a few years in one church — a Biblical position becomes un-Biblical. Thus a slight confusion about how Jesus relates to the Law turns into universalism.

And some Christians may act or think like Universalists even if they do not believe everyone in the world will somehow, someday, eventually be saved.

For example, nowadays there’s a derivative view out there that greatly resembles universalism. Proponents refer to this by other names, such as the wider mercy view. From what I’ve read, that refers to God’s mercy supposedly being wider than we often think, and in fact, the most extreme versions of this view claim that people can be saved without consciously repenting of their sins and professing faith in Jesus Christ.

Teaching vacuums

I can understand a few factors contributing to this view.

1. “God is love.” Evangelicals have long overcorrected for notions — which apparently arose from somewhere in the past — that God was a mean tyrant. But for years many of our best and brightest have been saying “God is love” without defining love, or the “rest of” God — including His character traits of holiness, justice and sovereignty.
2. “Make a decision.” Many have overdone the call for a response to the Gospel, as if God Himself is not powerful enough to save someone unless he/she “opens the door” to let Him do it. In response, some others may ask, even if only subconsciously, “why do we think God so powerless”? And to compensate for one extreme, some may lapse into yet another extreme idea: surely God is big enough to save people without their response.
3. “What about those who have never heard?” Though answers to this question can be tricky, Christian leaders and teachers should not shy away from it. A vacuum of teaching about God’s sovereignty and man’s sinfulness (which says: those who have never heard are still guilty for what they do know) leads to the wrong answers filling the space.

From some professing Christian universalists, or “wider mercy” proponents, I’ve heard the reasoning: oh no, this doesn’t mean we believe God is unjust, or fails to punish evil. One person once told me he believes God will punish evil, just not in the ways we assume, etc.

But our intent should not be to maintain a Theology System, whether or not it has all the reasonable facsimiles we’d like of all the moving parts. Rather: does a System follow Scripture?

Apparently enough evangelicals have expressed doubts about whether conscious repentance and belief in Jesus really is the only way to God, that author/pastor John Piper has written a book on the topic. Last week The Gospel Coalition posted a review, which I’ll excerpt here. Based on Scripture alone — not hopes, emotional appeals, or definitions of Biblical terms and themes based not on Scripture but outside sources — it’s wrong to claim anyone is saved without a conscious repentance and faith in Christ.

Is conscious faith in Christ necessary for salvation? According to Piper, it is. His argument comes in four parts. First (chapter four), Christ’s first coming triggered a shift in the history of salvation. The “mystery of Christ” has been revealed,  (Rom 16:25-27; Eph 3:4-10). The “times of ignorance” are past, and God now calls all peoples to turn to him (Acts 17:30-31). Jesus “is now openly installed and declared as Judge, and he alone can receive the appeals for acquittal” (76).

Second (chapter five), the case of Cornelius (Acts 10) shows that true God-seekers still need the gospel. Cornelius was not saved apart from the gospel. He was saved through it.

Third (chapter six), the apostolic message was that men are saved by Jesus’ name (Acts 4:12; Rom 9:30-10:21). Nowhere do we see men saved unaware. All are saved by an explicit confession of Christ. And this comes only through the preaching of Christ.

Fourth (chapter seven), the missionary vision of Paul and John called for repentance and faith of all. Their message was “Repent and believe, and you will be saved.” It was never, “Great news, you’ve already been saved!” They preached the necessity of explicit repentance and faith to both Gentiles (Acts 26:15-18) and Jews (Acts 13:38-52).

As if that Biblically based reasoning wasn’t enough to overthrow “wider mercy,” I’m also still trying to figure out why “wider mercy” proponents seem to deny man’s free will. Do they really believe in a God who won’t respect a person’s meaningful choice to go on hating Him?

No one is saved apart from conscious faith in Christ and the Gospel. Jesus died not to show us that God had moved on from all that Law stuff, but to fulfill the Law’s requirements and to make possible a person’s repentance and faith. To imply that all are saved, or will be saved, is a blatant lie, trying to be more “spiritual” than God — and it does not love others.

(Peels back the lid of a big can-o’-worms, and watches more worms fall out and start slithering across the floor, spewing slime …)

Surely it’s time to talk about the much-ballyhooed issue of evangelical megachurch leader and author Rick Warren, being invited by John Piper to speak at the 2010 Desiring God conference.

For Christians who want to speak the truth in love, balancing grace and truth the way Jesus did¹, Warren is a tricky case. Yes, he does a lot of the “unity, unity” stuff,², but he does seem to truly believe the Gospel. There was a lot of talk when Piper said he had checked out Rick Warren, saying he’s sure Warren is a truly deep guy who believes in repentance and faith and adheres to strong Christian orthodoxy.

I’ve no cause to doubt that. But does Warren preach what he practices?

A while ago I read some of Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life³, and I found very shallow. Christians who were eating it up as “deep” made me sad. (It was like those who said they read The Da Vinci Code and said they didn’t buy all the heresy stuff, but that it was “a great story”!)

But even for “baby” Christians, oughtn’t they hear more along the lines of Warren’s correct and famous “It’s not about you” statement at the front? Instead, the rest of the book ended up being all about you after all: God and the church as a means to your Purpose-Driven™-ness.

Plot hole

Let’s imagine a famous preacher who’s built a church, written books and so on. He actually does get almost everything right about the Gospel: even the repentance-and-faith parts. He doesn’t minimize sin. He dares to mention Hell and manages to do so lovingly.

But — what if he rarely if ever mentions the hope of Heaven, and much less the promised New Earth?

Maybe it’s not intentional. Maybe I as this hypothetical famous preacher simply assume it’s not part of his unique presentation of the message. Maybe he believes people will pick up that part elsewhere. And it’s true that technically, one can be saved without being taught about the hope of Heaven, and the New Earth, and how they fit into Christ’s eternal plan to redeem His saints and His creation as well.

But why keep skipping over that part? It’s important! And especially if he’s all famous and leaderly, people will follow his example and base their preaching and programs on the leaders, likely also ignoring that part of the truth!

That’s similar to the issue with Warren: only with him, it’s not that he doesn’t emphasize Heaven.⁴ The worse problem is Warren doesn’t talk about the seriousness of sin and how it’s an offense to God. Without comprehending that truth on a heart level, more people will be filling churches, thinking themselves saved because they “asked Jesus into their hearts,” but did not repent of sin.
Continue reading …

Decisions, decisions — which superhero cliché to use first?

How about none. Instead, we’ll forgo an introduction and just “take off.” Oops.

So here they are, the first of I’m-guessing-20 comparisons¹: modern spiritual superheroes² in trivia-slideshow style, along with some very amateur Photoshopping. ³

Superman — John Piper

Superman

Mild-mannered by day, and passionate and powerful — also by day. Surely the first and most popular of superheroes could not be assigned to any other modern-day author/teacher.

Like the Man of Steel, Piper’s care for humanity is easily seen. God-given fervor for seeing, savoring and delighting in doctrinal truth help him soar. He can bend Scriptural steel with his bare hands, shoot heat rays from his eyes. And Piper even lives and works in Minneapolis, preaching at a great metropolitan church, weekly.

Members of that church and others who’ve read Desiring God or heard his many online sermons would agree that he genuinely cares about doing good. A Boy-Scout hero. His only weakness? Many kinds of Kryptonite, such as too-frequent Twittering and TV-watching. We can all identify.

Yes, as with the Last Son of Krypton, some people think Piper is too serious about his job. But confronting evil, not to mention superficiality in the Church, is serious business. Besides, at the right moment he’s just as quick with a quip as any of the “flightier” heroes. Catch him in civilian mode: quirky as Clark Kent, with a contagious grin. All that’s missing is the eyeglass-shove.

Fighting for truth, justice and Christian Hedonism, in a world that so needs all three — that’s Pastor Piper. You’ll believe a man can cry.

Batman — John MacArthur

The Batman

Some may question his methods. Some may even call him too serious. But you can’t question his almost cheerful commitment to rid Christianity of bad teaching. That’s John MacArthur, author, dark knight of Gotham City (Los Angeles) and pastor at his own Batcave, Grace Community Church.

Possessing no superpowers, Johnny-Mac (his alter-ego) is still a man of stealth, strength and many other talents. When he’s not writing books about holy living or particular religious crimes against truth, he’s applying his detective skills to Scriptural study and finding forensic evidence from the worst abuses of the Bible. Supervillains such as The Joelker (Joel Osteen) may try their doctrinal crimes, but one pellet of Bat-prosperity-preacher repellant makes them flee.

He may be dark and brooding, and even sometimes work against other spiritual superheroes. He and Superman (John Piper) may have some disagreements, but they’re on the same side. However, grittier heroes like Wolverine (Mark Driscoll) definitely get on Bats’ nocturnal nerves.

Wonder Woman — Beth Moore

Wonder Woman

Some may have thought superheroing was strictly man’s work. Then from a mysterious island came a new kind of hero. Deep-South drawl. Great hair. Flashy duds. Let’s not picture any more wardrobe descriptions that lead to unfortunate mental images.

Beth Moore wards off almost all criticism with her magic Baptist-woman arm bracelets. Many truths in the Bible are lassoed by her golden lariat. Yet some would argue that really, most other heroes already had her same powers, such as flight, strength and durability. So there’s some overlap. But when you’re in the thick of battle, even the redundant heroes are helpful.

Sure, more-complementarian superheroes, male or female, would prefer she work better under the leadership of male heroes. But you can’t deny her positive effects, especially if your church has an unfortunate absence of male heroes. If Wonder Woman arrives, you had best watch out.

Beware especially if it’s the day of her new small-group curriculum’s release, and you’re caught between a Christian bookstore and a stampeding horde of her fans, the Blue-Haired Amazons. And if you’re actually the quasi-Christian husband of one of those fans, Hera help you.

Mr. Fantastic — Al Mohler

Mr. Fantastic

Is anyone as flexible as the author/speaker/talk-radio host/blogger/husband/father/chronic reader/president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary? How does he do it?

Clearly, Al Mohler as Mr. Fantastic is blessed by some cosmic storm with powers of extreme flexibility. He can stretch his body and limbs amazing distances to do superhero work. He’s able to wrap around multiple projects simultaneously.

Meanwhile, he’s very much a leader of other heroes. Since assuming the presidency of the largest seminary of the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, Mr. Fantastic has led a team of at least Fantastic Four, and many other heroes with many diverse callings and powers. Only Professor Charles Xavier (C.J. Mahaney) could perhaps boast an equally large training academy for young heroes just developing their abilities.

And while Mr. Fantastic is quite a public presence with impressive speaking gifts, he’s equally at home in the lab, perhaps working on a few more Fantasticar-style vehicles for Biblical worldview messages to the masses. We can only hope and pray this leader and super-stretchy spiritual star doesn’t stretch himself too far.

Iron Man — James White

Iron Man

With all his technical expertise and charisma (though we would doubt the multibillionaire parts, not to mention the skirt-chasing), James White could have chosen a different life. Instead, perhaps after an attack by enemies of the Church that changed his life, he did something few others do. He studied the mechanisms of apologetics, built himself a suit of armor made from right exegesis and Biblically based logic, and became a hero who is made, not born.

He’s sarcastic, with indestructible arguments proving Jesus’ divinity, Reformed grace doctrines, justification through faith and more. Very often you’ll find him firing repulsor-blasts from his hands in debates with members of the Mandarin (the Mormons) Iron Monger (Bart Ehrman) and of course Whiplash (Dan Barker).

Iron Man’s battles over the Bible have led him even into conflicts with other heroes, most notably The Hulk (Dave Hunt). Some may wonder whether such force against The Hulk is necessary, but others point out it wasn’t Iron Man who started that fight. And let’s face it, very often you need even a man with inner flaws like us all, to swoop in with his high-tech suit, save the day, and blast false teachers to smithereens. That’s a — ahem — stark reality.