My Two Cents on Rick Warren and Desiring God

This has been rumored for a while, but SharperIron confirmed with Desiring God yesterday that Rick Warren has indeed been invited to participate as a speaker at their 2010 conference. There will surely be a loud response to this from various perspectives in the days ahead. Phil Johnson’s brief tweet gives a taste of how it’s being received by some conservative evangelicals. Buckle up. There is a “red sky” this morning, sailors. The blogosphere is about to erupt with all things Piper and Warren, I imagine.

My two cents?Very quickly…

1. I’m disappointed. I’m surprised, though perhaps I shouldn’t be. Piper has shown in the past that he likes to push the envelope, as when he included Douglas Wilson and Mark Driscoll in the DG conference. The invitation to Warren just reveals how serious he was in comments to Mark Driscoll about how far he’s willing to bend for fellowship:

“Let me tell you how I think and how I decide who I’m going to hang with. As I look across the broad spectrum of Evangelicalism and all the different styles, what concerns me is doctrine. And if Mark Driscoll holds those nine truths firmly in his left hand, then I don’t care what’s in his open hand.”

I guess he means it. But…

2. This is different. Warren is the church marketing guru of our generation. He’s pushed decisionism and Finney-type tactics to new heights, and conservative evangelicals (such as Carl Trueman) have responded with concern, or indignation, or rolled eyes. In fact, he’s done things that are downright ecumenical. So this isn’t just a matter of “style.” He’s confused the “G” in T4G. To use Piper’s analogy, I’m not sure that what Warren does with his “open hand” makes real agreement with what’s in his “left hand” possible, despite what he may say in a doctrinal statement.

3. This could be a game-changer. It may not be as significant as Graham’s pushing fundamentalist unity to the brink via his LA and NY campaigns, but I think it could be a watershed decision. Will T4G-type evangelicals agree or defend it? I can’t imagine that, even as influential as Piper is. Will they speak out publicly? Will they look the other way? Probably all of the above; they’re a diverse bunch. It will be interesting to see. But as much as MacArthur-types love Piper, this sort of thing could push their tolerance and even their collaborative efforts to the breaking point.

4. This demonstrates that there are still very significant differences between even Calvinist-leaning separatists and conservative evangelicals, or at least with Piper. I love the man. I’ve grown from his teaching ministry more than anyone else’s, bar none. Still, this is a big deal. Though separation from fellow believers is often maligned, this demonstrates what happens in its absence.

That’s not to say that we need to revert to trench warfare between “them” and “us.” As I’ve said (here and elsewhere), I think the fundamentalist and new evangelical categories are so outdated and simplistic as to be essentially useless in our day. I’ve said that I’ll endeavor to make alliances on fidelity to Scripture, not labels. That’s still true. But issues like this aren’t mere “turf protection.” It’s not a matter of “this guy met with that guy who once had dinner with a guy who spoke for that guy.” This is an overt endorsement and fellowship with a man who has famously and consistently led Christians and non-Christians in the wrong direction on crucial topics. It is about truth, and alliances with the likes of Warren are indefensible.

All that to say, I think this could cast a long shadow.

Update: If you’re not inclined to read through the comments section (and I don’t blame you), I’ve offered a response to the videos of Piper’s explanations here.

Piper on TV, Movies, and Contextualization

This is one reason why it’s inaccurate to write off all conservative evangelicals as worldly. Piper (who I’ve heard attribute much of his biblical insights to the fact that his mind isn’t cluttered with pornographic images; he’s seen something like two in his entire life, and those many years ago) speaks eloquently in this post about why he avoids almost all Hollywood entertainment. I summarize his arguments with 3 T’s: temptation, triviality, and time. It’s well worth the 60 seconds it will take you to read it.

Because he is providing an answer to a question that specifically contrasts his take on entertainment with Mark Driscoll’s, I think his denying that entertainment has anything to do with legitimate contextualization is especially helpful:

“I think relevance in preaching hangs very little on watching movies, and I think that much exposure to sensuality, banality, and God-absent entertainment does more to deaden our capacities for joy in Jesus than it does to make us spiritually powerful in the lives of the living dead. Sources of spiritual power—which are what we desperately need—are not in the cinema. You will not want your biographer to write: Prick him and he bleeds movies.

If you want to be relevant, say, for prostitutes, don’t watch a movie with a lot of tumbles in a brothel. Immerse yourself in the gospel, which is tailor-made for prostitutes; then watch Jesus deal with them in the Bible; then go find a prostitute and talk to her. Listen to her, not the movie. Being entertained by sin does not increase compassion for sinners.”

The kicker? Many young men hang on Piper’s every word until he says something like this. It’s past time for those of us who appreciate Piper’s high views of God and salvation to also learn from his radical commitment to purity and industry!

_____

Related MTC posts:

• Can Hollywood and Holiness Co-Exist?
• Shall We Contextualize the Gospel
• My Two Cents on Mark Driscoll

MTC Post Discussed on Internet Monk Radio

Michael Spencer, the Internet Monk and the moderator of the Boar’s Head Tavern, addressed a portion of my post on Mark Driscoll during his recent radio podcast, #142. You can hear it here, starting at about 13:30 and ending at about 21:00.

My Two Cents on Mark Driscoll

Love him or loathe him, Mark Driscoll’s not a guy you can easily ignore. He’s everywhere. His books seem to come off the presses every few months, his church is booming even in the spiritual desert that is Seattle, and he’s the media’s favorite new spokesman for evangelicals. I feel like I have a fairly good understanding of Driscoll’s ministry, though I’ve only looked on from afar. I’ve listened to many of his sermons with profit. I’ve appreciated his bringing the gospel to bear on difficult issues in an insightful way in Death by Love (which lacks most of the objectionable things for which Driscoll is infamous). I’ve enjoyed his teaching on parenting and been moved by illustrations of his interaction with his own children. I’ve appreciated his bold denunciations of the emergent church, and I’ve cited him as an authority on the movement. I’ve heard messages in which I was pleasantly surprised by his theological and biblical precision. I’ve even benefited from portions of his much-debated preaching on the Song of Solomon (such as his treatment of 8:8-9).  I admire his burden for a wicked city and for people that don’t seem to “fit” into normal evangelical churches. All that to say that I’m not a Driscoll basher who is blind to his giftedness or contributions to the cause of Christ.

That said, I’ve also been turned off more than once, and more importantly, I have an enduring concern that Driscoll’s brand of Christianity has some serious downsides for those who follow him. I think there are important reasons for young pastors and students to avoid emulating his ministry and important reasons for men like John Piper, D. A. Carson, and C. J. Mahaney to avoid promoting him before young people until he matures. It’s not his militant non-cessationism that concerns me, though I disagree with him on that issue. Nor is it merely his fascination with unsavory elements of our culture, which I can get past. My concerns about Driscoll’s ministry—and especially his influence on young preachers—are as follows:

We Need Christ, Not More Men Like Nehemiah

I just finished preaching on the book of Nehemiah. It was a timely series for us for a variety of reasons, including a church building project at TCBC, some times of opposition, and our constant need to remember  the importance of biblically-driven worship. One disappointment, however, was that most of the resources I used (listed at the end of this post) concluded by commending the leadership and character of Nehemiah and wishing that the Lord would raise up such men in our own day—as if that’s the main lesson the book teaches!

“So, the next time you feel like quitting, remember Nehemiah and stay on the job until the work is finished to the glory of God. Be determined!” (Wiersbe, 160)

“[Perseverance] is a quality of all great leaders. Is it true of us?” (Boice, 141)

“After a careful study of his book, we are left with a vivid impression of Nehemiah as a man of strong convictions and of forceful character… Pervading every atom of his being was a flaming zeal for the Lord and for His work. Even among those who have a real love for God and His Word such men are not often found. Oh, that God might raise up even a few in our own day, for once again the ‘walls’ are crumbling and the foe is attacking!” (Luck, 125)

Now, I’d be glad to see the Lord raise up godly men. Absolutely. I’m thankful for a number of godly leaders at TCBC, and I pray that the Lord will raise up more, both here and elsewhere. However, that is emphatically not the point of the book of Nehemiah. The leadership of Nehemiah, though valuable, ultimately didn’t get it done. Neither did the leadership of other admirable judges, kings, prophets, and priests before him.

Nehemiah led in the rebuilding not only of Jerusalem’s walls (ch. 1-6), but of the Jewish people (ch. 7-13). He led them back to the Scriptures, inspiring repentance and worship. In chapter 10, the Jews responded to the Scriptures by making vows to God—they promised not to defile the Sabbath, not to withhold tithes and offerings, and not to intermarry with the heathen. Very good. They probably even threw sticks in the proverbial campfire. Amen!

The problem? As soon as Nehemiah left the city and returned to King Artaxerxes for a time, the Jews broke each of those vows! In chapter 13, Nehemiah returns to Jerusalem and corrects them for defiling the Temple, breaking the Sabbath, intermarrying with pagans, and neglecting to support worship through tithes and offerings. So what is the message the book concludes with? Disappointment. Frustration. Failure. Sin. The sense that we need something better. Indeed, we need someone better—someone who doesn’t just encourage obedience to God’s Law, but who first accomplishes obedience on our behalf, then enables it. Nehemiah, like the rest of the OT, serves as a teacher pointing us to Christ! It’s not about Nehemiah at all. Miss that and you’ve missed the main point of the book.

What the Jews needed—and what we need—is a Savior. Praise God that following Nehemiah 13 and 400 silent years, God’s next message to the Jews and the world was that that great need had finally been met: “For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord!” (Luke 2:11). What the entire Old Testament had prepared for had finally come to pass. That’s the point.

_____

Note: If you’re interested in considering that point further, this message on Nehemiah 13 (part of our 13-message series on Nehemiah) will be helpful to you, I think.

_____

Finally, here are the resources which I used:

Driscoll on the Emergent Church

In preparing for a message I delivered Sunday night on the Emergent Church I took advantage of the large collection of information that has been published critiquing the movement. (Monergism.com has an especially helpful resource page here. Don’t miss the mp3 library here.) I’ve learned much from John Ashbrook, D. A. Carson, Phil Johnson, Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck, and others. Ashbrook’s article, in which he essentially lets several emergents speak for themselves, is being published in 3 publications of the OBF’s montly publication, the Visitor. It’s been pretty widely read, and many reprints have been ordered. It should be available online soon. I commend it to you.

Particularly intriguing to me was this mp3 from Mark Driscoll. His take is especially valuable because of his personal history with the movement and his relationships with Brian McLaren and other emergents. I don’t agree with much of what he says, obviously, but he offers a thorough and serious critique of the movment. If you’re looking for a one-hour synopsis of the Emergent Church from somebody that once had a foot in it, give it a listen.

_____

Related: This lecture by Phil Johnson (which I blogged on here) is another helpful synopsis of both secular Postmodernism and it’s pseudo-evangelical cousin, the Emergent Church.

Shall We Contextualize the Gospel?

Contextualizing the gospel is the only way the church can impact our culture. If we want our message to gain a hearing, we must contextualize it—we must communicate it in a way that our hearers can relate to and understand. For example, since postmodernists reject the concepts of authority and truth that previous generations assumed, our approach cannot remain the same. The world has changed, and if we refuse to change with it, the gospel will get left behind. Or so we are told by the prophets of contextualization.

Mark Driscoll is one proponent of contextualization. He is a theological conservative who genuinely preaches the gospel. However, his understanding of contextualization has led to his citing the Simpsons and Madonna during his preaching, using crass language and edgy jokes (he has been dubbed “the cussing pastor”), and his church’s embracing of Indie rock music—all to help him communicate the gospel to his particular culture.

Far worse is Brian McLaren, the Emergent Church guru who has even Driscoll shaking his head. McLaren hasn’t just adapted his language and music; he’s thrown in the gospel itself for good measure:

“I don’t believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many (not all?) circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts” (McLaren, A Generous Orthodoxy, p. 260).

McLaren, who is fond of using bridges to illustrate contextualization, has essentially crossed the bridge from contextualization to syncretism.

One of the biblical passages most frequently cited as an example of contextualization is Acts 17, where Paul preaches at Mars Hill (or to the Areopagus). In fact, Driscoll’s church in Seattle is called “Mars Hill Church.” It is often argued, even among fundamentalists, that Paul adapted his message to gain a hearing among the Athenian philosophers. This is not a new opinion; the message of Paul before the Athenian Supreme Court, or Areopagus, has been debated for centuries. Did Paul contextualize his message—did he adjust it to be especially appropriate for that unique setting? Yes—and no. Paul does begin his message with a reference to a local shrine (a point of departure which took all of ten seconds) and make two illustrative references to popular Greek poetry. He does not, however, adjust the content or even the method of his message. Though his illustrations might have changed, the heart of his message was unaltered. Let’s take a closer look at Paul’s ministry in the city of Athens and see if it supports the type of contextualization being proposed in our day.