Piper Explains Warren Invitation in His Own Words- UPDATED- with video
[John Piper] “I had mentioned some negative things earlier about the emergent church, I said the black community didn’t get into it BUT the observation was the black community at least some of you, DID get into 40 days of Purpose. Uh Mainly from Purpose Driven Life and Purpose Driven Church and Rick Warren and Rick Warren isn’t emergent, BUT maybe not totally separate and Mark Driscoll just preached there, and preached from the cross, and Rick was moved. And do I, what do I think about all that?
Well I put my cards totally on the table here, um I have invited Rick Warren to come to the Desiring God National Conference this fall. And he’s coming. Now I will get a lot of criticism for this from my Reformed brothers, because… not because Rick Warren is openly non calvinistic or non reformed. I don’t think he wears his theological distinctives on his sleeve, but would be probably theologically more at home with where I am than where an arminian is. I believe that. What makes Warren a problem, and I’m gonna… well, when I wrote him, here’s what I said. And he’ll probably watch this video too. I said the conference is called “THINK: The life of the Mind and the Love of God.” I want you to come. You are the most well known pragmatist pastor in the world. I don’t think you are a pragmatist at root. Come and tell us why thinking Biblically matters to you in your amazingly pragmatic approach to ministry.”
“I want him to lay his cards on the table. I want him to tell us what makes him tick. Because he does come across in much of what he says and does as very results-oriented and pragmatic and not theologically driven, and yet, I met him for the first time last year at Ralph Winter’s funeral in Pasadena. And we sat beside each other on the platform for three hours. I like him because he sings. He sings badly. And anybody who’s willing to sing when they sing badly, I like em. And we were talking beforehand and he said to me ‘I’m reading all the works of Jonathan Edwards this year. I pick a great theologian every year and I read all of his collected works. I’m on volume 17 of the Yale series of Jonathan Edwards’ works.’”
“ ‘You’ve gotta be kidding me. Nothing you’ve ever said would incline me to think …’ (laughter)
“So these guys are gonna go interview him tomorrow I think so you can quote some of these things. I do think he’s deeply theological. He’s a brilliant man. He wouldn’t have the church he does or the Peace Plan, or all the influence he does and of course the greatest sentence in the Purpose Driven life is the first one isn’t it? It’s not about you, it’s about God. The Glory of God. So I don’t think he’s emergent. At root I think he is theological and doctrinal and sound. And what makes him tick? Actively and doing church? I intend to find out. So. I like him and I’m frustrated by some of his stuff.”
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Will this invitation continue to be viewed as an endorsement? Because this doesn’t sound like a wholesale endorsement to me. But the idea that Warren is not emergent…? Didn’t Warren write a glowing introduction for The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations by Dan Kimball?
I betcha y’all an Idaho spud that if Billy Graham was Rick’s age and in Rick’s shoes, John would have invited Billy to speak on the love of God at the DG conference.
You do not need to study error to know error. The more of the truth you know, the more error, or what makes a man tick, will expose the error. As you well know, bank tellers and such as handle money, do not study the counterfeit, they study and handle the real. They are able to detect the fake because they know the real so well. We don’t need to have Warren in a Conference to know what makes him tick. His “fruit” does enough talking.
Gregg Metcalf Colossians 1:28-29
I think it’s interesting who certain groups view as problematic. For example, I don’t remember any uproar when Piper invited Doug Wilson to a conference (maybe I missed it?), but on a confessional Reformed website I visit there was an outrage. Wilson is a proponent of the Federal Vision, an aberrant theology absolutizing certain aspects of covenant and election and dabbling in deviant views of justification. I’m pretty sure the people on that site don’t like Rick Warren either, but they might prefer him to Wilson.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Todd Wood] I betcha y’all an Idaho spud that if Billy Graham was Rick’s age and in Rick’s shoes, John would have invited Billy to speak on the love of God at the DG conference.And if you think Billy Graham at Rick’s age are apples and apples I have a bridge in the Sahara to sell you.
Doug looks like a conservative separatist holed up in the wooded hills of northern Idaho, waging battle with error and not even batting an eye over Hitchens’ screech. Rick looks like a flaming liberal in California, wearing sunglasses and airjamming to anything under the sun.
Actually, Doug is the bearded, classical philosopher way over the top for his fellow brethren on his logical syllogisms and Rick - well - how is he suppose to know any better with his theological training. Aren’t all Southern Baptists clueless?
(tongue in cheek)
Actually, Doug is the bearded, classical philosopher way over the top for his fellow brethren on his logical syllogisms and Rick - well - how is he suppose to know any better with his theological training. Aren’t all Southern Baptists clueless?
(tongue in cheek)
[Charlie] I think it’s interesting who certain groups view as problematic. For example, I don’t remember any uproar when Piper invited Doug Wilson to a conference (maybe I missed it?), but on a confessional Reformed website I visit there was an outrage. Wilson is a proponent of the Federal Vision, an aberrant theology absolutizing certain aspects of covenant and election and dabbling in deviant views of justification. I’m pretty sure the people on that site don’t like Rick Warren either, but they might prefer him to Wilson.Well Charlie, some did make an uproar but not many, you are right. The question is why? I believe it is because many privately agree with Wilson’s aberrations and others simply do not have the constitution that is required to bring themselves to admit that Doug Wilson is an inappropriate choice because it will reflect poorly on Piper and on themselves in the mirror when they have to admit to some of their sycophantic following of Piper.
Secondly, Piper himself holds to a deviant view of justification so maybe many are not so surprised with the choice of Wilson seeing that he and Piper share this kind of departure from orthodoxy. As well, these men and many of their ardent students worship at the theological altar of Calvinism (figuratively speaking of course) and rare are sacred cows touched by those that have elevated them so.
As for Warren, he is outside the camp and is far more clear in his leftist and/or unorthodox theological expressions hence it is much easier and convenient for Piperetes (or is that Piperites…I forget :)) to object. But be assured you will get the opportunity to read as many apologists as can rise up here offer justification, minimization or obfuscation in attempting to do anything but admit the choice of Warren is absolutely unacceptable and reflects a facet of Piper they either have missed along the way or denied all the while.
A bridge in the Sahara is a lot bigger than an Idaho spud, for sure.
And I would acknowledge that Billy Graham, America’s preacher, is different than Rick Warren, America’s pragmatist in a lot of ways.
No leader is alike.
And I would acknowledge that Billy Graham, America’s preacher, is different than Rick Warren, America’s pragmatist in a lot of ways.
No leader is alike.
(To be honest, in the midst of all this discussion about aberrations and deviants and consistency, I would like to make a trip up north and hear Douglas Wilson in person. Actually, even more so, I would like to listen to his friend, Peter Leithart, lecture on the Trinity.
This has been a temptation of mine for some time.)
This has been a temptation of mine for some time.)
I’d be interested in hearing Warren on the topic mentioned by John. I actually relate to both sides of the pragamtist-idealist approach to ministry. I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m somewhat of an idealist-pragmatist-existentialish-Baptistish-Calvinish kind of a guy. The idea of a responsible and vibrant “pragmatism” (and I’m not convinced Warren is always “responsible” with his pragmatism) linked to and controlled by a responsible and healthy “theology” appeals to me. I like it….alot. Frankly, I’m not surprised by the move because bringing these two concepts together is very Puritan (which is consistent with Piper). Frankly over the years I’ve been turned off by the “idealist-only approach” to ministry as much (if not more than) the “pragmatist-only” approach.
BTW….I don’t think you “Piper lovers” need to worry about John loosing his directional compass. I see this as a similar thing to what Calvary Lansdale used to do with it’s leadership conference. You have different types of guys to come together to think about different approaches to a topic. Obviously Lansdale would only have fundamentalist leaders in. But the approach here is similar in an evangelical context. I also think there is good grace here in letting Warren speak for himself. Let him answer the questions instead of just accusing him of this or that.
I’ll plan on getting the mp3’s. But again….this is just me.
Straight Ahead!
jt
BTW….I don’t think you “Piper lovers” need to worry about John loosing his directional compass. I see this as a similar thing to what Calvary Lansdale used to do with it’s leadership conference. You have different types of guys to come together to think about different approaches to a topic. Obviously Lansdale would only have fundamentalist leaders in. But the approach here is similar in an evangelical context. I also think there is good grace here in letting Warren speak for himself. Let him answer the questions instead of just accusing him of this or that.
I’ll plan on getting the mp3’s. But again….this is just me.
Straight Ahead!
jt
Dr. Joel Tetreau serves as Senior Pastor, Southeast Valley Bible Church (sevbc.org); Regional Coordinator for IBL West (iblministry.com), Board Member & friend for several different ministries;
Maybe this has been posted on Sharperiron.org, but to get an idea of how much of a pragmatist Warren is, Saddleback is having Easter services at Dodger stadium Sunday with music provided by the Jonas Brothers. Maybe Mylie Cyrus will show up to sing “Party In the USA.” I guess his target audience is now young teenage girls.
I’ll admit up front that I’m disappointed, but I’ve got to point something out - It’s called the “Desiring God Conference.” Now, maybe we’ve forgotten what that means, especially since our kinds of “conferences” usually end up being a string of sermons focused on stirring people up in areas where they already agree. But my American Heritage Dictionary seems to think that a “conference” is “a meeting for discussion” (1.a.) or “an exchange of views” (1.b.). I can’t say that I have yet been to a conference that offered “an exchange of views” much less gave any room for “a meeting for discussion.” Seriously, I have always wondered why “conferences” bear a striking similarity to revival meetings, with the possible difference of sermon content. Anyway, haven’t the DG conferences always featured speakers who were a little off of the center that Piper has attempted to portray? Sounds like that approach might make for a healthy conference.
Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.
[RPittman] [Yeah, I can think of many ways for Rick to tell us what makes him tick and what he says and what he does are the most telling. Furthermore, I apparently have a different view from Piper on what makes a man theological or a deep thinker. Reading Jonathan Edwards does not necessarily make one theological astute or a deep thinker. Although Piper’s apologetic was perhaps self-satisfying, it sounded shallow and unconvincing. Admittedly, he doesn’t know Warren’s theological stance but he thinks that he knows based upon one encounter. Perhaps the real reason is that he likes the guy but that’s not intellectual enough for Piper.But doesn’t that kind of openness point to the kind of “conference” that I mentioned? I mean, when you admit you don’t know exactly what someone thinks on a subject but invite him to come speak and tell you, that hardly implies that you endorse whatever the guy says. I catch your point about concession and the enlarging of one’s tent (without necessarily agreeing about the motives behind it), and you could be right. But does conference imply concession? One has only to think back on Pastor Sweatt to realize that not everyone thinks so.
Faith is obeying when you can't even imagine how things might turn out right.
[A. Carpenter] I’ll admit up front that I’m disappointed, but I’ve got to point something out - It’s called the “Desiring God Conference.” Now, maybe we’ve forgotten what that means, especially since our kinds of “conferences” usually end up being a string of sermons focused on stirring people up in areas where they already agree. But my American Heritage Dictionary seems to think that a “conference” is “a meeting for discussion” (1.a.) or “an exchange of views” (1.b.). I can’t say that I have yet been to a conference that offered “an exchange of views” much less gave any room for “a meeting for discussion.” Seriously, I have always wondered why “conferences” bear a striking similarity to revival meetings, with the possible difference of sermon content. Anyway, haven’t the DG conferences always featured speakers who were a little off of the center that Piper has attempted to portray? Sounds like that approach might make for a healthy conference.Thanks, Aaron, I think you have a point. A phrase I heard a lot at BJU was “Platform fellowship.” It’s a really big deal to fundamentalists. In considering Piper’s invitation, I think the movement Fundamentalists on here need to take one step back and consider what “platform fellowship” means to a non-fundamentalist. Whether right or wrong, non-fundamentalists don’t seem to put the same weight on conference invitations or isolated speaking engagements that fundies do. If BJU invited Rick Warren to Bible Conference, that would mean something like, “We think this man is incredible, a visionary leader of Christianity, a faithful steward of God’s gifts and calling, and a role model for all of you preacher boys.” I significantly doubt that a DG invite means anything near that. I’m not saying that I’m thrilled about Warren or even that I think it’s a great idea, only that an invite by a non-fundamentalist does not carry the same level of endorsement that fundy invites often do.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Discussion