Piper Explains Warren Invitation in His Own Words- UPDATED- with video

Here’s a 12-minute clip of Piper addressing this question from last night’s Q&A: http://www.desiringgod.org/Blog/2323_more_details_about_our_national_co…

Towards the end, he talks about secondary separation issues. Interesting, to say the least.

Charlie,

I was one who did criticize Piper for inviting Doug Wilson to speak at the Desiring God Conference last year. In fact, I wrote a blog article entitled “Disappointed in John Piper’s Judgment About Doug Wilson.” You can read it here, if you are interested: http://reformedbaptist.blogspot.com/2009/06/disappointed-in-john-piper…

Frankly, I am not as disturbed by his invitation of Warren as I was about Wilson, but I am still disappointed at his penchant for aligning himself with or endorsing such men. Why does he seem to want to invite such controversy? I don’t get it.

I understand that he doesn’t fully endorse the thinking or writing of such men and that he acknowledges serious problems with them, but then why would he give them such an opportunity to influence the people he is trying to reach? And how can his invitation to them be seen as any thing other than an endorsement? Again, I don’t get it.

Just my two cents.

Keith

The gist of the video seems to be (I paraphrase) “I’m charmed by the guy and his contradictions intrigue me so I’m going to have him come and make a case for his way of doing things to thousands of pastors I have the opportunity to influence.” It doesn’t reflect really well on him.
I don’t see anything wrong w/the logic of “This is about the mind and I want to see how he thinks,” but you could do that in a conversation. Why do you have to put him in front of thousands under your auspices to find out how he thinks?

I accept the idea that JP doesn’t intend the event as a “platform fellowship” sort of endorsement. But sometimes what something is is more than what we intend. I just don’t think it’s plausible at all to suggest that who JP brings to speak isn’t extremely influential in the minds of many—especially young—pastors and other leaders, especially if you compare who has invited to who he could have invited. Say, DA Carson for example.
If pragmatism is really all that interesting and important to understand better, it makes sense to host RW, but really… what is there to figure out other than how in the world RW can read so much Edwards and still be so mixed up? Personally, I don’t share JP’s curiosity on that point.

Well said, Aaron!

It wouldn’t happen on God’s green earth that Douglas Wilson would invite Rick Warren to his conference, unless it was to debate. Their personal circles don’t even begin to intersect.

Let’s face it … John Piper is very broad in his Baptist circle when it comes to expressing his own personal appreciation for other leaders. And anytime a leader in a Christian circle acts out on his own circle of personal appreciation, the public circle is disrupted.

Douglas Wilson does not appreciate an “evangellyfish”, but John seems to appreciate Rick Warren.

Mark Driscoll does not appreciate the fundamentalist (nor does Doug for that matter it seems), but wait till some future day when John out of personal appreciation invites a fundamentalist that neither Driscoll or Wilson would tolerate in a conference of their own. (laughing) Imagine that disruption.

Ok, I thought I was done randomly blabbing on this issue. So I had better call it quits. :)

et

(Btw, Clarence Sexton can be disruptive to his Baptist circle, too. Hosting BJU preachers. Also, this guy preaches on the Calvary Chapel satelite network out here. What is up with this guy?)

[Charlie]

[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.

I think the real question is what platform fellowship means to those who are viewing the platform, whatever their personal position might be. The problem arises in that this appears to be at least a tacit and partial endoresement of Warren no matter where you might be viewing it from. All denials aside, if Piper disagreed, he would not be inviting Warren to inform his audience.

[Aaron Blumer] The gist of the video seems to be (I paraphrase) “I’m charmed by the guy and his contradictions intrigue me so I’m going to have him come and make a case for his way of doing things to thousands of pastors I have the opportunity to influence.” It doesn’t reflect really well on him.
I don’t see anything wrong w/the logic of “This is about the mind and I want to see how he thinks,” but you could do that in a conversation. Why do you have to put him in front of thousands under your auspices to find out how he thinks?

I accept the idea that JP doesn’t intend the event as a “platform fellowship” sort of endorsement. But sometimes what something is is more than what we intend. I just don’t think it’s plausible at all to suggest that who JP brings to speak isn’t extremely influential in the minds of many—especially young—pastors and other leaders, especially if you compare who has invited to who he could have invited. Say, DA Carson for example.
If pragmatism is really all that interesting and important to understand better, it makes sense to host RW, but really… what is there to figure out other than how in the world RW can read so much Edwards and still be so mixed up? Personally, I don’t share JP’s curiosity on that point.

Aaron, some great points. I agree that if he wanted to better understand Warren, he should meet with him personally. I like a lot about Warren, just not those painful (to me) compromises. Unfortunately, because of those compromises, even the good things he says are often written off apiori.

I’ll post some quotes from Rich Warren talking about Christian fundamentalists.

“Now the word “fundamentalist” actually comes from a document in the 1920s called the
Five Fundamentals of the Faith. And it is a very legalistic, narrow view of Christianity,
and when I say there are very few fundamentalists, I mean in the sense that they are all
actually called fundamentalist churches, and those would be quite small. There are no
large ones.”

- The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, Event Transcript, Myths of the Modern Mega-Church, Monday, May 23, 2005

The 5 fundamentals Warren is referring to:

1. The Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:1; John 20:28; Hebrews 1:8-9).
2. The Virgin Birth (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:23; Luke 1:27).
3. The Blood Atonement (Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7; Hebrews 9:12-14).
4. The Bodily Resurrection (Luke 24:36-46; 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, 15:14-15).
5. The inerrancy of the scriptures themselves (Psalms 12:6-7; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20).

“Muslim fundamentalism, Christian fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism, secular fundamentalism - they’re all motivated by
fear. Fear of each other.”

- Philadelphia Inquirer, The purpose-driven pastor, Paul Nussbaum, Jan. 08, 2006

[Todd Wood] Mark Driscoll does not appreciate the fundamentalist (nor does Doug for that matter it seems), but wait till some future day when John out of personal appreciation invites a fundamentalist that neither Driscoll or Wilson would tolerate in a conference of their own. (laughing) Imagine that disruption.

I think I’d rather not…but if Piper invites you, Todd, I’ll tune in for that :)

I think Aaron hit the nail on the head. I get what someone said about a conference being a place to stimulate thought and provoke discussion, but I’m amazed that Piper invited Warren. I probably shouldn’t be, because I know he’s got friends all of “christianity” [as broadly as you can stretch that term] , but I do think that he’s taking a risk and inviting Warren not just because Warren will make others think, but because he wants Warren to think about what he’s doing as well…note the “I want to challenge him” line in the explanation he gives.

I do think it’s a poor reflection on Piper, and I don’t think he should have invited Warren, but he’ll answer for it to God, I guess.

Perhaps we can get away from the disappointment and understand that Piper has a theology that has a less orthodox theology than Robert Warren. RW does preach a very strong gospel message in his church. Go online and watch a couple sermons at their website. I totally disagree with the pattern and presentation of Christianity in his book “the Purpose driven life.” However, having been in his church and watched him on the internet, I was surprised at a clear and unadulterated gospel. Rick is on the conservative side of the Southern Baptist seminary. His church has the best followup teaching I have seen. Leads from the basics to the deeper study of the word. It is not easy believism, You must complete certain classes and pass an interview for salvation and church membership. It is a topical subject pulpit with a gospel emphasis. The various classes offered in the church offered in depth study in Bible, theology, apologetics, and Biblical teaching on various topics and issues. There is much stronger gospel presented and far greater in depth teaching than at most Fundamental Baptist churches. Check it out for yourself.

I do differ with RW on many relationships and associations. Also on some of his theology. Understand that much of what JP does comes from a moderate Evangelical outlook. He is no Conservative evangelical. His pushing of the Puritan Calvinism has been accepted by many of the younger generation. Many attempt to vehemently defend John Piper ignoring many of his clear statements that present an over emphasis on election, the application of God’s sovereignty, and double justification. His view on defining faith and the assurance of salvation is Puritan in historical sources and not in accordance with the European source Calvinism. and the evolved Reformed theology. Since JP left Fundamentalism when young and attended New Evangelical and Neo Orthodox schools, he should not be expected to have an exclusionary view of conference speakers. Some just want Calvinistic emphasis. However, an emphasis away from that may be useful to many.

One should not be surprised at inviting Rick Warren to this conference. I light of JPs moderate evangelicalism, it is not a bad choice.

[Bob T.] Perhaps we can get away from the disappointment and understand that Piper…has a less orthodox theology than Robert Warren.

Bob, you lost me as soon as I read this. To disagree with Piper is one thing, but to say that Piper’s theology is worse that Warren’s? I don’t think so. Have you read any of Piper’s books or listened to him preach?

—edit—
This is what Michael Horton says about Warren’s theology (From [URL=http://www.sharperiron.org/filings/4-1-10/14449] another SI Filing[/URL] ):

At the same time, I believe that his [Warren’s] message distorts the gospel and that he is contributing to the human-centered pragmatism that is eroding the proper ministry and mission of the church. Judging by The Purpose-Driven Life, Pastor Warren’s theology seems to reflect run-of-the-mill evangelical Arminianism, especially with its emphasis on the new birth as the result of human decision and cooperation with grace. There are also heavy traces of Keswick “higher life” teaching throughout the book. None of this disqualifies him from being an evangelical statesman. After all, much the same can be said of Billy Graham. After pointing out how difficult it is to define an evangelical theologically, historian George Marsden famously surmised that it’s “anyone who likes Billy Graham.” Today, perhaps, it’s anyone who likes Rick Warren.

Obviously, Rick Warren believes that he is simply translating the gospel in terms that the unchurched can understand. However, the radical condition of sin is reduced to negative attitudes and behaviors and the radical redemption secured by Christ’s propitiatory death and resurrection are reduced to general and vague statements about God giving us another chance. His central message seems to be that you were created for a purpose and you just need to fulfill it. Even at Easter he can say, “…And of course, that purpose now becomes greater — and in fact, I think that’s really what the message this week of Easter is, is that God can bring good out of bad. That he turns crucifixions into resurrections. That he takes the mess of our life, and when we give him all the pieces, he can — God can put it together in a new way” (”Larry King Live,” CNN, March 22, 2005). I heard him say on a network morning program last Christmas that Jesus came to give us a mulligan, like in golf—a chance for a “do-over” in life.

That doesn’t seem to agree with any point of Reformed theology that I’ve ever heard of.

Part of the reason RW is so controversial—and JP’s choice is so controversial—is that RW as a figure and a conference-speaker choice brings more than one burning theological issue into focus.
We have non-Calvinists who oppose JP because of his reformed theology
We have non-Calvinists who oppose RW because of his lack of separation and (to a lesser degree I think) pragmatism
We have Calvinistic folks who oppose RW b/c of his lack of reformed theology as well as his pragmatism and lack of separation
etc.

So there is a separatism axis, a calvinism axis and a pragmatism axis (and no doubt some others). Hence, we have folks who allege that Piper’s view of justification is “[URL=http://sharperiron.org/filings/3-31-10/14433#comment-11983] deviant[/URL] ” and that Warren’s theology is more orthodox than Piper’s. It’s the calvinism-arminianism axis coming out there.
(Personally, I find it very hard to see how RW’s theology is better than Piper’s even from an Arminian POV… and I think I understand Arminianism pretty well)

Fundamentalists may largely agree in being non-fans of RW, but they have widely varying reasons for that and, as a result, widely varying responses to Piper’s conference choice.

All,

In his second video he released, I transcribed it and posted it on my site:

[URL=http://www.vibist.com] http://www.vibist.com[/URL]

I don’t know about you, but I am a visual learner, and it helps me to read something, so I can examine what it says to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions, or not understanding the issue.

Aaron

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but what is the deviant belief on justification that Piper is said to hold? My impression is that he has had a strong grasp of this doctrine and has articulated quite well. Is it the Calvinists emphasis on endurance in sanctification?

[Tim Terpstra] Aaron
Not to sidetrack the discussion, but what is the deviant belief on justification that Piper is said to hold? My impression is that he has had a strong grasp of this doctrine and has articulated quite well. Is it the Calvinists emphasis on endurance in sanctification?

I’m not sure. Alex G. posted it and I think he’d have to explain that one.
I know that some see just about any strong role for repentance as “Lordship salvation” and would object to Piper’s view on those grounds. But as far as I know, there is really nothing in his view of justification that should even concern Arminians. Now his view of the why and how of election & predestination would be polls apart from the Arminian view, but justification? I’m just guessing it has to do with the lordship controversy.