John Piper, Rick Warren & the Watchbloggers: The Persistent Problem of Secondary Separation

~ Bob Hayton

I wish I had more time to comment on this. As it is, I’m away from home and don’t have much online time this week….

I fired up my twitter feed when I got to our destination, only to see a lot of ire being directed toward John Piper for his invitation of Rick Warren to speak at the Desiring God National Conference this fall. The watchbloggers, most notably CrossTalk blog (formerly Slice of Laodicea), are all upset over this and seem to have totally written John Piper off. I won’t repeat many of the charges, I’d feel dirty doing so. Just search the term #apj in Twitter to see some of this for yourself, or scour the comments at some of Justin Taylor’s recent blog posts.

Piper had explained his rationale for inviting Warren in audio/video posted here or in the comments. This comment under that post provides a transcript of Piper’s words on the subject and is helpful.

Last night, DG had hosted another ask Pastor John live online Q & A event, and so of course Piper had to deal with the controversy. The DG Blog has a 12 minute video-clip up from last night’s event, that should satisfy anyone’s curiosity. In that clip, which I recommend you watch, I found a few segments very insightful and pertinent to the issue of secondary and excessive separation. Let me provide some excerpts here and then offer some thoughts. I apologize in advance, if I don’t get the transcript exactly right.

…I’m real eager that this glorious thing God is doing in the “young, restless, reformed” — whatever this thing is called that God’s doing, awakening people’s love for the supremacy of God in all things. I’m real eager that that not become a brittle, narrow, ugly, excessively separatist movement, and so I’m not devoting my life to finding a lot of enemies to attack. I’ve got some, but I like to do it simply by hammering on truth….

Separatism or, who you do things with, is an important Biblical question. And so, I don’t put Rick Warren in the group that I’m going to hold at an arm’s distance. …I’m not going to draw the circle there.

And suppose you disagree with me on that. Now you’re faced with the question, ok, I’m with John Piper theologically. I’m not with Rick Warren on a bunch of things. John Piper has just chosen to hang out with Rick Warren. What do I do with John Piper? That’s called secondary separation issues. And there you are, I hope we can disagree about who we hang out with. Okay. Because a lot of traditional fundamentalists have said, no, if you hang out with somebody that I believe I should separate from, then I’m going to separate from you. And I want to say, look let’s, can we disagree about whether he would come to your conference and you still be willing to eat with me, talk with me?

So I would encourage you to think through that issue of secondary separation. The way I have chosen to live my life for the sake of reformed theology and the supremacy of God and the inerrancy of the Bible and the importance of solid Reformation gospel truths, the 5 solas, and so on, is to give all my energy to putting them in a positive, aggressively spreadable form, not to spend my time shooting at the people who don’t like them….

I think Piper does a good job explaining secondary separation. It is always a problem, because people always will disagree with others on their particular approach to ministry. So, should we just separate from anyone not exactly like us? No.

I find it interesting that many who aren’t fundamentalists exactly (they aren’t card-carrying Independent fundamental Baptists), still think secondary separation should apply here. I think it’s the natural human reaction when we face disagreements. It is certainly easier to just write people off, then allow for important differences.

Yet, Rom. 14-15 should apply here. We can accept others even thought they differ from us. Personally, I’m encouraged that Piper is reaching out to Warren. He may perhaps influence Warren, and Warren does have some positive things to share with us, too.

I have serious reservations about Warren and his methodology. But his book revolutionized my grandfather’s life. I can’t argue with that. When we take small differences and make them so important we will die over them, we are making mountains out of molehills. And in the process, the important, fundamental truths–that list Piper shared that Warren upholds– are rendered meaningless. As I have pointed out before, we “minimize the gospel through [such] excessive separation.” I think the unity we have in the big things should enable us to get along enough to respect others who differ with us in relatively minor matters.

What’s your thoughts on Piper and Warren. Do you agree with my thoughts here? If not, why should we think of Piper as “selling out” for this invitation of Warren to speak? Please join the conversation in the comments below.

42 thoughts on “John Piper, Rick Warren & the Watchbloggers: The Persistent Problem of Secondary Separation”

  1. If Piper were to start endorsing Rick Warren, I would probably at the very least stop endorsing Piper to my friends. I wouldn’t want them to be led astray by Warren’s pragmatism and gospelless salvation message.

    1. Bob,

      Here we go, but in my opinion Warren is not really a lasting student of the Holy Scripture, or theological. And does not appear to be really pastoral. Remember, a pastor is also always a teacher. This was a bad choice by Piper! When is the Church going to listen to its proven theolog’s? The American Mike Horton has nailed this! And I love your Sir Piper as a pastor, but he simply is not the theologian like Horton.

      Fr. Robert

      1. Thanks brother. I can understand your concern. Piper is very much a theologian, but he also is pastoral. He may be wrong in this, but I want to see how it will all pan out.

        Blessings in Christ,

        Bob

  2. This is a tough one.

    I’m afraid many are going to simply go along with it because it’s Piper, and the fundamentalists/separatists are going to be justified in their accusations of the same. I also know many will go along with it because they genuinely believe in what Piper’s explanation is all about and are on board with this sort of thing, but the first thing will undoubtedly overshadow the latter. So I think it’s obvious there’s going to be a wave of “Piper can do no wrong” comments all around in the near future. I’m certainly looking forward to Way of Life’s newest News Notes! (actually they might cover the story in a few weeks, as they’re usually running behind)

    Personally, I still need to be convinced. I don’t doubt Warren’s Christianity and I know that he’ll probably surprise many with a great sermon at the conference. But I’m still processing all this. I don’t think he’s used his influence, which is greater than everyone at DG or T4G put together, for the cause of the gospel. At least not clearly. I’m not saying he denies the gospel, and quite frankly, most of the criticism I have of him is from other sources so I don’t want to speak out of line. But I also never heard him give a clear gospel presentation on any national outlet he’s been on. Contrast that with John MacArthur on Larry King.

    So, I don’t know. I agree with you Bob that it could be VERY good to have Piper influence Warren toward a better theology and ministry. But I think the influence Piper and Mohler and Sproul can have on him should be more private until they can without-a-doubt confirm his ministry. Then, and only then, I would be comfortable with seeing him spotlighted. I do see both unity and separation in the Bible and I’m still trying to learn about this. One thing is for sure, though, I’m not writing off Piper just because of this, and I’m going to be sure to listen in.

    1. “I don’t think he’s used his influence, which is greater than everyone at DG or T4G put together, for the cause of the gospel.”
      I have to disagree with you on that. Many people come to Christ every Sunday at Saddleback and also thru the Purpose Driven Life book/ministry.

      1. The poster goes on to qualify that statement somewhat, with “At least not clearly.” I do think he does use his influence for the Gospel, but agree it could be more clear, especially in nationally televised public events.

  3. I think that Warren believes and teaches (sometimes poorly) Penal Substitutionary Atonement. Once a preacher has that right, it becomes a Baby/Bathwater question from there on out — We may want to use a strainer.

    Apollos had a lot more wrong in Acts 18. If Warren is willing to walk in the light and allow John Piper to correct him (And we know he will) then good will come out of it.

    I do believe that many people despise Warren for PEACE plan, and it’s non-conformity to their pessimistic view of eschatology, and I think this is shameful. The Bible calls us to love our neighbor as our self, and that means trying to improve schools, neighborhoods and churches everywhere. It may only be a shadow of the better kingdom to come, but we are called to be ambassadors for the coming kingdom.

  4. Rick Warren is an evangelist first, second, and always; and so (and frankly, I think this fits the stereotype of most evangelists I’ve read about or personally known) not well-trained in systematic theology. He’s a life-long Southern Baptist, too, and that forms his thinking, pro or con. He is doctrinally shallow, and often shows a lack of discernment. He throws a broad net, and will appear alongside all types of people, some of whom he probably shouldn’t. He’s a jovial salesman for Christ, like a “Stan Lee” for the Gospel, and seems to only want to say nice things about everybody. Warren is fascinated by ministry mechanics.

    But I’m not aware that his doctrinal beliefs are heretical at any point. I’ve read a lot of slanderous complaints against him that seem to spring out of paranoid minds who see New Age liberalism or end-times conspiracies everywhere. If Warren is open to accepting John Piper’s brotherhood, and can count Piper as a friend, and as someone with whom he can discreetly interact, more power to both of them.

  5. Bob,

    I’m probably treading on thin ice here, but…I’m disappointed with Piper. T4G is supposed to be about the Gospel, that is, the Gospel of Sovereign Grace. As far as I know (and I’ve never been to a T4G Conference), in the past, all the speakers are men who stand strong and clear for the Reformed Gospel (or whatever you would prefer to call it.) Rick Warren is not known for his stand for the Gospel. Privately, he claims he believes it. Publicaly, it’s impossible to tell. Rick Warrn as a personal friend in private? Sure, why not. That would be the place to “influence” him. Rick Warren as a T4G Conference speaker? No way!

    Sincerely,
    Greg Barkman

  6. Greg,
    This is the Desiring God conference not the T4G conference.. Desiring God is Piper’s ministry, and I would assume that he, and his board set the agenda as they see fit.

  7. Bob, I think you have called this one wrong. I think you need to Mike Horton’s response to this on the White Horse Inn blog.

  9. I knew this would bring out some responses. I am just reading them now. I can agree with those disappointed. But I like Jack Brook’s assessment above. Sure, Warren may not think things through and doesn’t say exactly what I’d like, but he’s not heretical.

    We can disagree with Piper’s action without disowning him. I’ll have to check out Horton’s response. I surely don’t want to just be a Piper sycophant. He’s my pastor (or was, before we started helping a church plant this past year). I respect him, and think this will turn out right. I trust him, and his explanation sounds correct to me. He is trying to influence Warren, don’t make a mistake about that.

    If we are really upset about people, is it best to just lob grenades at them? How about come along side, try to find out what makes them tick, and give them a friendly nudge in the right direction. That’s what Piper’s doing. Should he do it at the DG Conference? Maybe not. But he’s used the Conference before for such things (Driscoll).

    At the end of the day, like someone replied on Facebook to me: “Disagreements… on secondary issues do not warrant personal attacks.” And I have seen a lot of “attacks”.

    Thanks for interacting, everyone.

    In Christ,

    Bob

  10. John Piper is very sound theologically. Rick Warren may be, but his pragmatism overrides any theological training he has had, to the point of watering down his “salvation message” that he gives to the unsaved as to make it unrecognizable as being the Gospel. For that reason alone, I would be wary of anybody who is having Warren to speak, and would want to keep an eye on them to make sure that they don’t begin to endorse him.

    1. Sorry, your comments ended up in the spam bin somehow. I agree that someone endorsing Warren in an unqualified way would be unwise. I’m waiting to see how this all pans out. Personally, I think Piper has enough qualifications and has explained his reasoning well enough for me. Thanks for jumping in with your comments. Hopefully they won’t go to the spam bin anymore now!

      Blessings in Christ,

      Bob

  11. I can’t go along with the philosophy that says, “If he’s not a heretic, then he’s OK.” My question concerning anyone who leads is not, “Does his teaching meet the lowest possible threshold tolerable ?” but, “Does his teaching represent excellence?”

  12. I’ll note upfront that I’ve never been as much of an admirer of Piper as many others evidently have. He simply has never been much of an influence on me compared to MacArthur and some others from the past (mostly) and present.

    Initially I was surprised to hear that Warren was invited but upon further reflection it is not that surprising to me considering what appears on the DG website about the likes of John Wimber (only mild criticism at best) as well as the recent invites to Mark Driscoll and Douglas Wilson.

    Although some of his behavior has in my view drawn justifiable criticism, Driscoll’s orthodoxy isn’t in doubt. On the other hand, Wilson has long been a highly controversial figure in the Reformed camp, with every Reformed denomination and institution of note condemning the Federal Vision, yet he was invited nonetheless. (I’m aware that Wilson is more conventional in his formulations regarding justification than are others within in his denomination, the CREC.)

    Over the years Warren has periodically referred to himself as a “Calvinist,” most notably in the Modern Reformation interview that Justin Taylor posted. Of course that’s a claim that many no doubt find to be somewhat dubious, especially with regard to his methodology. (BTW I’m not of the opinion that only strict five point Calvinists should be invited to such conferences.)

    Unlike MacArthur and Sproul, to my knowledge Piper has never shown any separatistic tendency whatsoever. Several years ago he did strongly criticize Greg Boyd’s Open Theism, but to my recollection decided not to leave the Baptist General Conference over it when Boyd was not disciplined. Other than Boyd, who has Piper ever pointedly and publicly criticized by name? That of course does not necessitate bringing in questionable leaders to speak at one’s conference.

    1. Chris,

      Piper has taken NT Wright to task, albeit in a charitable way. Re: Open Theism, Piper has worked for change from within the BGC and the BGC is much less “open” to OT than they were. BTW, separatists of a few generations ago stayed within their groups working for change. Only when they couldn’t stay any longer did they finally leave. Working for change, or leaving because of no change being possible are flip sides of the separatist coin in my opinion.

      You are right he is less separatist than people like MacArthur and others. But I don’t necessarily think that’s all a bad thing.

  13. This is a huge breach of trust with his stewardship of influence! He’s going to prop up Warren as an authority on thinking Biblically??? Obviously, Piper is no longer an authority on thinking biblically. What’s worse, is that he said he is going to do this so he can see what makes him tick?? This is a sick experiment that can result in wrongly influencing many many young impressionable skulls full of mush to buy in to Warren’s pragmatism, so that Piper can have his curiosity satisfied.

    His reasons are inexcusible. But it seems that these guys get a pass for whatever they do, as long as they have a good reason for it and they’re conscience is clear about it.

  14. I agree with William.

    Read Michael Horton’s blog post from today. My take, Rick Warren is a chameleon that says what Piper and others want to hear. Do not give him credibility by giving him a platform at Desiring God. That is a direct endorsement.

    This is not the way to find out what makes somebody “tick”. Seriously, Piper?

    “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” – Matthew 12:34

    What Rick Warren says day-in and day-out is “what makes him tick”, not what he says during a 60 minute lecture at Desiring God.

    1. Ryan,

      I read Horton’s post and it brings up some serious questions, similar to those I already had about Warren. But it doesn’t necessitate not coming alongside Warren in the way Piper is doing. Piper specifically is saying he wants to find out what makes Warren tick and give Warren a chance to answer his critics. I prefer to see how it all pans out before jumping on a “Piper has lost it” crusade.

      Bob

  15. I should ad that this really isn’t about separation. The fact that I don’t consider someone qualified to teach doesn’t mean I am separating from them. There are plenty of people that I assume are genuine in the faith and would eat and worship with, but wouldn’t give a platform to teach.

    Ryan’s comment above is on point, and why I think Piper’s explanation is lame, at best.

    I appreciate and respect the vast majority of Piper’s work. At the same time, I’ve come to realize that he can be a little goofy at times. But I’m not on the “Piper has lost it” bandwagon, either. I can tolerate a little goofiness without completely writing someone off, and I hope, for my own sake, others can, too.

  16. Pingback: Separation « Fundamentally Changed

    1. Joseph,

      I think Piper is probably unaware of several of those things preferring to take Warren at his word. Piper didn’t adopt the 40 days of purpose or anything, and in one of the audio or video files on this expressed that he has huge doubts about Warren’s pragmatism being right.

      I think he wants to hear Warren’s defense and introduce Warren more to some of his associates and perhaps influence him. Will this work? Probably not. Is Piper blanketly approving of all Warren is and has done, no. Is this wise? That depends.

      Certainly we can at least allow for someone like Piper to make a ministry decision without consulting us and to decide differently than we would.

      Thanks for pointing me to your post however, it does collect some important points to consider in all of this.

      Blessings in Christ,

      Bob

  19. I was just looking at MacArthur’s book Ashamed of the Gospel about two hours ago at a Lifeway bookstore, and was reminded how wrong-headed it is. MacArthur copiously quoting C.H. Spurgeon and Ian Murray doesn’t mean that the book was fair or sensible. It was a highly intellectual rant.

    And yet MacArthur himself is a pragmatist. You know how I know? (a) he preaches in English, because his audience is made up of English-speakers. An obvious compromise of the Gospel. He ought to preach in Koine’ Greek. (b) His church has an entire staff that handles electronics, lighting, sound, and what-not, including the Plexiglass podium that rise up pneumatically from the floor when he’s ready to speak. (c) From time to time he preaches on topics, because of problems and issues going on in his congregation.

    Anyway, you see my point. The Westminster Confession says that God’s sovereignty doesn’t negate secondary causes, but establishes them. Paul did say, in 1 Corinthians 9, that he changed his cultural habits to suit the audience, because doing so facilitated winning people to Christ. I once had a hyper-Calvinist brother object to my interpretation of 1 Corinthians 9, because (he said) nothing we do helps or impedes evangelization. It was as if he was denying the existence of the content of 1 Corinthians 9.

    Piper is putting Warren on the spot, and Warren agreed to subject himself to this. The conference isn’t about “How To Film An Effective Baptismal Service”, so Warren won’t be in his usual element. Warren is being called upon to give a message about how he loves God with his mind, or whatever the exact wording is.

    Most of us also don’t know what Warren does or doesn’t do in leadership training sessions. Judging by Warren’s style, I wouldn’t expect him to secretly be another R.C. Sproul Sr. The guy is not a teacher/theologian, and his thinking is colored by Fuller. But I believe one of the reasons Warren’s books and seminars are so generic is because he is consciously writing them for the hoi polloi. He isn’t even trying to communicate with Piper fanboys who own all of John Owen’s white-and-green books.

    I found The Purpose-Driven Life to be just “meh.” But I know it’s revolutionized some people’s lives for the better. I found The Purpose-Driven Church to be better written, and I found the practicality helpful. You don’t read Rick Warren for exegesis; nor is he obligated to write exegetical commentaries.

    The writing and preaching standards that are being upheld by many of his critics aren’t even found in the Bible. Their templates seem (to me) to be 18th c. British Puritanism; and 18th c. British Puritanism isn’t God’s standard for anything.

    1. Piper is putting Warren on the spot, and Warren agreed to subject himself to this. The conference isn’t about “How To Film An Effective Baptismal Service”, so Warren won’t be in his usual element. Warren is being called upon to give a message about how he loves God with his mind, or whatever the exact wording is.

      Good points here Jack. You are emphasizing the right angle on this. Warren has been all about trying to get the message out and make it as palatable as possible in today’s world. That could be construed as selling out on the gospel. Or it could be 1 Cor. 9 in action, but perhaps not quite as Paul would do it.

      I think it’s somewhere in the middle, but I am eager to hear Warren out on this. This doesn’t mean I’ll be using Warren’s stuff in the near future or anything, but in some contexts Warren’s stuff is way better than other stuff that could be used….

      Thanks for dropping by and leaving your thoughts.

      Blessings in Christ,

      Bob

  21. One of my concerns about Warren is that his desire to be inoffensive is too extreme. He’s at the other end of the spectrum on this, where some of his critics are waaay too eager to jam their thumbs into unsaved people’s eye sockets in the name of the sovereignty of God. Warren seems to dread the possibility that some liberal Californian somewhere will take offense at him. He doesn’t seem to show much sense of camaraderie with the Biblical prophets, who preached unapologetic messages to a rebellious audience.

    So I feel that Warren did water the Gospel down in TPDL, but (applying hermeneutical principles to figuring out what Rick Warren actually believes) I would feel obligated to listen to a wide selection of Rick Warren sermons on salvation. If Warren presents the Gospel reasonably well over the course of 8-10 messages or 8-10 articles, but then he presents it poorly in other places, then he deserves to be criticized for being inconsistent, but not for being heretical.

    But I also feel no sympathy for tooth-gnashing Calvinists who tear their clothes and throw dust in the air at the idea that the benefits of God’s blessings are a valid motivator for inviting sinners to Christ. Throughout the both Testaments, God holds out His earthly succor and assistance as blessings that sinners are losing out on by their continued rebellion. See the first chapter of Isaiah 1-2 — God describes how beaten-up Israel is, how futile are their idolatrous attempts to solve life’s terrible problems without Him, and how many blessings He is willing to give them if they will simply come and reason with Him, and have their red sins turned white and clean.

    Everyone comes to Christ for “what they will get out of it.” Michael Scott Horton in one of his books decried this idea, as if it’s some humanistic corruption, but I don’t know what Bible he thinks he’s reading as to that point. Christ said, “Come to me, all ye who labor and are heavy-laden, and I will give you rest.” In other words, come to Me and you will get something wonderful out of doing so!

    So I see nothing wrong with Warren holding out all the possible blessings of the Christian life to the sinner, as motivators for turning from unbelief and calling on the name of the Lord. As long as his descriptions of those blessings are Scriptural, and not the false promises of the prosperity gospel. But Warren’s hyper-Calvinist critics seem to be operating on the notion that people ought to come to Christ out of some abstract appreciation of a disinterested good. Their distorted ideas about evangelism and conversion don’t excuse the wishy-washy Gospel presentations that Warren seems prone to use, but what they’re advocating isn’t Biblical either.

    1. Thanks again, Jack. I just read Challies’ post on this, and it is quite good. I still stand by my thoughts here, but am more and more thinking he shouldn’t have invited Warren. But then again, that’s just my opinion and Piper is entitled to his own. I truly hope Piper can influence Warren somewhat through all of this.

  22. Pingback: Tim Challies on Piper & Warren: Responding with Grace | Fundamentally Reformed

  23. What the many who have been decieved by Warren dont understand, is that he has brought the occultic agenda “New Beginnnings” into the church disguised as the “Gospel”. Jesus warned us of the increase of false teachers in the last days. Alice Bailey, the occultic medium who channeled the New Age movement from Satanic forces, said that there are three things that had to happen in order for the anti christ to come on the scene. First, is “Inclusiveness” . We now see Warren pushing ecumenicalism. All faiths are joining regardless of belief systems. So the church is becoming UNIVERSAL. Second she said “Doctrine must be eradicated”. Warren has discounted the King James version and promotes unbiblical translations such as ‘The Message” written by apostate Eugene Peterson. He promotes a “new” gospel. So the church is becoming OCCULTIC. Third, she said, “Men must be transformed.” To the occultic, this means men must experience demonic mind control to follow the antichrist. To the psuedo-Christian, transformation means a mystical experience to ‘encounter’ God where he is then ’empowered’ to some degree. This ’empowerment’ then helps him to discern ‘evil’. The ‘evil’ today that Rick Warren broadcasts, are the ‘Old wineskins” that are holding up the Global church that is coming. ANd, as Warren says, “they must be removed.” These ‘old wineskins’ are the fundamentalists that hold to the Bible alone for truth and do not support a suppposedly glorious church that is coming’ This CHurch is literally the One World Church. So the church is becoming MILITANT against itself. Warren is indeed one of the false teachers Jesus warned us about, and sadly even the once doctrinally sound pastors have fallen for the light of Satan. “And in the last days, men shall no longer endure sound doctrine.” II Timothy 4:3

    1. Jan,

      This is way over the top in my opinion. Warren is bringing in the AntiChrist? Such speculation does little to encourage faith in Christ and becomes a divisive and schismatic tactic which Scripture expressly forbids – Tit. 3:10, Rom. 16:17.

  24. Maybe, just maybe, the Lord plans to use the conference to challenge Rick Warren and call him to account. Nothing happens outside of God’s control and nothing can happen that he does not allow. This announcement has literally rocked my world, and I am hanging on with both hands to this: Isaiah 55:9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.”
    With God all things are possible, including the dismantling of the Purpose Driven franchise and its author.
    Maybe??

  25. Pingback: Why T4G Should Not Fall Apart Over John Piper’s Connection with Rick Warren | Fundamentally Reformed

Comments are closed.