Ed Stetzer, watchblogging, and Rick Warren's relationship with Muslims by Peter Lumpkins

Yesterday, I posted a short piece entitled "Rick Warren's bridge to Mecca" wherein I quoted a reputable news outlet in Orange County, California. A piece written by journalist, Jim Hinch, entitled "Rick Warren builds a bridge to Muslims" concluded Rick Warren and Saddleback church were apparently building a bridge far too close to Mecca's theological borders "acknowledging that Christians and Muslims worship the same God"   >>>

Now we apparently find out that Hinch may have misunderstood Warren and the "Kings Way" theological documents which apparently was the basis for the Muslim-Christian dialog. Warren just released a statement clarifying his position. Ed Stetzer, Vice President of Lifeway Resources, posted the clarifying remarks on his blog. The first question and answer in Warren's statement is sufficent to clearly understand Warren's position:

QUESTION: Do people of other religions worship the same God as Christians?
WARREN: Of course not. Christians have a view of God that is unique. We believe Jesus is God! We believe God is a Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Not 3 separate gods but one God. No other faith believes Jesus is God. My God is Jesus. The belief in God as a Trinity is the foundational difference between Christians and everyone else. There are 2.1 billion people who call themselves Christians... whether Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, or Evangelical... and they all have the doctrine of the Trinity in common. Hindus, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Science, Unitarians, and everyone else do not accept what Jesus taught about the Trinity

In addition, the interviewer asked Warren about the recent newspaper article [presumably Hinch's article] claiming he believed Christians and Muslims worship the same God, that Warren was "in partnership" with a mosque, and that both Warren and Muslims agreed to "not evangelize each other." Warren unequivocally responded: "All three of those statements are flat out wrong. Those statements were made by a reporter, not by me. I did not say them ... I do not believe them... I completely disagree with them ... and no one even talked to me about that article!"

We are glad Warren cleared the thick fog hanging heavy on us all yesterday.¹ We must insist, however, Warren has failed more than one time speaking clearly and creating confusion even though he is considered a master-communicator. Recall Warren’s insistence less than a year ago about being influenced by Calvinism through his reading Jonathan Edwards and John Calvin when interviewed by J. Piper. Could one honestly detect, through Warren's books and preaching, an influence of Reformed thinking? An influence from one of the most profound philosophers in the Colonial West--America's philosopher--Edwards is called? Closer to reality, I suspect, is Warren can no more comprehend Freedom of the Will than can I, along with most Calvinists--unless one has a background in philosophy, of course. 

In addition, recall Prop 8 (approx. 3 years ago) when Warren seemed to waffle on supporting it, denying he was for it after the media published his views and the homosexual community raised a stink. I posted a video on this site which shows him publicly stating support for Prop 8. Yet he later denied on Larry King Live he ever supported it and even apologized to his gay critics. My point is simple: Rick Warren sometimes appears like he's both for and against. Hence, this needs to be weighed in the scales of getting to the bottom of the journalist's misunderstanding.

As for Dr. Stetzer, his own bombastic, condemnatory rhetoric is entirely needless, not to mention unbecoming as a VP of Lifeway. Opening his post, Stetzer reacts:

Once again, watchbloggers are accusing Rick Warren of heresy. Why? Because, Warren explains, a secular Orange County newspaper got something wrong about a religious issue. The usual bloggers have done their usual job, but this has also been picked up by other news outlets... I am sure those who quoted the OC Register will also quote this to clear up any confusion

Stetzer only recently unloaded on an unnamed group of "watchbloggers" presumably among Southern Baptists. Apparently "watchbloggers" is the new "bogeyman" for Stetzer. Whatever the case, it was a reputable journalist at a credible news outlet which wrote the story about Warren; it was not the evil "watchbloggers." Nor does it matter that the news outlet was "secular." While there exists unreasonable bias in the news, one cannot make a blanket statement about all news being unreasonably biased--and, especially unreasonably biased if it's "secular" news. Rather bias must be demonstrated on a case by case basis.

Chris Rosebrough offered a needed correction to Dr. Stetzer's over-reaction. He wrote in part:

1. Jim Hinch... is not a theologian and he incorrectly concluded...the theological common ground being built by Saddleback with the Muslim community included a belief that both religions worshiped the same God. Hinch was NOT motivated by a secular agenda to smear Saddleback or Rick Warren. The fault lies in part with Saddleback and the vague language of the Kings Way document.

2. The bloggers who've covered the story were passing along the faulty conclusions of Jim Hinch's article. The OC Register is a reputable news source and it is extremely unfair to throw bloggers under the bus as if they were purposely forwarding on lies about Warren and Saddleback

We hope Dr. Stetzer takes Rosebrough's words to heart. Stiff, knee-jerk reactions based upon an obvious prejudice against "watchbloggers" (whatever "watchbloggers" are in Dr. Stetzer's mind) does not assist in clearing up conflicting stories. Nor does it shed the wisdom needed to work through issues like this, wisdom expected from those who sit in Stetzer's position.

With that, I am...

Peter

¹my own conclusion after reading Hinch was stated tentatively and was as follows: "If Hinch has characterized Warren correctly, perhaps it's time to officially end any left-over love affairs with Saddleback"

Comments

[bigfatdrummer]

I am glad that the "fog" is being cleared up. But it seems to me that the "master communicator" would be able to communicate his point to a "secular" source well enough that it wouldn't be taken incorrectly.

[Craig Daliessio]

Where was Stetzer when "Watchbloggers" were tearing apart one of my dearest friends? You know Peter...you do important work here and I pray for you daily. This bickering and pettiness and outright subterfuge is why I will remain a former SBC adherent.

[lmalone]

" We must insist, however, Warren has failed more than one time speaking clearly and creating confusion even though he is considered a master-communicator."

What on earth does Setzer do with Warren taking PDL methods to Synagogue 2000? ACtually, I could list a ton of things that Warren has said or done that 'had to be cleared up" by his own team.

It is not like there isn't precedance for wondering about Warren. And everytime he is questioned closely we seem to get it cleared up from the master communicator.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

If you will remember I was the first on your post that pointed out that Warren was saying he had not said this. You pointed out that Hincher had dealt with that in a post where Warren refused to be interviewed. Thus, for him to now come out saying the reporter got it wrong and Stetzer to cover for him is ludicrous. Warren lives in Orange County and he knows that paper and reporter. It is not like he was visiting in a city on the east coast and a reporter got something wrong and he didn't know about it. He lives there, serves there, and has a flourishing ministry there. He should have come out on his personal Pastor-to-Pastor site to explain he was not quoted correctly. Even his associate pastor was quoted in the article. Should we suspect if he was quoted correctly?

Blessings,
Tim

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

We have a reputable journalist saying the following:

Jim Hinch Hi, I'm the reporter who wrote this story. I'm sorry Rev. Warren feels the story contains errors but the story was based on interviews and documents and it was thoroughly fact-checked. I discussed all of its major points with Tom Holladay, an associate senior pastor at Saddleback. I checked with other sources quoted in the story this morning and they said they did not see any errors. While reporting this story I asked to speak to Rev. Warren directly but was told he was too busy for an interview. If any facts need to be corrected I hope representatives from Saddleback will get in touch with me. I'm glad to see so many people reading and responding to the story. Thanks for your comments! Reply · 23 · Like · Follow Post · February 26 at 6:09pm

Blessings,
Tim

[Robert Vaughn]

Peter,

The initial report may or may not be right in this particular case, but I long ago decided that Rick Warren is too wrong on both his doctrine and his practice to deserve the confidence Bible-believing Baptists.

Does anyone know if the "Kings Way" theological documents are available for perusal online? I grazed around a bit online and didn't find anything.

Thanks.

[Hobart M. Tucker]

Don't get too bent out of shape about anything Stetzer says. He may claim "facts are our friends" but he has proved he is no friend of the facts.

Some of you may remember the "research findings" about the aging of the SBC Stetzer released at the 2009 SBC as a prelude to Johnny Hunt's launching the GCRTF. I ran Stetzer's conclusions (that the SBC was older and aging faster than the general U.S. population) by a reputable researcher in Connecticut (someone who actually makes money from big name corporate clients) and this outsider had this to say: "It would appear that your expert torpedoed the SBC. His conclusion that you are one and a half years older than a national average and fading is nonsense when you weight the generations. ... Reckless press releases can scar peoples thinking. Are you planning damage control"

So, I would not lose any sleep about Stetzer's spin on things.