Really Rick?

I was recently sent a podcast on Christian leadership. Popular pastor and author Rick Warren was interviewed by Carey Nieuwhof on a variety of relevant topics ranging from current events to Warren's own personal tragedies. This blog is not a critique of Warren or Nieuwhof, but rather an examination of what was said. The perspectives advanced by the podcast exemplifies much of what I find disturbing about narratives being championed by the church and it's heroic leaders of the day, such as Warren, Piper, Keller, and Christian Worldview leaders such as John Stonestreet and Jeff Myers. I repeat, this blog questions what is being said, not the people saying it. 

Are such common and acceptable narratives of "Christian thinking" consistent with Scripture, not on a theological basis but from an application basis? Are there deep seated natural biases (core assumptions) that influence many leaders to convey the Kingdom in ways that reduce the joy and the witness of believers? 

What could I mean by this? Who am I to question such great heroes of the faith? Hang in there and see what I see.

Let's begin with the end in mind. Then I will build my case. First, almost always Christian leaders start with an irrefutable Biblical principle. The theology is sound and their orthodoxy is tested across the years. Its when they get to application, something goes awry. Accurate theology translated through lenses of human nature creates a dissonance or deep, often hidden, contradictions that are subtle but profound. Core assumptions are the deep seated beliefs which frame how people make sense of or orient their thinking in practice. While great effort and thought goes into getting the head knowledge right, little attention or even awareness often exists regarding underlying core assumptions. When Scripture is viewed through built in normal thought patterns sourced in human nature, things of the Kingdom can be misunderstood and misapplied as if it is of this world.  This is the common practice of what is called "natural theology."

I have chosen Rick Warren's answers to Nieuwhof's questions to illustrate this. Again, I am not picking on Warren. I find this dissonance embedded in the teaching of many current Christian leaders. The Reformation was Luther's attempt to disrupt natural theology. Some historians think natural theology began with Thomas Aquinas' Christian philosophies that aligned Aristotle's ideas of man with Holy Scriptures. I believe this is what Paul meant in Romans 12 about renewing (not conforming) the mind, and what Jesus meant by concluding the Sermon on the Mount with the metaphor contrasting foundations of sand vs. rock. Yet, much Reformed Protestant teaching continues the tradition of explaining Kingdom principle's with a "walking according to the flesh" orientation instead of seeing that Kingdom principle's require a whole new set of core assumptions (Paul's idea of "new man"). This is not an issue of salvation, but what comprises the Christian life, or what Paul calls "walking."

First, Warren stated a few fundamental principles he took straight from Scripture. He reminded the listeners that an identity in Christ is the starting point for all Christian life. There's a lot about identity I cannot go into here, but this psychological truth is central to thinking Christianly. Warren also reminded the Christian that God's Kingdom is not of this world. Again, this metaphysical framework is essential in understanding the Christian life. I was excited that this is where Warren started because all application of Christian thought must flow from and be consistent with these core claims.

So, how did Warren answer questions about the current culture wars and his own personal experiences with grief? Did his narratives flow from these core principles of Scripture that comprised his "head knowledge," or did they represent assumptions that dominated his thinking that are different from these Kingdom core principles be began with? Let me share some of what I heard him say and see what you think. But, more importantly, what would resolving this type of dissonance mean to you in your own walk?

 His overarching comment about political and cultural issues was "we have a moral fight." He went on to claim that the church's activities should focus on changing society. Like many other Christian leaders, he focused on the ministry of reconciliation. He supports the idea of fear as being the way society is manipulated to think and act in certain ways. Most of all, Warren associates Jesus' teachings with how he (Warren) unlocks the principles of ministry. He especially focused on empathy, love and trust. He says evangelism starts with looking for people in pain. Ask the question of them, "can I help you in your pain?" He concluded that central to his motivation of ministry is "an account of my leadership" before God.

With regard to what he learned from his own experience of dealing with grief, he describes the steps of denial and anger to a point of healing. He sees how we control our time with God as central to emotional wholeness.

Upon hearing Warren's answers to questions posed to him by Nieuwhof, you likely would think, "yeah, this is pretty good stuff." Of course it feels right. While his two core principles of identity and Kingdom would appeal exclusively to Christians, his application ideas were so consistent with man's natural view of virtuous man that many people would typically respond to the questions as Warren did whether they were Christian or not. So, what's missing? Why would I find fault in Warren's narrative of the Christian life?

The scope of my answer to these questions are way too vast for one blog. In fact, it's central to most every blog I have written. Let me touch on a couple of ideas for you to ponder.

First, for the Christian cultural issues like racism, sexism, and homophobia are not about being virtuous. The Christian life is not about seeking a moral high ground. Its not distinct for Christians to wish for a moral society. The Greek philosophers saw this as endemic in the human condition. Maybe that's why Jesus had His harshest words for the moralists. 

The Christian should not focus on inclusion and tolerance of diversity, but union in identity. For example, if either a white or black person focuses on racism, they have defaulted to an identity based on race. The same exists for sex or sexual preferences. The world sees identity as some tangible characteristic of the person that defines their self-concept. The Christian views his/her identity in Christ as defining self. Warren and other Christian leaders tend to default to the world's view of identity in properly dealing with cultural issues associated with diversity. The Christian life is not about a virtuous response to diversity in order to be at peace with one another. The Christian does not see diversity at all. As Paul says, "there is neither slave nor free, Greek nor Jew, male nor female, for all are one in Christ Jesus." 

These issues with identity also contaminates Warren's narrative of reconciliation as part of Christian ministry. Jesus clearly calls us to be ambassadors of reconciliation, but a different kind than what Warren expressed. Horizontal reconciliation is a view of how people move beyond their differences and live well with each other in this world. Jesus' point of reconciliation is vertical. The Christian's ministry is man's reconciliation with God, not with each other. Did Warren forget, "For the Kingdom is not of this world"? No, he didn't forget. Likely, his natural bias to this world "secretly" influenced what he really thought about the ministry of reconciliation. There is dissonance between his formal theological claim (which he left at the door) and his application.  

Warren's answers toward grief and service are no different than what human psychologists and scholars of virtue would profess. Psychology begins the grieving process as Warren did, with deep negative emotions of anger and disbelief. Through a healthy process of reappraisal, a grieving person is healed and exits grief with hope. It's true, while Warren and Christian leaders would claim this hope is in Jesus whereas human counseling would find hope elsewhere, the process is the same. The Kingdom approach to grief, fear and other deep negative emotions is the exact opposite. It starts with Kingdom hope revealed to us by the Holy Spirit. An identity in Christ provides us His perfect emotions, so the natural negative emotions are mitigated and retarded to begin with. This is what "partaking in the sufferings of Christ" means. Our emotions start with our identity in Christ, not end there.

With regards to Christian service and accountability, Warren's views, like many other Christian leaders, are outcome oriented. In other words, while he claimed the Kingdom is not of this world, his view of his life and its impact is squarely in this world. This is a common error that results in dissonance.  While the Christian knows in his/her head that the realm they belong to is invisible and eternal and this world is temporal and finite, application tends to be biased to outcomes in this world. An outcome based human nature bias contaminates the Christian's view of accountability to God. God simply asks us for faith in His Son, not impact ion this world. He is plenty capable of taking care of this world as He pleases, and He will one day.

In short, while Warren began his answers with sound theological principles of identity and Kingdom, his narratives of application to current issues in the world never went back to these principles for answers. It's not because he does not believe those core principles, but it's an example of how the influences of the flesh to see things through the lenses of this world are so strong. This is so typical. This is so confusing to the flock.

Pondering this is the reason for this blog ....