The below video demonstrates the major problem from Eyavap… Evyafil… Eyvyalpth… the Icelandic volcano.

I am working on a fairly extensive series of posts digging through the Great Commission Task Force recommendations. In the meantime, head over to Baptist 21 and submit questions for a panel discussion to be hosted at Southeastern Seminary. Here are the questions I sent in:

Recognizing that the IMB serves a broader range of cultures than NAMB, why does NAMB need to be decentralized into regional offices when IMB does not?

On the creation of a leadership training center through NAMB, don’t seminaries serve that function?

On the ending of cooperative agreements, has any thought been given to designating certain states as pioneer or frontier states and allowing NAMB to have cooperative agreements with pioneer states?

Are all of the proposed changes ultimately designed to turn NAMB into a church planting network in order to retain and facilitate the work of young church planters, moving the old NAMB ministries into the hands of state conventions?

Tim Challies has voiced his concerns well. As Challies says, Piper inviting Warren to the 2010 DGNC is not a terribly big deal. As I have said, I trust Piper and will respect his decision.

But Warren remains something of a problem. Challies lists two general issues with Warren: his failure to honor Scripture, and his tendency to duplicate his hearer. On the first, Challies says:

Warren has proven repeatedly that he does not and will not honor the Bible. He preaches from the Bible, he knows vast amounts of Scripture and I’m sure he loves studying the Bible. But his ministry makes clear that he does not truly honor it in the way he uses it.

…

…[in Purpose Driven Life] Warren had used Scripture poorly, stretching its meaning, choosing translations that, more than being true to the text, furthered his intended meaning.

This matches what I’ve observed about Warren. He talks a lot about the Bible, but does not appear to be faithful to the Bible. Since my previous post about Warren, I flipped through Purpose Driven Life and immediately noticed what Challies said: Warren uses lots of translations, choosing whichever translation best expresses the point Warren wants to make rather than the point Scripture is intended to get across.

Under the second heading, Challies observes that Warren talks different depending on which group he is with. In 1 Corinthians 9:22 Paul says he has become all things to all people. But in Paul’s case, the message remains the same, it is the method of speaking the message that is adapted to the audience. But for Warren, it often seems the message itself changes. Warren does not simply adapt his approach or his language, the content of what he says changes from group to group.

If you were to dig through Warren’s teaching and preaching in his normal contexts, would you ever guess that he would claim to be a monergist? Does it seem a little hollow that Warren’s theology only sounds Calvinistic when he is talking to Calvinists?

Challies observes:

Warren always knows exactly what to say. I truly believe this is one of the means by which he has become so popular and gained such a large platform–he always knows what to say to please a particular audience.

This should concern us. It shows Warren has a lack of commitment to theological truth. Even if his message consistently remains loosely evangelical (and there are reasons to question that), Warren’s example does not demonstrate a commitment to sound teaching. If it is okay to talk like a prosperity theologian in one interview, a Calvinist in another, or a Jew in another, what is left of our conviction to Christian truth? Christianity becomes a watered-down container for whatever ideas people want to inject.

(Note: Michael Horton has offered some comments about Warren and his interview with Modern Reformation.)

So my issues with Warren continue. I wish he were not as popular as he is, and I agree with Challies that having Warren at the 2010 DGNC will only increase Warren’s platform while harming Piper’s. Less people need to be listening to Rick Warren, more people need to be listening to John Piper, but I’m afraid that this invitation could have the opposite effect.