October 26, 2005 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

In his appearance before the Pew Forum in May 2005, Rick Warren of Purpose Driven Church fame predicted a “New Reformation” or a “Third Great Awakening” for America. He said:

“You know, 500 years ago, the first Reformation with Luther and then Calvin, was about beliefs. I think a new reformation is going to be about behavior. The first Reformation was about creeds; I think this one will be about deeds. ... The first Reformation actually split Christianity into dozens and then hundreds of different segments. I think this one is actually going to bring them together. Now, you’re never going to get Christians, of all their stripes and varieties, to agree on all of the different doctrinal disputes and things like that, but what I am seeing them agree on are the purposes of the church. ... Last week I spoke to 4,000 pastors at my church who came from over 100 denominations in over 50 countries. Now, that’s wide spread. WE HAD CATHOLIC PRIESTS, we had Pentecostal ministers, we had Lutheran bishops, we had Anglican bishops, we had Baptist preachers. They’re all there together and you know what? I’d never get them to agree on communion or baptism or a bunch of stuff like that, but I could get them to agree on what the church should be doing in the world” (“Myths of the Modern Mega-Church,” May 23, 2005, transcript of the Pew Forum’s biannual Faith Angle conference on religion, politics and public life).

Warren’s New Reformation is not about beliefs or creeds or doctrinal purity; it is rather about “the purpose of the church.”

Let me see if I understand this. It is not important that a church hold biblical doctrine and practice (e.g., Episcopalian, Lutheran) or even that it preach a biblical gospel (e.g., Catholic priests). It is only important that “churches” agree on their purpose? How can a “church” have a biblical purpose when it does not have biblical doctrine? How can it have a biblical purpose when it preaches a false sacramental gospel?

If sound doctrine is not a foundational issue, I wonder why Paul instructed Timothy to “charge some that they teach NO OTHER DOCTRINE” (1 Tim. 1:3)? I wonder why he didn’t rather instruct Timothy to go easy on the doctrine issue? Could it be that the apostle Paul’s teaching is contrary to Rick Warren’s?

I, for one, am certain of it!