I don’t care if he apologized. This is who he is. He’s retracted because it did not serve his own cause. Premier Christian News characterized a tweet by Rick Warren six days ago:
On Tuesday 11th February, Warren wrote a post quoting John 19:18, which describes Jesus being crucified between two thieves, stating: “If you’re looking for the #realJesus, not a caricature disfigured by partisan motivations, you’ll find him in the middle, not on either side.”
Right when it came out in 1995, I read his Purpose Driven Church and his tweet glove fits his philosophy communicated in this book. His book sold over a million copies, mainly targeting church leaders.
Warren’s tweet mirrors how he so often uses (misuses) scripture first in a pragmatic way and second to justify the pragmatism. If you read any of his books, he also picks out an English translation that he can best make his point. Warren developed a sure-proof way of numerical growth, he says, to reverse the sad failure of the small churches of his pastor father in the Southern Baptist Convention.
Question 1
I asked Artificial Intelligence this question: “What two men are maybe the most responsible for rampant pragmatism in evangelicalism?” It answered:
To understand the influence of pragmatism in evangelicalism, it is essential to identify two prominent figures who have significantly contributed to this trend. The first individual often associated with the rise of pragmatism in evangelical circles is Charles Finney. Finney was a 19th-century revivalist and theologian whose methods emphasized results-oriented approaches to evangelism and church growth. He introduced techniques such as the “anxious bench” for seekers and focused on emotional appeals during revivals, which shifted the focus from traditional theological doctrines to practical outcomes and immediate conversions.
The second figure is Rick Warren, a contemporary pastor and author known for his book “The Purpose Driven Life.” Warren’s approach to church leadership emphasizes pragmatic strategies for growth, focusing on measurable results and community engagement rather than strict adherence to doctrinal purity. His model encourages churches to adopt business-like practices, prioritizing effectiveness over theological depth, which has led many evangelical congregations to embrace a more pragmatic philosophy.
Question 2
Then I asked it this question: “What pastor is maybe the most responsible for rampant pragmatism in evangelicalism today?” It answered:
In contemporary discussions about pragmatism within evangelicalism, one pastor often cited as significantly influencing this trend is Rick Warren. His approach to church growth and ministry, particularly through his book “The Purpose Driven Church,” has been pivotal in shaping how many churches operate today.
Rick Warren’s Influence
Rick Warren, the founding pastor of Saddleback Church in California, published “The Purpose Driven Church” in 1995. This book introduced a model that emphasized purpose-driven ministry, which focuses on attracting attendees through practical strategies rather than strictly theological or doctrinal foundations. Warren’s methodology encourages churches to adopt various programs and initiatives that are deemed effective in reaching people and growing congregations. This pragmatic approach suggests that as long as the methods do not contradict core Christian doctrines, they can be utilized to achieve church growth and community engagement.
Warren’s philosophy aligns with the broader pragmatic mindset that has permeated evangelical circles: the idea that effectiveness is paramount, and any method that works can be justified. His teachings have led many pastors to prioritize numerical growth over theological depth, resulting in a shift towards more flexible and adaptive church practices.
Criticism of Pragmatism
Critics argue that this emphasis on pragmatism can lead to a dilution of biblical teachings and an over-reliance on marketing techniques rather than spiritual formation. The focus on what “works” may overshadow the necessity for sound doctrine and deep discipleship within congregations. This concern highlights a tension between effective outreach and maintaining fidelity to traditional theological principles.
Question 3
Warren popularized the idea of “core Christian doctrines,” which with ease adapts to his “Christ in the middle” teaching from the crucifixion. I asked AI then this question: “How did Rick Warren’s crucifixion tweet recently fit the kind of pragmatism for which he is known?” It answered:
On February 11, 2025, Warren tweeted about the crucifixion of Jesus, quoting John 19:18 and stating that those seeking the “real Jesus” would find him in the middle, not on either side. This statement was intended to convey a message of unity and avoidance of partisan divisions. By positioning Jesus as a figure who transcends political extremes, Warren aimed to appeal to a broad audience and promote inclusivity within Christianity.
Pragmatic Approach
Warren’s tweet embodies his pragmatic philosophy by attempting to bridge gaps between differing political ideologies. He often emphasizes practical solutions over doctrinal disputes, which is evident in his focus on common ground rather than divisive issues. This approach aligns with his broader mission of fostering community engagement and encouraging dialogue among Christians with varying perspectives.
However, this attempt at pragmatism backfired when it drew significant backlash from conservative Christian leaders who accused him of misinterpreting scripture. Critics argued that portraying Jesus as a centrist undermines the theological significance of his actions and teachings. They pointed out that one of the thieves crucified alongside Jesus repented and was promised paradise, while the other did not; thus, framing Jesus as being in the middle could be seen as an oversimplification or distortion of biblical narratives.
Response to Backlash
In response to the criticism he received after posting the tweet, Warren deleted it and issued an apology on February 16, 2025. He acknowledged that he had written poorly and clarified that he does not believe Jesus was a centrist but rather stands above all political affiliations. This reaction demonstrates another aspect of pragmatism—adaptability in communication based on feedback from one’s audience.
Warren’s initial intent was likely to foster understanding and reduce polarization within religious communities; however, the backlash highlighted the challenges inherent in trying to navigate complex theological issues through a pragmatic lens. Ultimately, while his tweet aimed for inclusivity and unity, it also illustrated how attempts at pragmatism can sometimes lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations within deeply held beliefs.
The Warren fidelity to pragmatism over truth, breaking down and ruining churches make him maybe the cause of the greatest damage in the world today.
Bro. Brandenburg,
Church growth is a subject of which I’ve often thought. There is nothing unscriptural about a church being numerically large. There is nothing inherently meritorious in a church being numerically small. It is my opinion that a church can reach a point in size of membership at which it becomes a secular business rather than a spiritual organization. Human pride, greed and immorality often become factors when the numbers and finances increase. The prime directive of a large church can become the need to finance the staff and overhead burden.
I recall a seminary instructor who often emphasized to his ministerial students the need to have a correct measure of success in the Lord’s work. Results, said he, are God’s business, and His preachers and churches are successful when they are faithful to teach and practice His Word. “It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful” (1 Cor 4:2). “God does not measure His servants by the number of grapes they pick.”
When He called Isaiah to speak His Word to His people (Is. 6), the Lord told His man that his ministry would not be successful, that is, as defined in terms of positive responses to the message. Isaiah would be successful, however, to the extent he faithfully delivered the Lord’s message to the Lord’s people. Isaiah did not have many converts, but his was a successful ministry. The same is true of Noah.
According to a human standard of success, Jesus was an abject failure. On several occasions He thinned the crowds of nominal followers with His discipleship teachings. Maybe the Lord could have benefitted from Rick Warren’s books and some modern sensitivity training.
As you know, much could be written on this matter. I think of the law of the harvest: Those who sow to the flesh of the flesh reap corruption. Appealing to people by unspiritual means (or should I say, by the wrong spirit) might boost a church’s attendance (And income! And, when we get down to it, is not the bottom line usually the bottom line?), but this will not result in a spiritually minded membership. By the same means “you catch em’ you gotta keep em’.” “But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable…” (James 3:17).
Please forgive me if I write too much. I love some words penned by my spiritual mentor, Dr. Dewayne Hoppert (deceased). In his useful commentary on Acts, he wrote of the compromise that occurred in the Jerusalem Church in its later history (Acts 21:16-36). Hoppert wrote:
“Before returning to the narrative, it must be stated that nothing is ever accomplished when the churches of Jesus Christ compromise the truth of the Word of God for the sake of accommodating those who are unwilling to abide by that Word. There is no cause worthy of compromising the Word of God…. Nothing is ever accomplished by compromise and accommodation. Nothing! Nothing for the lost; nothing for the churches; nothing for missions; nothing for numbers or finances; nothing for the children. Nothing, except heartache, frustration and the loss of power with the Lord.
“Compromise and accommodation is the language of the devil; it is his native tongue…. Compromise and accommodation, these are the real ‘Satanic Verses’! The inevitable end of all such, however, is ruin, destruction and impotence” (Dewayne Hoppert, Discovering Acts, The Berean Group, Tulare, CA, 2003, p.620).
I have written more than I intended. Thank you.
J. C. Barger
Brother Barger,
I agree.
Most of what “I wrote” was AI. I didn’t start that way, but I wanted to respond to Warren’s tweet in the news and I became interested in what AI would say and it said close to what I would say, and then I didn’t have to write. If I did write it, it would have been different, because I would have likely proceeded more from scripture. I thought it was unique to see that AI could say these things.
You are out of your mind using AI to write your content. You have no idea where its data comes from. Your epistemology is showing.
Thanks Jake. So many things wrong in a short period. AI can be useful, which is how I’ve used it here. I also told you when I used AI rather than let it write for me, which some will do, since no one has to footnote when AI is speaking, like I’ve done here. Someone can just read Warren’s material through the years to know he is pragmatic. I do see that you haven’t challenged that. Why? Because what this says is true. How do I know what I know? From reading Warren. I just didn’t want to write it out for a short blog post, and I told you that’s what I did. Yours is an over reaction to that.
I know what AI said to be true in this case. Conservatives did react to Warren’s tweet. Even Warren recognizes what he did. Yes, I question his motives. As far as the underlying ideas, have you read Warren? Do you not understand how much pragmatism plays a part in what he does, especially represented in this crucifixion tweet?
Notice everyone, Jake, who insults, can’t answer simple questions. I used AI in quotes rather than write the content, which I knew to be true from having read Rick Warren. When asked if he’s read Warren, no answer. As far as how I know what I know, epistemology, again it is from reading and listening to Warren, whom we don’t know if “Jake” has done that. Why this huge defense of Warren? No one knows. How does AI know about Warren? It’s not a “no idea,” of course, because AI culls from everywhere and this still comes out about Warren.