"The Church Should be Warned!"

And so the saga of Michael Horton being seen in a picture with Rick Warren rumbles on. Conflicting reasons are given for why it's a bad thing, and conflicting accounts of what Horton did wrong. As I see it there are two complaints going round:

1). The problem is the picture, nothing more. Horton was unwise to pose like this, and the picture could be used by Warren's supporters to say that Horton approves of Warren

2). Mike Horton went to Saddleback, shared a platform with Rick Warren and failed to explicitly warn against Warren. He ought to have used the opportunity to denounce Warren as a false teacher.

The same people have made both claims, leading me to conclude that in fact what we have here is good people feeling uneasy about the picture, and then looking for ways to articulate that unease. The picture jars. Claim 1 is basically subjective, it is about possible interpretations of a picture.

Claim 2 is different, it is about strategy, and underlying it are two points. The first is a probable misunderstanding of what the Lausanne event at Saddleback was. It was not about Rick Warren per se. Lausanne was not founded by Rick Warren, it predates him. It was a 'conversation on global evangelisation'. To go there and to talk about Warren would be accepting an invitation under false pretenses. But to go there to put your point about the need for gobal evangelisation to be based on... well, on the evangel, the Gospel, is to take the invitation as offered. To present an alternative to Warren's ideas is the most effective way to undermine him in that context. What was the alternative? To leave it as a cosy chat between people of like mind.

I am concerned that a lot of the discussion has missed the context, and committed a serious category error in comparing Michael Horton participating in a conversation hosten by Saddleback to two other different matters. The first is John Piper explicitly saying that Warren is sound an inviting him to speak at the Desiring God conference. The difference is plain - it was Piper's ground, and Warren was explicitly said to be sound. The second is Ken Ham's being dropped from two homeschooling conferences. In these cases Ham was a speaker at a conference, giving an address, not a participant in a conversation. A conference speaker has far more freedom in what he can say.

To my knowledge, Horton was not booked to speak at any other meeting at Saddleback, nor has he done so since the Lausanne meeting last summer. Thus he could not be 'kicked out' of any. Note also that Ham did not refuse to speak at meetings where Peter Enns was speaking - he was given the boot. Finally we need to understand that different people may take different approaches in different contexts. A homeschooling convention is liable to be made up mostly more conservative Christians, many with little formal theological training. The audience at the Lausanne conversation would be less conservative, middle-of-the-road evangelicals. It would be reasonable to assume that the homeschoolers would not know who Peter Enns is (most people don't) or what he teaches. The same cannot be said for Rick Warren and a crowd at Saddleback.

Finally, let us be most careful not to lump Horton together with Piper. Piper has explicitly said Warren is sound. Horton has never said this. Well, you may object, no-one is saying that he did! Precisely, and that is why we must not lump him together with Piper.

An Unbridgeable Chasm

I watch in amazement at the flurry of activity that has followed the (now vanished) blog post about Michael Horton and Rick Warren. The poster of that has now as good as said that people should be warned about Michael Horton because he has been at Saddleback and was photographed with Rick Warren. The substance of what Horton said has, to be best of my knowledge, never been addressed by this person, or any of her partisans.

Now, first of all we need to separate any response to the post made by others to the content of the post itself, and the defences that have been mounted. I have no part in actions others may have taken, this is what I have said, in public, responding to vague accusations made in public. The accusation seems to amount to this: Michael Horton spoke at an event held at Saddleback, and was photographed with Rick Warren afterwards. This means that he is acting as a 'Bridger' between the Reformed world and Rick Warren.

Now, when the term was used of Dan Kimball, I thought I understood what was meant - that Kimball had a foot in each camp, a foot in the Emerging camp, and another in the broader Evangelical camp. Fair enough, I suppose you could argue that he is a bridger in that sense. But if speaking at a conference that is part of a parachurch organisation (not, as some have said, "shared the pulpit with Warren", which implies a Saddleback service), and being photgraphed with a man makes one a 'bridger' whom the Church must be "warned about", then we are being amazingly narrow.

Others have tried to take the focus off Horton by bringing in John Piper - but Horton and Piper are not in the same circles, Horton teaches at Westminster Seminary California, and is a confessional Reformed man. Piper has said Rick Warren is basically sound, Horton has said he isn't. I understand that people are worried, disappointment with Piper led to fears about Horton. But those fears are being expressed irrationally. It seems that some of Horton's critics will not be satisfied with anything short of Horton expressing a sort of second-degree separation, and simply cannot conceive of anyone going to anything like the Lausanne conversation unless they approve of everything that goes on there. The idea of a man going to such a thing therefore alarms them.

And how is this defended? By saying "well, people will assume he approves." My friends, do we really think that Reformed Christians are that shallow and foolish? That they base their opinions on pictures and reported facts? Or are not Reformed people readers, people who listen to multiple podcasts? Are they not in fact the least likely Christians to be led astray by a picture taken out of context?

And what is the alternative? Let me tell you what it is. It's giving up talking to people outside of our own little bubble. It's making absolutely sure that our message never troubles people in the Warren camp. And the result of "warning people about" Horton will be awful. After all, What are we warning them about? What is the content of that warning? That's what I can't see. Really, I cannot see the content of the warning about Michael Horton! And that worries me.