_____________PART 2
SHANNON (posted July 17, 2005 11:45 PM, PASTORAL MINISTRIES): I'm very upset about Richard's website. In his Bio link we get 3 pages worth of how wonderful Richard is and about a paragraph that mentions Jesus or the Gospel. There sure were alot of "I's" in that bio.
RA: This is kind of surprising to me. I mean, really, my simple "bio" was enough to get Shannon "very upset"? It says nothing heretical, nothing anti-Christian, nothing controversial. Basically, I just tell my story and past—so that people know who I am. Moreover, it is odd that Shannon would interpret my bio as nothing but various pages about "how wonderful" I am. The internet is filled with countless private websites that talk about family, individuals, career accomplishments, and ministerial history. Whenever I do a radio interview, one of the first things I am usually asked is: "Tell us a little bit about yourself. What books have you written and what have you done?" So I have attempted to answer this at my website via biographical material and pictures. But in response, some people (like Shannon) have criticized me for being carnal, worldly, conceited, full of myself, etc. etc. etc. (also see my response to Jackie Alnor (
http://abanes.com/jackiealnormain.html). This is kind of strange to me since I am personally always interested in people, their past, their accomplishments, and what they have done in life. Such information gives insight into who a person is and what has molded them. I think others are interested in that kind of stuff, too. And I like pictures—basically, I enjoy seeing pictures of people, places, and things. I also happen to think that it is rather cool to be able to post photos in cyberspace (I love technology). Moreover, we live in a very visually-oriented society. I suppose, however, that some people don't see it that way, Ah well.
SHANNON: His website is a little bit "overkill" when it comes to self promotion.
RA: Well, this is a matter of personal opinion, rather than a reason to get "very upset" with someone. Others seem to have no problem with the website. A few people (like my mom) think I should have even more pictures up and talk about myself even more—leave it to moms. In fact, my mom is one reason I have so many pictures up. She is in her mid-70s and lives far away. We only see each other once a year (if that), and she likes to stop by my website and see me. So, I suppose, Shannon, if you want, you can partially blame my mom and criticize her, too.
SHANNON: . . . you can forget Richard answering your question about RW taking Scripture out of context to fit the theme of his book. I mean why should he answer it when 2 thirds of evangelicals don't even care. I mean any seasoned christian can read that book and pick up on that in the first reading. To me in the intro he is off base when he states that David was transformed by Goliath's 40 day challenge. How. I thought the Bible said David was ready to fight Goliath because how he was prepared by tending sheep? The spies were transformed by 40 days in the promised land? Yea, they were transformed alright. Only two of them had the faith to believe God could help them take the land. These are examples of RW stretching Scripture to fit his purpose theme. Some may say so what. Well we are talking about the Bible here not the Sunday paper.
RA: I am reminded at this point of Matthew 23: 23-24: "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel."
This obsession with Warren's references to 40 days has become one of the many gnats that his critics love to strain at. Critics basically ignore the fact that Warren calls his readers to Christ, tells readers that life without God has no meaning, assures readers that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, reminds people that storing up temporal treasures is waste of time, exhorts people to live like Christ, teaches everyone that sin must be avoided, says that it is important to serve in the church, and promises that one of the greatest things we can do is to tell others about Jesus. But all of this is ignored because getting those 40 days references sure is important! Critics virtually ignore the good/biblical in The Purpose Driven Life, in favor of repeating an almost hypnotic mantra: "40 days, 40 days, scripture twisting, unbiblical, 40 days, 40 days, scripture twisting, unbiblical, 40 days, 40 days, scripture twisting, unbiblical."
The truth is that Warren was simply trying to say that the number 40 seems to have very significant meaning in scripture. We see the number popping up everywhere in the Bible. and it is often connected with events, people, places, and things that show some drastic change in a person or circumstances. As for Warren, his entire horrifying display of scriptural perversion takes up a grand total of one sentence at the bottom of page 9 ("WHENEVER GOD WANTED TO PREPARE SOMEONE FOR HIS PURPOSES, HE TOOK 40 DAYS") and eight short bullet points that follow—out of a 334-page book! The bullet points read: • Noah's life was transformed by 40 days of rain. • Moses was transformed by 40 days on Mount Sinai. • The spies were transformed by 40 days in the Promised Land. • David was transformed by Goliath's 40-day challenge. • Elijah was transformed when God gave him 40 days of strength from a single meal. • The entire city of Nineveh was transformed when God gave the people 40 days to change. • Jesus was empowered by 40 days in the wilderness. • The disciples were transformed by 40 days with Jesus after his resurrection.
Now, let's look at this whole set-up. It cannot be denied that the 40-day period of time appears in conjunction with many extraordinary events in the lives of some well-known biblical characters—often closely related to God fulfilling a purpose/promise in their lives: Noah, Moses, David, Jesus, the disciples. This is all Warren is trying to say. Does he say it perfectly? No. Does it say it using the best examples? No. But instead of responding appropriately, critics have turned this into a sideshow of criticism; a tempest in a teapot; and mountain out of a mole hill, etc. Critics are latching on to these few lines in Warren's book and acting like they say something more akin to Jesus was not God! Here are my thoughts, contrary to PAUL's assumption that I would not talk about such things.
First, Warren clearly should not have said "Whenever" God wanted to prepare someone for his purposes. Obviously, God has also transformed people in 1 day, 1 hour, 40 hours, 40 years, etc. etc. etc. Big deal. Warren's use of "whenever" might best be categorized as a either an overstatement, a broad generalization, or perhaps even hyperbole—but NOT heresy, or anything deserving of the kind of freaking-out that we are seeing from people. Critics are fixating on the word “whenever” as if it had some radical anti-Trinitarian implications or something. But in context it is clear that all Warren was trying to do was use the number “40” as a peg on which some lost soul or immature Christian could hang their proverbial hat. That’s all. But for this offense people are willing to practically crucify Warren! Why? — Gnats & Camels . . . Gnats & Camels . . . Gnats & Camels.
Now, what about the bullet points? Well, truth be told—Warren gives: 1) some good examples; 2) some good examples that were not worded very well; and 3) some NOT SO GOOD examples. Ok, fine. sure, whatever. So what? Again, what has made everyone so crazy with anger? How judgmental and exacting are we to be? Let's look at Warren's examples of people he says were prepared for God's purposes via a 40-day period. [PLEASE NOTICE that Warren says "when God wanted to prepare someone for His purposes" (p. 9)—He does NOT say "When God wanted to save someone." I mention this point because MOST critics have actually CHANGED what Warren said. Marshall C. St. John, for instance, in his ant-Warren diatribe "The Purpose Driven Life–Guidance or Misguided?," writes: "Noah . . . was a believer and follower of God long before that time. Moses became God's man long before his 40 days on Mount Sinai." But these are strawman arguments since Warren never said that it was during the 40-day period that these men became God's followers/believers].
Warren's examples:
1. "Noah's life was transformed by 40 days of rain": This one is not too bad since I cannot imagine someone's life—including Noah's—not being transformed in some way by the experience he endured for those 40 days! Wouldn't anybody be changed by living on an Ark for 40 days in the rain with all those animals? Do you think Noah was changed by the experience? Personally, I think that he was probably transformed quite a bit by his time on the Ark as it rained for 40 days. So, I say, this one is fine. Warren does not say Noah was saved by or through the 40 days. He just says "transformed."—ACCEPTABLE.
2. "Moses was transformed by 40 days on Mount Sinai": Sounds okay to me. I, too, would say that Moses was transformed and prepared during his time on Mt. Sinai for what God wanted him to do.—ACCEPTABLE.
3. "The spies were transformed by 40 days in the Promised Land": This, in my opinion, is not a very good example. All of them were probably transformed, but only two of them were transformed in a positive way (i.e., Caleb and Joshua, Numbers 14:24). The other 10 lost faith and spread a bad report about the land. So, I probably would have dropped this one because it is not completely accurate (unless Warren is just referring to Caleb and Joshua)—UNACCEPTABLE.
4. "David was transformed by Goliath's 40-day challenge": This is a bit of a push, but I can see how Warren was viewing it since; a) Goliath's challenge to Israel did indeed last for 40-days (see 1 Sam. 17); and b) the outcome of the challenge (David's transition from lowly shepherd boy, to hero, and eventually king) was an ultimate result of the 40-day challenge. But, as already noted, this is really pushing the envelope because there is no real biblical information about David during the 40-day challenge. Additionally, the challenge was more directed at the Israelite army (in other words, if David would have been present throughout the challenge, then it would have been a much better illustration). I can imagine, however, that God was probably preparing David in some way during that 40-day period for his eventual battle with Goliath—maybe he was practicing a lot with his slingshot, maybe God was speaking to his heart, maybe he was fasting, maybe, maybe, maybe. . . no one knows. Personally, I would have dropped it—CONFUSING/PROBLEMATIC.
5. "Elijah was transformed when God gave him 40 days of strength from a single meal": This one, although an over-simplification of a rather complex story, is acceptable in my opinion because Elijah was indeed strengthened by a single meal for a 40-day journey to Mt. Horeb where he met with God (1 Kings 19:8-9). We really don't know what happened during that 40-day journey, but it is not out of the question to assume that Elijah was communing with God during that period and thinking over the recent events related to Ahab and Jezebel. The climax was his meeting with God at Mt Horeb 40-days after his meal—ACCEPTABLE.
6. "The entire city of Nineveh was transformed when God gave the people 40 days to change": This is fine, as we see from Jonah 3:1-10. The people of Ninevah repented and changed their hearts toward God throughout the 40-day period of waiting to see if God would indeed destroy them—ACCEPTABLE.
7. "Jesus was empowered by 40 days in the wilderness": This one, although I do not particularly agree with how Warren worded it, is certainly within the bounds of orthodoxy. Jesus did go into the wilderness for 40 days during which time he was tested by Satan. And given the words of Luke 4:14—i.e., "Jesus returned to Galilee IN POWER of the Spirit"—I can see why Warren phrased his statement the way he phrased it.—ACCEPTABLE.
8. "The disciples were transformed by 40 days with Jesus after his resurrection": This one is based on Acts 1:3, which tells us that after Christ's resurrection he presented himself "by many convincing proofs" to his followers for 40 days and spoke to them about "things concerning the Kingdom of God" (NASB). Are Warren's critics actually saying that his Christ's disciples were NOT transformed during this period of time. I know that I certainly would be transformed if I had jesus appearing to me for forty days and teaching me personally about "things concerning the Kingdom of God"—ACCEPTABLE.
Clearly, the paroxysms of panic and gnashing of teeth by Warren's critics over the above eight points are hardly worthy of the time that has been spent on them (including, IMHO, my own time spent having to tease out the above arguments). The bottom line is that no author or a speaker communicates everything perfectly. Warren is no exception. But one would think that fellow believers would grant a bit of room for human imperfection to someone whose goal is to bring people to the saving knowledge of Christ—not a false Christ, not a false God, and not some self-help plan rooted in the bankrupt Human Potential Movement. Sadly, the very opposite seems to be true. In a somewhat analogous incident, John the disciple came to Jesus one day and said, “‘Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us’” (Luke 9:49-50). In reference to this verse, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary observes: "The disciples were bigoted. Because this man was not of their company, they were ready to discount his work completely” (Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, eds., The Wycliffe Bible Commentary (Chicago: Moody Press, 1962; 1987 edition], p. 1045).
Are we only to smile and give approval to those pastors/teachers who always get EVERYTHING right? If so, then we have some problems.
• Ever hear a pastor/teacher quote Rev. 3:20-21 in reference to unbelievers?? HERETIC! This passage is really written to a backsliden church.
• Ever hear a pastor/teacher use Jer. 29:11 to assure Christians that God has great plans for them? HERETIC! This passage is really directed toward Israel.
• Ever hear a pastor/teacher say that Matt. 18:18-20 has to do with prayer. HERETIC! This passage is really about church discipline.
• Ever hear a pastor/teacher explain that 2 John 10-11 means you should not let Mormon missionaries or Jehovah's Witnesses into your house? HERETIC! This passage is really about church homes in the first century and not allowing false teachers preach in that church home congregation.
The list goes on and on. I cannot count how many pastors/teachers, evangelists, radio Bible personalities, and even lay Christians have misused all of the above passage (and more)! Now, should we start labeling their entire ministries as false, lying, deceptive, liberal, New Age, watered-down, or perverted? Hardly. And yet people are being terribly exacting and unforgiving when it comes to Warren. Is there some kind of anti-Warren agenda going on?. I suppose if some of you (Paul, Joseph, and others) want to be so judgmental about every little thing Warren says, then that is your choice. But you will have to be consistent and view/judge with equal harshness anyone else who has has ever committed the same unspeakable crimes—and have you ever made any mistakes or not gotten every little passage perfect? Let's just be fair and denounce as heretics all pastors/teachers who have ever misused any of the above verses. After all, "we are talking about the Bible here not the Sunday paper" (yes, I am being a bit sarcastic).
I think my point is clear—nobody has it all perfect. Mistakes will happen, overstatements will be voiced, hyberbolic remarks will be made, and flawed appeals to scriptures will be given. Why? Because we are all sinners saved by grace. Is JOSEPH or PAUL33 saying they have it all nailed down and perfect when it comes to scripture?? Wow. Amazing. Good for them. Warren, however, is human. So at times he unwisely used hyberbole in The Purpose Driven Life—for example, when he probably should not have "whenever" God wanted to transform someone he used 40 days. This is very likely because he is a preacher, rather than an author. So, how should we respond? Crucify him, of course! How tragic. Gnats and camels . . . . gnats and camels.
Rabanes - see part 3
