The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren

[bjonson]

superdave,

Five things bother me about PDL:

1. The approach makes the "seeker" king. It advocates serious modifications in preaching and music so as to match the "market" of the culture around a given church.

2. Warren uses over 1300 scripture references (the book claims) but many of these are from very loose translations and paraphrases. Simply put, he chooses whatever translation or paraphrase best suits whatever point he is trying to make.

3. The book is an example of isolated text exegesis. There are places where he completely misses the actual interpretation of a given scripture because he is so intent on forcing it to fit in with his point.

4. I haven't found anyplace in this book that tells a person how to be born again.

5. Any book that remains on the NY Times bestseller list for this many weeks is bound to be "gospel-light" or it wouldn't receive such attention. A book that presents the gospel that Jesus presented, which involves "hating father and mother" and "taking up" the cross daily, would surely not be read and loved by millions of unsaved people.

These points are my opinion. I am willing to hear other views.

Again, I do not question Rick Warren's motives or love for the Lord.

Brian Jonson

 

[Dr. Bob]

See, there is a fundamental error in the article - even its title - that link "seeker sensitive" with "purpose driven".

THERE IS NO LINK. This is a false attack by trying to link the two. Willow Creek Church and Saddleback Southern Baptist Church are light years apart in this area.

Let's deal with issues related to PDL and not broadly link them with the extreme of Hybels or Hyles.

 

[bjonson]

Dr. Bob,

Rick Warren is very close with Bill Hybels, apparently, and even attended Robert Schuller's school of church growth.

There is an association.

Also, did you read my article on Warren's video on "exponential growth"? There isn't much in similarity with a Southern Baptist there.

Brian

 

[All about Grace]

1. The approach makes the "seeker" king. It advocates serious modifications in preaching and music so as to match the "market" of the culture around a given church.

Wrong. The PD model is focused on "why" the church exists. One of those purposes is evangelism. ONE preferred method they have for sharing the gospel is a seeker-sensitive service. As has been demonstrated on previous threads, evidently the real problem here is time and frequency of these services. Most of the critics here have affirmed that they believe evangelistic focused events are appropriate at times, thus the issue is the frequency and time of when Saddleback chooses to do this.

To attack the PD model for its seeker-sensitivity is to miss the overall paradigm.

2. Warren uses over 1300 scripture references (the book claims) but many of these are from very loose translations and paraphrases. Simply put, he chooses whatever translation or paraphrase best suits whatever point he is trying to make.

Actually he says he uses "nearly a thousand quotations from Scripture" (get your facts right before accusing) & he only uses 15 in the book, so it is not that many. Warren explains that he uses so many translations in order "to help you see God's truth in new, fresh ways." So either he is lying or you misjudged his motive.

Another point to be made here is that just b/c you consider a particular translation a "loose" translation or "paraphrase" does not mean the translator or paraphraser missed the point in all his work. Every verse must be considered individually. Guess what? All translations fall short at certain points. It should also be noted that Warren identifies and recognizes when he is dealing with a paraphrase.

3. The book is an example of isolated text exegesis. There are places where he completely misses the actual interpretation of a given scripture because he is so intent on forcing it to fit in with his point.

I guess Warren is simply following the example of how the NT often translates and quotes the OT.

Actually he probably does miss the actual interpretation of a text on occasion. Guess what? You do as well. I do too.

4. I haven't found anyplace in this book that tells a person how to be born again.

I sure hope this is not the criterion for determining the validity of a book. If so, you just eliminated 95% of Christian books (including many of the theology books you probably enjoy reading).

5. Any book that remains on the NY Times bestseller list for this many weeks is bound to be "gospel-light" or it wouldn't receive such attention. A book that presents the gospel that Jesus presented, which involves "hating father and mother" and "taking up" the cross daily, would surely not be read and loved by millions of unsaved people.

I am not even sure this "reason" is worthy of a response. To be so critical of Warren's pragmatism, this is one of the most pragmatic arguments I have read.


The blending of theology and methodology creates isolationism and division over non-essentials.

 

[bjonson]

SBG,

Did you read my paper on the above link?

 

[bjonson]

SavedByGrace,

You said:

"Actually he says he uses "nearly a thousand quotations from Scripture" (get your facts right before accusing) & he only uses 15 in the book, so it is not that many. Warren explains that he uses so many translations in order "to help you see God's truth in new, fresh ways." So either he is lying or you misjudged his motive."

I was typing from memory and I just checked the back flap of PDL and it says "...over 1200 scripture quotes and references...". I'm off by 100. That is my mistake. However, your attitude in correcting me seems a little ungracious "(get your facts straight...)". I think we can have this discussion without the attitude. You'll find me to be a teachable brother in the Lord.

You said in the quote above that Warren only uses 15 (I assume scriptures) in the book. I'm scratching my head here because the book has hundreds of scripture quotes...please clarify.


I asked you if you read my paper becuase I provide a good example of how serious Warren's mis-interpretation of scripture is. I am not saying he intentionally misleads, but I believe the overall pardaigm that he holds makes these kinds of errors very easy to commit.

As to the fact that most books don't include a clear statement of how to be born again, I agree. However, the point of Warren's book is to teach everyone reading the answer to the question, "What on Earth Am I Here For?" I have to think you would agree with me that we are here to give glory to the Lord by submitting to Him and being saved. That is the first step. I think Warren needs to make clear what that is.

 

[All about Grace]

Did you read my paper on the above link?

No I did not take time to read 10 sections. I did skim the first few enough to realize you are building on a faulty presupposition as evidenced by your definition of the "seeker-sensitive, user-friendly" model.

I was typing from memory and I just checked the back flap of PDL and it says "...over 1200 scripture quotes and references...". I'm off by 100.

The quotes are less than 1000 - references make it around 1200. Either way it is irrelevant to the discussion.

your attitude in correcting me seems a little ungracious

Sorry you took it that way. Not intended as such.

You said in the quote above that Warren only uses 15 (I assume scriptures) in the book. I'm scratching my head here because the book has hundreds of scripture quotes...please clarify.

He uses around 15 translations/paraphrases.

I believe the overall pardaigm that he holds makes these kinds of errors very easy to commit.

Being purpose-driven has nothing to do with hermeneutics.

As to the fact that most books don't include a clear statement of how to be born again, I agree. However, the point of Warren's book is to teach everyone reading the answer to the question, "What on Earth Am I Here For?" I have to think you would agree with me that we are here to give glory to the Lord by submitting to Him and being saved. That is the first step. I think Warren needs to make clear what that is.

Which is why Warren makes it clear in the opening pages that "you discover your identity and purpose through a relationship with Jesus Christ."

Whether his explanation of the gospel qualifies in your view is irrelevant.

Now deal with some of the real issues I raised in the previous post:

- Do you agree evangelistic-oriented events are appropriate?

- The PD model has little to do with seeker-sensitive services. Therefore to critique it from that standpoint is to miss the overall point.

- Translations / paraphrases must be judged based on their individual accuracies/inaccuracies and not as an overall (since all have some weaknesses).

- Warren's hermeneutical tendencies resembles closely that used by Jesus and the apostles.

- We all miss it at times.

- Blending theology and methodology is fundamentally flawed.

 

[bjonson]

SBCbyGrace,

Thank you for the reply.

I'm wrestling as to whether or not to continue with this discussion for a couple of reasons:

1. I already presented a strong case against Warren's philosophy on the above-mentioned website. It would answer most of your questions. However, you haven't read it and don't sound as if you are interested in doing so. Therefore, I wonder if you are all that interested in my view. Please read my paper and then give me your thoughts.

2. I really don't know that I want to spend a lot of energy on discussing Warren. I have no interest in tearing the man down. There are bigger battles to fight. Do I believe he is helping churches get back to the Bible's foundation? No and yes. I'm still evaluating how helpful/dangerous his movement is.

Nonetheless, I'll give a brief response to your questions and then ask you, again, to read my paper for a fuller explanation.

"Do you agree evangelistic-oriented events are appropriate?"

This question is too broad for me to answer. For example, we had a youth pastor stage a disgusting stunt that involved girls licking peanut butter off of the armpits of boys, all in the name of evangelism. This was entirely inappropriate. However, I do not disagree with hosting an event for the purpose of evangelizing. It all depends on the methods.

"The PD model has little to do with seeker-sensitive services."

Well, I think you are mostly correct. However, our philosophy toward ministry will affect most everything else we do, including the style of our worship services. Ultimately, I believe Warren's approach of PD principles rests on a foundation of seeker-sensitivity, which I don't think is best for the church.

"Translations/paraphrases must be judged based on their individual accuracies/inaccuracies and not as on overall"

Again, you really need to read my paper, and especially the others, on this website:

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/seeker.html


It addresses this question directly.

"Warren's hermeneutical tendencies resembles closely that used by Jesus and the apostles."

You'll need to give me specific examples. I'm sure this is true much of the time with Warren. However, I do find many examples that I don't think are appropriate.

"We all miss it at times."

Yes, we do. However, most of us don't have a best-selling book and a best-selling program for which we are accountable. With great influence comes even greater responsibility. Warren's video on "exponential growth" is absolutely wrong, in my view, and he should be held accountable for his errors.

"Blending theology and metholdolgy is fundamentally flawed."

Not sure what you mean. Theology is "God word", literally. Words that teach us about God. Theology, then, is the study of God and all that that means. How can our understanding of God not affect our methodology? Help me understand your point here, please.

God's best to you,
Brian

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by bjonson:
I'm wrestling as to whether or not to continue with this discussion . . I already presented a strong case against Warren's philosophy on the above-mentioned website.

Brian, you are still confusing Purpose Driven with Seeker Sensitive. Until the premise is cleared up and we deal with the issue at hand (and not a hybrid straw man) it is hard to have a discussion.

 

[bjonson]

Dr. Bob,

No, I am not confusing the two. Please read my most recent post. I address this issue.

The issue of "seeker-sensitive" is quite abundant in "Purpose-Driven Life", and even more the case in "Purpose-Driven Church".

Brian

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Dr. Bob:
THERE IS NO LINK. This is a false attack by trying to link the two. Willow Creek Church and Saddleback Southern Baptist Church are light years apart in this area.

Dr Bob, you're correct. Bill Hybels and Rick Warren have never met.

Originally posted by bjonson:
Rick Warren is very close with Bill Hybels, apparently, and even attended Robert Schuller's school of church growth.

Rick Warren was an attendee at a church leadership conference there when he graduated from seminary (the late 1970's). Bill Hybels was a guest speaker at a church leadership conference there in 2001 and again in 2003 (Hybels is an RCA pastor, and the leadership conference is an RCA event).

There is no "connection" between the two.

 

[bjonson]

Johv,

Please read this from Christianity Today:

During his last year in seminary, he and Kay drove west to visit Robert Schuller's Institute for Church Growth. "We had a very stony ride out to the conference," she says, because such nontraditional ministry scared her to death. Schuller, though, won them over. "He had a profound influence on Rick," Kay says. "We were captivated by his positive appeal to nonbelievers. I never looked back."

The full article is here:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/012/1.42.html

And, Dr. Bob, that same article describes Saddleback as a "seeker-sensitive" church.

As for Bill Hybels and Warren, it matters little whether or not these two men have met. They have an enormous amount in common concerning their approach to ministry. I know Lee Stroebel, best-selling author, used to be a pastor at Willow Creek and he is now at Saddleback. It doesn't take too much time to see all that Saddleback and Willow Creek have in common from a ministerial template vantage point.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by bjonson:
Johv, Please read this from Christianity Today: During his last year in seminary, he and Kay drove west to visit Robert Schuller's Institute for Church Growth.

Uhhh, the article says that he graduated from seminary in '79, I believe. That verifies what I said, and refutes what you imply.

It doesn't take too much time to see all that Saddleback and Willow Creek have in common from a ministerial template vantage point.

Youo forget that Willow Creek is RCA, and Saddleback is SBC. They're dynamically different in non-doctrinal matters of faith and practice. I know several folks who have been to both who can attest that they are not interchangeable.

 

[Marcia]

I have read several criticisms of PDL and it seems most of them
1. Criticize the church growth movement and not the book PDL
2. Erroneously criticize PDL for not giving the gospel when the book is written specfically for believers
3. Erroneously criticize PDL for emphasizing works or (as one paper I read on that site said) downgrading being saved by faith when in actuality, the book is about living the Christian life, NOT about being saved.
4. Criticize Warren for using many versions to quote from. My only agreement with this criticism is his extensive use of "The Message" and "The Living Bible" which I do have problems with. But I have seen at least 2 criticisms of him because he does not quote only from the King James.
5. Criticize Warren for proof-texting. I agree that in some cases, it seems he uses scripture that is not saying what he is saying but this is not true for most of the times he does this.
6. Use PDL as a way to criticize Warren and pretty much almost leave PDL out of it altogether though they are saying PDL is a bad book.
7. Criticize Warren from a Calvinist viewpoint because he is not presenting Calvinism (according to these people).

I do have some disagreements, some serious, with some things in PDL and it is not my favorite book, but I fail to understand the criticisms of it I've seen so far, except for Warren's use of paraphrases such as The Message.

 

[superdave]

Thanks Marcia, You saved me a bunch of time. The articles on that site mostly had nothing to do with the PDL, and the one that claimed to wandered far from the topic.

I agree with your assessment of the situation.

 

[bjonson]

superdave,

I don't expect everyone to have the same opinion on this - not at all.

However, for you to claim the articles on that site "mostly had nothing to do with the PDL" is absolute proof that you have spent very little time there.

Give your opinion and present your case, but please don't act as if you've reviewed the articles when you haven't.

 

[bjonson]

johnv,

Question for you:

Knowing that Robert Schuller is an apostate (I'm sure you agree), under what circumstances would it be appropriate for Rick Warren, or any Baptist, to attend a conference that Schuller was leading? Does that not indicate a deficiency in discernment?

 

[superdave]

Ok, let me revise and extend. In the main, they had very little to do with the actual words and teachings contained in the PDL, but were adressed more generally to the philosophy of not only Rick Warren, but other philosophies he had nothing to do with.

You can say I disagree with the articles, but don't say I didn't review them.

As far as Robert Schuller, what does that have to do with the actual content of the PDL which is really what this discussion was about.

 

[superdave]

Just as with any other author, even those I consider more edifying from a doctrinal standpoint (MacArthur, Piper, etc.) you have to sift their teaching through the word of God.

As my pastor would say, its like eating fish
Eat the meat, spit out the bones

 

[bjonson]

"As far as Robert Schuller, what does that have to do with the actual content of the PDL which is really what this discussion was about."

Warren was influenced by Schuller, by his own admission, and his market-driven (purpose driven) philosophy is evidence of that.

However, many good people can and will disagree with me on this point. That's ok.

Let's talk about something else...