DashHouse.com

After almost 500 years the 2nd Reformation will be launched and they've been planning it for about a year and in five messages it will all be explained to us and we'll know how to solve the five biggest problems in the whole world and the plan is revolutionary and we can even watch the messages without a Saddleback membership code.

Rick Warren is not talking about the most important series in 23 years but since Luther's theses!

Yes, I'm very disappointed with the hyberbole and skeptical of the program. I don't disagree with his take on mission and parachurch organizations, but ... I need to calm down.

I live in a part of the world where "revivals" are scheduled annual events. Guess R.W.'s found a way to schedule (and program) a Reformation of the church. Who needs the Holy Spirit when we can take care of it ourselves? Besides, it's so much more controlable that way.

OK... he might be overstating the "Reformation" thing, but with Purpose Driven Life he is clearly on a roll. It's been a pretty useful tool in our church. Obviously, or maybe not so obviously, the key is personal application of the truth. A "program" will never solve any problem. Yet without a "program" we tend to accomplish very little.

Oh that more leaders would cast a vision for change. Forgive them when their rhetoric gets in the way of what they're really trying to say.

That's the hard part. I believe his motives are pure, and he does have a lot of influence. I think Rick's character is above reproach, so this isn't about him.

I hate to be cynical. But can we really say that programs are working? I can't even find a program as such in my copy of the New Testament, and look how well they did. (I guess you could call feeding widows a program, or taking up a collection for the Jerusalem church, but you might be stretching it.)

Beyond that: can we say that we in North America have a version of Christianity that's worth sharing with the world?

As I said, I love the fact that he wants to use what God has given him to serve the world. I get excited whenever I hear somebody concerned with poverty, disease, and other social issues. But something - I'm not sure what - leaves me a bit uncomfortable.

I like it as long the order stays intact. What so often happens is #3,4,5 overtake #1 & #2 and our Gospel is reduced to social programs.

Isn't it sad that we think we can even meet one type of need without the other?

I say let's start off by offering a little more grace. Warren is Kingdom co-worker who is making a huge impact in his corner of the world and trying to do it world-wide. It's way too easy to be cynical about style, acronyms and programs.

I'm all for talking about post-modern, emerging, churches, and yet I've yet to hear of one that is making such a huge kingdom impact as Saddleback and to be honest when the Kingdom is spreading it often seems to happen in way that make me uncomfortable, but it also makes me thankful.

Good word, Steve.

Darryl, could you boil down in a nutshell what it is you think Christ's Church should be doing in the world today. Just in our own little (or big) local church.

I'm just curious. I haven't been to your church yet but am looking forward to attending in the near future and I look forward to meeting you.

I have been reading your blog for some time and am grateful for how it has enlightened me to all the different views that are out there with respect to the Church, and how it is we can be effective in our world today.

I personally want to be part of a church that desires to be used by God to bring the Good News of the Gospel to a world that so desperately needs to hear it. A church that does not compromise on God's truth as He has revealed it in His Word.

You post a lot of different clips from articles, comment on them and solicit responses.

I could be wrong, and please correct me if I am, but I don't really know from reading your blog what it is that you believe the church should be doing to reach out to the world. How should we do that? What methods should we employ that would receive God's blessing and really make a difference for Christ? I'm just curious what your view is on that.

Do programs work? No.

Does God work through people and their programs? Every day.

I think what we have here is a man who has been given a vision of church from God - much like many of us have been given a vision of church from God. Is the anger really because we think PEACE is a bad thing? Or could it be jealous frustration? Angry that God is still working through the established church? Angry that God hasn't affirmed the emergent church by striking down anything and everything that smells of modernism?

I'm sorry for making it sound like I'm critical or jealous of Warren.

I just have questions, and I'm not even sure why. That might say more about me than about him.

P.S. I'd be thrilled if God used Warren despite my questions and doubts!

George: What an amazing question. I'm going to try to come up with a good answer over the next little while. I don't think I've ever been asked a better question.

I didn't mean that as an attack on you, Darryl. I know you aren't trying to put anyone down and that you're just asking questions like the rest of us.

I do still wonder, though, if some of the anger seen in the emergent church is for those reasons I stated above. I wonder how much of my own anger is for those reasons.

Lloyd Douglas
June 7, 2003

Dear members of the Board:

During the last two months I have spent time praying about the need or importance for a letter to follow up on Rick Warren's book, "The Purpose Driven Church". I came to recognize that I did need to follow up. My desire is to build up, not tear down. Yet, one area of gifting for me is discernment and I would be disobedient to the Lord not to utilize my gift.

First, I recognize some of the practical tips that Rick has that can assist individuals or church ministry. In his "The Purpose Driven Church" he mentioned the "3 minute" time after the service during which everyone is to talk only to those people they do not know. There are examples of this type of suggestion in "The Purpose Driven Life".

I will not go into detail on the many areas that raise questions, that demonstrate inconsistency or wrong Biblical teaching. What follows will only highlight certain areas that I believe demonstrate the overall weakness of this book for training and teaching purposes.

Handling of Scripture

The most important aspect of any book is the writer's use of the Bible. If the writer mismanages Scripture, then anything he writes is tainted. This is one of the greatest weaknesses of 'The Purpose Driven Life' book.
I will use a couple examples to illustrate.

On page 165, under the heading 'Practice God's method for conflict resolution' he quotes from The Message, ""If a fellow believer hurts you . . . ". Eugene Petersen, who wrote The Message replaced the word "sin" (Kubo, p. 16) with 'hurt'. Petersen's paraphrase "misses the mark" which is the essential meaning of this word for sin (the same word is used in Romans 3:23). Today, hurt has a very general meaning: "feel or cause pain physically or mentally . . . He hurt her feelings by saying "no"."(The User's Webster, p. 557). Hurt includes aspects of broken relationships that often are not sin. I could feel hurt if someone in our church told me that they only like choruses and would want all hymn singing discontinued. Is that hurt? Yes. At least as far as my feelings are concerned. According to Matthew 18:15 I must go to the person and inform them that they hurt my feelings and if they don't listen, bring two or three others along and if that does not work then have their name brought before the church. The problem is the word "hurt". It is a misparaphrase of this word. The use of the word here confuses, it does not clearify.

The question in this passage is what is the meaning of "amaptano" not "hurt". The word "amaptano" means sin or "violate God's law" (Abbot-Smith lexicon, p.23) It means acting toward a brother in Christ that clearly contravenes Biblical instructions. Now, the passages brings clarity because I can use the Bible as a basis to determine if there is a legitimate basis for going to a brother and letting them know that they had sinned against me.

What is most disconcerting is that Rick Warren utilizes this paraphrase as a basis for the Biblical support of his teaching. He made no effort to explain the meaning of the word hurt. In the following paragraph he simply describes the process outlined in Matthew 18:15ff. Then he shifts into the responsibilities of pastors and leaders which is not mentioned in this passage.

To further solidify his support for the word "hurt" he states that pastors and leaders are responsible to maintain the unity of the church . Then he comments, "During interpersonal conflicts that is a thankless job. Pastors often have the unpleasant task of serving as mediator between hurt, conflicting, or immature members."(p. 166) He shifted from one of the clearest Biblical passages on church discipline to the job of pastors working with people in the church who have interpersonal problems. Words like interpersonal conflicts, hurt, conflicting or immature members indicate a focus on broken relationships not the fact of a specific act contrary to Scripture done by one member to another member.

This is a clear misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture. This taints everything that Rick Warren teaches. If it is acceptable to substitute the words of Scripture with words that present a different meaning than Scripture intended in one place it will, and does, happen repeatedly.

Another example is found on page 104 under the heading, 'God is pleased when our worship is thoughtful' when he refers to 1 Corinthians 14 and orderliness in the corporate worship gatherings. In the following paragraph he wrote, "Related to this, God insists thatour worship services be understandable to unbelievers when they are present in our worship gatherings."
(p. 104). He then quoted 1 Cor. 14:16,17 in the CEV. Next he states, "Being sensitive to unbelievers who visit your worship gatherings is a biblical command."

Actually, it is not a Biblical command to be sensitive to unbelievers. The passage only refers to unbelievers incidentally as the focus of the teaching is on the misuse of gifts in the body. There is only one verse referring to the unbeliever and there is no indication that the form of the service needs to be adjust to the likes, dislikes, concerns, interests or understanding of the unbeliever present in the church. In fact, the unbeliever needs to hear the Word of God preached which the Spirit will bring conviction. The entire focus is on how believers are to meet together for the sake of corporate worship, teaching, fellowship and prayer.

Rick, once again, misinterprets and misapplies Scripture. Is this the kind of example as a Bible teacher that we want in our church? Is this the way believers in our church will be assisted to rightly read, interpret and apply the Scriptures? I think not. In fact, utilizing this material will lead to greater confusion and misunderstanding within the our church than spiritual growth.

I suspect there will be more people willing to help out by serving in various ways since that is Rick's primary focus. But the necessary foundation of Biblical truth will continue to be eroded since people are lead to believe it is okay to change the text of Scripture to suit the needs of people.

There are other examples that I could use but my intention is to write a letter not a book.

Rick Warren's Use of Paraphrases
Throughout his book, Rick utilizes regularly quotes from various translations and paraphrases.
He anticipated questions about his use of different versions by including Appendix 3 on p.325.
The heading of the appendix is 'Why use so many translations?'. What follows is his reasons for his use of there different paraphrases and translations.

It is significant that he lumps translations and paraphrases together as if they have equally validity when they do not. The translation focusses on the words of Scripture while a paraphrase focusses on the phrases and thoughts. Also, the paraphrase is an attempt to explain Scripture to make it more understandable to people. They are not the same thing and should not be considered as equally useful. The paraphrase has its place but not as a regular reading Bible or as a personal study Bible. There is a book that explains this in more detail called, 'The Word of God in English' by Leland Ryken.

The very fact that he does not explain the difference indicates a lack of discernment as a Bible teacher. His sentence, "English-speaking people should thank God that we have so many different versions to use for devotional reading."(p. 325) demonstrates that he does not differentiate between them.

A couple of examples of how a paraphrase interprets rather than translates. On p. 171 Rick comments, "This is your destiny and the third purpose of your life. God announced this intention at Creation: "Then God said, 'Let us make human beings in our image and likeness.'"" This is a quote from NCV or the New Century Version. This is Genesis 1:26a which is translated by the NASB, " Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;
NIV, " Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness "
and NKJV, " 26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;"
(http://bible.gospelcom.net/) Recent paraphrases follow the NCV (The Message 'human beings', New Living Translation 'people' with a footnote 1:26a Hebrew man; also in 1:27;
and CEV, 'humans').

The various translations and paraphrases have been included to make a point. Translations primary focus is the original text and putting into English with as little alteration as possible without losing the sense of the words. But, paraphrases are intended to assist the reader to understand the words and verses and, as a result, they interpret not translate. This verse is an example. The translation give the original word, man. The paraphrases give the meaning of the word, men and women. These paraphrases are interpreting the text and giving their meaning.

A second example is found on p. 187 in which Rick quotes the CEV on 2 Tim. 3:16 that says,
""Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word. All of it is useful for teaching and helping people
. . . ". The second word used is 'helping' in this paraphrase but this word means 'conviction' and 'reproof' (Kubo; Abbot-Smith). This waters down the meaning of the passage.

Helping conveys making a cup of coffee and talking things over and the person will feel better after talking about it while reproof means using God's Word to show where sin is evident in the life of the believer so they will recognize it, repent and get back on track.

Rick's use of these paraphrases throughout his book without any disclaimers or explanation about their limitations shows his the extent he is willing to accommodate the truth for the sake of reaching people.

Rich Warren's Personal Philosophy of Ministry

This is more subtle than the first point but still important to mention. Rick is essentially an evangelist who planted a church which has grown to huge proportions. The very fact that his church has these numbers attract attention within the Christian community. He must be doing something right and see how God is blessing him would be common expressions about Saddleback.

Yet, simply because there are a large number of people does not allow believers to accept everything that is happening at Saddleback. Jesus said, "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matthew 7:13,14) We have a responsibility to check out every Bible teacher as the Bereans did in Acts 17 to see if they are teaching God's Word accurately.

Rick's personal beliefs are evident throughout the book. Using a book has the distinct potential to covertly teach his personal beliefs. Some of the examples are:
 the Genesis 1:26 verse that substitutes human being for man which points to his egalitarian view on womens roles rather than complementarian,
 in chapter 22 on p. 172 he describes his explanation of the effects of sin by stating, "But the image is incomplete and has been damaged and distorted by sin." but this definition is quite inadequate when all of Scripture is considered since we are described as dead, helpless, godless, deceitful, who do not seek God, who do not do good, who do not understand and can only by the power of the Spirit through the Word of God come to Christ,
 on page 218 he wrote, "The moment you open yourself to Christ, God gets a "beachhead" in your life." which clearly illustrates a man based theology since the effects of sin make it impossible to 'open' ourselves up to God; no it is the Father who draws, the Spirit who convicts and the Word which the Spirit uses to provide the hearing, the repentance and the faith (Romans 10:17;
2 Tim.2:25),
 on p. 255 Rick teaches that believers can lose their abilities but the passage he uses refers to an unbeliever not a believer,
 on p. 314 he states, "The moment you put him back at the center, you will have peace again."
but Christ is never 'off the throne' for a believer; this is another example of man based theology.

His Emphasis on Psychology
On page 182 Rick describes the process of change or growth for a believer, as he sees it. He wrote,
"Changes always starts in your mind. The way you think determines the way you feel, and the way you feel influences the way you act. Scripture does focus on truth changing the mind (Romans 12:2;
John 17:17) but there is no indication that feelings are the middle step in the process. Rather it is the mind to the will to action.

On page 103 Rick uses a book by Gary Thomas called, "Sacred Pathways" to describe different types of people and how they would want to worship God. No mention anywhere in Scripture that these types of personalities, developed or explained by Gary, are legitimate in themselves and therefore ways to worship God. He doesn't qualify in any way but states, ". . . Gary identifies nine of the ways people draw near to God." Not!

His illustration of Jesus having a secure self-image points to his mix of psychology and theology. Self-image is not a Biblical concept but rather something developed out of secular psychology which has been accepted within society as a way to describe our view of our selves but the Biblical concept of sin and humility totally eliminate the human concept of self-image. Self has no place in the believer.

His use of quotes of Mother Teresa
On pages 125 and 231 Rick quotes from Mother Teresa to support his particular teaching. He makes no qualifier about who she is, what she believed and what the Roman Catholic church teaches. This is not wise. This conveys the idea that Mother Teresa was a believer. My point is not to decide whether she was or not but that she believed heretical teaching even though she lived a life of sacrifice. It could be that she did not know Jesus Christ as Saviour and Lord. In 1 Corinthians 13:3 says, "And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing. This chapter is not teaching us that love is inherent in every human being but rather only those in Christ will express true love since they have Christ in them and His love will work through them. Noone can believe that they can do good works for their salvation and be a Christian which is the essence of the Roman Catholic church teaching. To not indicate this in his book demonstrates an extremely weak understanding of the gospel message.

Humanistic Thinking
Rick comments, "The church is so significant that Jesus died on the cross for it."(p. 132) There was nothing significant in me or anyone else who becomes a Christian. Dead people have no significance except to rot. I have heard this statement, 'Jesus Christ did not die for me because I am significant. I am significant because He died for me.' Totally different thinking.

Mixed Messages: It's Not About You
The first chapter begins with, "It's not about you." Sounds good. But as I read through the book I kept finding section after section that focussed on me. For example, p. 234 second paragraph repeats the word
'you' seven times. Then I noticed that starting on the last paragraph on p. 245 and continuing to the middle of page 246 that 'you' or 'your' is repeated twenty-one times. Finally, on p. 249 'you' or 'your' or
'you're' is used seventeen times.

I realized that although he said it is not about me it actually is. The vast majority of the book is trying to make me feel good about myself. Sounds to me something like positive thinking or possibility thinking rather than Biblical thinking.

Complaining About the Church
Rich wrote, "But we do this whenever we dismiss or demean or complain about the church." (p. 132)
I wonder what he considers the Old Testament prophets as they proclaimed the need for the people of Israel to repent, or Jesus when he rebuked his disciples or Paul when he wrote to the churches to deal with this sin and doctrinal issues in their midst or James when he wrote to believers who were dispersed or Peter or John or Jude or Jesus when he admonished and rebuked the seven churches in Revelation.

Criticizing has its place. It is vital that leadership want criticism. It is healthy to assist in the communication of the church. This would greatly diminish any criticism that takes place amongst the people of the church.

What is Not Written?

Finally, there are significant Biblical teaching that Rick leaves out of his book. This section could be much longer, but time will not permit a closer consideration of this point. I will emphasize a few points only.

First, Rick's explanation on p. 58 of the gospel was shockingly brief and skewed. I browsed through the first fifty-seven pages to look for more detail on the gospel message, especially on sin. I could not find it.
His gospel was believe and receive. No mention of the fact of God's wrath on sin which resides in us and the outworking that results, disobedience to God's law. No mention that noone is perfect without a substitute for our sin nature and sin we face eternal judgement of separation from God. No indication of the righteousness of Christ, His perfect life which met the requirements of the law. That Christ's took our sin nature and sin on the cross, dying for us, and we receive His righteousness, His perfect life. No mention of the character of Christ and only a limited description of the character of God.
The entire emphasis is on what a person needs to do. Even in that the word faith is not included.
This is one of my greatest concerns in the evangelical church. The diminishing of the gospel message for the sake of using relevance, pertinent terms that do not offend. The gospel will offend many. In fact, two of the beatitudes are related to the negative effect of proclaiming the gospel, which includes living it out in every day life. "Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when men cast insults at you and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely, on account of Me. Rejoice, and be glad, for your reward in heaven is great, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you." Matthew 5:10,11 Jesus taught that becoming a Christian and proclaiming the need for other family members to become Christians as well could lead to persecution by their own family (Matthew 10:34-36). The apostles were ordered by the religious/civil authorities not to preach Jesus Christ any longer, flogged them and released them. The apostles rejoiced that they were worthy to suffer shame for Christ and kept on preaching (Acts 5:40-42)

In a book that purports to assist Christian to grow in their Christian life, there is a significant lack of doctrinal teaching and an overwhelming emphasis on practical living. Both must be included. If there is only doctrinal teaching, the Church ends up with hearers and not doers. If there is only practical exhortation with examples we end up with immature legalists. A few examples of doctrines either missing or briefly mentioned or alluded to are justification, redemption, election, and the character of God.

In fact, Rick's teaching on the character is quite weak. God permit things, He is not sovereignly in control of all things and people.

On p. 194 Rick states, "Regardless of the cause, none of your problems could happen without God's permission. Everything that happens to a child of God is Father-filtered . . . ". No mention that God also causes the problems. Joseph stated that God was working behind and through the evil intentions of his brother. He was not simply adjusting things to work for good for Joseph and bad things happened to him. He working in the brothers to ensure that their evil intentions accomplished His purpose. He was directing and working in the brothers as they plotted, first his death, then the selling of Joseph into slavery. In Exodus 4:11 God declares that He makes the dumb and deaf and blind. The blind man in John nine was blind for his entire life so that Jesus could heal him at the right time for God's glory.

Again, on p. 235, Rick uses a quote from Psalm 139 to illustrates God working in the life of the believer. But He diminishes the work of God by His comments. He uses the phrase, "God uses . . . " rather than directs or accomplishes or carries out.

Once again, I reiterate that this letter arises out of a sincere desire to see the work of the Lord through the Word by the Spirit in our church.

I look forward to and anticipate your response.

in Christ,

Lloyd Douglas
Psalm 105.4

Wow. I've heard many of these arguments many, many times before regarding this and other mainstream evangelical material.

The pattern I've seen is extreme 5pt Calvinists who subscribe to a strict reformed philosophy of ministry are against The Purpose Driven and other similar material. Those of us who hold to a more moderate view of election and acknowledge the free will of man tend to find these books useful.

Personally, I think the book is great - not without minor problems but a benefical read overall.

I found this site while researching Saddleback, which our SB church seems to be trying to become. My husband (a deacon) and I (along with others) were asked, "to worship from the congregation, rather than the choir, if we could not agree 100% with all the pastor's decisions." The pastor actually used the quoted paragraph on pg 165 when I tried to discuss this with him. (And we ARE replacing hymns with 7-11 choruses.) The new mantra is "Everything in Excellence with Unity." (As if saying it enough times makes it true - no matter that there are entire Sunday School classes openly praying for the current leadership to leave.)Something is seriously wrong in our church. I would like to hear more from Lloyd Douglas regarding his above comments.
Diane Kniskern
Yorktown, VA