The Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren

No, I disagree. I disagree with much of his methodology, and don't defend it, but I don't discount him just because I don't agree with him. Heck, I disagree with D James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell a lot, but I respect these two men a lot. Come to think of it, I disagree with my own pastor on occaision. Anyhoo, that's off the topic. In accord with peoples' personal views about preachers, there are many who are incapable of discerning between "I don't like that preacher" and "that preacher is promoting falsehood". It's the old, "if I don't like it, it's bad" stance, which is quite self-righteous. It happens with Christian music, with Bible translation preference, with politics, and with men of the pulpit. You don't have to like Warren, Hybels, or anyone else. That doesn't make them apostate or even close. Anyhow, a supposed "link" which is implied between Warren and Hybels is non existent.

 

Built upon a faulty presupposition of what "seeker-sensitive" means (as evidenced in the first article).

It's not just a paper. It is 10 articles. Sorry, don't have the time. Maybe you can summarize it when addressing the issues I raised.

You initiated the conversation.

So once again, you prove my theory. The problem is not with seeker-sensitive services. The problem is with the frequency and time of them.

Actually you have this backward. Warren's PD principles dictate his methodology (which includes seeker-sensitive servies).

As you will find with anyone who is intepreting Scripture.

Here we go with the pragmatism again.

Theology and methodology are totally distinct. Yes our methodology is influenced by our beliefs, but determining the legitimacy of one's methodology is not the same as defending orthodox theology. Theology is dictated by scripture and its principles...methodology is largely subjective and not necessarily based upon straight biblical teaching (for instance whether you have A/C in your church has nothing to do with your theological perspective).

 

SBCBy Grace,

I don't know how to cut and paste properly so bear with me...

First, my paper is not 10 separate papers. It is only 9 pages. Are you sure you are seeing mine? It's called "An Examination of Exponential Growth".

Second, you claim my case was built on a "faulty presuppositon" and yet admit you haven't read it yet!

Third, you take a position that PD and Seeker-sensitive are seperate issues, I think, but then claim Warren's "PD dictate his [Seeker-Sensitive] methodologies". Isn't that a contradiction? I thought I was arguing that Warren is seeker-sensitive and you were saying he wasn't. Maybe I'm wrong.

Fourth, I believe Warren's mishandling of scripture is MUCH WORSE than a trite mistake or two. If you would read my short paper, you would see examples.

Fifth - "Here we go with Pragmatism again". Yeah, exactly. I don't think pragmatism should dictate our our actions.

 

No, I disagree. I disagree with much of his methodology, and don't defend it, but I don't discount him just because I don't agree with him. Heck, I disagree with D James Kennedy and Jerry Falwell a lot, but I respect these two men a lot. Come to think of it, I disagree with my own pastor on occaision. Anyhoo, that's off the topic. In accord with peoples' personal views about preachers, there are many who are incapable of discerning between "I don't like that preacher" and "that preacher is promoting falsehood". It's the old, "if I don't like it, it's bad" stance, which is quite self-righteous. It happens with Christian music, with Bible translation preference, with politics, and with men of the pulpit. You don't have to like Warren, Hybels, or anyone else. That doesn't make them apostate or even close. Anyhow, a supposed "link" which is implied between Warren and Hybels is non existent. </font>[/QUOTE]Johnv,

Here are some of Schuller's direct quotes:

"Classical theology has erred in its insistence that theology be 'God-centered,' not 'man-centered.'" -- Self-Esteem, The New Reformation, page 64.

"I don't think anything has been done in the name of Christ and under the banner of Christianity that has proven more destructive to human personality and hence counterproductive to the evangelism enterprise than the often crude, uncouth, and unchristian strategy of attempting to make people aware of their lost and sinful condition." --10/5/84 letter to Christianit Today.

"I believe in hell. But I don't know what happens there. I don't take it literally that it's a fire that never stops burning." -- interview, 11/92.

Those are the words of an apostate. There is no good reason for a Southern Baptist such as Warren to attend any event that is hosted by someone who has these views.

 

johnv,

I found a host of other quotes from Schuller's infamous "self esteem" book:

"The core of original sin, then is LOT--Lack of Trust. Or, it could be considered an innate inability to adequately value ourselves. Label it a 'negative self-image,' but DO NOT SAY THAT THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE HUMAN SOUL IS WICKEDNESS. ... POSITIVE CHRISTIANITY DOES NOT HOLD TO HUMAN DEPRAVITY, BUT TO HUMAN INABILITY. I am humanly unable to correct my negative self-image until I encounter a life-changing experience with non-judgmental love bestowed upon me by a Person whom I admire so much that to be unconditionally accepted by him is to be born again" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 67).
______________________

"Classical theology DEFINES SIN AS 'REBELLION AGAINST GOD.' The answer is not incorrect as much as IT IS SHALLOW AND INSULTING TO THE HUMAN BEING. Every person deserves to be treated with dignity even if he or she is a 'rebellious sinner'" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 65).
______________________

"Any analysis of 'sin' or 'evil' or 'demonic influence' or 'negative thinking' or 'systemic evil' or 'antisocial behavior' that fails to see the lack of self-dignity as the core of the problem will prove to be too shallow. TO BE BORN AGAIN MEANS THAT WE MUST BE CHANGED FROM A NEGATIVE TO A POSITIVE SELF-IMAGE--from inferiority to self-esteem, from fear to love, from doubt to trust" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 68).
______________________

"The classical error of historical Christianity is that we have never started with the value of the person. Rather, WE HAVE STARTED FROM THE 'UNWORTHINESS OF THE SINNER,' AND THAT STARTING POINT HAS SET THE STAGE FOR THE GLORIFICATION OF HUMAN SHAME in Christian theology" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 162).
______________________

"We are born to soar. We are children of God. ... THE FATHERHOOD OF GOD OFFERS A DEEP SPIRITUAL CURE FOR THE INFERIORITY COMPLEX AND LAYS THE FIRM FOUNDATION FOR A SOLID SPIRITUAL SELF-ESTEEM" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 60).
______________________

"Historical theology has too often failed to interpret repentance as a positive creative force. ... ESSENTIALLY, IF CHRISTIANITY IS TO SUCCEED IN THE NEXT MILLENNIUM, IT MUST CEASE TO BE A NEGATIVE RELIGION AND MUST BECOME POSITIVE" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 104).
______________________

"What do I mean by sin? Answer: Any human condition or act that robs God of glory by stripping one of his children of their right to divine dignity. ... I can offer still another answer: 'SIN IS ANY ACT OR THOUGHT THAT ROBS MYSELF OR ANOTHER HUMAN BEING OF HIS OR HER SELF-ESTEEM'" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 14).
______________________

"AND WHAT IS 'HELL'? IT IS THE LOSS OF PRIDE THAT NATURALLY FOLLOWS SEPARATION FROM GOD--the ultimate and unfailing source of our soul's sense of self-respect. 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?' was Christ's encounter with hell. In that 'hellish' death our Lord experienced the ultimate horror--humiliation, shame, and loss of pride as a human being. A person is in hell when he has lost his self-esteem. Can you imagine any condition more tragic than to live life and eternity in shame?" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, pp. 14-15,93).
______________________

"THE CROSS SANCTIFIES THE EGO TRIP. FOR THE CROSS PROTECTED OUR LORD'S PERFECT SELF-ESTEEM FROM TURNING INTO SINFUL PRIDE" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 75).
______________________

"Christ is the Ideal One, for HE WAS SELF-ESTEEM INCARNATE" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 135).
______________________

"JESUS NEVER CALLED A PERSON A SINNER. ... Rather he reserved his righteous rebuke for those who used their religious authority to generate guilt and caused people to lose their ability to taste and enjoy their right to dignity..." (Schuller, Self-Esteem, pp. 100,126).
______________________

"I found myself immediately attracted to Pope John Paul II when, upon his election to the Papacy, his published speeches invariably called attention to THE NEED FOR RECOGNIZING THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN BEING AS A CHILD OF GOD" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, p. 17).
______________________

"In a theology that starts with an uncompromising respect for each person's pride and dignity, I HAVE NO RIGHT TO EVER PREACH A SERMON OR WRITE AN ARTICLE THAT WOULD OFFEND THE SELF-RESPECT AND VIOLATE THE SELF-DIGNITY OF A LISTENER OR READER. Any minister, religious leader, writer, or reporter who stoops to a style, a strategy, a substance, or a spirit that fails to show respect for his or her audience is committing an insulting sin. Every human being must be treated with respect; self-esteem is his sacred right."

"The tragedy of Christendom today is the existence of entire congregations of church members who are dominated by emotionally deprived or emotionally under-developed persons. These congregations have been accurately labeled 'God's Frozen People.' ... And they do this by EXERCISING NARROW AUTHORITARIANISM IN DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES AND BY SOWING SEEDS OF SUSPICION AND DISSENSION IN THE RELIGIOUS COMMUNITY. ... By contrast, strong persons--self-assured personalities, whose egos find their nourishment in a self-esteem-generating personal relationship with Jesus Christ--dare to face contrary opinions, diverse interpretations, and deviations of theology without becoming disrespectful, judgmental, or accusatory" (Schuller, Self-Esteem, pp. 153-154).

 

Actually I was looking at the wrong article. I was looking at the 1st one on the site which is 10 separate articles. My fault.

I was referring to the first article. My fault.

I have never suggested Warren is not seeker-sensitive. I actually think Warren and Hybels have some distinct similarities (and differences).

I did read your article on exponential thinking. I do think you make the funamental mistake of equating Warren's APPLICATION of the principle to the principle itself.

Exponential thinking is primarily a faith issue. Even within your obvious Calvinistic tendencies, surely you would agree that God operates many times with faith as a MEANS for achieving his purposes and plan.

Actually I was referring to some of your more pragmatic reasoning to refute Warren. It is just as pragmatic to say "numbers are no indicator of truth" as it is to say "numbers are an indicator."

 

I think bjonson is right about Schuller. I've known for awhile about his emphasis on self-esteem and saying that what separates us from God is lack of self-esteem. Schuller has been influenced by people like Norman Vincent Peale (who himself was a student of Ernest Holmes who founded the Church of Religious Science) and the humanistic New Thought beliefs. He also has given a forum in his church for non-Christian speakers.

However, I do not see Schuller's influence in PDL.

Perhaps it would be interesting to start a separate thread on Schuller and Peale?

 

Just my 2 cents on the Schuller-Warren discussion. Again bjohson makes a mistake in suggesting Warren cannot learn methodologically from one he may disagree with theologically.

 

Dr. Bob,


Why would any Bible-believing Christian have ANYTHING to do with an outspoken apostate such as Schuller? You haven't dealt with the fact that Warren indicates his experience with Schuller was a life-changing one.

Please explain how market driven and purpose driven are so "night and day."

Finally, you accuse me of misrepresenting Warren, Hybels and Schuller. I've provided DIRECT QUOTES in both my posts and the paper that I wrote. You, on the other hand, have offered no reponse of any substance whatsoever.

I'm not sure why you are so quick to defend statements that are indefensible, but I'm scratching my head...

 

Marcia,

If you have a copy of "The Purpose-Driven Church", you'll see an endorsement from Robert Schuller on the first few pages.

Clearly, the PD Church is very similar to the PD Life - they are related quite closely.

God bless you,
Brian

 

Marcia,

If you have a copy of "The Purpose-Driven Church", you'll see an endorsement from Robert Schuller on the first few pages.

Clearly, the PD Church is very similar to the PD Life - they are related quite closely.

God bless you,
Brian </font>[/QUOTE]I don't have "The Purpose-Driven Church" but I do have and have read "The Purpose-Driven Life." There is nothing in PDL that is remotely like Schuller's theology. PDL is very based in Biblical teachings -- I disagree with some of his stuff and I strongly dislike it when he quotes from "The Message," but overrall, PDL is sound doctrine.

Purpose-driven life is about abiding in Christ and knowing that your purpose for life is based in Christ and comes from God. Whether that is related to PD Church or not, I don't know.

 

Marcia and Dr. Bob,

Here is some direct discussion on PDL and how it distorts the true gospel:

http://www.twincityfellowship.com/cic/articles/issue80.htm

 

Perhaps the following quote is as close as Warren comes in PDL to explaining what it is to be redeemed:



“God won’t ask about your religious background or doctrinal views. The only thing that will matter is, did you accept what Jesus did for you and did you learn to love and trust him?” (Warren: 34).



Really? If that is true, then the Mormons should take great comfort. After urging his readers to believe God chose them and receive the Holy Spirit for power to “fulfill your life purpose” (Warren 58), he offers a little prayer that will save people. According to Warren, here is how you are saved: “I invite you to bow your head and quietly whisper the prayer that will change your eternity, ‘Jesus, I believe in you and I receive you.” Then he makes this promise, “If you sincerely meant that prayer congratulations! Welcome to the family of God!” (Warren: 59)



Where is the wrath of God against sinners? Where is the atonement of the blood of Christ? This is one example of Warren’s weak theology.



Regarding his misuse of scripture, consider the following:



“The Bible says, ‘Self-help is no help at all. Self-sacrifice is the way, my way, to finding yourself, your true self’” (Warren: 19).



The passage he quotes is Matthew 16:25. The translation (or paraphrase) is from The Message. The New King James reads “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.”



Clearly, this passage is teaching that we are to consider our lives dead (carry our cross) daily in order to follow Christ. This passage does not teach anything about self-help or self-esteem. And yet, Warren makes an odd leap to just that when he says “It is about becoming what God created you to be” (Warren: 19). This is simply untrue.

 

Once again, the book is being attacked because it is what it was intended to be,

Its not a tract, deal with it

 

Dr. Bob,

Sorry, this isn't going to work. In what context is it appropriate for Warren to misuse sripture as he did in Matthew 16:25? You think it's ok as long as the book is for baby Christians?

I don't understand this...Where is the discernment on this board?

 

I already specifically stated I dislike "The Message" and that is one of my issues with PDL. However, he still does say many good things and he is not heretical. Most people who say they do not like PDL use arguments about Calvinism or church growth. They do not discuss the book and I really wonder if most of them even read it or if they already disliked Warren and pounced on the book by leafing through it and picking out parts they didn't like (that is the distinct impression I get from every article critical of PDL that I have read and I've read close to a dozen).

I looked at the link you just put up and much of the criticism is not valid, imo.

BJonson, I get the impression you did not read PDL all the way through. I could be wrong, but have you read PDL? I don't just mean a few pages or parts of it, but the whole thing???