Talk:Purpose Driven

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] Major Update

This entry has generated some conflict and I've been meaning to update it for some time. It seemed to be a conglomeration of information and not focused on the subject. As you will see, I've moved a couple sections to entries that specifically discuss that subject. For example, references to Rick Warren has been moved to Rick Warren. I have endeavored to make the writing of this entry more "encyclopedic" in style. While obviously biased to the subject matter, I want to uphold Wiki standards of W:NPOV, W:BLP, COI, etc. I trust I have done this correctly. If not, I am open to correction and learning to do it the right way.

One last comment, I know there is the propensity by some for criticism of Rick and the movement of churches he has generated. While there is certainly room for criticism, I ask that this section not be used for opinions - those belong in the blogoshpere. As someone has suggested, there could be a section for critics and supporters. However, I would hope we could keep this as a simple encyclopedia entry. CarverM (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I like your thinking. A problem with sections for criticisms and defenses is that they tend to make an article read like a confused man arguing with himself, and the encyclopedic tone suffers. Also they tend to become too detailed (as the argument of the criticism/defense is explained) and the quality of the references is often not as high because they often come from that same blogosphere you mentioned.
It is probably worth mentioning in the article, though, that Rick Warren and the Purpose Driven brand are seen as controversial by a section of the church community. I see this as a notable and encyclopedic fact. Of course it would have to be done completely neutrally so as not to spark the debate within the article, and would need a good quality, non-inflammatory reference. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Any chance you could write up something that was encyclopedic but didn't need a reference? The problem with trying to use a reference for this particular issue is that most of the criticism comes from single bloggers, most of them from the very conservative fundamental expression of the church body. CarverM (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, we shouldn't add unsourced statements to Wiki. Yes, most of the criticism comes from blogs and other such low-quality refs, so I'd be looking for a more academic type ref that simply notes that there is controversy, rather than taking a position on the issue. I'll see what I can find. BreathingMeat (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not clear why you put the no citation notice on the article. The "source" is the teaching in the book The Purpose Driven Church. What else is needed? CarverM (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

While not opposed to a section devoted to honest criticism, the section as it stood was all opinion and no specific citations given for criticism. If criticism is to be allowed it should be specific and supported by definitive argument. Otherwise, write a blog; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Therefore I deleted the section. Revrac (talk) December 29, 2008

Someone, unidentified, keeps undoing my removal of the Criticism section. Again, I'm not against having a criticism section but this one does not conform to Wikipedia policies. Specifically: weasel words [who?], verifiability WP:V, and biographies of living persons WP:BLP. If a reviewer wants to insert a viable critique, fine, but not this one. It represents a minority view, it is not cited except by minor, minor blog writers and it is slanderous. Revrac (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me. I made a post to this page but for some reason it didn't get posted. As for the criticism section, there is no way to know if it represents a minority position. This page is not a biography of a living person and the sources are not " minor, minor blog writers". A quick Google search shows that the authors of the articles are at least somewhat known. Two of the authors have Wikipedia pages of their own. I would also like to see what is slanderous about the sources, because I didn't see anything. SirBob42 (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
This page is being treated like a biography of a living person as the bloggers are attacking a person, not an idea. Purpose Driven is an idea and this section should be on just that, not on Rick Warren. Maybe somebody can change this section to reflect such. My slander comment is just that. If you read some of the bloggers sites they are simply giving their opinion. And, mostly taking issues out of context. Again, if someone wants to put in a valid criticism, cited and discussed, then fine. I'm sure there are thousands of supporters who could also post an opinion. But, what good would that do? This is an encyclopedia and it should be kept clear and concise with verifiable sources. Revrac (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Better to edit the page to Wikipedia standards than to delete it altogether. --Jpaff 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

However, the opponents are generally the same ones who oppose megachurches and the seeker movement in general.

This needs to be made a bit more neutral. As is, the implication is that the critics of the Purpose Driven movement are just criticizing it out of some larger beef against megachurches. This does not seem obviously true to me. --Saforrest 21:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Those who are unsure about the controversy over Purpose Driven Churches should not be too concerned. The arguments are based on an extreme fundamentalist point of view. They tend to be very confrontational.

One comment recently heard on Slice of Laodicea was "The bible is more than just a set of magic prooftexts that we apply when ever we want it to make our case; it's a whole book. We need to reconcile ALL of the judging directives it contains." Yet this person was asking someone else to use the bible as a set of proof texts. When the victim shut down the conversation it was used as "proof" that this person who isn't criticizing PDL or Rick Warren, is running from the truth. There is a clear agenda, and it isn't a search for the truth and is based on a presumption that they already have the truth. They bill themselves as having "discernment" ministries.

Even Satan can spout scripture and make arguments with it. Discernment is needed to determine what to listen to and what to ignore.

The proper approach to scripture is to search it for the truth, without your agenda. Don't go searching for scripture that proves your case, search for scripture that you can apply to your question, and be open to whatever God says in it.

Lets take a scriptural quote that is often used to justify their confrontational style and criticisms of Purpose Driven Life as an example. Matt. 7:15-16. The question seems to be about identifying false prophets. Lets get some guidance from a commentary - Matthew Henry's Commentary seems to have a lot to say about this passage and the context of it in v.15-20. No commentary is a final word, but can provide valuable insight.

He says that Prophets here also means Teachers. How do you identify them? He also says, "Here is a good rule to go by in this caution; we must prove all things (1 Thess 5:21), try the spirits (1 John 4:1), and here we have a touchstone; ye shall know them by their fruits, (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

So first we should check out what is being said. Is it in conflict with what scripture says? Accept what is true, and reject what is false. Second, we should "test the spirit". What is their commitment to the body of believers? Their lifestyle? The fruit of their ministry? What do they believe about Christ? Third, we will know them by their fruit.

Matthew Henry sums it up, "If the doctrine be of God, it will tend to promote serious piety, humility, charity, holiness, and love, with other Christian graces; but if, on the contrary, the doctrines these prophets preach have a manifest tendency to make people proud, worldly, and contentious, to make them loose and careless in their conversations, unjust or uncharitable, factious or disturbers of the public peace; if it indulge carnal liberty, and take people off from governing themselves and their families by the strict rules of the narrow way, we may conclude, that this persuasion comes not of him that calleth us, Gal 5:8. This wisdom is from above, James 3:15. Faith and a good conscience are held together, 1 Tim 1:19; 3:9. Note, Doctrines of doubtful disputation must be tried by graces and duties of confessed certainty: (from Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible: New Modern Edition, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1991 by Hendrickson Publishers, Inc.)

Seems to me like both sides of the fence on PDL could use this argument against the other, based on their positions. Rick Warren is popular, so 1 John 4:6 could logically be used against him. Yet, the PDL camp could say that those like James Sundquist, for example, are bearing fruit that is contentious, uncharitable, factious, and disturbing the public peace. So what is the truth?

Instead of looking at what is wrong. Look at the fruit of the prophet. Who is promoting Godly living? Who is charitable? Who has humility? Who exhibits holiness and love? Who displays Christian grace? Look closely, a surface observation can be deceiving. A false teacher can sound righteous, and a humble servant of God can appear to be associated and affiliated with sinners.

By this criteria, I don't find Rick Warren to be a false teacher, nor do I find PDL teaching to be unbiblical in principle. What I see is one side of the issue emphasizing Grace but not compromising the Gospel essentials, and one side putting a low priority on Grace and encouraging contention and confrontation. God uses both to bring repentance, though the latter is not as productive in terms of numbers of those who come to repentance. Both sides have teachers who err, but desire to serve God's will.

Why is the critique below even allowed in the discussion pages? It belongs in a blog where the author can rant and rave all he wants. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. If anyone disagrees say so, otherwise this section should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Revrac (talk • contribs) 02:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot

By this criteria, I don't find Rick Warren to be a false teacher, nor do I find PDL teaching to be unbiblical in principle.

By your criteria, I and many thousands of other Christians do find Rick Warren to be a false teacher, a "wolf in sheeps" clothing and very hard to recognize and even more difficult to expose. The Purpose Driven® teachings are straight out moralism and legalism based upon Rick Warren's own ideas of what he thinks Christianity is, using contorted twisted Scripture texts, often from mistranslations of the Bible and verses shortened to proof-text his own ideas and his surveys of non-Christians to see what they want in church and how the church should be run. The Purpose Driven® empire is a business run on worldy principles, pure and simple.

Rick Warren is generating millions of false converts around the world who are know inoculated against the "true-truth."

John 7:24 Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment. Does the Bible give us any guidlines for judging ? How are we to judge with right judgement as the LORD Jesus Christ says for us to do? Especially some of the twisted and distorted doctrines that flow from the hearts and minds of false teachers? Are we supposed to roll over and play dead and say nothing? Are these two examples Biblical/Scriptural or are they damnable heresy?:

Quote: "Dear God, I want to know your purpose for my life. I don't want to base the rest of my life on wrong things. I want to take the first step in preparing for eternity by getting to know you. Jesus Christ, I don't understand how but as much as I know how I want to open up my life to you. Make yourself real to me. And use this series in my life to help me know what you made me for." Warren goes on to say: "Now if you've just prayed that prayer for the very first time I want to congratulate you. You've just become a part of the family of God."

"Right now, God is inviting you to live for his glory by fulfilling the purposes he made you for… all you need to do is receive and believe…. Will you accept God’s offer?” “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.’ If you sincerely meant that prayer, congratulations! Welcome to the family of God! You are now ready to discover and start living God’s purpose for your life."

These so called prayers are unbiblical from the mouth of sinful man as far as I am concerned! They are totally unbiblical and absolutely deceptive. I cannot think of a more deceptive set of words formulated into so called prayers than these. No one is welcomed into the family of God by those prayers or any like them. Not one single person can believe and receive the LORD Jesus Christ prior to regeneration. Only those who are born of God receive and believe (trust in, reply upon, cling to) the LORD Jesus Christ. John 1: 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Born of God!!! Those who are "born of God" are those who receive and believe the LORD Jesus Christ and no one else.

No one, not one single person is saved by saying those sorts of prayers Rick Warren dictates and I cannot stress this fact enough. People are saved by God alone in spite of deceptive prayers like that. We do not take the first step, God took the first step, He is the Prime Mover! God takes the first step in each one of His Elect, His chosen people. Our lives have nothing to do with basing the rest of our lives on wrong things. Wrong things does not mean sin. Wrong things may include sin but not all wrong things are sin. For example my wife may have left two meals in the freezer for our dinner, one was hers and the other was mine but because I did not look at the label she had placed on mine I ate hers instead. I ate the wrong meal by mistake but that mistake is not sin. To err is human.

Intellectual assent to the existence of Jesus Christ, God, takes us no higher than the level of demons. They believe there is one God and they tremble but they will never ever be saved. NEVER!!! They and Satan are beyond repentance, reserved for the day of judgment, along with all the unrepentant wicked. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. People are welcomed into the family of God by being "born again" by the Holy Spirit of God alone first and the fruits/gifts of the new birth are repentance and belief, at and in consequence of being "born from above", not before. People do not believe and repent and then they are born again, and people that teach such are false teachers. If repenting and believing was the sine qua non (without which, not; something that is indispensible) for salvation then even Satan and the demons/devils will be able to repent and believe and be born again. But that is not the case. The fruits/gifts of regeneration/new birth/born again result in repentance and belief and we repent and believe, God does not do that for us.

Rick Warren is wrong to get people to say those "decisional rote prayers" and then say "welcome to the family of God." He does not have the authority to say that. Only God alone has the authority to welcome His people into His family. If there is no godly sorrow and repentance, there is no new birth. Rick Warren is filling the church with TARES.

  • The Unrepenting Repenter By Jim Elliff The believer in Christ is a lifelong repenter. He begins with repentance and continues in repentance. (Rom. 8:12-13) David sinned giant sins but fell without a stone at the mere finger of the prophet because he was a repenter at heart (2 Sam. 12:7-13). Peter denied Christ three times but suffered three times the remorse until he repented with bitter tears (Mt. 26:75). Every Christian is called a repenter, but he must be a repenting repenter. The Bible assumes the repentant nature of all true believers in its instruction on church discipline. A man unwilling to repent at the loving rebuke of the church can be considered nothing more than "a heathen and a tax collector." (Mt. 18:15-17)

The Christian life is one of repenting always.

Pragmatism and numbers prove nothing. Many false ideas have generated huge numbers. Though Rick Warren and his Purpose driven® movement have all the outward signs of good works and fun and entertainment, inside, it is a wiicked deadly snare to the undiscerning.

On the front cover of The Purpose Driven® life it says: "WHAT ON EARTH AM I HERE FOR?" Then on page 9 Rick Warren says : "This is more than a book; it is a guide to a 40-day spiritual journey that will enable you to discover the answer to life's most important question: What on earth am I here for?....." Who is the focus on there? First, Rick Warren's Purpose Driven® products will not enable you or anyone to discover the answers to lifes most important question. Second, life's most important question is NOT "What on earth am I here for?"

Life's MOST important question is Acts 9:5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" The focus here is on God and not on man. In Rick Warren's books and Purpose Driven® programes the focus is on mere-man and what God can do for him.

Lifes most important question is "WHO ARE YOU, LORD?"

Rick Warren's Purpose Driven® empire is a journey into spiritual deception, and millions upon millions of people are hooked into it.

[edit] Merger proposal

There seems to be no discussion of this. The Rick Warren article is already too long, despite containing virtually no biographical details. This article could also be expanded IMO, so I propose to remove the notice if no reasons for the merge are forthcoming. Andrewa 23:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


Agreed. There should be room for both Rick Warren and the organization(s) he founded, just as Wikipedia has separate articles for Millard Fuller and Habitat for Humanity International. --Jpaff 21:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


It seems to me that the Rick Warren article should be merged into the Purpose Driven article.

[edit] NPOV and Cleanup

This article needs some improvement if it is not merged. Better wikilinking, more balanced article linking, etc.

I have just done a big cleanup on this article. I have attempted to preserve most of the material that was there before, and bring it into some kind of order.
I have removed the linkfarm of criticism sites and incorporated many of those links in a new criticism section, which I hope is an improvement. The intention was to provide a guide to the criticisms received by the Purpose Driven movement without going into too much detail, nor presenting the opinions of the critics as fact.
Can we now remove the NPoV tag? BreathingMeat 09:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Why is there a long theological critique of Purpose Driven on this discussion page? Not sure what the point of posting that here is. It is arguing the substance of the Purpose Driven book. I believe the article does have a neutral point of view and the tag could be removed. One other question: under the bibliography section it lists "Purpose Driven Youth Ministry" which is actually a book by Doug Fields who is the student minister at Rick Warren's church. It is the only book listed that Rick Warren did not write. Should it be included in the Bibliography section or at least noted it is not by Rick Warren?

Jaxeddie 19:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a long critique of Purpose Driven on this page because an editor put it there. Go ahead and remove it if you like: it does not meet the Talk Page Guidelines. I agree that the NPOV tag should be removed, and will do so forthwith. All of the books in the Bibliography should be listed with authors. Because this isn't the Rick Warren article, there is no reason why any book under the "Purpose Driven" banner should not be listed (too many negatives: what I mean is that because it's published under the "Purpose Driven" banner it counts as relevant to an article about the "Purpose Driven" ... er ... brand). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BreathingMeat (talk • contribs) 20:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
That bot sign took less than a second!BreathingMeat 20:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced

So I've added an unsourced banner to this page. There aren't any references in the article at all, despite chunks of presumably quoted text appearing here. There are also many apparently factual statements regarding publication dates and Warren's teaching. There are also a number of more vague claims like "To be “purpose driven” is to be driven by God’s purposes, not our own" and "(The Purpose Driven Life) eventually became one of the best-selling books in history" - these should be replaced with tangible facts and substantiated with references. I'd do these things myself rather than uglying up the article with a banner, but I no longer own any of Warren's books so could not do a very good job of it. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clear why you put the unsourced notice on the article. The "source" is the teaching in the book The Purpose Driven Church. What else is needed? CarverM (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, if this information is sourced from that book, it should be referenced as such. Secondly, the book The Purpose Driven Church is a Primary Source which makes it not as good for referencing as a secondary source, and are more open to attacks of Original Research. Thirdly, I strongly doubt that The Purpose Driven Church can substantiate the article's claim that The Purpose Driven Life is "one of the best-selling books in history". This and numerous other statements in the article need to be referenced or they are not reliable. BreathingMeat (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean. I will figure out how to better substantiate the information. Just FYI, in actuality it is one of the best selling single books in history. Just in English the book has sold well over 40 million copies. The book is available in over 65 languages and is on the way to over 100 translations. In most of the languages it is a best selling book. CarverM (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wider meaning

The term "purpose driven" extends beyond the religious or theological context that is presented here. The purpose of this article seems to border on the proselyting of new converts. I suggest shortening the material, using a neutral tone, and merging the article with a broader topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of this article is to describe the Purpose Driven brand helmed by Rick Warren. There are other uses of the term "Purpose Driven" and if and when they get Wikipedia articles, they should be disambiguated from this one. The purpose of this article certainly is not to proselytise, but to neutrally present the beliefs espoused in literature published under the Purpose Driven brand. Not so that readers may take up the beliefs themselves, but simply to describe them. If you believe that non-neutral statements are being made, please provide specific examples here, or feel free to be bold and re-word or remove them yourself! BreathingMeat (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with BreathingMeat. This article simply presents the meaning behind a term that is becoming somewhat branded (though this is not the original intent) as Purpose Driven. With these words being in the title of two books that have sold well over 40 million copies in over 60 languages worldwide, the title of conferences and seminars delivered all over the world, it is well known in Christendom. Therefore, for people outside of the Christian worldview or those Christians who want to know more definitively what being "purpose driven" is about, this article attempts to be an encyclopedic information source. It is no more than that. If you think there are proselytising phrases here, point them out and we'll certainly try to say it better. CarverM (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)