The Purpose Driven Life

My small group has been studying Rick Warren's The Purpose Driven Life. I've often heard there is criticism of the book in evangelical circles, but have never seen much substance around these claims. Preachrblog has a list of links to different criticisms. These documents are from a specifically Lutheran point of view. It is certainly worth considering the value of any book we would study, especially if there are concerns about its validity. I've read through a few of the documents Preachrblog has linked to. The criticism seems to fall into two broad categories: use of Scripture and distortion of the gospel.

The first category, use of Scripture, covers concerns about how Scripture is used by Warren. The critics complain that he uses obscure translations of verses whose wording does not necessarily line up with what mainline translations give. They also complain that he takes verses out of context or only considers the portion of the verse that addresses his point. Here I have to agree. From the beginning, I've been bothered by his quotations. Warren has no consistency in the version he uses. He seems to pick and choose whatever rendering gives the wording he wants, whether it is accurate or not. This undermines the confidence that Warren is giving sound, Scriptural teaching. (It is sound and Scriptural, but the confidence in that does not come from his references to Scripture.)

As to the second category, distortion of the gospel, I'm not so convinced. The critics seem to proceed from a false assumption. For example, Scott Diekmann's critique starts, "Part of Rick Warren's audience is non-Christians." He then goes on to document ways in which Warren's teachings go against some basic doctrines of the gospel, or fails to properly explain the gospel. (Remember these critiques are from a Lutheran point of view, so Diekmann's conception of basic doctrines of salvation, including emphasis on Sacraments for example, reflect that.)

As such, there should be in the book a clear message of both Law and Gospel so that those who are unbelievers might come to know Jesus as their Savior, but there is no such clear message. While the Gospel can be found in the book, its message may be lost due to a focus on us and a lack of the Law. Some would argue that since the purpose of the book is to help people see God's purposes for their lives, it doesn't need to present Law and Gospel. But without Law and Gospel there can be no conversion (the moment we believe Jesus is our Savior and are thus saved), and without conversion, unbelievers won't understand God's purposes or their purposes.
...

Pastor Warren says my real problem is "a lack of focus and purpose," something I should be able to work on and correct. My real problem is that I am a sinner. Fortunately, someone came to solve my problem, and that is where my focus lies[.]

Certainly, Diekmann is correct that someone who has not been saved, who does not understand the impact of sin and the meaning of the cross, "unbelievers won't understand God's purposes or their purposes."

But I think it is pretty clear from reading the book that his audience is Christians, not unbelievers. This is not a book designed to bring the lost to salvation, but rather to teach Christians to get more out of their lives. Certainly some non-believers may read it, but that is not Warren's target audience. Not every book needs to present the gospel. An author writing to Christians can safely assume the audience understands the basic tenets of the gospel, and move on to meatier subjects. One of the points Warren makes is that salvation is a starting point, not an end point. To expect that all authors would only focus on the gospel and bringing people to salvation is to view that salvation as the end point or culmination of something. But it is the point at which we start living our Christian lives, lives that God intended for us to live, with sin and the separation that entails taken away. It is the starting point in the process by which we become the men and women God intended us to be.

Doc's Home: More on Evolution in Kansas

On my other blog, I have been commenting on the debate in Kansas over teaching evolution in schools. It has relevance to this blog's subject matter as well, since it deals with Christian thinking. Of particular interest is the last paragraph:

Fundamentally, we're comparing apples and oranges. On the question of the origins of the universe of or life on Earth, science looks at the "how" and religion looks at the "who" and the "why." As a Christian, I say God created the universe and created all life on Earth. That statement does not address the question of how He created the universe. Science attempts to provide an explanation of the how. Rather than fight against scientific discovery, Christians should be embracing science as a means of further understanding the mind and ways of God. The Bible tells us that God is understood through creation (Rom 1:20). So why do they want to quash that understanding of creation so much?

Democrats Voted Out of N.C. Church

As politics has corrupted the message of the gospel in some evangelical circles, it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. MSNBC reports on events at East Waynesville Baptist Church in North Carolina:

Members of the congregation said [head pastor] Chandler told them during last year’s presidential campaign that anyone who planned to vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry needed to leave the church.

Longtime member Selma Morris, who was treasurer at the church, said Chandler’s sermons remained political after Bush won re-election. This past week, his comments turned to politics again at a church gathering that ended with nine members voted out.

Many other members, including a deacon, of the church have left in protest of this move, and Robert Prince, another local Bapist pastor, calls it "disturbing." Prince is also quoted saying,

he noticed during the presidential campaign that more pastors made endorsements — although not from the pulpit — than in past years.

“It used to be that pastors would speak about the issues and not specific candidates,” he said. “I think that line is being crossed.”

Absolutely, a line has been crossed. The lure of politics and of power and influence is distorting the gospel for many Christian brothers and sisters. Ours is not a message of salvation through politics or values, but of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ. Jesus did not make political views a part of the salvation equation. When our churches degrade themselves to be merely a forum to host political advocacy preaching, as in the case of Justice Sunday, or to rejecting members who may not pass the political litmus test, it is safe to say the gospel has been perverted in those churches. And this happens far more often that we read about in the news. Most churches just don't go as far as this church did.

We believers must not stand by passively and watch this corruption grow. It's time to take the evangelical church back for Jesus.

Update (5/9/2005): WLOS News quotes the pastor in question saying last October

the question then comes in the Baptist Church how do I vote, let me just say this right now if you vote for John Kerry this year you need to repent or resign you have been holding back God's church way too long and I know I may get in trouble for saying that but just pour it on.

Hmm. I thought repentance was for sin. Now it's for who you vote for too? Is a vote for the Constitution party also something for which one needs repentance? For what political parties does a vote not require repentance?

As to the comment that Kerry voters have been "holding back God's church," I that pretty neatly illustrates the point about confusing the gospel with politics.

Tithing

L. Ray Smith has a very interesting article on the Scriptural validity of tithing for the modern Christian. I am not endorsing (nor rejecting) his article. I point it out as interesting and challenging. Smith's summary:

• ONLY LANDOWNERS TITHED
• ONLY PRODUCTS OF THE LAND WERE TITHED
• ONLY LEVITES COULD RECEIVE THE TITHES
• TITHING WAS A LAW OF MOSES
• CHRISTIANS ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW OF MOSES!

Basically, Smith asserts that tithing was only applied to farmers, who gave out of their surplus the last tenth of their harvest. The purpose of the tithe was to support the temple priests, who were devoted full time to their ministry and therefore had no opportunity to support themselves.

I said I don't endorse Smith's article. That's because there are things in there that I disagree with, e.g. his analysis of the "curse" passage in Malachi, in particular his conclusion about who is cursing who. But, at this point, I tend to agree with most of what he writes. I remember several years ago sitting down with my son to try to explain the tithe, and for the first time actually studying the Bible on the subject. I discovered what Smith did, namely that every verse I could find on the subject dealt exclusively with farmers bringing 10% of their crop to the temple. It was a very specific process applied to a specific segment of the community for a specific purpose, not some universal requirement.

The pro-tithe talk often comes across as vaguely "health and wealth" talk. It isn't the health and wealth gospel most of the time, but it hints in that general direction. Give 10% to the church and God will do wonderful things for you and bless you, give only 8% and God will not bless you. God's blessing is not something one earns or buys.

Most importantly, the tithe focuses one on a specific number, namely the 10% you are required to give. (Is that 10% of gross or 10% of net?) If you are poor and only giving 5%, then you are not meeting God's requirements. If you are wealthy and can easily give 20% of what you have, don't worry about it and just give 10% because that's all God wants. How much did Jesus indicate the rich young rule should give? A mere 10%? No. His target percentage was 100%. Focusing on the 10% target is legalism, pure and simple.

Does God want compulsory giving? No. "Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver. " (2 Cor 9:7) The amount each person gives is between him- or her-self and God, and is to be given cheerfully and willingly.

Certainly we should be generous givers, and we are promised that God will provide such that we will "have an abundance for every good deed." (2 Cor 9:8) But we are to give from our hearts whatever God leads us to give. Knowing what God would have us give does not require a calculator.