We have used the book for Bible study. I think it is a wonderful book. I think it holds Christians to a high standard of living but does so in a hope-filled, encouraging way. Discipleship, sacrifice, confession and repentance are recurrent themes, as are change, transformation, and renewal. I've read the book three or four times and find it very God-centered.

Quite frankly, I think the attacks on the book are mainly a fit of jealousy.

In certain areas concerning baptism, God's providence, predestination and such, Rick Warren varies signifantly from United Methodist theology. Our leaders and I take the time to point those differences out.

Rick Warren is far more conservative both theologically and politically than I am, so I am perplexed by the idea that the book isn't doctrinally conservative.

When Rick Warren de-emphasizes doctine, he isn't claiming that differences on communion, infant baptism and such don't matter -- only that they ultimately don't matter. He is warning of religion that is so rigid that people don't take the time to discover what God's purpose for their life is -- they are too busy engaging in petty arguments with their neighbors.

I have some strong views against Calvinism, as I am strongly in the Arminianism camp. But at the same time I can truthfully say that if one has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that difference doesn't ultimately matter.

I realize that an endorsement of Warren's book coming from a "liberal" such as myself offers scant encouragment to the more conservative readers here, but as I believe that Rick's book is a gift from God, I want to defend it.

I think DeWaay is off base. I've read this book and intend to begin reading it again. For what it's worth I've also recommended it more than once on JC.C. I think he examines the book the same way Michael Moore examines public policy. There are kernals of truth to his criticisms, but I think they obscure the larger truth.

Thanks for the great article by DeWaay. I was afraid it was just me.
Our church started a small group home study on "the Purpose Driven Life". It seemed interesting at first but I remember remarking to my wife that I did not remember bible verses being "translated" as they appeared in the book. I also remember Pastor Warren remarking that the bible is not a "self help" book and self help books were of little use. I told my wife I thought "Purpose Driven Life" was exactly a self help book.
It is interesting also that the study interferred with normal worship and study in that the same lesson was preached in the pulpit and if you went to a "home study" the regular Sunday School class was unnecessary because the same study was being taught in Sunday School.
After the assigned ten weeks was finished I opted to leave the study and return to Sunday School. We discovered that our "in church" Sunday School had opted to redo the book and whereas the original study had covered four chapters a week each chapter would now take the better part of a year (excluding special serviecs like easter etc). Man! I was trapped like a rat! I am not attending Sunday School at the moment. I am grateful that the morning Sunday Services are more or less back to normal. I understand the older adult class (much older) is still doing a quarterly. My wife and I have decided to to attend these studies but this is a hard decision because the sexes are seperated in that class. My wife and I are not spring chickens. We have been married forty four years. But it is difficult hanging out with folks whose main social topic is someone's funeral.
I have not mentioned to the pastor or anyone else my feelings about these "conscentration upon one's navel" exercises and I will not. I am almost sure it would be viewed as an attack so I will hold my peace and pray somewhere here Jacob will wrestle with an angel.
Thanks for the piece. I thought I was just getting old and contrary.

The Purpose Driven Church is an excellent book that has offered the many people who read it an opportunity to reconsider a relationship with God. Rick Warren never claimed his book was the Gospel but The Purpose Driven Life consistently and faithfully points the way to that Gospel. My experience is that the Christians who dislike Warren's book are frequently the same ones who argue with the minister on Sunday morning about Bible translations and secondary religious details while missing the spiritual main points. They tend to be argumentative and contrary in many ways. I wish you had not posted this item since so much of what you write about is admirable.

Perhaps I'm still cranky from travel, but this is over the line:

"I wish you had not posted this item since so much of what you write about is admirable."

Essentially, this means "You've posted something I disagree with, and I dislike that." The site's name is "In the Agora," not "Stuff You'll Agree With."

While I have a few points of disagreement with Warren in 'The Purpose Driven Life,' I love the book, have used it before, and will use it again.

There's a lot of shallow junk coming from the Christian media. This book can't fairly be seen in this way, though.

False doctrine? Hardly... But perhaps a bit skewed... Jesus commands us to love Him and to love one another. You want purpose? Understand that. I think the book was too self-focused for my tastes.

Many people come to Christ and then properly hear churches condemn this sin and that sin. But a lot of folks are left struggling with "what now?". (Others may think it shallow, but I was delighted to hear that washing the dishes can be a praise or worship experience.) New Christians, or wandering ones, may start to believe that Christianity is just a list of do's and don'ts that leaves them feeling overwhelmed. Warren's book has a lot of emphasis on service, the great commission, etc., all in the context of the need for ongoing worship and prayer. It takes the reader from mere belief to faith-doing (works done in response to faith) Over and over the reader is asked to ponder not what he or she wants out of life but what God wants for the reader's life. Many Christians come to believe that the essence of Christianity is personal morality. That's part of it, but sacrificial living is far more encompassing. In many ways, I found the book more God-centered than many other books used in church. If it were simply a "self-help" book, it would have left me feeling good about what I've done with my life. Instead, it made me question my level of discipleship. In some ways, Warren's book is centered more on sanctification than it is on justification and book is one alternative to filling out a "spiritual gifts" inventory that then gets filed away somewhere, forgotten and unused. I've personally witnessed greater discipleship by many of those who have gone through the 40 days.

Billy Graham did some wonderful things bringing people to Christ, but quite frankly many have been left hanging after that emotional response to "Just As I Am."

While the book may be used in Bible study groups, its design is for discipleship, covenant or accountability-type groups. Thus, it isn't meant to replace book-by-book, verse-by-verse study.

Just as "Promise Keepers" isn't/wasn't for evbeyone, Warren's book isn't one size fits all either. But it helped me and many others.

I would encourage you all to read the "Purpose Driven" Reviews at 9marks.org

I am the Web Master for the site and also a supporter of 9Marks Ministries. I think the reviews are fair and give the pros and cons to the books/ methods.

I'm a lay person and don't pretend to understand theological implications of this book. At the same time, our men's group just finished reading it together. A few observations:

1. the book does read like a prescriptive "how to" book which, in my opinion, degrades the human experience,

2. the book (and any other book that reorganizes the message into some sort of modern-day interpretation) creates an artificial crutch that continues to allow people to discuss "how they feel about the book" instead of "how they feel about Christ". I wish we could just forget the books and talk about our relationship with Christ.

3. the book places nice emphasis on what is "your purpose." It's amazing how many people, Christians included, go through life without any purpose. I do think this important question (what is your purpose?) is one that should be asked frequently by the pastor and not require a book to discuss it.

I'm grateful for the additional perspective, and I think Josh comes closest to answering my question. Perhaps DeWaay was being selective and misleading -- I of course don't know, not having read the book.

The 9marks.org reviews are also very intelligent and thorough.

What I was looking for, though, were responses to the six areas DeWaay highlights, to wit:

• TPDL is self-centred
• The Gospel is watered down, leading to false assurance
• Warren cherry picks translations and paraphrasing that do not stand up to Berean analysis
• TPDL is too works-oriented (of special concern to my pastor)
• Extra-biblical divination
• De-emphasis on Bible study
• Distorting the nature of God

In many of the reviews I've read, people do not doubt Warren's sincerity in trying to write a useful book, though one major criticism DeWaay doesn't explore is how commercial the "Purpose Driven" brand is.

As for suggestions Warren's detractors are merely jealous, obtuse, or truculent, the truth of these things is indepedent of the criticisms, which must be met on their own (de)merits.

And Marty raises some insightful interesting points. The the last of which, I ask our readers what their own experience has been with the spiritual aspects of vocation.

As a seminary student and youth minister I have finally found a subect on the ITA that I am at least somewhat qualified to address. I just read Mr. DeWaay's article and began seeing red flags thrown up from the very beginning. It seems like the premise of Mr. DeWaay's article revolves around the use of "questionable" translations. So I'll begin my response there. Most of the translations in PDL are from either the New Living Translation or the Message. Both translations have an unique purpose of trying to communicate the unchanging message to a ever-changing culture. They were both created by scholars in the language field over quite some time. Truth of the matter is that if we are going to debate the translations chosen, we would be best to go back to the original Greek and Hebrew (but most of us would be left unable to read our Bibles). I think Mr. DeWaay handles this issue poorly.

With regards to "you": Mr. DeWaay misses the point of Warren's statement. What Warren is saying is that our primary purpose in life is not about us, but rather HIM. The purpose of life is to know HIM and to be known by HIM. My life is not to be surmised by my vocational setting and aspirations, diplomas, achievements, appointments, etc. It is to be about seeking HIM who sought me first.

With regards to the gospel: I feel Mr. DeWaay errors again. While there may be some truth in that a balance between heaven and hell, sin and salvation is needed, DeWaay errors in his response. His reaction is just as one-sided as Warren's, if just opposite. The truth of the matter is that this is a struggle for every pastor who climbs into a pulpit on Sunday morning. How do you strike a balance between a just God who punishes sin with a loving God who loved the world enough that HE would send HIS only Son to die in our place? With regards to the topic of love, I would recommend Mr. DeWaay read 1 John where we are instructed that our love of God and others will identify us as Christians.

With regards to "Warren studies": I believe that Mr. DeWaay needs to begin by understanding the context in which Rick Warren wrote this book. Warren has served as the faithful and effective pastor of Saddleback Church for many years. In the context of his ministry, he has encouraged thousands of individuals to grow and mature in their walk, commit to ministry and missions. To truly understand how Warren feels about the Word of God, I would recommend DeWaay reads The Purpose Driven Church, the original book in the Purpose Driven series.

Scripture says that we can identify a tree by its fruit. I think the same is true for Warren's work. He has committed his life to selfless ministry. Through his ministry and PDL thousands have begun to attend church, accept Jesus Christ as Lord, and open the Word of God expecting to learn. This fruit tells you all you need to know about the book. In the opinion of this individual, I would highly recommend PDL to all Christians and those interested in knowing more about the Christian faith.

...the New Living Translation or the Message. Both translations have an unique purpose of trying to communicate the unchanging message to a ever-changing culture.

Pardon me if I'm being too picky, but as I understand it the NLT and The Message are paraphrase versions of the Bible, not translations. The prof. who taught my "Intro to the New Testament" elective class at Indiana U. (certainly no fundamentalist) forbade us from using those versions. Without a doubt, those versions have their good points (especially when one is trying to reach unchurched people), but it seems to me that with a paraphrase the author's viewpoint is subtly intermeshed with the original content of the text.

As for TPDL, I'm in the same boat as Zach. However, I do tend to be suspicious of any Christian teaching that gains such widespread enthusiasm that it has its own display case in secular bookstores (TPDL, Prayer of Jabez, etc.) Christ was offensive to many people during his earthly ministry--both the religious and non-religious.

It may just be, however, that TPDL is shallow but not heretical. In other words it's milk, not solid food (Hebrews 5:12-14).

I read this book, and I agree 100%.

This book has NOTHING to do with real Christianity, and everything to do with indoctrination.

The objection by many fundamentalists seems to be that the book is popular among non-fundamentalists, particularly evangelical United Methodists. To me, that would be like saying that the integrity of "In the Agora" is compromised because of the fact that I like it.

As for PDL being too "works oriented" that could be a valid criticism from a fundamentalist viewpoint. John Wesley was very works-oriented even as he believed that salvation is by faith alone, grace alone.

As a United Methodist, I don't believe in "once saved, always saved" so my theology will color how I view Warren's book. We believe that our faith must be evidenced by good works or else that faith is mere illusion.

While I would agree that the NLT and the Message are not the best uses for an exegetical study, they have a purpose (that I believe fits with PDL). I would also agree that the PDL is a starting point for Bible study, not the end. The goal is to create an appetite and an understanding that leads to further study. I think that "Osama's" comments are off-base and sadly represent an underinformed segment of the ITA population. I think that if you want to find "questionable" teachings in anything, you can read them into anything. Perhaps this is why the book of Hebrews/James have been rejected throughout history by different scholars.

I would also recommend that Zach spend the time between now and the end of February giving it a chance. See if it furthers your development or becomes a stumbling block.

I've not read PDL but I've read many reviews, positive & negative, & it seems to me that the book's content is very familiar.

St Therese of Lisieux lived in the late 19th century. She gave voice to many of the concepts Warren seems to have put in his book. Everything we do can be done with love & for God in cooperation with His will. It is by His grace that we have faith & everything we do, no matter how mundane, we can do for the glory of God. She called it her Little Way. By doing everything for God, & keeping the Gospels in mind as we do them, we can sanctify, make holy, every part of our lives. (Even, as one poster mentioned above, washing the dishes.) In doing so, in putting the focus on God's will in our lives & living out His will through the faith we have been given, we leave little room for straying from the path of holiness. It puts Christ's desires for us at the center or our lives rather than our personal wants. One can turn anything into a prayer done for the glory of God! It is a way of love, humility & - yes - purpose. It should be done with purpose for Him who humbled Himself to die for our sins.

If that's what Warren's book is about then that's cool. But if it's in any way an elevation of the self over the will of God (&, frankly, I've not seen much to show me that is is), then if should be avoided. The biggest criticism I've seen of Warren's book, even among his proponents, is that it's slight & a bit shallow. Again, I haven't read it so I don't know. I do know that there is quite a lot of theological depth to this concept & that is bourne out in St Therese's writings.

I agree with Eric's last 2 paragraphs. And I do think there's something to be said, in the negative, for his use of paraphrased Biblical translations in the work which can be woefully inaccurate & misleading. Stronger choices could have been made.

It's worth noting that the "Point to Ponder" after the very first chapter reads, "It's not about me." DeWaay is Waaaay off base.

Out of curiosity, if you believe in salvation by faith alone, do you disregard the book of James?

Also, if you're saved by grace alone, why do you need even faith? Why not say you're saved by grace and faith together? "grace alone and faith alone" makes little sense.

Matthew,

The answer to your question comes from Ephesians 2:8&9. We are saved "by grace through faith." It is God's act of grace that makes salvation possible. It is our act of faith that makes our salvation actual. The difference between potential and actual are the key. God's grace (depending on how Calvinistic you are) is for everyone. Like a present on Christmas or a scholarship offer, we have to accept it to experience the benefits of it.

For those wondering the quote is from the NIV.

Thanks to Trey for a closer analysis.

Berean grounds You're right that a comparison to the original Greek or Hebrew would be stronger, but failing that, use of strict translations like NASB seem appropriate. So isn't DeWaay guilty of using the next-best alternative rather than handling the issue poorly? And I'd say that NLT and The Message are not widely-accepted, and are probably inappropriate for the ways Warren seems to be using them (I suppose we'll just have to disagree on this). Other criticisms also peg Warren for his Scriptural cherry picking.

Ego-centrism As Joshua contends, DeWaay may be doing some cherry picking of his own, yet other criticisms also make a similar charge that TPDL is too man-centred. I'm not sure what your theological background is, but I'm led to believe that our vocation does have a lot to do with our purpose in life. Also, I'm curious about what is meant by "seeking HIM." As I'd understand this, this would be regular incorporation of the means of grace into my worship. Warren is charged with a works-oriented methodology.

Gospel You're quite right about the need to adequately balance law and gospel. The charge here is that Warren fails to deliver a full and accurate depiction of both. We know that it is a hard lesson to learn of our sinfulness and repent, and seeker-sensitive literature tends to water this down to make it more palitable. Again, I'm not sure what your background is, but more conservative Christians generally dislike that tactic.

Warren Studies Granted, this may be true. But the burden is fairly high on those who'd wish to supplant Bible studies with some other work. The case for TPDL is strengthened considerably by extensive Biblical citation, but as we see in DeWaay's criticisms, the appropriateness and accuracy of these citations undermines Warren's work.

Finally, few are questioning Warren's sincerity, except those especially troubled by the brand saturation, as I noted above. If TPDL does bring the Word to the unchurched or the weak, so much the better. But I think conservatives are worried about the flies in the ointment.

As for actually reading the book, I'd have to say a brief cost-benefit analysis dissuades me. I think I could profit from reading other works a great deal more, and the precise degree of utility of TPDL is not especially consequential to me personally. My only concern is whether it can be a stumbling block for others.

As for you, Matthew, you off-topic provocateur ;-), you raise questions that deserve their own thread.

And what an interesting thread it might be!

To continue the dialogue:

As a minister, I tend to use the translation of Scripture that the congregation I am communicating with is using. Our church uses the NIV. I've preached in congregations that preferred the KJV or NASB. I personally prefer the NIV, but that is a personal preference. I have heard of ministers recommending individuals read the NLT or the Message in a devotional setting (which is the purpose of PDL I believe). I have no problem with this.

With regards to the quality of these translations/paraphrases: The Message was t/p by Eugene Peterson. Peterson is a leader in the evangelical Christian world. He is a professor/minister and is a contributing editor for Leadership Journal, one of the leading resources for ministers. The NLT is recommended by leading evangelicals like Dr. Bill Bright and Ron Luce, among others. On their website, they have several great articles with regards to the question of translation. I recommend this site as a place for further reading: http://www.newlivingtranslation.com/real/essential.asp

With regards to the gospel: It seems like you are quite familiar with the seeker-sensitive debate inspired by John MacArthur. MacArthur is a great scholar and wonderful Bible teacher. However, he only represents a portion of the evangelical church. I think in many cases individuals do not need to be reminded about how bad we are; we already know that. We live with ourselves. What many people need to know is that there is a GOD who loves them in spite of this. They need to hear verses like Romans 5:8 which tells us that GOD loves us while we were/are still sinning.

I understand your feelings regarding the cost/benefit analysis. However, it is hard to judge the benefits of a book by its cover (or DeWaay's comments). I would think that Josh's recommendation and the fact that he plans to re-read it would make this a must read for every person In The Agora.

"I would think that Josh's recommendation and the fact that he plans to re-read it would make this a must read for every person In The Agora."

Like Zach, but more forcefully, I dissent. Since I haven't even read Moby Dick yet, the gradient of literary quality has a long way to go. This book simply isn't on my list, for many reasons.

The reading is short - it calls for about two and a half pages a day. So for the Christian who already has Biblical/devtional material as part of their regular reading diet, I think it's worthwhile.

Amen, Paul. I'm figure I haven't read enough Aquinas, Chesterton, Lewis, etc. & I should probably tackle more of their works before something like PDL. Ultimately, books like Orthodoxy or the Summa Theologica will be around longer.

For me. For those who find benefit in PDL . . . I pray God will use it to lead them to a more perfect expression of His will in their lives!