FREE WORLDVIEW MAG FREE WORLDVIEW RALLIES
Support World View Weekend

PRAGMATISM VS. BIBLICAL PREACHING: THOUGHTS ON THE PURPOSE-DRIVENŽ CHURCH (18 YEARS LATE)



Posted: 04/02/12

Pragmatism vs. Biblical Preaching

Thoughts on The Purpose-DrivenŽ Church (18 years late)
by Phil Johnson
source: http://teampyro.blogspot.com/




In 2005, a little more than a week after I started blogging, I posted an item about Rick Warren's The Purpose-DrivenŽ Life. It was literally just a photograph and transcript of some marginal notes I had jotted in the flyleaf when I read the book, not anything like a full review.
Then almost exactly two years ago, when the blogosphere was abuzz with controversy over the lineup for 2010's Desiring God Conference, I posted my thoughts on the Piper-Warren connection.
Aside from those two posts, I can't think of any other blogposts I've written that deal with Rick Warren and his deleterious influence-which has been considerable. That seems like a major omission on my part, so today I'm going to post something I would have posted in 1997 if I had been blogging then. At the time, Warren's book on the church was required reading for evangelicals. To this day, countless evangelicals uncritically accept the Purpose-DrivenŽ philosophy as received wisdom-and far too many pastors regard The Purpose-DrivenŽ Church as virtually canonical. Warren now even has John Piper's seal of approval.
I have a different point of view, and I'd like to share it with you.
This post, like that first one, is not meant to be a thorough review; it's just some thoughts on preaching that were prompted by the claim Warren makes in his book's subtitle.


ick Warren's The Purpose DrivenŽ Church is now 18 years old. It is the best-selling book on church ministry philosophy ever.

Warren is sensitive about complaints that his overtly pragmatic strategy for church growth leads to doctrinal compromise, so he subtitled his book, "Growth Without Compromising your Message & Mission." He insists throughout the book that you can follow his "seeker-sensitive" model of ministry without compromising or watering down your message. On page 244, he writes, "A worship service does not have to be shallow to be seeker sensitive. The message doesn't have to be compromised, just understandable."

But then, just a few sentences later, he writes, "The unchurched . . . do want to hear how the Bible relates to their lives in terms they understand and in a tone that shows you respect and care about them. They are looking for solutions, not a scolding."

Notice how quickly Warren undermines his own commitment not to compromise the message. People don't want to be scolded, he tells us. And yet Paul told Timothy that Scripture is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). How do you preach reproof and correction-not to mention instruction in righteousness-without someone feeling scolded?

I frankly don't think it's the business of the preacher to trouble himself with whether people feel scolded. The preacher's task is to unfold the meaning of Scripture in a clear, authoritative, and persuasive manner-and if people feel scolded when Scripture rebukes them (as they inevitably will), then that is between them and the Lord. As a matter of fact, as preachers, we are instructed to reprove and rebuke, as well as exhort-with all longsuffering and doctrine (2 Timothy 4:2).

Doctrine?

Doctrinal preaching also takes a hit from Rick Warren. Notice in that quote that I cited above, he says, "The unchurched . . . want to hear how the Bible relates to their lives." He makes clear throughout the remainder of the book what he means by this. He is arguing for an emphasis in our preaching that is practical rather than doctrinal-more "emotional, experiential, and relational" than didactic. He is dismissively critical of what he calls "classroom churches." In Warren's words: "Classroom churches tend to be left-brain oriented and cognitive focused. They stress the teaching of Bible content and doctrine, but give little, if any, emphasis to believers' emotional, experiential, and relational development" (p. 340).

Now I happen to believe that all doctrine is inherently practical-or at least I would say that there is inherent practical value in understanding and defending sound doctrine. Furthermore, all legitimate religious emotions, experiences, and relationships are a believing heart's response to biblical truth soundly taught: doctrine.

So I don't quite agree with the dichotomy that is typically made by advocates of "seeker-sensitive" ministry. But they make this dichotomy nonetheless. They suggest that there is a significant distinction to be made between truth that is doctrinal and truth that is practical. And according to them, any style of ministry that is too didactic-more "doctrinal" than "practical"-is inappropriate for seeker-sensitive worship.

For example, a defense of the deity of Christ or a systematic presentation of justification by faith might have some academic interest, but doctrinal messages like that aren't deemed sufficiently practical and felt-needs oriented for the seeker-sensitive church environment. You are not at all likely to hear such truths dealt with from the Purpose-DrivenŽ pulpit.

Newsweek once quoted a seeker-sensitive megachurch pastor who said it like this: "People today aren't interested in traditional doctrines like justification, sanctification, and redemption." What people want to hear, this pastor believes, are sermons that address their "felt needs"-how to improve our relationships with other people, how to have success in business, how to find peace of mind-and other things more instantly relevant to busy lives than academic doctrines like justification and sanctification.

Rick Warren is one of the foremost advocates of preaching to people's "felt needs." That is the expression he prefers: "felt needs." That's what he says should determine what we preach. He claims that is how Jesus Himself preached, and he even implies that the didactic content of Paul's epistles contrasts unfavorably with the more practical preaching of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. Instead of urging preachers to declare the whole counsel of God, Rick Warren expressly encourages preachers to consider what the audience wants to hear and let those "felt needs" determine what they preach.

Naturally, Warren attempts to argue that this approach in no way compromises the message. On p. 228 of his book, he writes, "The crowd does not determine whether or not you speak the truth: the truth is not optional." But then in the next breath he says, "Your audience does determine which truths you choose to speak about. And some truths are more relevant than others to unbelievers."

If that sounds like double-talk, it's because that is precisely what it is. The truth itself is not optional, but some truths are optional in practice, because they are not relevant? So much for the whole counsel of God.

Now, I realize that most evangelicals who have bought into the Purpose-DrivenŽ philosophy wouldn't dream of attacking the doctrines of justification by faith, or the deity of Christ, or the absolute authority of Scripture. But they ignore such doctrines rather than risk boring people with academic teaching. The long-term effect is the same as a full-scale assault against those doctrines.

In short, although Rick Warren claims his brand of pragmatism doesn't compromise doctrine, it absolutely does. From the very start, pragmatic considerations determine what he will preach and how he will preach it. And because pragmatism establishes the value system by which he assesses everything, he is not even capable of appreciating how man-centered and watered down his message has become.

 


 

Distributed by www.worldviewweekend.com

Disclaimer: Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network and its columnists do not necessarily endorse or agree with every opinion expressed in every article posted on this site. We do however, encourage a healthy and friendly debate on the issues of our day. Whether you agree or disagree, we encourage you to post your feedback by using the feedback button.

3914 Views

Printer Friendly Version | Return to home | Send this article to a friend

READER FEEDBACK


The gospel according to Norman Vincent Peal
Posted On: 04/15/12 08:16:23 AM Age 0, AZ
I'm sure that Joel Osteen, Robert Schuller, and Creflo Dollar and all the others with fluff ministries which generate tons of empire building cash would not preach the same as they do now if they had the slightest idea that our Messiah was in attendence. No worrys, He's probably not.



Scolding Is Not the Solution
Posted On: 04/11/12 01:13:39 PM Age 0, IL
Christ, Paul, and Peter, gave solutions, not scoldings. They preached the gospel, the ultimate solution, and acknowledged sin without dwelling on the damnation. In Athens, Paul preached to a heathen audience (much like Americans today) and interacted with their faith, showing that Christ was the solution. He didn't scold them for worshiping idols. In Timothy, Paul is demonstrating that Scripture can be used for many things, including correction of unholy lifestyles. The reproof mentioned would specifically apply to correcting Christians that are in sin. That doesn't mean that we need to scold unbelievers. If we did, then Paul would have done so in Acts 17. You can preach righteousness without scolding (to scold means to rebuke someone angrily). A spirit of anger against non-believers will never work for evangelism, and they will not see love if we are angry at them. Was Christ angry when he preached the Sermon on the Mount? Warren's preaching models Christ and Paul. He is a biblical man.

I agree...but, however
Posted On: 04/06/12 11:43:52 AM Age 0, AL
Don't you just love the I agree, buts, and howevers. I am grateful Brannon that you call it like it is without buts and howevers. The but and however folk show where they are leaning and lean too far and one falls. The truth has not changed. One big problem is the old one eyed monster in the family room. It supplies too many excuses to put ones self in neutral and sour while sitting taking in all the garbage especially on so called Christian TV. Eye to eye man to man, woman to woman is still the best way to spread the Word of the gospel. I can hear the wheels turning in the minds of the buts and howevers.



"Warren's doctrine"
Posted On: 04/04/12 07:08:39 PM Age 0, NY
The whole doctrine sounds like 1John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, (feel good) the lust of the eyes(looks appealing ) and the pride of life (success and greatness) is more like the message being preached!!! Doesn't sound like sound doctrine. Sorry if toes are stepped on but this wide road leads to destruction not true salvation!! Jesus said if they hated me they will also hate you etc You are not of this world therefore the world hates you!!!we are to speak the truth in love. His word doesn't return void. Just stick to the word and leave the results up to Him (the Lord) never mind how folks feel!!! Jesus didn't seem worried how anyone felt calling some snakes and vipers!! Praise the Lord for His beautiful word of truth!!

Scold, But With Love
Posted On: 04/04/12 06:52:42 PM Age 0, MN
While I agree with the article that preaching must include the truth about our sin, without concern for whether the hearers are scolded, we are to admonish from love (I Corinthians 13:1, Matthew 23:4). Make it a loving scolding.



Pastor Mike
Posted On: 04/04/12 11:02:06 AM Age 0, TX
Thank you for "a word fitly spoken." The Christian pragmatist movement knows very well that the huge followings they desire to obtain, cannot be obtained by adhering to sound doctrinal teaching from the pulpit, or the "meat" of the word of God. Their audiences are primarily comprised of carnal Christians (babes) and "natural" men, who will leave (and take their money with them) if they aren't fed the milk and pablum they demand.

The Difference
Posted On: 04/04/12 10:50:52 AM Age 0, KY
Q: What's the difference between a salesman and a preacher? A: A salesman tell you what you want to hear; a preacher tells you what yu need to hear. Warren is obviously a salesman. He should open up a used car lot, not a church.



Peter said I go a Fishing...
Posted On: 04/04/12 08:29:08 AM Age 0, GA
I just read the.article pertaining to Rick Warren's Purpose Driven Church. I agree that we cannot water down the Gospel, and that all scripture is revelent; however my scriptural mentors have taught me that you cannot scale a fish until after you have caught it. The Pharisees had their doctrine, the Saducees had their doctrine...but they missed and rejected Jesus. Jesus is the only true doctrine...as He is revealed in scripture in both the old and new testaments.

Truth Trumped By Warren's Pragmatism
Posted On: 04/04/12 02:42:33 AM Age 0, HI
The sensibility of man will, until the end of the Millennium, always strive against the Truth of God. Rick Warren's drivel is just the latest whimper of the kronos that is passing away.

Post Feedback

Ebook Documentary
Special Video

Click Here to Watch Now


Limited Time
Special Offer:

Ebook + Hard Cover
Click Here for Details





Sign up to receive our
FREE Biblical Worldview Newsletter!

* Your Email Address:
* State: 
* Country:
   
for even MORE alerts sign up here
Bookmark and Share
Find us: Twitter / Facebook
Search Worldview Weekend:
Worldview Tube
Watch the latest commentary by Brannon Howse
Worldview Radio
Listen to the latest Worldview Weekend Radio with Brannon Howse
Roku Channel

iPhone/Android App

Worldview Weekend Online Academy for Students and Adults






Worldview Weekend
Family Reunion

Branson, Missouri
April 26, 27, 28, 2013

Worldview Weekend Radio
with Brannon Howse

Listen live to Worldview Weekend Radio with Brannon Howse M-F at 1-2 pm CT.






Brannon Howse
Worldview Weekend
President and Founder
Find us on Twitter and Facebook!
Contact Us
Copyright © 2010 Worldview Weekend.com