Now Complete !

Below the reader will find my critical review of Rick Warren’s The Purpose-Driven Life, which now is complete through all forty chapters. I would like to thank the small set of readers who have maintained their interest in this project through the several years it took to complete. Their encouragement has been very edifying. I will continue to monitor the comments posted here, and will (Lord willing) respond in civil discourse to any who may wish to pursue discussion.

Day One - It All Starts with God

This book gets off to a good start. The first three paragraphs hold out a promise of more great things come. We are urged to consider God first in all things because He is the Creator of all things. This is precisely where Calvin began his Institutes of the Christian Religion, pointing out that while knowledge of self and knowledge of God seem to involve one another, rightly true knowledge of self depends upon true knowledge of God. As he proceeds, Mr. Warren elaborates on two possible methods of pursuing true self-knowledge: speculation and revelation. In this also he echoes the procedure of Calvin. Rightly, he dismisses speculation. Given that we are not the Creator, therefore, we cannot pronounce authoritatively on the meaning of creation. Rightly, he urges revelation, and rightly, he identifies revelation as the Word of God; the Bible. The Creator speaks and thus defines created reality. Our knowledge of ourselves, and of all creation, is true if it is grounded in revelation.

However, in what follows the great promise of the foregoing is dashed. Mr. Warren parts company with Calvin and with all sound and biblical wisdom. In the Institutes Calvin proceeds to elaborate on the impediment of sin and on the true Doctrine of Revelation in the Bible. Mr. Warren glosses over the matter of sin entirely. Thus, a crucial question is left unasked and therefore unanswered: if we are the creation of God, then why is there difficulty with knowing this and with understanding ourselves and reality aright? Having bypassed this inquiry altogether, Mr. Warren therefore entertains no compunction to elaborate a Doctrine of Revelation. This departure from biblical wisdom leads to many problems, a number of which are exhibited during the course of this first Day.

Even though he has stressed “revelation” over speculation, he repeatedly speaks of true self-knowledge as that which we “discover” (p. 18, 19, 20). Our “discovery” is said to come, “…through a relationship with Jesus Christ” (p.20). But, with no clear idea of sin in view, this idea of “discovery” cannot meaningfully be portrayed as involved in Redemption. This problem suggests a refinement of the question posed above: if I am God’s creation, then why should I be without a relationship with Jesus Christ? Indeed, how is it possible for any creature to exist apart from being related to the Creator? However, there is no hint of consideration of these questions. Instead there is only the assurance that it is within our initiative and power to begin such a relationship; as he puts it, “If you don’t have such a relationship, I will later explain how to begin one” (p.20). This, in turn, suggests further questions, e.g: If God is the Creator of all reality, and so determines the meaning and purpose of all things, then how can we meaningfully speak of a relationship between God and His creature as depending upon the initiative and power of the creature? Mr. Warren affords us no explanation.

Indeed, if I “discover” my meaning and purpose through initiative I exercise to begin a relationship with Jesus Christ, then what really remains of a “Creator” or any “revelation” consisting of His Word? How is the Bible essentially different from the Koran, the Talmud, the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, the Vedas, the I-Ching, the Ovid, et. al.? How is the Bible essentially different from thoughts of my own mind? Mr. Warren closes this first Day with what is supposed to be an inspiring story of an atheist Russian novelist, who was overcome with great despair. And then, “…suddenly, all by itself, a phrase appeared: Without God life makes no sense.” (p.21) How is the Bible essentially different from “all by itself, a phrase appeared”? One may suggest that the experience of the Russian atheist is an example of the “general revelation” of Nature. Indeed, biblical orthodoxy holds that whereas men are in fact the creatures of God, and made in His image, therefore it is their nature to know this and to know Him, even though in sin they seek to flee Him. But Mr. Warren undertakes no discussion comparing and contrasting the “general” revelation of Nature and the “special” revelation of the Bible. The Russian atheist is presented as arriving at true faith in God via thoughts that arise in his mind.

Biblical orthodoxy holds on the one hand that the general revelation of Nature is sufficient that all men know God and know their duty to God, and therefore are “without excuse” in their sin (Rom. 1:18-23), and on the other hand that only the special revelation of the Bible is sufficient for the regeneration of men unto truth (Rom. 10:6-17). “Revelation” means that God reveals to us that which we could not know apart from Him speaking to us. This is what makes the Bible different from other “sacred texts.” The Bible is the Word of the Creator of all reality. Other texts are the words of men. The truly Christian idea is to maintain a clear and deep distinction between the Creator and the creature - between the God who defines and determines all of reality and the man who inhabits, experiences, and is limited by reality. The authority of the Bible in the thought and lives of men is founded upon this distinction. Apart from this distinction the mind and the thoughts of “God” cannot ultimately be separated from the mind and the thoughts of man. In this case there could be no meaningful distinction between the Bible and any other words we may happen to encounter.

Mr. Warren’s message thus far seems to be: 1) Man is a creature of God, but 2) somehow the “creature” may exist without relation to the “Creator”; 3) although this is problematic for the creature, nevertheless he may exercise his power and initiative to enter into relationship to the Creator; 4) something that we have the habit of referring to as “revelation” somehow will be involved in his “discovering” the meaning and purpose of life. Mr. Warren’s concepts of “God,” “Man,” “Revelation,” and “Discovery” are rather nebulous. Therefore, under these terms a man’s transformation from meaninglessness and purposelessness into meaning and purpose is an ill-defined process of becoming; the creature somehow becomes what the Creator made him to be. As Mr. Warren puts it, “It is about becoming what God created you to be” (p.19).

In contrast to this, a biblically orthodox message holds that 1) it is the nature of the creature to be related to the Creator - that nothing can exist apart from this relation (Col. 1:17); 2) that Man’s problem consists not of a metaphysical difficulty whereby he somehow lacks this relation, but of a moral difficulty of being a sinner, who has broken God’s Law and therefore stands guilty before Him; i.e. he is not without relation to God, but bears the relation of a sinner before his Judge rather than a son before his Father; 3) that, therefore, man’s need is not to “begin a relationship with Jesus,” but to find a remedy for his sin; 4) and that the evidence of Nature is sufficient to condemn every man who refuses to bow before his Creator, but that only the authoritative Word of the Creator, Who alone determines and interprets all of reality, is sufficient to teach us the positive truths of who we are, the fact of our sin, and the remedy provided by God in Christ.

While Mr. Warren began his treatise with the promise of a “Creator / creature distinction,” this promise has not been fulfilled. Though he has mouthed the words dismissing “speculation,” in the end the view he has constructed can be nothing more than speculative. His characterization of God’s truth as a human “discovery” implies a correlativity, not a distinction, of the “Creator” and the “creature.” In this case, what can “Creator” and “creature” really mean? Either man is a sinner who must humble himself before his Creator to learn from His Word the truth of Creator and creature, or else he is a morally neutral “seeker” who must remain free to determine the meaning of “creator” and “creature” for himself. Mr. Warren has left sin out of the discussion altogether, whereas apart from a true “Creator / creature distinction” there can be no truly biblical idea of sin. Without a truly biblical idea of sin Mr. Warren is forced into a position of having to embrace the very speculation that he made a show of rejecting. Lacking a true idea of man’s basic problem, he is prevented from suggesting a true remedy. His solution has everything to do with “relationship” and nothing to do with “Redemption.” Still, his opening paragraphs present a spark of truth. We must press on in hope that this spark may yet be kindled and that his deficiencies might be made up in the days to come.

Day Two - You Are Not an Accident

Mr. Warren once again holds out promise to us, as he begins Day Two with biblical wisdom concerning the origins of the human being. We are, he assures us, created by God, who acted in His infinite sovereignty to control all factors involved in the creation, birth, life and death of each person. He is bold in asserting the biblical, though not terribly popular, teaching that, “God’s purpose took into account human error, and even sin.” (p.23) Here we see the idea of sin has made an appearance, which was sorely missed in Day One. Mr. Warren waxes long in detailing the Doctrine of Creation, but seems content to assume that his readers need no further explanation of sin. However, we already have seen that elaboration of the Doctrine of Sin - indeed, even awareness of it - was desperately needed yesterday. Today, mention of it is present, but a great deal beyond mere mention is needed in order to make up for the deficiencies already noted. Let us see whether this renewed promise will bear fruit.

Mr. Warren asserts that Man was uppermost in God’s creative motive. The earth was designed and made with us in mind, we are told. This is quite right in one sense. But already the reader begins to wonder whether this compromises the grandeur of that powerful foundational premise, “It’s not about you.” (p.17) The reader grows even more leery, and an unsettling pattern emerges of promise followed closely by disappointment, as we encounter Mr. Warren’s further supporting argument. He cites scientist Dr. Michael Denton, who said that, “…the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality have their meaning and explanation in this central fact.” (p.24) Mr. Warren then immediately adds his own declaration that, “The Bible said the same thing thousands of years earlier.” (p.24) He cites Isaiah 45:18 in support of his view: “God formed the earth…He did not create it to be empty but formed it to be inhabited.” However, declaring that God intended the earth to be inhabited with people hardly is the same thing as saying that “all facets of reality have their meaning and explanation” in the “central fact” of human life. Dr. Denton’s statement is clear enough, but it is far from clear whether his statement amounts to the same thing as what the Bible has been saying for thousands of years. We must give this matter a great deal more scrutiny than Mr. Warren has allowed.

It would appear that Mr. Warren frames the issue in such a way that ideas of meaning or significance arise only from Christians and that all unbelief is characterized by meaninglessness and despair. However, in reality this is not accurate. Many unbelievers are driven by a strong sense of meaning and purpose, and many Christians are plagued with despair. Non-Christian ideas of meaning and purpose are false, and many Christians wrongly indulge feelings of despair. It simply is not true that profession of Christian faith automatically results in a glowing sense of meaning and purpose, nor is it true that unbelief always results in a sense of meaningless and despair. Dr. Denton may be a fine Christian gentleman, but what he expressed, cited by Mr. Warren, is not a Christian idea of meaning and significance. His view has everything in common with Aristotle and nothing in common with Scripture. The ancient Greeks sought an ultimate principle that would explain and unify all things, and assumed that the human mind could determine this principle. They spoke much about “god,” but their conception was anything but the Christian and biblical idea of a Sovereign, Un-created, Creator above and outside all reality. However variously conceived, their gods always were correlative with men as, like us, subject to ultimately abstract concepts of truth and rationality. As such, “god” could not authoritatively determine truth or meaning for man. The Greek ideal was precisely as Dr. Denton expressed: human life was the fundamental goal and purpose of reality, which has its meaning and explanation in this central fact. Ancient Greek philosophy was the epitome of Humanism. Humanism at its root is simply the effort to find the explanation and meaning of life and existence without any acknowledgement of the Creator. This is precisely the “philosophy” Paul warned us about in Colossians 2:8.

The Christian idea of meaning is exactly opposed to this. The Christian idea is that unless one begins his contemplation of life and existence with acknowledgement of the Creator, he cannot succeed in grasping the truth. Existence is explained by the fact of creation, and is explained only by this fact. Existence means what it does only because this is what the Creator has determined it to mean. To seek the explanation and meaning of existence without acknowledgement of the Creator not only is misguided - it is sinful. It is sinful because the failure to acknowledge God amounts to the denial of God (see, e.g. Romans 1:18-32). One cannot challenge the non-Christian quest for meaning without an unequivocal declaration of the sinfulness of this quest. In relegating the Doctrine of Sin to a mere mention so far in his treatise, Mr. Warren has prevented any true assessment of Christian vs. non-Christian ideas of meaning. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should see an equivalence between Dr. Denton’s declaration that human life is the “central fact” of existence and the message of the Bible. In reality the biblical message is that Creation is the central fact of existence, and man’s supposition that his own life is the central fact giving meaning and explanation to all existence is an error arising directly from his sinful denial of God.

Mr. Warren seemed to hint at the Christian idea of meaning in the opening of this chapter with his inspiring description of the omniscience and omnipotence of the Sovereign Creator. But words can mean so many varied things. It takes an elaboration of the larger system in which words are couched in order to know truly and as fully as possible what is meant. As we proceed through this Day Two it is difficult to maintain a presumption that Mr. Warren intends the God of the Bible, the God of historic and biblical Christianity, the God of our Fathers. Charitably, we might say that he has misunderstood Dr. Denton’s remarks. However, we then come to Mr. Warren’s own remarks concerning meaning and reality and we find that the more he elaborates his view, the more his view diverges from Christian orthodoxy. He states, “If there was no God, we would all be ‘accidents,’ the result of astronomical random chance in the universe.” (p.25) From this we see that Mr. Warren is willing to entertain a hypothesis that God does not exist. True Christian wisdom rejects this as a totally unworthy hypothesis. It is the hypothesis of the fool (Ps. 10:4; 14:1; 53:1, Rom. 1:22, I Cor. 1:20). We already saw yesterday that Mr. Warren was willing to speak of the existence of Man without relation to the Creator. If this were possible, then Man possibly may exist whether or not the “Creator” exists. Persisting in an attempt to consider what sort of reality we would have if there were no Creator, Mr. Warren is willing to hypothesize that in this case there somehow still would be a “universe,” and that random chance operating in this “universe” might somehow produce Man. Mr. Warren is willing to hypothesize that Man yet might exist if there were no God, but in this case he is certain that his existence would have no meaning. This willingness to consider the bare existence of a thing separately from the consideration of its meaning is the essence of the Humanistic approach to reality: “God” is brought in after the “fact” as a way of providing some meaning to something that hypothetically may exist independently of “god.” In sharp contrast to this the Christian idea of reality binds existence and meaning together in the Doctrine of Creation. Nothing can exist independently from God; existence means what it does because it is the creation of God.

The Humanist is quite happy to speak of “god” in connection with the question of the meaning of life, so long as the existence of life is established completely independently of whether or not “god” exists. Not surprisingly then we read Mr. Warren thus: “We discover … meaning and purpose only when we make God the reference point of our lives.” (p.25). It is well and good to speak of God as the “reference point” for a right interpretation of all reality. But the Christian idea of this is that God unalterably is this reference point because existence unalterably is His creation. The truth of this along with the meaning it provides is revealed to us. The Humanist spin is that “god” might perform this function or not depending on the tastes of autonomous man, and that if the autonomous man chooses to make “god” this reference point, then he might proceed from there to “discover” meaning. Due to the superior power, wisdom, and knowledge the Humanist ascribes to “god” he may appeal to such a “god” for expert testimony concerning the meaning of things that exist independently of “god.” But ultimately the Humanist reserves his own mind as the final arbiter of these things. If we “make God the reference point of our lives,” then it no longer is God whom we have made the reference point of our lives. Christian epistemology holds that the sinner must repent and confess that unless the Creator exists, nothing exists, and that unless the Creator exhaustively knows his creation, nothing means anything, and that a quest for meaning that does not begin by bowing before God is a sinful quest. But these things cannot be held apart from a firm and clear Doctrine of Sin, which to this point Mr. Warren has not provided.

Day Three - What Drives Your Life?

This chapter builds squarely upon the idea of meaning and purpose introduced in the previous chapter. Heretofore we were told that God is “creator” and we are the creature. However we were not told how it is possible that thoughts in the mind of God are on a par with our thoughts, so that we may “discover” what is “revealed.” We were told that only as we are in “relationship” with Him may we “discover” our meaning and purpose. However, we were not told how it has come to be that by default we are without rather than within such relationship. We simply are assured that we may act in some way to bring about such relationship, and that having so acted we then may successfully “discover” meaning and purpose. However, we were not told how it is possible that the creature may determine anything for the Creator. Key to sorting out these difficulties is clear and biblical discussion of the Doctrine of Sin, sorely lacking thus far in this treatise.

The idea of Sin was completely absent in Day One, broached in passing in Day Two, and here we see it is touched upon again. “When Cain sinned, his guilt disconnected him from God’s presence.” (p.28) Mr. Warren evidently chose the case of Cain because the text then goes on to say of him, “you will be a restless wanderer on the earth” (Gen. 4:12). This leads nicely into his point, “That describes most people today - wandering through life without a purpose.” (p.28) However, this does not accurately characterize the nature or consequences of sin. Cain’s parents Adam and Eve sinned and they were not “disconnected from God’s presence,” for we see them bringing sacrifice to God, which was the pretext of Cain’s sin. If the consequence of sin is becoming “disconnected from God’s presence,” then what is meant in Genesis 4:15, that God “appointed a sign for” or “set His mark on” Cain? In context of his thesis, Mr. Warren seems to wish to say that being in relationship with - connected with - God allows us to “discover” our purpose, but that being out of relationship with - disconnected from - God inhibits such discovery. Here he declares that sin is what effects this disconnection. There is a form of truth in this. However, as recounted in above, Mr. Warren’s ideas of Creator, creation, man, existence and meaning are badly muddled and left in a state indistinguishable from Humanism. Crucial to recovering a truly Christian concept of these things is a truly biblical Doctrine of Sin. Mr. Warren has missed another opportunity to provide this.

“Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the Law of God.” So says the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q14. This is based upon the very clear statement of I John 3:4, “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness.” The sinner stands morally guilty before God. The sinner is not “disconnected from God’s presence,” rather he comes under the wrath of God, “for it is on account of these things [men’s sins] that the wrath of God will come.” (Col. 3:6) There is a true sense in which the sinner is estranged from God’s Grace, as is expressed in Isaiah 59:1-2, “Behold, the Lord’s hand is not so short that it cannot save; neither is His ear so dull that it cannot hear. But your iniquities have made a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He does not hear.” Verse one makes it abundantly plain that there is nothing wrong with God’s hearing or strength. Verse two explains that if we do not enjoy His strength or have His audience, we have only our own sins to blame. This is a form of judgment. The sinner is not banished; he is judged.

In the most general terms Mr. Warren has pegged our difficulties on some kind of alienation from God due in some way to sin. But his discussion of this is very patchy and given in the most nebulous terms. It does not surprise us, then, to see that the remedy also is spoken of in quite fuzzy terms. Says he, “God specializes is giving people a fresh start.” (p.28) Here the sinner is characterized as missing out on meaning and purpose that he might derive from God, and God’s grace to him is to give him another chance. Mr. Warren has not attempted to define sin, but has focused on the results or consequences of sin, which he suggests mainly consists of being “disconnected from God’s presence.” Like Cain, he says, the “sinner” today wanders aimlessly and purposelessly through life. Upon such a shaky foundation it is impossible to say of what, exactly, a “fresh start” consists. The clarity of a truly biblical message stands in sharp contrast to this pabulum. Biblically, the sinner has offended God by transgressing His Law, and stands condemned before Him. He has nothing good within himself by means of which he may atone for his sin. God’s grace to him consists of Redemption - His work in Christ, the imputation of the sinner’s guilt upon Christ, who in His death, burial and resurrection thus makes Atonement for sins. The problem of the “sinner” is not his aimless wandering through life. The sinner, biblically understood, has chosen aimlessness over facing up to his duty to his Creator and Judge. His “aimlessness” consists in a studied determination to flee God. The remedy provided in Jesus Christ is not a “relationship” that re-connects us to a cosmic resource in which we may “discover” meaning and purpose. The remedy, biblically understood, is Redemption - the Atonement for our sins - so that in God’s Grace we might flee to Him and not from Him. With each passing day we see Mr. Warren diverging further from orthodoxy.

The bulk of this chapter is a survey of various things - guilt, anger, fear, materialism, and the need for approval - that drive people’s lives. Mr. Warren argues instead that God’s purposes ought to drive our lives. It is in this that we see the thesis underlying his trademarked title concept, the “Purpose-Driven® Life.” Given how he has presented the matter - sin alienates us from God and, like Cain, we wander through life purposelessly; God gives us a fresh start and now we can “discover” our purpose - the idea of purpose rises to supreme importance in his scheme. “Nothing matters more than knowing God’s purposes for your life, and nothing can compensate for not knowing them.” (p.30) Lest the reader wrongly suppose that Mr. Warren has exaggerated the importance of “purpose,” he elaborates in no uncertain terms. “Your purpose becomes the standard you use to evaluate which activities are essential and which aren’t…Without a clear purpose you have no foundation on which you base decisions, allocate time, and use your resources.” (p.31) With terms like “nothing matters more,” “standard,” and “foundation,” it is impossible for the reader to avoid the conclusion that Mr. Warren conceives of “purpose” as god-like in human life. “Purpose” even stands in for the power of God. “There is nothing quite as potent as a focused life, one lived on purpose… For instance, the apostle Paul almost single-handedly spread Christianity throughout the Roman Empire. His secret was a focused life.” (p.32) If Paul’s “secret” was focusing on “purpose,” then it was not Christianity that he spread throughout the Roman Empire. A “secret” of focusing on “purpose” is self-help ideology that Mr. Warren already rejected on Day One (see p. 19).

Mr. Warren closes this chapter with an introduction to the subject of eternity. In the end, when we stand before God, he imagines that God will ask us two crucial questions. He proposes that the first of these questions will be, “What did you do with my Son, Jesus Christ?” (p.34) Framing the matter in this way only serves to reiterate a question already posed, and still without any of Mr. Warren’s attention: How can we meaningfully speak of a relationship between God and His creature as depending upon the initiative and power of the creature? In terms of the present discussion, we might pose: How can any sinner, dead in his trespasses and sins, do anything with Jesus Christ apart from the Grace of God? Mr. Warren cites John 14:6, “…No one comes to the Father except through me.” Even the Arminian Remonstrance (1610) cites John 15:5, “…apart from Me, you can do nothing.” There is no doubt that, if asked directly about it, Mr. Warren would assent to the biblical teaching concerning God’s people that, “…even when we were dead in our sins, [God] made us alive together with Christ” (Eph. 2:5) Yet here he speaks of these things in a manner that glorifies instead human initiative and power, robbing God of the glory due Him alone.

Mr. Warren imagines that the second question posed to us by God at the end will be, “What did you do with what I gave you?” (p.34) Here he is referring to our “gifts, talents, opportunities, energy, relationships, and resources,” and whether or not we “use them for the purposes God made you for.” Mr. Warren has structured “purpose” as that which we might somehow “discover” in God, and once having so grasped, becomes that which matters more than anything else, and becomes the standard and foundation of our actions. Finally, it becomes the criteria by which we are to be judged by God. Beyond Mr. Warren’s imagination, we read in the Bible, “For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.” (II Cor. 5:10) Surely God will hold us accountable for what we have done. But the criteria will be not be “purpose.” The criteria will be “good or bad.” How may good and bad be determined? God Himself embodies the standard of good and bad, and His Word reveals this to us. Mr. Warren has filled his book with references to the Bible (or, mostly, references to modern paraphrases of the Bible), but to this point in the book he has not explained how we should receive the Word of God in any way that we would not receive thoughts that, all by themselves, may appear in our own minds. Apart from a clear distinction of Creator and creature there can be no ultimate distinction between the words of the “Creator” and the words of the “creature.” In this case neither can there be a clear standard of righteousness in the words of the “Creator” to which the “creature” has a duty to submit. Apart from the sinner bowing in repentance before his Creator there can be only Humanism, in which each man is a law unto himself. Mr. Warren’s “purpose” idea of judgment does not challenge Humanist morality. Nevertheless, we shall press on in this treatise.

Day Four - Made to Last Forever

Mr. Warren continues the theme of eternity. This chapter begins with the point that, “This life is preparation for the next.” (p.36) He argues that since we were made in the image of God, then, like God, we were designed to live for eternity. But then he puzzles, “Even though we know everyone eventually dies, death always seems unnatural and unfair.” (p.37) Here is clear indication, as though at this point any further indication were needed, that Mr. Warren has not come to terms with sin. He is thoroughly in the grip of the Humanistic dialectic: the universal and inevitable reality of death, which nevertheless “seems unnatural and unfair.” Eternal life is the original Creation ideal for the human being. Death is judgment due to sin. The Humanist will not accept this and so must explain death in some other terms. The Humanist Naturalist says that observed reality constitutes the natural order of things. Thus, for him, death is natural, and now it is a puzzlement how his indomitable instinct is to struggle against it. The Humanist Spiritualist says that observed reality is an illusion. For him, too, death is natural and now it is a puzzlement how life can mean anything other than an incubation period for what lies beyond. Only Christianity declares that death is an enemy (I Cor. 15:26).

For Mr. Warren death “seems unnatural and unfair,” however, he seems at a loss to explain why this should be so. The whole idea of death as judgment due to sin, and therefore entirely fair, seems to escape him. He also elaborates, “Just as the nine months you spent in your mother’s womb were not an end in themselves but preparation for life, so this life is preparation for the next.” (p.39) This comment very nearly says the same thing that the Humanist Spiritualist says: that death really is a “birth” into the next life. Mr. Warren plays directly into this Humanistic idea. His Doctrine of Creation is woefully deficient, as “god” cannot be the God of Christianity if the central fact of human life is the foundation of the meaning of all existence, if Man determines for himself whether or not he bears any relation to this “god,” if Man is equipped to “discover” whatever we choose to characterize as “god” having “revealed,” and if what he “discovers” then becomes the standard and foundation of his life. Also, his Doctrine of Sin is almost entirely unstated, as we already have seen. At best, his conception of sin gives God some credit for being bigger, stronger, and smarter than Man. Sin, in his view, removes us from God’s presence, so that we no longer have access to His superior resources. Lacking a truly biblical idea of Creation and Sin, it therefore is impossible to have a truly biblical idea of Redemption. We have seen Mr. Warren’s characterization of Redemption as a “fresh start” in this life. However, here his emphasis is on Eternity.

Mr. Warren asserts, “Your relationship to God on earth will determine your relationship to him in eternity. If you learn to love and trust God’s Son, Jesus, you will be invited to spend the rest of eternity with him.” (p.37) However, Mr. Warren has yet to explain how the creature can determine anything for the Creator. He asserted in Day One that on his own initiative one can begin a relationship with Jesus, but did not entertain the question of why one should be without such relationship in the first place. In Day Three he hinted that we may be without a relationship with God due in some way to sin, but characterized the remedy to this problem as a “fresh start.” Now he expands upon this - loose ends not withstanding - to declare that by so establishing such a relationship we as well determine our eternal destiny. Along these lines he also says, “The deeds of this life are the destiny of the next.” (p.40) According to Mr. Warren, a person may perform certain functions or accomplish certain tasks, and as a result - and as a reward - an invitation will be extended to him to join Christ in eternity. Here we see most dramatically a muddled idea of Redemption as required by a muddled idea of Creation and of Sin.

A true and biblical idea of these things is that God, the Creator, brought forth a reality separate and distinct from Himself, and sovereignly determines all facets and aspects of this created reality; Sin is the denial of this fact and the willful rebellion against God and His Law, bringing the wrath of God and the penalty of death upon the sinner; and Redemption is the initiative of God, who “…demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us” (Rom. 5:8), meaning that in His death Christ took the guilt of our sin and the judgment of death upon Himself on our behalf. Evangelicalism always reverses the biblical truth of these things. We constantly are told that if we will do something - say a prayer, accept a gift, open a door - then reciprocal to this God will do something - forgive our sins, solve our problems, invite us to heaven. Mr. Warren flows right into this mould when he says that our invitation to heaven depends upon our having first learned to love and trust Jesus. Biblically we are dead in sin and unable to love and trust Jesus unless and until the Holy Spirit quickens our hearts and ministers God’s Redemption unto us. Our invitation to heaven - if, indeed, we reasonably may so term Redemption - is not the result or reward of our having decided to begin a relationship with Jesus; it is the only possible basis and motive of our relationship with Jesus.

Given the terms in which Mr. Warren sees these things, it is little wonder how he sees the juxtaposition of temporal and eternal reality. “Life on earth is just the dress rehearsal before the real production…Earth is the staging area, the preschool, the tryout for your life in eternity.” (p.36) As Mr. Warren characterizes it, not only is the initiative ours to begin a relationship with Jesus, the burden is ours also to get through the dress rehearsal successfully so we may receive an invitation to the cast party. Biblically, eternity is the culmination of what God is doing in temporal reality, not of what we are doing. God is about “the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things upon the earth.” (Eph 1:10) Our duty is to confess Him, to worship Him, and to give thanks for all things, to believe in His Word and seek His Grace to obey it and to live by it. Our lives in this world do not qualify us to enjoy eternity with God; God’s eternal Grace qualifies us to live godly in this world. With each day Mr. Warren diverges further from biblical wisdom.

Day Five - Seeing Life from God's View

In light of his contrast of temporal life and eternal life, Mr. Warren now moves to further elaboration of temporal life. “How you define life determines your destiny,” he says. (p.41) In this he reiterates his view that the creature somehow can determine reality for the Creator. This now is a well-established theme in Mr. Warren’s thought. In this mind-set, then, he takes up the question of how the creature ought to define the reality of human life. He suggests that this may best be understood in terms of a metaphor. After surveying a number of “faulty” metaphors, he then turns to consider “biblical” metaphors, which, he argues, are the better choice. This is presented in terms of “God’s view of life,” which “the Bible offers.” (p.42)

It is most telling that Mr. Warren appeals to Romans 12:2 as a basis for his approach. He confidently declares, “The Bible says,” and then presents us with this: “Do not confirm yourselves to the standards of this world, but let God transform you inwardly by a complete change of your mind. Then you will be able to know the will of God.” (p.42) This is not the Bible. This is a paraphrase called “Today’s English Version.” Though it claims to be a “translation” of the Bible, it in fact is a work produced on the theory of “dynamic equivalence” devised by Eugene Nida. The main concern of “dynamic equivalence” is to convey the thoughts of the original though not necessarily the words of the original. This modern, “dynamic” rendering of Romans 12:2 is contrary to all authentic English translations of Scripture that aim for the highest degree of accuracy vis-à-vis what actually is said in the original manuscripts. For example, in the New American Standard Bible this text reads: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” The reader will notice immediately the dramatic difference between “be transformed” and “let God transform you.” The latter sounds noble because it credits God with transforming power, but in reality the paraphrasers have taken the direct command of God, “be transformed,” and have turned it into advice that we should avail ourselves of God’s expertise.

It is ironic in the extreme that this particular text should have been altered in this way. In its original content this text commanded the believers at Rome to avoid doing precisely what the paraphrasers, and Mr. Warren after them, have done. “Do not be conformed to this world.” Do not be conformed to the Roman ideal of Man, who determines his own destiny, nor to the Pantheon of Roman idolatry. The Creator defines and determines all things; the creature cannot so much as draw a breath apart from the sustaining sovereignty of Him “with Whom we have to do” (Heb 4:13), “in whom all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). The command of the Creator to the creature is clear: “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Repent of the Roman ideal of Man and the Roman Pantheon of “gods.” “Let God transform you” does not transform anything. This is precisely the message that the Roman Humanists would have rejoiced to have heard. “Indeed,” they would have said, “let us go up to the Pantheon and grant permission to the ‘gods’ to impart to us some of their superior wisdom.” If man is accorded any measure of autonomy, and “god” is cast as dependent to any extent upon the will and permission of man, then it matters not in the slightest what other noble-sounding jargon may be appended thereto. “Let God transform you” affirms the pagan idea of both man and “god”. Mr. Warren’s approach fits this like a glove. In Appendix 3 Mr. Warren offers a lofty defense concerning why he incorporates texts from fifteen different versions of the Bible. But it is very difficult for the serious student of the Bible to avoid the sense that what really is at work here is an effort to mine the modern jargon of every loose paraphrase - the looser the better - in order to find just the phraseology that fits the point Mr. Warren wishes to make, so that the authoritative preface, “The Bible says,” may by some stretch be attached to it. Romans 12:2 from the TEV is a dramatic example of this.

Having cited the aforementioned paraphrase, he then asserts, “The Bible offers three metaphors that teach us God’s view of life.” (p.42) Did Paul take the Bible up to the Pantheon of “gods” and “offer” it as an alternative point of view? Certainly not! If Christianity is considered as an alternative point of view, then it no longer is Christianity that is considered. God does not have a “view of life”; God created and defines life. A point of view is generated by spatial / temporal vantage. Man, the creature, is limited by spatial / temporal vantage; God, the Creator, is not. Men have various points of view, however, it is dishonoring of God to reduce His Word to a point of view. God’s Word is not expert advice that we may wish to consider; it is the eternal and authoritative revelation that defines our being and our duty. An individual’s view of life either aligns with the truth of Christianity or else it does not.

Nevertheless, Mr. Warren presses on with his approach that the Bible “offers” us “God’s view of life,” consisting of three metaphors. According to this view, life is a test, a trust, and a temporary assignment. The first two of these are considered in the present chapter and the third is reserved for the next chapter. Testing and trust are valid biblical principles. But the true meaning of both of these is distorted by taking them out of the biblical framework of Creation, Sin, and Redemption and casting them as metaphors that characterize every moment of our existence. According to Mr. Warren’s idea of the test metaphor God is playing a cat-and-mouse game with us, deliberately throwing all kinds of obstacles in our way and then watching how we handle them. “You are always being tested. God constantly watches your responses to people, problems, success, conflict, illness, disappointment, and even the weather!” (p.43) Mr. Warren closes his discussion of testing by citing James 1:12, “Blessed are those who endure when they are tested. When they pass the test, they will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love him.” However, Mr. Warren fails to take into consideration also the immediately following verse, James 1:13, “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” Certainly, there are various occasions recorded in Scripture in which God put His people to the test. However, this gives us no warrant for characterizing the entirety of life as one continuous test. Much of what Mr. Warren regards as tests of God in reality are the consequences and temptations of evil. Mr. Warren never has come to terms with sin and evil in this treatise. Here once again there has been opportunity to do so, but his “all of life is a test” view leads directly to a distortion of the Fall of man into sin. Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden fell from their original estate of Created goodness and perfection into the estate of Sin, an estate of evil and corruption. Yet Mr. Warren treats the account of Adam and Eve as just another example of a test along side all other tests. In his view, Adam and Eve simply failed a test. He provides us no hint that with their fall came the corruption of the human nature and indeed of all of created reality. In terms of his thesis our failings do not have their roots in the failing of our First Parents, but simply parallel their failing.

His discussion of the trust metaphor is based on the usual Evangelical platitude of God owns everything and therefore I own nothing. Ron Sider, in his book Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, spun that into outright socialism, which actually is the most consistent outworking of such a view. However, this platitude completely discounts the “Creator / creature distinction” and therefore casts God’s ownership as Creator and our ownership as creature into correlativity to one another. Apart from a proper “Creator / creature distinction,” one must decide, in the case of any particular thing, whether man owns it or God owns it. Such an outlook completely paralyses all economic thought and activity. It is a most simple-minded platitude that avoids - and even prevents - all godly contemplation of the dispensation of property among men. An example of this appears in Mr. Warren’s discussion. He asks his reader, “Is the way you manage your money preventing God from doing more in your life?” (p.46) First, we wonder how Mr. Warren can refer to money as “your money” when he already has declared that God owns it all and we own nothing. It is amazing how Evangelicals glibly assert that we do not own anything and then immediately proceed to talk about what we ought to do with our property! Next, we notice that the concern is focused upon whether our financial actions may prevent God from doing more in our lives. A much more productive question for a Christian to consider would be, “Is the way you manage your money in conformity with or contrary to the Law of God?” However, Mr. Warren has not entertained a Doctrine of Sin that would fit him for framing the matter in such terms.

Neither has he consistently held God to be the Sovereign Creator and Man to be the finite creature. Therefore, he has no bearing for considering the matter in any other terms than those which cast would-be autonomous Man as potentially preventing a finite God from doing all that He might. In his view Man has the power and initiative to avail himself of the expertise and resources of God, and therefore Man also must have the power to prevent God from acting. The concern is whether we are getting all of the benefit we potentially might receive from God’s greater power and expertise, rather than a concern for whether the standard of God’s righteousness is upheld. In contrast to this, biblical financial counsel expounds upon God’s Law and charges all men with obedience to it. The main concern of biblical counsel is not whether the individual is experiencing all the potential of a resource we enjoy calling “God.” The main concern is whether men made in the image of their Creator are faithful to His Law in their pursuit of His Glory. Surely, such pursuit involves their love for one another. But even “love” cannot be known independently of God and His Law (Rom. 13:10). The issues between Christianity and Humanism can become very complex, but the crux of every issue is the very simple distinction between a God-centered and a man-centered outlook on reality and life.

Day Six - Life Is a Temporary Assignment

In this chapter Mr. Warren takes up the third of three metaphors that he believes the Bible presents as “God’s view of life.” He states, “Life on earth is a temporary assignment.” (p.47) This chapter contains some very good teaching concerning Christian spirituality vs. worldliness, e.g. “It is a fatal mistake to assume that God’s goal for your life is material prosperity or popular success, as the world defines it. The abundant life has nothing to do with material abundance, and faithfulness to God does not guarantee success in a career or even in ministry. Never focus on temporary crowns.” (p.50) This is wise and biblical counsel. However, since Mr. Warren’s thinking is not systematic, this counsel does not find a solid place in his overall message.

The Apostle John tells us two things concerning “the world.” In John 3:16 we read, “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.” In I John 2:15 we read, “Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” The term translated world in the original Greek is the same in both verses: kosmos, from which we get our word cosmos. Clearly, there are differing senses in which the Bible uses this term. John 3:16 is speaking about the created order, or the human population of this order, as God originally created it. His great love for His creation is evidenced in His design to accomplish Redemption of it in Christ. I John 2:15 is speaking about the world-system as corrupted in sin, an order of wickedness that has grown up around a nucleus of sin contrary to the original goodness of God’s created order. This is a distinction that seems entirely lost to Mr. Warren. In his eloquent plea for us to pursue true abundance of life, contrary to sinful worldliness, he generalizes an identity between the seen and worldliness, and the unseen and righteousness. This is a very similar line to what we have seen in Day Four: Life is just a dress rehearsal; this life is preparation for the next.

In this chapter Mr. Warren takes this outlook a step further. We are told not only that life is brief in comparison with eternity, but also that “…earth is only a temporary residence. You won’t be here long, so don’t get too attached” (p.47) He further elaborates, “The fact that earth is not our ultimate home explains why, as followers of Jesus, we experience difficulty, sorrow and rejection in this world.” (p.49), and again, “In order to keep us from becoming too attached to earth, God allows us to feel a significant amount of discontent and dissatisfaction in life…” (p.50) The ad. hoc. nature of the foregoing is attested by the fact that on page 24 Mr. Warren already told us a much different story. Let the reader recall that on Day Two we were told, “God was thinking of you even before he made the world. In fact, that’s why he created it!” (p.24) Mr. Warren then went on to quote Dr. Michael Denton, “…the cosmos is a specially designed whole with life and mankind as its fundamental goal and purpose, a whole in which all facets of reality have their meaning and explanation is this central fact,” and immediately added, “The Bible said the same thing thousands of years earlier.” (p.24) Since Mr. Warren’s thinking is not systematic, therefore, he is caught in a tension where on one hand human life is the “central fact” comprising the “fundamental goal and purpose” of the cosmos, and on the other hand we are not to become too attached to this world or this life, and God sees to that by filling our lives with discontent and dissatisfaction.

Mr. Warren’s two ways of looking at life in this world both are wide of their marks and thus require one another as mutually limiting concepts. There is no resolution to this tension because the elements of the tension are misconstrued. On Day Two we corrected Mr. Warren and expounded that Man really is not the “central fact” that gives meaning and explanation to the whole of existence. The “central fact” explaining all things in reality is Creation. Man has his meaning and his place in Creation in terms of the all-comprehensive plan of the Sovereign Creator. On page 24 Mr. Warren grossly over-stated Man’s meaning and place in the Universe. This requires adjustment, such as we now see on pages 47-50. However, what we read on these pages is not a correction, but a compensation. The idea that this life is meant by God to be characterized by sorrow and disappointment does not correct the notion that our lives comprise the central fact giving meaning to the Universe, but stands in a perpetual tension with it. It is not a correction because it, too, is a gross over-statement. These two over-statements compensate and limit one another, and thus require one another. The tension between them is perpetual and unavoidable for anyone whose thinking lacks systematic, biblical rigor. On Day Two we examined the Man as the “central fact” idea. Here let us examine more closely the “don’t get too attached” idea.

According to Mr. Warren, the Bible teaches that we are to relate to life on earth as a foreigner living in a foreign country. He cites Psalm 119:19, where the Psalmist says, “I am a stranger in the earth.” Of course, Mr. Warren chose a paraphrase where the term “foreigner” is used. Out of context, the reader may not appreciate that the Psalmist is driven into the status of a “sojourner” by the wicked who pursue him. He also cites a paraphrase of I Peter 1:17, “If you call God your Father, live out your time as temporary residents on earth,” which bears almost no resemblance to an actual translation, such as NASB, “And if you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each man’s work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay upon earth.” The view espoused here is perhaps summed up in his citation of James 4:4. The paraphrase he quotes reads, “You’re cheating on God. If all you want is your own way, flirting with the world every chance you get, you end up enemies of God and his way.” A proper translation reads, “You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.” Once again a proper understanding of these things requires a proper understanding of Sin, which Mr. Warren has not provided.

It was Sin that made “the world” an enemy of God. It was Sin that made life difficult, sorrowful, and disappointing. “The world,” in the sense of John 3:16, is beloved of God, and His Redemption in Christ saves not only the souls of men, but also their bodies and all of creation (Romans 8:18-23). Being a “friend of the world” in the James 4:4 and I John 2:15 sense is not defined as working for truth, peace, righteousness, justice, beauty, and so forth, in this life in this world; biblically it is understood as sinfully embracing the corruption of the world. As redeemed of God we are aliens vis-à-vis the world of corruption. However, over the world of God’s Redemption we are vice-regents under Christ. Mr. Warren’s view in this chapter arises from a focus upon the individual. If the satisfaction and fulfillment of the individual in his own individual experience is the focus of attention, then it is very difficult indeed to find a way to achieve this in this life in this world. The individual has little hope but to look forward to Eternity. However, the Christian life is not a focus upon the individual. Properly, the individual must see himself as standing in the stream of the People of God and of what He is doing among His people. Great satisfaction and fulfillment derive from materially contributing to this work in God’s Grace. This does not imply that corporate Man is the proper focus of Christianity. Corporate Man vs. the Individual is another way of expressing the same tension as described above. It was Corporate Man who was the “central fact” of Day Two. It is the Individual who is the stranger in a strange land today. This at bottom is a tension of Unity vs. Diversity, or the One and the Many. Outside a fully biblical idea of Creation and Sin, this tension is unavoidable. Man can be understood for who he really is, both in his corporate and individual traits, only as he is held to be the creature of God who is spoiled by sin. Mr. Warren thus far has not brought us this message. As a result we see the inevitable tensions emerging, and in the present example the pendulum has begun to sway between Man and Individual. Sound biblical wisdom does not resolve this tension: it totally dismisses it. If the tension is embraced, then this leads to distortions of biblical wisdom, such as the confusion of the John 3:16 sense of “world” and the I John 2:15 sense that we have seen in this chapter.

Day Seven - The Reason for Everything

We have seen that here and there throughout the first seven days Mr. Warren has offered some phrases of good, biblical wisdom. He urges us, “If you want to know why you were placed on this planet, you must begin with God. You were born by his purpose and for his purpose.” (p.17) He warns us, “You can usually succeed in reaching a goal if you put your mind to it. But being successful and fulfilling your life’s purpose are not at all the same issue!” (p.19) He assures us, “Your birth was no mistake or mishap, and your life is no fluke of nature. Your parents may not have planned you, but God did.” (p.22) He counsels us, “The most damaging aspect of contemporary living is short-term thinking. To make the most of your life, you must keep the vision of eternity continually in your mind and the value of it in your heart.” (p.38) And again, “It is a fatal mistake to assume that God’s goal for your life is material prosperity or popular success, as the world defines it.” (p.50) It is not unusual then that we should see him begin this chapter with a few paragraphs of sound orthodoxy. “The ultimate goal of the universe it to show the glory of God.” (p.53) He elaborates upon this idea quite eloquently. However, what can all these quotations of Mr. Warren mean in the larger context of his thought? What can it really mean to say that the ultimate goal of the universe is to show the glory of God along side of already having said that the ultimate goal of the universe is the “central fact” of human life (p.24)? Many of Mr. Warren’s sayings have the form of truth, but what we have found is that the most truthful in form of his sayings have the least place in the system that is possible to build out of the totality of his sayings. Let us proceed to see what Mr. Warren can make of this.

Several times over the previous days we have had occasion to note that the deficiencies in Mr. Warren’s presentation result directly from his almost total disregard of sin. We find this no less the case in this Day Seven. In context of expounding upon the glory of God as the reason for everything, he states quite simply, “Jesus came to earth so we could fully understand God’s glory.” (p.54) Such a statement surely is effective in emphasizing the preeminence of God’s glory, however, upon examination we must find that this really is an instance of hyperbole - of going way out of bounds for the sake of emphasis. In the first place, it is not possible - and it never will be possible - for us to “fully understand God’s glory.” Only God fully understands anything, which He does by fully understanding everything. Exhaustive knowledge is the province of the infinite and uncreated mind of God alone. The finite and created mind of man cannot know anything exhaustively. Nor is exhaustive knowledge necessary for the creature. The Revelation of his Creator is the anchor of truth for the human mind. The believer may know truly without having to know fully. The sinner makes exhaustive knowledge seem necessary, for having denied Revelation he thereby paints himself into the intellectual corner of having to know everything fully in order to know anything truly. Such was the plight of Plato and the neo-Platonists. Such was the plight of the Gnostics after them. So, the mission of Jesus, in their eyes, was to impart such knowledge. Mr. Warren’s idea of Christ’s mission is couched in these same terms. In Biblical terms salvation for man consists not in “fully understanding God’s glory,” but in the Redemption secured for him by God in Christ.

It seems beyond dispute to invoke the glory of God as the mission of Christ. However, this is a very nebulous concept apart from particularities. It is most necessary to speak specifically about the glory of God. Of what does the glory of God consist? How did Christ glorify the Father? In citing John 1:14 Mr. Warren has centered upon a text that simply refers to this glory as residing in Christ. It will be necessary to look much further for a systematic understanding of this glory. In John 17:4 Christ addresses the Father more particularly: “I glorified Thee on earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do.” What was this work? He came to call sinners to repentance (Mt. 9:13, Mk. 2:17, Lk. 5:32). He came to seek and to save that which was lost (Lk. 19:10). He came to give His life as a ransom for many (Mt. 20:28, Mk. 10:45), He came to die on the Cross and rise again for the sins of His people (Jn. 12:27). He came to do his Father’s will by saving His people (Jn. 6:38-40, Heb. 10:9), He came to save sinners (I Tim. 1:15). It is impossible properly to construe the mission of Christ apart from a biblical understanding of sin, for Christ came to save His people from their sins. Mr. Warren’s treatise is gravely deficient in presenting a true and biblical understanding of sin. Thus, he characterizes Christ’s mission as to bring us comprehensive knowledge of God’s glory rather than to bring us redemption from our sins.

Just as we have come once again to question the place of sin in Mr. Warren’s view of things, we find that this subject now makes another of its rare appearances. He muses that of all of God’s creatures there are only two that fail to glorify Him: demons and people. He then offers: “All sin, at its root, is failing to give God glory.” (p.54) Here is the clearest statement of Mr. Warren thus far along the lines of defining sin. It certainly is true, as attested by Mr. Warren’s supporting text, Romans 3:23, that sin falls short of the glory of God. However, it is far from clear whether failure to glorify God is the root of sin. Indeed, it would be more biblical to reverse this, i.e., to say that sin is the root of failing to glorify God. The root of sin is disobedience against the Law of God, as we already have recounted from I John 3:4 in our discussion of Day Three. If sin is not rightly construed, then neither can the remedy of sin rightly be construed. If the root of sin is failure to glorify God, then the remedy of sin may be simply a greater knowledge of God’s glory, and the mission of Christ may be to bring us this knowledge, all of which Mr. Warren suggests. Thus, Mr. Warren turns to a summary of ways in which we might glorify God, which serves as an outline of the remainder of his book.

We glorify God, he says, by fulfilling “God’s five purposes for your life.” (p.55) In brief these are: 1) to worship God, 2) to love other believers, 3) to become like Christ, 4) to serve others, 5) to tell others about him. We will reserve discussion of these things for the subsequent five sections of this book in which he elaborates upon them. Here he makes no defense for his idea that God’s purposes for human life may be distilled down to these five. A reading of the Bible easily would yield any number of other purposes to add to this list. We might read Genesis 1:28 and conclude that God’s purposes are for us to “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over [it].” We might read Exodus Chapter 20 and find 10 Commandments that we easily might construe as God’s ten purposes for our lives. By the time we finished a careful reading of Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians we might have filled several pages with enumerated purposes. The problem in reading the Bible is not to find something that we may construe as a purpose to drive our lives; the problem is how to distill it all into a simplified and systematic statement that may be held in view. We may commend Mr. Warren for attempting this, however, we rue his lack of defense or even explanation. This presents another case of a recurring theme of our journal: What can his five purposes mean in light of biblical orthodoxy, and what can they mean in light of the only possible system that may be gleaned from his overall presentation?

Citing a loose paraphrase of John 17:4, Mr. Warren states, “Jesus honored God by fulfilling his purpose on earth. We honor God the same way.” (p.55) Mr. Warren seems oblivious to the fact that Christ’s purpose on earth was to redeem His people from their sins via His death, burial, and resurrection, as is indicated by his suggestion that our course of remedying the problem of failing to glorify God is to learn how to glorify Him in the same way as did Christ. This is an expression of the view that Christ’s ministry to us was to “model” true spirituality. Mr. Warren’s thesis progresses thus: 1) Christ glorifies God; 2) we fail to glorify God, which we will call “sin”; 3) the remedy for this “sin” is full understanding of God’s glory; 4) “Jesus came to earth so we could fully understand God’s glory” (p.54); 5) He “modeled” glorifying God by fulfilling His purpose; 6) “Nothing matters more than knowing God’s purposes for your life” (p.30); “It defines what you do and…becomes the standard” (p.31). Mr. Warren speaks of Christ facing His crucifixion as a “struggle.” He comments not a word on why Christ went to the cross nor on what He accomplished in doing so. He portrays it as, “Jesus stood at a fork in the road,” and quickly adds, “You face the same choice.” (p.57) The Grace of God in such a scheme can only be the greater resources of a more powerful and more enlightened being, which may avail to us in case we choose to please him. As he says, “God will give you what you need if you will just make the choice to live for him.” (p.58)

At the close of this chapter, Mr. Warren addresses himself directly to those readers who may not share his idea of pursuing God’s purposes. In terms of orthodox and biblical Christianity, we would say that these are ones who are unregenerate and unrepentant. Mr. Warren has not constructed his scheme in these terms, and so neither does he characterize them as such, nor does he approach them in these terms. Their need, according to him, is to “believe and receive.” (p.58) What is the content of the requisite belief? The closest Mr. Warren comes to the truly biblical message is to say, “Believe God has chosen you to have a relationship with Jesus, who died on the cross for you.” (p.58) However, nowhere does he provide any insight into what quality of Jesus’ death makes it a death “for” anyone. In the first six “Days” of his treatise he never even so much as mentioned the death of Christ. Also, what is the content of what we are to receive? “Receive his forgiveness for your sins.” (p.58) However, Mr. Warren never has provided a satisfactorily biblical discussion of sin. Absent such discussion, what can “receive his forgiveness for you sins” possibly mean to the reader? In terms of the system Mr. Warren builds in this treatise this phrase is meaningless. If Christ’s mission was to bring us full understanding of God’s glory, if sin consists of failing to bring God glory, and if Christ’s death is not a substitutionary propitiation, then how can forgiveness be more contentful than “a fresh start”? (p.28) Though his ideas of “believe” and “receive” are devoid of content, Mr. Warren nevertheless presses on to direct his readers to utter this prayer: “Jesus, I believe in you and I receive you.” (p.58) What can this mean? He presents this to the reader as “…the prayer that will change your eternity.” (p.58) If the creature has the initiative and the power to determine eternity for himself, and therefore to determine eternity for God also, then how can any remotely biblical content attend his notions of “believe” and “receive”? Indeed, it cannot.

We find that as he closes this section of his book he brings us back to the point at which he began it: he urges those who have recited his prayer, and thus have determined for themselves the nature of all eternity, that, “You are now ready to discover and start living God’s purpose for your life.” (p.59) He has told us that we cannot find the purpose of life through speculation, and that we must turn to the “revelation” of God. He does not tell us how the Bible constitutes this revelation exclusively, nor does he compare and contrast general and special revelation, yet continues to speak of man “discovering” what in some sense is “revealed.” Indeed, he presents the story that “all by itself a phrase appeared” in the mind of an atheist as an example of this “discovering.” (p.21) We may, he tells us, discover life’s purpose only as we are in relationship with Christ, but has not told us how the creature may exist without relation to his “creator,” and if this were possible, how the creature may possess the initiative and the power to begin such relationship. He has told us, not that sin brings the sinner under the wrath of God, but that it “disconnects” us from God’s presence (p.28). He has told us that Christ came that we might “fully understand God’s glory” (p.54), that this somehow allows us to have a “fresh start” (p.28) with God, so we might “discover” our purpose. He has told us that “nothing matters more” than our “purpose”, and so “purpose” becomes the “standard” and “foundation” of our lives (p. 30-31). He has told us that our lives constitute the “central fact” giving meaning to the universe (p.24). But, he says, we nevertheless ought not to become too attached to our lives in this world, since life is only an incubation period, after which we die, death actually being a birth into a new life in eternity (p.39). All of the foregoing rides squarely upon speculation and indeed cannot ride elsewhere. It all is involved in the speculation that Mr. Warren claims to reject and has nothing to do with any orthodox idea of revelation. Mr. Warren has left biblically orthodox Christianity so far behind at the close of this section of his book that the studious reader can entertain no anticipation, but only apprehension, for what is to follow.

Day Eight - Planned for God's Pleasure

Mr. Warren presses on, not in lieu of, but in light of his foregoing material. But the “light” provided in his foregoing material comprises no basis on which he may proceed to say anything truly Christian concerning Man and his spirituality. To be sure, Mr. Warren comes forth now and then with phrases that do indeed have a form of truth, as we already have seen. However, such phrases find no true home in his general message and so are uttered in lieu of, not in light of, that message. They are anomalies. The unwary reader may surmise that he may receive the entirety of this book in terms of the anomalous phrases found to be in the form of truth. But it must be shown instead that the general message is not grounded in, but contrary to, Christian truth. And so we must press on with Mr. Warren in our critique of his book.

With this, the eighth day of his regimen, Mr. Warren takes up an extended discussion of that which he has identified as the first of five purposes for human life. In his summary at the conclusion of Day Seven, he expressed this first purpose as “worship.” (p.55). Forcing expression of this purpose into the jingoism of alliteration, he now puts it as, “You were planned for God’s pleasure.” There certainly is no dispute that Man has a supreme duty and purpose to worship God. However, as a result of the groundwork laid in his first seven chapters, we have grave dispute with Mr. Warren concerning the identity of “Man” and “God.” He has not faithfully confessed God as the infinite, eternal, un-created Creator and sovereign determiner of all reality. Nor has he faithfully confessed Man as the creature of God, made in His image and corrupted in sin. Instead he has portrayed Man as somehow a correlate of God, whereas he asserts that Man, and not God alone, can determine reality and indeed all eternity for himself. This pretends to make Man out to be more than he really is, and also - and therefore - to make God out to be less than He really is. Paul had some very strong language for those who “did not honor Him as God” (Romans 1:21). Given Mr. Warren’s understanding of “Man” and of “God,” what can it mean for him to assert that it is “Man’s” purpose to “worship” “God”?

The difficulty of holding to an orthodox Christian idea of worship on these terms is attested by the fact that Mr. Warren now characterizes worship as giving God pleasure. There is a legitimate biblical word-study one could undertake concerning “pleasure.” However, Mr. Warren has not done this. He seems content to leave his readers with their natural tendency to understand “pleasure” in the modern cultural sense of “enjoyment.” He states as much directly, “Bringing enjoyment to God, living for his pleasure, is the first purpose of your life.” (p.63) He further states that God wishes us to enjoy life through emotional and sensory experiences, and that this is due to the fact that God Himself derives pleasure through emotional experiences. (p.64) He also states that Man is important to God because Man can provide God with pleasurable emotional experiences, and that this constitutes the “worth,” “value,” and “significance” of human life. (p.63) God likes to have us around, he says, because “…you bring pleasure to God like nothing else he ever created.” (p.63) All of this is to lead us to his main point: “Bringing pleasure to God is called ‘worship’” and “Anything you do that brings pleasure to God is an act of worship.” (p.64) By thus equating pleasure and worship Mr. Warren misrepresents the biblical ideas of both. It is necessary, then, for us to survey the biblical concepts of pleasure and of worship in turn.

As we consider whether or not we please God, our first problem derives from the fact that the English term pleasure is ambiguous. Already noted is the modern cultural tendency to understand pleasure in the sense of enjoyment. However, this hardly exhausts the essential meaning of the term as we may discern in its etymology. The term derives from please, which in turn derives from complementary Latin terms placare - to appease, and placere - to please. In this we see immediately our term ­to placate. Medieval English adopted the derivative plactium for the Decree of the Court. From this origin also we have the legal sense of to plead and to please his Majesty or to please the Court. This usage is with us to this day. Those in our day who are dedicated to their pleasure often as a direct result of this dedication find themselves in Court entering their pleas and listening to their attorneys plead their cases and petition that it might please the Court for their clients to go free. [ see e.g. Eric Partridge, Origins: A Short Etymological Dictionary of Modern English (1966; New York: Greenwich House, 1983), p. 502-503; and also, Bouvier, Law Dictionary (1867; Sacramento: Lexicon Publishing, 1984), Vol. II, p. 333 ] From this we see that pleasure may be contemplated in both a subjective and an objective sense. That which pleases one dining is a matter largely confined to the subjectivity of his own tastes. That which pleases the Court is (or ought to be) a matter resting squarely upon objective consideration of the particulars of a case vis-à-vis the provisions of the Law. Biblically, is God’s pleasure a matter of His enjoyment, or a matter of the satisfaction of the requirements stipulated in His Law?

Once we have borne in mind the subjective and objective sense of pleasure, it is necessary for us to press on in consideration of the biblical terms that are translated as please or pleasure. In both Old Testament Hebrew and New Testament Greek we find a plurality of terms. While in English we have various senses indicated in the ambiguous usage of a single term, in the biblical languages the same variety of senses is indicated in a variety of discrete terms. In Ancient Hebrew the term chephets indicates delight or pleasure attaching to an object, while the term simchah indicates the subjective experience of joy, gladness, mirth. Also there is the term ratsah, which means to accept favorably. All of these terms are translated as pleasure. Also in Ancient Greek there are the terms eudokeo (literally, good opinion), spatalao, meaning lewdness, and hedone, from which we get our word hedonism. All these are translated as pleasure. [ see, e.g. Harris, Archer, Waltke, eds., Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980) Vol. I, p. 310, Vol. II, p. 859, 879, and G. W. Bromiley, ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Abridged (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), p. 273, 303 ] The biblical teaching concerning pleasure may not be discerned merely by searching through fifteen different “today’s new century modern dynamic millennium relevant” paraphrases for passages containing the English term pleasure. True scholarship requires an honesty concerning the ambiguity of the English term coupled with an awareness of the essential meaning of the respective Hebrew and Greek terms occurring in the various texts.

Proverbs 21:17 says that, “He who loves pleasure will become a poor man.” In Isaiah 46:10 God says, “I will accomplish My good pleasure.” Does the Bible teach us that it is righteous and powerful for God to be devoted to His pleasure, but that it is weakening and impoverishing if Man is devoted to his pleasure? No, indeed. The wise man must be aware that Proverbs 21:17 employs the Hebrew simchah and the translation gives the term pleasure in the sense of subjective enjoyment, and that Isaiah 46:10 employs the term chephets and the translation gives the term pleasure in the sense of that which satisfies an objective decree. II Timothy 3:4 describes the unrighteous in terms of stark contrast as “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God.” Philippians 2:13 assures us that, “…it is God who is at work in you, both to will and to work for His good pleasure.” Does the Bible teach us that God’s devotion to pleasure is what accomplishes His work in us, but that if we are devoted to pleasure this puts us at enmity with God? No, indeed. The serious student of the Bible will learn that II Timothy 3:4 uses the term philedonos and the translation gives “lovers of pleasure” in the sense of hedonism, and that Philippians 2:13 uses the term eudokeo and the translation gives “good pleasure” in the legal sense of that which pleases the ultimate Lawgiver.

A biblical summation of the matter is as follows: In the original goodness of creation Man was quite pleasing to God, as were all of His works. (Gen. 1:31) However, Man fell into sin from his state of original goodness. His sin is an offense to God and by it he comes under the wrath of God. (Rom. 1:18) The sinner cannot please God by anything that he is in himself, “For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh…and those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 7:18; 8:8) In the death and resurrection of Christ God has made propitiation for sin, and now by His Atonement the Redeemed are reckoned as righteous in His sight, and are blessed with His Grace to achieve in practice a measure of goodness so that one again may please the righteousness of His holiness. “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit.” (Rom. 8:3-4). Concerning God’s pleasure, the Bible is not silent. It pleases God to make us His people - I Sam 12:22. It pleases the Lord for us to seek wisdom and discernment - I Kings 3:10. God is pleased by our songs of praise and thanksgiving - Ps. 69:30-31. God is pleased with His people - Ps. 149:4. “The Lord was pleased for His righteousness sake to make the law great and glorious” - Is. 42:21. God was pleased to send Christ to the cross for our sins - Is. 53:10. It pleases God to reveal His Son in the Redeemed - Gal 1:15-16. God is pleased when we embrace knowledge of His will and so walk worthy of Him - Col. 1:9-10. It pleases God when we receive instruction in His commandments and walk in them - I Thes 4:1. God is pleased with thanksgiving, doing good, and sharing - Heb 13:15-16. It pleases God when He works His will in us - Heb. 13:21. It pleases God when we keep His commandments - I Jn. 3:22.

What, then, of worship? Mr. Warren suggests that worship consists of giving God pleasure. This thesis suffers the same defect that has been in evidence since Day One: that is, the total disregard of sin. What does Man have in himself that he could provide to God? In what sense could Man give God anything? He could only in the sense that Aristotle and Humanism generally conceives of “Man” and “God.” Mr. Warren is most urgent in asserting that worship is not for our benefit, but, “We worship for God’s benefit.” (p.66) Mr. Warren’s summation of worship follows naturally from his equation of pleasure and worship: “This is what real worship is all about - falling in love with Jesus.” (p. 67, his italics) Mr. Warren seems to stand in need of the same instruction that Paul delivered to the Pagans at Athens, “The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; neither is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things.” (Acts 17:24-25)

Again, we must look briefly at the terms involved. The English term worship is derived from the term worth with a suffix appended indicating the worshipper’s acknowledgement and honoring of the worthiness of the object. The term worship is given in translation of the Hebrew shachah and the Greek proskuneo, both of which mean to bow down, or prostrate oneself, reverently. It is impossible for worship, rightly and biblically understood, to be characterized as “falling in love with Jesus.” Mr. Warren suggests that Man has an inherent worth that consists in his ability to impart to God a pleasurable emotional experience. Contrary to this the Bible teaches us that all worth and ability resides in God, who imparts life to those who are dead in their sins. Those thus made alive in Christ worship their Creator and Redeemer in Spirit and in truth as they humbly bow before Him and acknowledge and proclaim His infinite and exclusive worthiness. Mr. Warren continues to build upon the foundation he laid in the first seven chapters. But it is a foundation of sand. In this chapter he builds sand upon sand. He has introduced an idea of worship and the pleasure of God that is completely speculative rather truly biblical. Though in the first chapter Mr. Warren stated that revelation is to be chosen over speculation, yet all that follows thus far in his treatise rises purely from speculation and finds expression only as the revelation of the Bible is set aside.

Day Nine - What Makes God Smile?

Mr. Warren has constructed his ideas of “Man” and of “God” in such a way that completely discounts the biblically and historically orthodox Christian Doctrine that through the Redemption He accomplished in Christ God imparts life to men who are dead in their sins. Instead he persists in his notion that man may impart an emotional experience of enjoyment to God. Though this makes a show of piety, for it pretends to be concerned about God’s well-being, in reality it is grievously dishonoring of God.

In order for one to honor the Creator properly, he must maintain in his thinking at all times a firm distinction between the Uncreated being of the Creator and the created being of the creature. This is the starting point of the Bible in Genesis 1:1. It is the essence of unbelief to deny this Creator / creature distinction and to contemplate instead an idea of “Being in general.” The ancient Greek philosophers assumed for themselves the task of contemplating all things in terms of this “Being in general.” This notion posits that whatever exists is united together in the fact of existence over against non-being. In this idea “God” and “Man” are united in the fact of their existence. The ancient Greeks and many types of unbelievers to this day are fond of speaking much of “God.” However, their outlook originates in the denial of Creation and thus the denial of the Creator. Once having denied God as the Uncreated Creator of all existence, and having posited instead an abstract idea of bare “existence,” one cannot proceed from this point to say anything true about “God.” Contemplating the bare existence of “Being in general” is an exercise of pure speculation. It never will produce the truth or the righteousness of God. “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” (Romans 1:21). Van Til has said, “A Christian will engage in no speculation.” [ A Survey of Christian Epistemology, p.20 ]

Mr. Warren’s Day Nine is devoted to the question: “What makes God smile?” There is a valid biblical study one could undertake into the nature and meaning of the “smile” of God, however, Mr. Warren has not done this. His pursuit of the question is an exercise of pure speculation and so never will bring us to any true confession of God. Since he is dedicated to the notion that worship consists of man imparting enjoyable emotional experiences to God, it is only natural that he should interpret the “smile” of God as expressing such enjoyment. If God is the correlate of man within the bare fact of “existence,” then whatever attributes God shares with man are identical in essence, though greater in degree. Within this realm of speculation God and man participate in “mind in general,” though God is smarter. There also is “will in general,” though God is stronger. Within the speculative realm of “emotion in general” man may impart an enjoyable emotional experience to God, and may contemplate what may serve to provide such enjoyment, for it will be of the same order as his own enjoyment, but to a greater degree. But this is so only within the realm of speculation. To pursue these things is only to go further down the wrong road. In order for one to please God, he shall need to reverse course and repent of such speculation. In order for the creature ruined by sin to confess truth concerning his Creator, it is necessary for him first to honor God as his Creator, his Judge, and his Redeemer. God’s mind is Uncreated mind in distinction to the created mind of man. God’s Word is eternal, infinite, exhaustive truth in distinction to the derivative, temporal - and now corrupted - word of man. It is the Word of God that determines the truth of our realm of created reality. God is not bound up within “reality.” There is no such thing as a bare “fact” of “existence.” Our surrounding universe of reality is what it is because the Creator determined it to be so. It is this sort of Word we consult in this sort of humility to inquire of this sort of God.

Mr. Warren cites two paraphrases at the head of his chapter that predicate smile of God: Numbers 6:25 and Psalm 119:135. In both cases a competent translation gives “make His face shine” instead of “smile.” For example, in Numbers chapter 6:24-26 we have the well-known benediction, “The Lord bless you, and keep you; the Lord make His face shine on you, and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up His countenance on you, and give you peace.” Mr. Warren cites only a short phrase from the middle of this from something called “The New Living Translation” that says, “May the Lord smile on you…” The phrase in the original language is a very rich expression composed of two terms: panim, which derives from panah and means “face” in the sense of turning toward so as to face oneself before another; and or, which means “shine” in the sense of enlighten or illumine [ see in Harris, et al, TWOT, op cit, as above ]. The biblical idea of the Lord making His face to shine upon us means that He turns toward us and in so doing enlightens us with His truth. The “new, relevant” paraphrases toss all of this aside and settle for a speculative concept of God “smiling” on us. Mr. Warren already has immersed himself deeply in the speculation that man may impart an enjoyable emotional experience to God. So he conceives of the “smile” of God in the sense of this Divine emotional experience and seizes upon the bankrupt paraphrase as “biblical” proof of his speculation.

Mr. Warren thus forces discussion of worship into the framework of the “smile” of God. He chooses the story of Noah to illustrate his thesis. Citing a loose paraphrase of Genesis 6:8, “Noah was a pleasure to the Lord,” he then imagines God saying, “This guy brings me pleasure. He makes me smile.” (p. 69) On the previous day we examined in detail what constitutes God’s pleasure. The paraphrase and Mr. Warren suggest that Noah stimulated an enjoyable emotional experience in God. A competent translation of Scripture tells us instead that “Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord.” Nevertheless, Mr. Warren presses on in his intent to show how Noah was a source of enjoyment for God. He catalogs in the life of Noah the virtues of love, trust, obedience, praise, and thanksgiving. There can be no doubt that these are virtues that attend every godly life. However, a true and biblical understanding of these virtues cannot derive from the speculation to which Mr. Warren is devoted. It is inevitable that various errors and inconsistencies should arise. It will be instructive for us to survey some of the problems encountered in his discussion.

After assuring us that God “longs” for our love and that He wants a “relationship” with us more than anything else (p. 70), he proceeds to declare, “This is why learning to love God and be loved by him should be the greatest objective of your life. Nothing else comes close in importance.” (p. 70) However, he already told us in most solemn tones on page 30, “Nothing matters more than knowing God’s purposes for your life, and nothing can compensate for not knowing them.” Evidently, reading this book is supposed to be a contentless, emotional experience. In a non-rational mindset we are to allow for a multiplicity of things, all of which are the most important thing, than which nothing matters more. Also, let the reader recall that on page 24 Mr. Warren asserted that the biblical teaching was that the “fundamental goal and purpose” that gives meaning and explanation to the world is the “central fact” of human life, and that he then went on later to tell us God “allows” us “difficulty, sorrow, and rejection…in order to keep us from becoming too attached to earth,” (p. 49, 50) because, “Life on earth is just the dress rehearsal…the staging area, the preschool, the tryout for your life in eternity.” (p.36) Now on page 74 Mr. Warren is back to his former position. He gives us his own paraphrase of God’s commandment to Noah in Genesis 9:1-3, “It’s time to get on with your life! Do the things I designed humans to do. Make love to your spouse. Have babies. Raise families. Plant crops and eat meals. Be humans! This is what I made you to be!” It is all very dizzying for one to attempt sorting out whether he ought to work hard at being the “central fact” giving meaning to the world, or to work hard at keeping this sorrowful, disappointing world at arm’s length.

We find also an assortment of inaccuracies. Mr. Warren addresses himself to the need for obedience to God. With this we have no quarrel. However, since he has approached the matter on a footing of speculation, he has made of it what seems good to his own mind rather than to bring a truly biblical teaching. He tells us that obedience cannot wait. He says, “Every parent knows that delayed obedience is really disobedience.” (p.72) This is false. In Matthew 21:28-31 Jesus told the Pharisees this parable: “ ‘But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first and said, “Son, go work today in the vineyard.” And he answered and said, “I will, sir”; and he did not go. And he came to the second and said the same thing. But he answered and said, “I will not”; yet afterward he regretted it and went. Which of the two did the will of his father?’ They said, ‘The latter.’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I say to you that the tax-gatherers and harlots will get into the kingdom of God before you.’ ” If delayed obedience is the equivalent of disobedience, then there never is any room or incentive for repentance. Surely, timely obedience is best. But delayed obedience is not the same as, but better than, disobedience.

Also, Mr. Warren assures us, “You only bring him enjoyment by being you. Anytime you reject any part of yourself, you are rejecting God’s wisdom and sovereignty in creating you…He loves you as if you were the only person on earth.” (p.75) In stark contrast with this the biblical teaching is that we are to abhor the corruption of ourselves as a result of sin. Jesus was direct and clear, “If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.” (Mat. 16:24) And who can misconstrue the agony of Paul in Romans chapter 7 as he struggles with the corruption of the flesh over against the confession of the spirit? Our task in true spirituality is not a striving to “be ourselves.” As Jesus went on to say, “For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake shall find it.” (Mat 16:25) It is “Christ in you” that is “the hope of glory.” (Col. 1:27) It is not rejecting God’s wisdom or sovereignty to “condemn sin in the flesh.” (Rom. 8:3) It is true spirituality for the godly to reject the corruption of sin, “that no man should boast before God.” (I Cor. 1:29) Mr. Warren’s idea of “Man” is an abstraction that does not fit in with these truly biblical ideals. He posits the individual Man as a Divine pleasure-inducer in a sense that could be fulfilled in an abstract world in which only one individual existed. Thus, for Mr. Warren, God’s love is not for Man as a people, but for each individuation of the abstract Man. Such a man does not exist, but neither does such a “God” as Mr. Warren describes.

If we attempt to follow Mr. Warren in his pursuit of worship as giving “pleasure” to God, which in turn he construes as making God “smile,” we find immediately that such a course requires leaving the Bible behind. But let us now turn to the Bible for true instruction in nature of God’s “smile.” The term smile does not occur in the King James Bible. The term smile and its derivatives occurs three times in the New American Standard, but never is predicated of God. The Hebrew term translated as smile in the NASB is sachaq and means literally “to laugh.” It is translated mostly as laugh or laughs. We find that at several points God “laughs.” We might phrase Mr. Warren’s question in these terms and ask, “What makes God laugh?” It is indeed instructive for us to follow the form of Mr. Warren’s course and to discern in a truly biblical sense what makes God laugh, or smile. God laughs at the pathetic rage of the sinful men of worldly wisdom and power (Ps. 2:4). The Lord laughs at the impotent plots of the wicked (Ps. 37:13). God laughs at the haughty pretense of those who think no one can call them to account (Ps. 59:8). God’s wisdom laughs at the calamity of fools who refuse her reproof (Pr. 1:26). Indeed, let us be mindful of what makes God smile, and then beg God’s grace to be free of all such things!

Day Ten - The Heart of Worship

Mr. Warren proceeds to expound upon what he regards as “the heart of worship.” He already has defined “worship” as “giving God pleasure” and “making God smile.” However, he has built his case for these notions upon paraphrases of Scripture rather than doing any real Bible study concerning the pleasure of God and the smile of God. We have seen in our previous discussions that a serious Bible study of these things brings us to much different conclusions than Mr. Warren proposes. Now, in proposing to discuss “the heart of worship,” Mr. Warren confronts yet another opportunity to be truly biblical about God, man, sin, redemption, and worship. Indeed, he flirts with truly biblical teaching, as he says at one point: “We aren’t God and never will be. We are humans. It is when we try to be God that we end up most like Satan, who desired the same thing.” (p. 79) In this he gets at a truly biblical idea of a “Creator / creature distinction.” If only he had grounded all he has had to say in this basic distinction, he would have brought us to a much different place than what we find on this Day Ten. However, as we have seen before in his treatise, nuggets of wisdom are scattered throughout and find no systematic place in the larger context of the book. This is no less the case here.

According to Mr. Warren, “The heart of worship is surrender.” (p. 77) However, he does not make a rigorously biblical case for this view. At the head of this chapter he cites a paraphrase of Romans 6:13 in which the term surrender occurs. Also, in the text of the chapter he cites a paraphrase of Psalm 37:7 in which the term surrender occurs. In neither case do the original terms signify the giving up or giving in that Mr. Warren suggests. In Romans 6:13 the original term is paristemi, which is a compound term that combines the prefix para and histemi - to stand. Essentially, it means “to stand beside, or to stand before.” A competent translation reads, “present yourselves to God.” This is a command. The same term is used in Romans 12:1, “present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice.” In Psalm 37:7 the original term is damam, which means essentially, “to be still, or to be silent.” The New American Standard puts this as, “Rest in the Lord…” The term surrender does not occur in the King James Bible. It occurs but five times in the New American Standard, and never in the usage of Man surrendering to God. Indeed, in Hosea 11:8 God declares, “How can I surrender you (deliver you up), O Israel?”

Mr. Warren has no biblical basis for his notion that “The heart of worship is surrender.” Instead, his basis is the foregoing material in the first nine chapters of his book. In those chapters he propounds the view that Man is the “central fact” giving meaning to existence; that nevertheless he somehow needs to be in relation to God in order to “discover” his purpose; that an undefined thing called “sin” disconnects him from God; that he may exercise his wisdom, volition, and power at any time to begin a relationship with God, upon which he may then press on to “discover” his purpose, which then becomes the “foundation” of his life; that for His part God derives a great benefit from this relationship, because Man is able to impart to Him an emotional experience of pleasure, and so ought to learn all of the various things that make God smile. It is this basis - as opposed to a truly biblical basis - that is required to support Mr. Warren’s idea of “surrender.” A biblical and consistently held idea of a “Creator / creature distinction” does not provide a dynamic of God and Man struggling together as correlates, such that Man could be characterized as finally giving in to God. Abandonment of the biblical teaching is required in order for Mr. Warren’s idea of “surrender” to hold up.

For example, he tells us, “You won’t surrender to God unless you trust him, but you can’t trust him until you know him better.” Contrary to the biblical teaching that every man is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20) for their failure to honor God as God, Mr. Warren would have us to believe that it is possible for us to get to know God without trusting Him, because he suggests that we cannot trust Him until we get to know Him. Paul told the Romans that they were “without excuse” because as creatures of God it is their nature to know Him and to know their duty to Him. His indictment is, “For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God.” (Romans 1:21) As creatures of their Creator they are obliged to know and to honor God as God. They are afforded no neutral area in which they might get to know Him better before they could be expected to trust or to honor Him. Simply by virtue of being His creation they already know Him, and such knowledge is adequate to render them immediately obligated to honor Him fully and without reservation. They are “without excuse” in their failure to do so. Contrary to this Mr. Warren would afford all men an area of neutrality in which they might evaluate God. Mr. Warren conceives of Man as possessing a measure of autonomy in which he may determine his own destiny and therefore determine eternity for God, and conceives of God as possessing a correspondingly limited autonomy that makes room for Man’s determinations. Such a God and such a Man cannot but to coexist in a Universe that is controlled by principles that are above both God and Man and in which God and Man must struggle together to sort out the dynamics of their relationship. Only in these terms can Man’s surrender alternately be withheld from God or granted to God upon Man’s own determination.

Only in these terms also can the death of Christ be portrayed as a statement of mutual admiration. Mr. Warren asserts, “If you want to know how much you matter to God, look at Christ with his arms outstretched on the cross, saying, ‘I love you this much! I’d rather die than live without you.’” (p. 79) Rather than the death of Christ being for our benefit, as the propitiation for our sins (Rom. 3:25; Heb 2:17; I Jn 2:2; 4:10), Mr. Warren suggests that Christ went to the cross for God’s benefit, so that He may not lose the great prize that we are supposed to be for Him. This is in keeping with his assertion in the previous chapter that we worship not for our benefit, but for God’s benefit. However, the Bible is clear in stating, for example in Deuteronomy 7:7-8, that God chose His people not for any quality they bear in themselves, but according to His own sovereign purposes. Mr. Warren began his book with the confident assertion, “It’s not about you.” At first Mr. Warren had much to say about the preeminence of God. Now we find that he is telling a much different story. Now he is telling us that we are so desirable to God as a source or a means of pleasure that He would rather die than to live without us.

This is indicative of a tension that necessarily underlies the view of things that Mr. Warren has adopted. In such a Universe as Mr. Warren conceives, God does not control whatsoever comes to pass, for Man must never be reduced to a “robot.” (p. 80) But, neither does Mr. Warren pretend that Man controls whatsoever comes to pass. After all, neither must God be a “robot.” Hence, Mr. Warren’s conception of the Universe is not substantially different than Plato’s or Aristotle’s conception of the Universe as controlled by a tension of determinism and indeterminism. An element of determinism is necessary so that the Universe has some sort of structure and order commensurate with our experience. Conversely, an element of indeterminism is necessary also in order that God and Man are afforded a measure of freedom and so are rescued from being “robots.” In fact, in such a world determinism and indeterminism require one another. As Van Til put it, “You have to be both in order to be either.” (Van Til, The Intellectual Challenge of the Gospel, p. 17) One cannot hold to a principle of indeterminism unless he already has dedicated himself to the deterministic view that God cannot control whatsoever comes to pass. But neither can he hold to his own form of determinism in the natural order of the Universe unless he already has dedicated himself to the indeterminism of his own freedom as somehow standing outside of this order. This is a rudimentary tension that spawns endless particular examples in one’s attempts to integrate thought and experience apart from truly honoring God as God.

We had occasion to note earlier the tension in Mr. Warren’s thought expressed as on the one hand that Man is the “central fact” of existence and on the other hand that Man must not become “too attached” to existence, in which he finds considerable sorrow and dissatisfaction. In the present chapter we find yet another expression of the tension. On page 32 he told us, “There is nothing quite as potent as a focused life, one lived on purpose.” Now, on page 82, he tells us, “Nothing is more powerful than a surrendered life in the hands of God.” He elaborates on the following page, “Put Jesus Christ in the driver’s seat of your life and take your hands off the steering wheel.” In the indeterminism of Man’s freedom he focuses his life and asserts his will. In this frame of mind nothing is quite as potent. But, what can man’s freedom mean in a world of pure indeterminism? It seems noble for man to give in to the determinism of God’s superior wisdom and power and take his hands off the steering wheel. In this frame of mind nothing is more powerful. But then the tension drives him back the other direction, because we must not be “robots.” In the course of this short chapter Mr. Warren could not even maintain a consistent idea of surrender. On page 81 he characterizes surrender in this way, “Instead of trying harder, you trust more.” But on the very same page he ends up saying, “Surrender is hard work.”

Only a truly biblical and historically Christian idea of God, man, sin, redemption, and worship can banish such tensions and provide a firm footing for human life and thought. God is the Creator and therefore the determiner of all reality. Man has sinned against Him and so comes under His wrath and judgment. According to His own purposes and criteria, and not conditioned upon anything Man has in himself, God determined in the death and resurrection of Christ to redeem His people from their sins. The essence, or heart, of worship is the fear of God and the bowing down of oneself before Him. We do not give into God as though making a concession. We present ourselves before Him in obedience to His Lordship over all things. As wonderful as it may seem to call all men to surrender to God, it simply is not a biblical call. God is the Creator and Man is the creature. As Creator God already has all possible authority and power in the lives of every man. “So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.” (Rom. 9:18) He gains no additional access or authority via any human decision to give in or to surrender. In his discussion of surrender Mr. Warren brings in concepts of trust and obedience, because these are the teachings found in biblical texts where he proposes to find examples of surrender. For example, Mr. Warren gives Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus as a case of “surrender.” A cursory perusal of the text (Acts 9:1-22) finds the sovereign power of God in human life and humility and obedience to God inspired by the Holy Spirit. Conversely, in this text we find nothing remotely similar to the tension-riddled Humanism expounded by Mr. Warren. His seemingly pious talk of surrendering to God in reality fails to honor God as God.

Day Eleven - Becoming Best Friends with God

It is passing strange that in context of a section that purports to discuss Man’s worship of God Mr. Warren should assert that, “Almighty God yearns to be your Friend!” (p.85) It would appear that Mr. Warren himself is mindful of this strangeness, as he calls this assertion, “the most shocking truth.” If this were a truth at all, shocking or not, one would expect it to come to us from the Bible. Of course, Mr. Warren supposes to couch his notion of the friendship of God and Man in the Bible, however, in reality his notion arises from speculation. Though on Day One he specifically claimed to follow revelation and to shun speculation, Mr. Warren has demonstrated consistently throughout the first ten Days of his treatise that his ideas of God and of Man come moreso from speculation rather than from revelation. Though at several places he speaks of God as our “Creator,” his major thesis of God does not honor God as such, but casts God into a correlativity to man, such as would be commensurate to his notion of friendship. Mr. Warren speaks of the original communion of God and Man in the Garden of Eden as fulfilling his ideal of friendship, and says that the problem Man encountered as a result of the Fall was loss of this original communion. He portrays the problem as a “broken relationship” rather than broken laws, and it is quite evident that in Mr. Warren’s view loss of this communion was a loss for God as well as for Man. The correlativity of God and Man in his view is attested by the yearning with which he characterizes God as pining this loss. Correlativity means that just as Man yearns for God, so also God yearns for Man. It is in this context that he expresses the Redemption God wrought in Christ as, “Jesus changed the situation.” (p.86) Elaborating on this theme, Mr. Warren then says the most biblical thing he has had to say since his opening paragraph on Day One, “…he paid for our sins on the cross…” (p.86) But, having already told us that the problem of “sin” is our being “disconnected from God’s presence” (p.28), “failing a test” (p.42), or “failing to give God glory” (p.54), he has not provided any basis on which to understand sin as anything that needs to be “paid for.” Thus, for Mr. Warren, the best that the cross of Christ can do is somehow to give us a “fresh start” (p.28) by making God “available” to us. (p.86) This attempt to make the idea of God yearning for the friendship of Man to seem biblical is especially sad because not only is it a misapplication of the texts he employs, but the very same texts properly understood forcefully state the truth that is so lacking in Mr. Warren’s presentation.

Mr. Warren appeals to Romans 5:11 from a paraphrase called the “New Living Translation,” and to II Corinthians 5:18 from a paraphrase called “Today’s English Version.” Evidently these texts were selected from those paraphrases because the term friend, or some derivative, occurs in them; after all, it manifestly is Mr. Warren’s purpose to demonstrate as biblical his notion of the “friendship” of God and Man. However, turning to any actual translation of Scripture we find that the term friend is absent. Not only is friend absent, but both texts speak instead of reconciliation. Now, surely, those who have been reconciled therefore have become friends. Are we not then merely quibbling about words? Indeed, the original Greek term is a composite - katallasso - formed by the preposition kata and allasso, meaning “to change,” and Today’s English Version actually puts the sense fairly well with the phrase, “…changed us from enemies into his friends.” So, why should we press for any sharper understanding than Mr. Warren has suggested? We must because a truly biblical understanding and Mr. Warren’s understanding are based upon dramatically different ideas of God and Man. A simple reading of these isolated texts yields varying ideas of the friendship of God and Man depending upon ideas of God and of Man that the reader brings with him to the text. Behind Mr. Warren’s idea of the friendship of God and Man is a Man who “discovers” his purpose for himself (p.21), whose temporal choices determine eternity and thus determine reality for God (p.37), and who is adequately full of innate value that he may impart to God emotional experiences of enjoyment (p.63). Behind his idea of friendship also is a God who depends upon Man for emotional enjoyment (p.66), who may speak motivationally to Man (p.20), but who does not and cannot determine all reality for Man (p.34), who has superior resources of wisdom and strength that Man may choose to utilize, but which operate in the same contingent reality as does the weaker wisdom and strength of Man (p.58), and who so benefits from the emotional enjoyment that Man is able to impart that he would rather die than to live without Man. (p.79) Behind the truly biblical idea of reconciliation is a much, much different God and Man. The true story of God and Man, and the Doctrines of Creation, Sin, and Redemption forcefully and authoritatively is told in the passages of Scripture from which Mr. Warren saw fit to extract two isolated verses simply because some paraphrases included the term friend. In order to correct the misunderstanding of God and of Man that Mr. Warren promotes, we need only cite from an actual translation (in this case, the New American Standard) the same texts that Mr. Warren cites, together with their larger contexts.

Romans 5:8-11 “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him. For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life. And not only this, but we also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the reconciliation.”

II Corinthians 5:14-19 “For the love of Christ controls us, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; and He died for all, that they who live should no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf. Therefore from now on we recognize no man according to the flesh; even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet we know Him thus no longer. Therefore if any man is in Christ he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come. Now all these things are from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ, and gave us the ministry of reconciliation, namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.”

In Mr. Warren’s view God and Man shared mutual experiences of enjoyment in Eden; but this mutually satisfying relationship was broken, as something we have the habit of calling “sin” somehow disconnected Man from God; now Man must wander aimlessly through life and God must yearn for the former enjoyment provided by the innately valuable Man; and in the end God determines that he would rather die than to live without Man, and so the death of Christ deals in some unknown and therefore unspecified way with the disconnect between God and Man - not so as automatically to reconnect them, but to make them now “available” to one another; and so in his view Romans 5:11 and II Corinthians 5:18 mean that God and Man have the opportunity to become friends again. In the truly biblical view God is the Creator and therefore the determiner of Man and of all reality (Gen. 1:1); as Creator, God is complete within Himself and is not in need of anything outside Himself (Acts 17:24-25); Man sinned against God by denying the authority of His Word (Gen. 3:6), and so became an enemy of God (Rom. 5:10). As enemy of God, Man came under the wrath of God (Eph. 2:3) and God drove him out of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 3:24); it pleased God for His own glory and His own purposes to redeem His people from their sins by paying on their behalf the penalty due their sins through the substitutionary death, burial, and resurrection of Christ (Col. 1:13-22); and so in the orthodox view Romans 5:11 and II Corinthians 5:18 mean that in His own power and sovereignty God affected the reconciliation to Himself of we who once were His enemies. Mr. Warren seems oblivious to the full significance of the Today’s English Version paraphrase he selected, where it says that God “…changed us from enemies into his friends.” He has built his whole scheme in such a way that Christ would rather die than to live without Man. He seems totally unconcerned to explain how Man might be portrayed an enemy of Christ.

Mr. Warren draws further upon the classic friendship text, John 15:15, where Jesus says to His disciples, “I have called you friends.” In this case the term in the original Greek is philos, which the reader may recognize as one of the three Greek words for love. Our term friend is a good and proper rendering for philos. Also, Abraham properly is called the “friend of God” in several places (II Chr. 20:7, Is. 41:8) and this is recounted also in the New Testament (Jas. 2:23). In several places, then, we see Man characterized as the friend of God. Man may be so characterized only as he who once was the enemy of God now has been reconciled to God. It is God’s design, initiative, and power to reconcile. However, we do not see God characterized as the friend of Man. Biblically, God always is held forth as our Creator, Master, Judge, Redeemer, Father. It is important always that we honor Him as God and do not go “beyond what is written” in our thoughts and expressions of His nature and glory. There are texts, such as Job 29:4, where we might discuss the propriety of referring to God as our friend, but in all such discussion we must hold in view the plainly didactic texts and appreciate the inevitably anthropomorphic quality of the more obscure texts. Didactic texts speak plainly and straightforwardly to teach us who God is and what He is like. Anthropomorphic texts speak of God in human terms to express God’s actions in a way that is possible for humans to understand, but which do not relate doctrinally to who He really is in Himself. For example, Numbers 23:19 teaches us didactically that “God is not a man ... that He should repent,” while Exodus 32:14 speaks anthropomorphically that God “changed His mind (KJV “repented”) about the harm which He said He would do to His people.” There is little doubt that Mr. Warren has at least a basic understanding of the distinction between didactic texts compared to anthropomorphic texts, but he has not lifted a finger to assess the idea of God-Man friendship according to such distinction.

In one soul-searching paragraph he approaches the threshold of such analysis, but then backs away. He says, “It’s difficult to imagine how an intimate friendship is possible between an omnipotent, invisible, perfect God and a finite, sinful human being. It’s easier to understand a Master-servant relationship or a Creator-creation relationship or even Father-child. But what does it mean when God wants me as a friend?” (p.87) The reason Creator-creature, Master-servant and Father-child are easy to understand is because they are biblical. One may dig into the Word of God on all of these themes and never reach the end of the magnificent riches he will find. Yet Mr. Warren seems determined to pursue the notion of God-Man friendship independently of these themes. It is as though he spoke these themes by way of contrasting his approach to them. It is sadly and tragically ironic that he gave lip-service to the path of truth only by way of contrasting the direction he wishes to go instead. Nothing in his treatise thus far provides his reader with a sufficient understanding of Man as creature and sinner. And so nothing in his treatise thus far equips his reader to grasp the concept of Man as friend of God in the biblical sense of God having reconciled to Himself a former enemy. Mr. Warren nevertheless pushes ahead with an entirely speculative idea of God-Man friendship as that for which God and Man yearn correlatively. His method is to expound upon six “secrets of friendship with God” that he proposes are to be learned from the lives of biblical figures. The first two of these “secrets” he pursues in the present chapter, and the remaining four are deferred to the next chapter. It would enlarge the present discussion beyond proper bounds to continue with commentary of Mr. Warren’s “secrets.” All six of these “secrets” shall be treated in context of the following Day.

Day Twelve - Developing Your Friendship with God

Rather than the truly biblical idea of Man yearning for God (Ps. 42:1), Mr. Warren has presented his speculative idea of God yearning for Man. His idea involves a finite God who must rely upon Man for cooperation before his yearnings can be realized. The God of the Bible is the Sovereign Creator and therefore Determiner of all reality. Nothing can hinder the full realization of His desire (Rom. 8:31-39). The finite God of Evangelicalism must yearn for Man because he depends upon the cooperation of Man for fulfillment. This sort of God has all manner of superior resources that may benefit Man, but since in the end Man’s realization of the benefits depends upon his own initiative, Man must find a way to unlock the “secrets.” This is the spirit in which Mr. Warren presents his six “secrets” for Man developing his friendship with God. Mr. Warren flirted with the real issue involved in God-Man relation when he said on the previous Day that Jesus “…paid for our sins on the cross.” (p.86) However, as described on several previous occasions, Mr. Warren’s idea of Sin is lacking, and so his idea of Redemption has no adequate accounting of how the Cross “paid for” sin. Rather than a true idea of Redemption, Mr. Warren’s summation of the work of the Cross is that, “…access to God was once again available.” (p.86) Thus, his idea of becoming a friend of God is couched in the idea that prior to such friendship we were “disconnected from God’s presence.” (p.28) In biblical terms, those who are not God’s friends are His enemies. (Rom. 5:10) In biblical terms we do not struggle to learn “secrets” in order to become God’s friends; God, by His own design, initiative, and power, reconciles us to Himself. The Christian life is characterized as growth unto maturity. (Eph. 4:12-16). Mr. Warren presents his “secrets” of friendship with God on his speculative terms, not on truly biblical terms. Therefore, though many of his themes have the form and appearance of truth, they are in reality full of errant content. Surely, we have no argument with the importance of prayer, Bible reading, honesty, obedience, Christian values, and a desire for God. But it is the very importance of these things that makes their corruption so insidious.

Mr. Warren terms the first of his six secrets “constant conversation” (p.87) by which he evidently means prayer. He suggests that we are to be constantly muttering words and phrases addressed to God as we go about our daily activities. He says, “ ‘Pray without ceasing’ means conversing with God while shopping, driving, working, or performing any other everyday tasks,” (p.87-88) though, he seems torn as to whether this will produce the desired closeness with God. For example, he says on page 88, “Everything you do can be ‘spending time with God’ if he is invited to be a part of it and you stay aware of his presence.” But on the facing page he then says, “Sometimes you will sense God’s presence; other times you won’t.” (p.89) We are left with the image of Man and God urgently casting about to find a way to establish and to develop a friendship for their mutual benefit: God benefiting from the pleasurable emotional experiences Man is able to impart to him, and Man benefiting from the superior wisdom and strength that God has to offer. Mr. Warren supports his idea of prayer by citing I Thessalonians 5:17 twice from two different versions: “Pray without ceasing.” He takes this to mean that we ought to be engaged in prayer at every moment and at no time are we to fail to be in prayer. “How is it possible to do this?” he asks. (p.89) His answer is, “You choose a brief sentence or a simple phrase that can be repeated to Jesus in one breath…” (p.89) and claims that, “many Christians have done [this] for centuries.” (p.89) He provides no references for such a claim. What he describes as prayer “without ceasing” is the chanting of mantras. If we consult the wise Christian teachers who lived and wrote over the centuries that Mr. Warren invokes, we find quite a different idea of I Thessalonians 5:17 than Mr. Warren proposes. Presented below is a mere sampling.

Hilary (4th Century A.D.), in his “Homily on Psalm 1,” wrote, “Parallel to this passage are the words of the Apostle, Pray without ceasing. As though we were bound to set at naught our bodily requirements and to continue praying without any interruption! … The way to secure uninterrupted prayer is for every devout man to make his life one long prayer by works acceptable to God and always done to His glory: thus a life lived according to the Law by night and day will in itself become a nightly and daily meditation in the Law.” Basil (4th Century A.D.), in the Fifth of his Panegyrical Homilies, wrote, “Ought we to pray without ceasing? Is it possible to obey such a command? … Prayer is a petition for good addressed by the pious to God. But we do not rigidly confine our petition to words. Nor yet do we imagine that God requires to be reminded by speech. He knows our needs even though we ask Him not. What do I say then? I say that we must not think to make our prayer complete by syllables. The strength of prayer lies rather in the purpose of our soul and in the deeds of virtue reaching every part and moment of our life… Thus wilt thou pray without ceasing; if thou prayest not only in words, but unitest thyself to God through all the course of life and so thy life be made one ceaseless and uninterrupted prayer.” Augustine (5th Century A.D.), in his commentary “On Psalm 38,” wrote, “For not without meaning did the Apostle say, ‘Pray without ceasing.’ Are we to be ‘without ceasing’ bending the knee, prostrating the body, or lifting up the hands, that he says, ‘Pray without ceasing’? Or if it is in this sense that we say that we ‘pray,’ this, I believe, we cannot do ‘without ceasing.’ There is another inward kind of prayer without ceasing, which is the desire of the heart.” More recently, John Calvin (16th Century A.D.) wrote in his Institutes, Bk. 3, Ch. 20: 28, “The reason why Paul enjoins, ‘Pray without ceasing; in everything give thanks,’ is because he would have us with the utmost assiduity, at all times, in every place, in all things, and under all circumstances, direct our prayers to God, to expect all the things which we desire from him, and when obtained ascribe them to him; thus furnishing perpetual grounds for prayer and praise.” Adam Clarke (18th Century A.D.) wrote in his Commentary on I Thessalonians 5:17, “Ye are dependent on God for every good; without him ye can do nothing; feel that dependence at all times, and ye will always be in the spirit of prayer; and those who feel this spirit will, as frequently as possible, be found in the exercise of prayer.”

We see that for centuries Christians have taught that there is a formal sense of prayer in which we bow the knee, prostrate the body, lift up the hands, as wholly dependent creatures and sinners, piously appealing to God, our Creator and Redeemer, in thanksgiving for the needs of our lives. They have taught also that there is another sense of prayer, as a “spirit of prayer,” in which we manifest a continual, uninterrupted desire for godliness, which has no bounds, and in which we declare by each moment of our lives the holiness of God’s Law. For centuries Christians have taught that it is this latter sense in which we pray literally “without ceasing,” and that we engage in the formal exercise of prayer in season. Mr. Warren wrongly has claimed that his idea of chanting mantras has been the Christian practice for centuries.

Mr. Warren next discusses the importance of reading God’s word. This he refers to as “meditation.” (p.90) Rightly he declares that we must know God’s Word in order to know God, for He reveals Himself in His Word. However, Mr. Warren focuses upon the utility of the Word of God and neglects the authority of this Word. This is evident in the fact that he presents “meditation” as the entirety of our approach to God’s Word. There is a valid exercise of meditation in the Word of God, however, this practice is itself grounded in the didactic study of the Word as the authority for all of thought and life. For Mr. Warren meditation in the Word has utility for Man as a means of “getting to know” God. He also suggests that the Word has utility for God as a means of reaching out to Man, for whom He yearns, as he characterizes the Word as a “method” God utilizes to pursue Man. (p.90) However, given the ideas of God and of Man he has delineated thus far in his treatise, he is prevented characterizing the Word of God in any other terms. If the Word of God is on a par with the word of Man - since in Mr. Warren’s terms the content of the Bible cannot sharply be distinguished from thoughts that “all by themselves” appear in the human mind (p.21) - then the Word of God merely has utility as a means of “getting to know” God in the same way as the words of Man may help us to get to know Man. In contrast to this, a truly orthodox idea of the Word of God couches the utility of the Word in the authority of the Word. God created all of reality by His Word (Gen. 1:2, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 29; Jn. 1:1-3). “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us…” (Jn. 1:14) because, “God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, in these last days has spoken to us in His Son…” (Heb. 1:1-2a) His Word determines reality (Gen. 1:1-31), defines righteousness (Ex. 20:1-17), and engenders faith (Rom. 10:17). In truth Man is a creature and a sinner, and is obliged without excuse to bow before his Creator and his Judge. Reconciliation with God is premised upon these truths alone and cannot arise from any “method” or technique.

Mr. Warren announces, “You are as close to God as you choose to be.” (p.92) This statement reflects very accurately the dynamic that Mr. Warren has constructed in this treatise in his ideas of God and of Man. For him God inhabits a general and undefined “reality” along side Man, though he admittedly is much larger, smarter and more powerful than Man. But, as Mr. Warren conceives it, God and Man share “being” in common, and so mutually benefit from their “relationship,” as elaborated above. According to his idea, Man became “disconnected” from God through some general and undefined thing that is popular to refer to as “sin.” This sort of God “yearns” for Man and sent Jesus to the cross as a demonstration that he “would rather die than to live without” Man. (p.79) Thus, in this dynamic, the initiative is left with Man. The God of modern Evangelicalism has done all that he can do and now must stand by waiting for Man to act. It is in terms of this dynamic that Mr. Warren speaks of the remaining four of his “secrets.” He speaks of honesty, obedience, value, and desire.

Mr. Warren states, “God doesn’t expect you to be perfect…” (p.92). He offers no Scripture text to support such a statement, as evidently not even the loosest of today’s modern, relevant, living paraphrases says anything close to this. Jesus concluded his Sermon on the Mount with the exhortation, “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Mat. 5:48) The perfection of God, the perfection of His Law (Ps. 19:7), and the ideal of the perfection of human nature (II Cor. 7:1) is the whole basis for God’s wrath due to sin. It is only as sin is completely discounted, as it is in this treatise, that it would make any sense to suggest that God does not expect perfection. However, in lieu of perfection Mr. Warren suggests that God, “…does insist on complete honesty.” (p.92) The ideal of perfection requires repentance of the sinner; the ideal of “honesty” does not. Surely, it is a good thing for one to own up to his true thoughts and feelings. But, when such “honesty” specifically is contrasted with perfection, it becomes a justification for error. In 1963 a very controversial book by Anglican Bishop John A. T. Robinson was published titled Honest to God. In it he explained how “honesty” required him to confess that he really did not believe the Doctrines of Christian Orthodoxy. Did God expect perfection from a Bishop of the Church? Was God pleased with the “honesty” of Bishop Robinson? And what of the “honesty” of Mr. Warren? Would not his ideal of “honesty” require him to be completely self-conscious and forthcoming with his readers in setting aside the Doctrines of Orthodox Christianity in deference to the Humanistic God-talk that we see in his book?

Mr. Warren then proceeds into a discussion of obedience, his fourth “secret.” If God does not expect perfection, then what is the need for obedience? Since the idea of obedience is completely foreign to the system that Mr. Warren has constructed, it is not possible to give an accounting of the inclusion of it here should Mr. Warren himself not comment on this question. It is evident that he struggles with this oddity, as he says, “We don’t normally think of obedience as characteristic of friendship…” (p.95) As a result of this oddity, the only two feasible options are 1) discard the idea of obedience or 2) go back and re-think the idea of the friendship of God and Man. Speaking of honesty, it does not appear that Mr. Warren is being honest in his struggle with this question, for he embraces neither option with any clarity. Citing John 15:14, he wishes to maintain his notion of the correlativity of God and Man while adding to it the idea that Man is obliged to do whatever God commands. He attempts to accomplish this by advancing an idea of “obedience” without any sense of obligation. Says he, “We obey God, not out of duty or fear or compulsion, but because we love him and trust that he knows what is best for us.” (p.95) Mr. Warren assures us that, “God always acts in your best interest…” (p.94) Rather than a God Whose Word defines reality and righteousness, Who does all things for His own Glory, before Whom we bow in fear and obligation as creatures and sinners, Mr. Warren suggests a God whose word consists of good advice, who does all things in our interests, whom we approach as someone who has superior resources and therefore has the ability to make our lives more rewarding, if only we will follow his advice. He is careful to remove all notion of wrath from his idea of God. In his view of things sin is not the breaking of God’s Law, and so the notion of the wrath of God has no place in his system. He assures us, “God is not mad at you; he’s mad about you.” (p.98)

Mr. Warren’s fifth “secret” is to value what God values because, “This is what friends do - they care about what is important to the other person.” (p.96) Among mutual correlates, such as Mr. Warren has cast God and Man, how is it to be determined who has the controlling value? He already has told us that God always acts in our best interests. How is it not the “secret” that God values what we value? What determines it to be the other way around? Mr. Warren does not entertain this question, but proceeds on the assumption that God’s values are the controlling values. One explanation for this would be that God is the Creator and we are the creature, but this would destroy the idea of the correlativity of God and Man that is required to support the system that Mr. Warren is building. Somehow, Mr. Warren assures us, God has the controlling values. He characterizes this as follows: “What does God care about most? The redemption of his people. He wants all his lost children to be found! That’s the whole reason Jesus came to earth.” (p.97) We may rejoice that Mr. Warren finally speaks of redemption in Christ. But, given all that has come before in this book, what can this possibly mean now? Here we have a book that purports to be about the purpose of human life and it is not until page 97 that we encounter the term redemption. It is to be greatly mourned that nothing that is said in the prior 96 pages serves to provide any true, biblical content to this term. It certainly is biblical to state that Jesus came “to seek and to save that which was lost” (Lk. 19:10), but even in this form of orthodoxy Mr. Warren introduces a subtle corruption by characterizing the redemption of Men as that which matters most to God. Mr. Warren has left his opening statement, “It’s not about you” (p.17), far, far behind. Here he confronts an opportunity to recover something of this theme, but passes it by. Even in a context of exhorting his readers to value what God values, the potential of this exhortation is turned back around into a focus upon the fulfillment of human life. “To be a friend of God, you must care about all the people around you whom God cares about.” (p.97) The potentially noble formula, “Man must value what God values,” turns into Humanism thus, “Man must value Man because God values Man.”

The last of Mr. Warren’s “secrets” is desire. “I must desire friendship with God more than anything else.” (p.97) With this discussion he returns to the theme, “You are as close to God as you choose to be.” (p.98) Surely, in the psychology of human experience the godly man will entertain a great desire for God. But it is far from biblical to suggest that one acquires or develops a “friendship” with God by means of his desire. What Man has done with his desire is to have become enticed away into sin. It is the desire and pleasure of God to reconcile sinners unto Himself. By focusing the reconciliation of Man to God upon the desire of Man and the other “secrets” by which Man pretends to determine his relation to God, Mr. Warren has muddied understanding not only of the Christian Doctrines of Creation, Sin, and Redemption, but also has muddied understanding of the true human psychology of prayer, meditation, honesty, obedience, value and desire.

Day Thirteen - Worship That Pleases God

Mr. Warren returns to the idea of the pleasure of God. On Day Eight he defined worship as, “Bringing pleasure to God,” (p.64) by which he meant imparting to God emotional experiences of enjoyment. On the following day he took up the question of how Man may accomplish this “worship.” He posed the question as, “What makes God smile?” (p.69) In this context he discussed Man’s love of God, trust of God, obedience to God, praise and thanksgiving to God, and use of abilities. The emphasis in the present chapter is on the quality of “worship.” Says he, “There is a right way and a wrong way to worship.” (p.100) With this we may wholeheartedly agree. However, the case that Mr. Warren makes for this assertion serves only to weaken his view of things.

In support of his view that we must worship in a manner that pleases God, Mr. Warren cites Hebrews 12:28 from Today’s English Version. However, he does not quote the entire verse. He put a period at the end of his citation, and close quotes. But this is incorrect, for the point at which Mr. Warren stopped is not really the end of the sentence. It may seem like overburdening the point to carry on about this matter, for it is not at all unusual for such a thing to be done. One may search through the present collection of commentaries and find examples of the same thing. However, this instance of Mr. Warren cutting off the end of a sentence out of the Bible is particularly noteworthy, for the part he left out runs completely counter to the system of things Mr. Warren is attempting to build. When done properly, citing only a phrase out of Scripture and leaving out the rest of the sentence can be done because it is not necessary to cite the entire verse in order to convey accurately what the Bible is saying. In this case Mr. Warren has left out the last part of the verse because his view of things makes it very necessary to leave it out. This is because his view of things is not fully biblical. A fully biblical quotation weakens rather than strengthens the point he wishes to make.

Mr. Warren cites Hebrews 12:28 from Today’s English Version as follows, “Let us be grateful and worship God in a way that will please him.” In TEV this statement reads in full, “Let us be grateful and worship God in a way that will please him, with reverence and fear.” And, indeed, this is not yet the end of the sentence. Verse 29 adds, “for our God is indeed a destroying fire.” Mr. Warren utilizes the portion of the text he quoted in order to make his idea of “Worship that pleases God” seem biblical. However, instead of quoting the entire sentence out of the Bible, he finishes the thought in his own words, “The kind of worship that pleases God has four characteristics.” (p.100) He proceeds then to discuss his own four ideas of what will make our worship pleasing to God. The unwary reader is lead to believe that Mr. Warren’s four ideas are a biblical prescription for how to worship in a way that pleases God. The Bible - even a modern, loose paraphrase of the Bible - was ready to tell us what manner of worship pleases God, but Mr. Warren chose to leave out that part and to present his own four ideas instead. Had Mr. Warren cited the entire thought of Hebrews 12:28-29, his readers would know that the sort of worship that is pleasing to God is worship that is in reverence and fear, for our God is a destroying fire. Then he might have gone on in this chapter to expound upon this truth and to bring a truly biblical message concerning worship. Instead he has chosen to cite just enough of a phrase out of Scripture to make his position seem biblical, and to proceed from there in his own way. Mr. Warren speaks of the need for worship to be accurate, authentic, thoughtful, and practical. Surely, these are good qualities for our worship. These are good qualities generally speaking that ought to characterize much of what we say and do. However, they are presented out of context of the text cited by Mr. Warren and in lieu of biblical teaching of worship.

The first of Mr. Warren’s four qualities of worship is accuracy. Here is his discussion of accuracy in its entirety: “God is pleased when our worship is accurate. People often say, ‘I like to think of God as…,’ and then they share their idea of the kind of God they would like to worship. But we cannot just create our own comfortable or politically correct image of God and worship it. That is idolatry. Worship must be based on the truth of Scripture, not our opinions about God. Jesus told the Samaritan woman, ‘True worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks.’ To ‘worship in truth’ means to worship God as he is truly revealed in the Bible.” (p.101) Mr. Warren’s appetite for accuracy is commendable. His commitment to the Bible as the standard of accuracy is laudable. However, the studious reader is struck by the strangeness of this brief paragraph of orthodoxy as it is couched within hundreds of pages of speculative Humanism. Indeed, this discussion seems especially odd given that it comes right on the heels of Mr. Warren having just inaccurately cited Hebrews 12:28. He reports that “people often say…” what sort of a God they wish there were. Mr. Warren himself presents us with a model of such a person, since often enough in the first 100 pages of his book he has rehearsed this very exercise. He says, in effect, that he would like to think of God as yearning for the emotional experiences of enjoyment that Man can provide him (p.85); that he would like to think of God as enjoying any and every kind of music that could possibly exist (p.66), indeed, that God invented all possible music (p.65); that he would like to think of God as so enjoying the benefit that Man is to him that he would rather die than to live without Man (p.79), and now he says, in effect, that he would like to think of God as not involving a destroying fire or demanding our reverence and fear. Mr. Warren utilizes some very strong language for the Human practice of inventing an unbiblical idea of God, calling it “idolatry.” He is completely correct in this assessment. However, one then wonders all the more how he came to the place where, within the pages of the same book in which he brings this challenge, he treats himself to the luxury of indulging in such idolatry with impunity. At bottom, the God Mr. Warren expounds is the correlate of Man, and so is sharply distinguished from the Un-created, Creator God of the Bible, and is indistinguishable from the Un-moved Mover of Aristotle. The Bible, indeed, is the revelation of truth to us from God. But appeal to the Bible as a standard of accuracy in our conception of God cannot really help us to discern between the Un-created Creator and the Un-moved Mover if we are going to lift fractions of the text that are according to our liking and pretend the rest does not exist. Nor will it help us if we accept as “Bible” every loose paraphrase that comes down the pike. This point finds its most dramatic emphasis in the next quality Mr. Warren takes up.

Secondly, Mr. Warren suggests that our worship must be authentic. By this he means that worship must be full of integrity and not hypocrisy. As he develops his point it becomes clear that he is not so much concerned that our practice of worship should conform to what we know to be the truth of God, the truth of Man, of sin, and of Redemption. Rather, his concern is that our worship should conform to a nebulous psychological experience of the self. Though he says, “Your biggest distraction in worship is yourself.” (p.102), he nevertheless proceeds in the very next paragraph to maintain that, “The best style of worship is the one that most authentically represents your love for God, based on the background and personality God gave you.” (p.102) In reality the self is indeed the biggest distraction in worship. This is consistent with Mr. Warren’s starting point, “It’s not about you.” (p.17) Mr. Warren’s occasional reversion to this sound and biblical concept merely adds to the strangeness of the bulk of his teachings. True worship is the adulation of God for His attributes and His works among us. But, Mr. Warren does not entertain an idea of God that can sustain orthodoxy, and so continually and quickly falls into one kind or another of Humanistic speculation. For Mr. Warren, worship is not redeemed sinners declaring the glory of God, but God’s correlates and pleasure-inducers representing their love based on their backgrounds and personalities. The Humanism and speculation inherent in the categories of such an outlook are not erased simply by adding to it the idea that “God” gave us our backgrounds and personalities. The summation of this for Mr. Warren is, “God wants you to be yourself.” (p.103). Or, to put it in terms of Mr. Warren’s own formula for idolatry, “I like to think of God as wanting me to be myself.” Mr. Warren pretends to vindicate such pabulum as “accurate” by citing a text of Scripture in support of it. He cites John 4:23. The alert reader will notice that he already cited John 4:23 as the basis for his challenge of accuracy. On page 101 he cited this text out of the New International Version, “True worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshippers the Father seeks.” Now he cites this same text again, this time from something called “The Message.” It reads, “That’s the kind of people the Father is out looking for: those who are simply and honestly themselves before him in their worship.” (p.103) Spirit and truth changed into “simply and honestly themselves.” When Mr. Warren is concerned with “accuracy” he can cite John 4:23 from the NIV and then carry on about “spirit and truth” and the need for our idea of God to conform to what the Bible tells us. Then, when Mr. Warren is concerned about the authenticity of the psychological experience of the self, he can cite the very same text from “The Message” and assure us with the pretence of “accuracy” that “God wants you to be yourself.” This is accurately and authentically Humanistic.

Pressing on, Mr. Warren exhorts us that our worship must be thoughtful. “You must engage your mind,” he tells us. (p.103) The formal truth of this statement is beyond dispute. However, it is difficult to avoid mentioning that the more the reader attempts to engage his mind, the less Mr. Warren’s treatise squares with accurate, authentic, thoughtful Christian worship. The present discussion is a case in point. Citing Matthew 6:7, Mr. Warren warns us against “vain repetitions.” He goes on to say that, “Even biblical terms can become tired clichés from overuse…” (p.103) It truly is amazing to think that in Mr. Warren’s mind the consistent reading and recitation of biblical texts can be classed as overusing clichés, but going about constantly muttering “breath prayers” (p.89) all day long is a method of becoming God’s best friend! In his view there is such a danger of the words of Scripture becoming clichés that this is one pretext given for his employment of such a bewildering variety of paraphrases, “This is why I encourage you to read Scripture in different translations and paraphrases.” (p.104) Constantly referring to different translations and paraphrases makes memorization of Scripture virtually impossible. But in Mr. Warren’s view of things memorization of Scripture would not be beneficial, for in this case the words of Scripture would become “tired clichés.” Mr. Warren previously assured us that God is “…bored with predictable, pious clichés,” (p.94) The studious reader also is quite bored with alliterative clichés, such as, “You need hope to cope” (p.31), “Purpose always produces passion” (p.33), “Your identity is in eternity, and your homeland is in heaven” (p.48), “Put Christ in the driver’s seat of your life and take your hands off the steering wheel” (p.83); and many other examples. One can only wonder concerning the state of Evangelicalism today. Here is a book that is full of predictable, pious clichés and nevertheless warns readers in all seriousness that the words of Scripture can become clichés, and as a result is rewarded with phenomenal popularity.

The fourth quality of worship Mr. Warren discusses is practicality. He begins this discussion by citing Romans 12:1 and the idea of Man offering his body a living sacrifice to God as a spiritual service of worship. He muses that it is demanded of Man to offer his body in contrast to his spirit. This leads nicely into a discussion of the duty upon Man to live in service to God. With this discussion Mr. Warren reverts once again back to his “It’s not about you” theme. Though he told us on page 103, “God wants you to be yourself,” he now tells us, “He wants you to live for Him” (p.105) Though he told us on page 102, “The best style of worship is the one that most authentically represents your love for God, based on the background and personality God gave you,” he now tells us, “You cannot exalt God and yourself at the same time. You don’t worship to be seen by others or to please yourself. You deliberately shift the focus off yourself.” (p.105) The hallmark of the speculative, Humanistic outlook is the dialectical tension in which emphasis constantly is shifting between two opposite poles. Humanism cannot say anything definitely, unchangeably, about God, Man, or anything of reality, but must swing and sway as a pendulum within paradox. This already has been noted on a number of occasions in Mr. Warren’s book, such as his view that the earth was created specifically to be Man’s habitation in tension with his view that God sends sorrow and disappointment our way so we will not become “too attached” to life here. In this chapter we see yet another example of the inescapable tension that lies at the root of Mr. Warren’s concept of God and of Man. “It’s not about you,” he says at one point, and “Your biggest distraction in worship is yourself.” But, how can the reality of the human personality be maintained? In Christian orthodoxy, the reality of human personality is grounded in the Image of God that Man bears as a unique creation. Difficulty in thought and life is the consequence of Sin, which is Man’s willful rebellion against the Law of God. Man is “dead” in his sins (Eph. 2:1), and is in need of another to act on his behalf to provide a remedy. God, in His own initiative and power accomplished the Redemption of His people in the death, burial, and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ. In all of this the biblical truth that “It’s not about you” is maintained without compromise. In contrast to this Mr. Warren must backpeddle in order to satisfy the reality of human personality. Over many pages this book reads as though it really is about us after all. The best worship, he says, is a representation of our love according to our backgrounds and personalities. But this backpeddling only requires further backpeddling, and that is where he leaves us at the close of this chapter. At one point it seems to Mr. Warren that God want us to be ourselves. But since this notion cannot be fully integrated into a systematic theology, it is required at another time for him to urge instead that He wants us to live for Him.

Day Fourteen - When God Seems Distant

With this chapter Mr. Warren concludes his discussion of the first of his five purposes of Man. Surely worship, biblically understood, is a basic purpose of human life. But, what Mr. Warren has presented to us lacks biblical rigor. He has defined worship as “bringing enjoyment to God,” (p.63) and “falling in love with Jesus.” (p.67) His case for these things misses the biblical idea of the “pleasure” of God, as explained above. Similarly, he has misconstrued the biblical ideas of the “smile” of God, “surrendering” to God, and “friendship” with God. The concluding chapter now under consideration enlarges his discussion of “friendship” with God and “relationship” to God. He considers the human psychological experience of God seeming distant to Man.

Mr. Warren suggests that, “The deepest level of worship is praising God in spite of pain…” (p.107) Toward the end of the Book of Revelation we read of the summation of human life in the final judgment. The Redeemed are brought into a new fellowship with God, as it is written, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He shall dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be among them, and He shall wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there shall no longer be any death; there shall no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain.” (Rev. 21:3-4) Mr. Warren’s view does not integrate with a fully biblical doctrine of worship, for the notion that the “deepest level of worship” requires conditions that are absent in heaven clearly implies that our worship upon the Earth may achieve depths that are not possible to achieve in heaven. Yet, who seriously will claim that the worship of his church glorifies God to a degree that surpasses what is described in Revelation Chapter 4?

How may we account for such a great divergence between a biblical doctrine of worship and the message of a book that purports to speak of a biblical doctrine of worship? We may account for this by noting that the Bible speaks of the ontology of worship while Mr. Warren speaks of the psychology of worship. Everything God reveals in His Word is couched in the truth of who God is, who Man is, and what God is doing in the world of His own creation. Mr. Warren’s discussions are couched in the psychology of the way things “seem” to Man. He acknowledges that the distance of God is only a “seeming separation.” (p.108) He assures us, citing our Lord’s own promise, that He will never leave us or forsake us. (p.108) Yet instead of appealing finally to this truth, Mr. Warren appeals instead finally to human psychology.

Surely, God speaks to us on occasion in terms of the psychology of human experience. For example, in James 4:8 we read, “Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.” We are human and cannot help but to interpret our experiences within a context of human psychology. But the final word on the definition of humanity and the truth of human psychology must be Scripture and not human experience. Scripture explains human experience; human experience does not explain Scripture. James 4:8 goes on to say, “Cleanse your hands, you sinners; and purify your hearts, you double-minded.” This speaks of a desire within the human heart to seek God and His righteousness. But the truth of the psychology of this is explained more fully in didactic texts such as Ephesians 2:12-13, “…you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.” Finally, it is the blood of Christ that brings us near, cleanses our hands, and purifies our hearts, “…for apart from Me you can do nothing.” (Jn. 15:5)

Any appeal to human psychology that is not grounded firmly in the ontology of Scripture must, of necessity, spawn its own ontology. This results in unbiblical ideas of God and of Man and, indeed, of all reality. The clearest indication that pious talk of God is not rooted in the truth of God revealed in Scripture is the irresolvable tensions that plague such talk. Any attempt to understand and to explain reality that begins with human psychology rather than with the truth of Scripture necessarily fails to grasp a fully consistent idea of the nature of reality. This gives rise to the tension of opposing concepts that cannot be resolved in terms of human psychology alone. We have had occasion to note several examples of this already in Mr. Warren’s treatise, and the present discussion includes yet another example. In Chapter 12, only two chapters prior to the present Chapter, Mr. Warren repeatedly assured his readers that, “You are as close to God as you choose to be.” (p.92, 98, 99). In the present discussion he now assures his readers that, “You won’t always feel close to him.” (p.107) The entirety of the present Chapter attempts to compensate for the unbiblical idea of power and authority ascribed to human choice in Chapter 12. Mr. Warren confidently states on page 99, “Remember, it’s your choice. You are as close to God as you choose to be.” This untruth requires compensation. So now, only 8 pages later, he raises the question, “What do you do when God seems a million miles away?” (p. 107) The answer he gives is not, “It’s your choice. You are as close to God as you choose to be.” Rather, he now says that nothing can be done about such experiences because God is playing cat-and-mouse to test our faith, and that really it is “vital” to our faith for God to seem a million miles away. In a Humanistic outlook that begins with human psychology rather than with the truth of Scripture, one untruth must be compensated by another untruth.

In support of the tension of “I choose to be close to God” vs. “God seems a million miles away,” Mr. Warren cites Philip Yancey, “Any relationship involves times of closeness and times of distance, and in relationship with God, no matter how intimate, the pendulum will swing from one side to the other.” (p.107-108) The imagery of the pendulum refers to nothing that is true in the biblical ontology of God, Man, and Creation. There is no pendulum in reality. Such a metaphor is wholly descriptive of human psychology. It is not descriptive of any perception of reality and thus is not an “experience” of reality. We may refer to this as human experience only in the sense of the reality of the inner space of the human heart. The Heart of Man is the seat of the Image of God, but has become corrupted by sin and unbelief. It has become the domain of the firm conviction of that which is not true. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is to convict the world of sin and unbelief (Jn. 16:8) and to make the Heart once again a domain of truth and godliness (Jn. 17:17). But Mr. Warren instead would incorporate the corruption of the inner space of human psychology and fantasies of swinging pendulums into a concept of Christian maturity. He quotes at length a passage from Floyd McClung as he agonizes over the loss of “spiritual feeling,” which culminates thus, “In utter desperation you cry out, ‘What’s the matter with me?’” (p.108) What is good, Christian counsel for such a fellow? Shall we tell him, “It’s not about you?” Here is Mr. Warren’s assessment, “The truth is, there’s nothing wrong with you! This is a normal part of the testing and maturing of your friendship with God. Every Christian goes through it at least once, and usually several times. It is painful and disconcerting, but it is absolutely vital for the development of your faith.” (p.109) This hyperbole of Mr. Warren is quite ironic, for the term vital derives from the Latin viva, meaning life. That which is vital is that which is necessary for the occurrence and maintenance of life. But, separation from God is death. Revelation 20:7-15 describes the Judgment in which the Devil and all of the ungodly are cast away from God’s presence into the Lake of Fire. This is called, “the second death.” (v.14; see also Rev. 21:8). The ardent desire of the godly is to draw near unto God and to abhor sin and the consequence of separation from God. Yet, Mr. Warren suggests that separation from God, the path toward death, is vital, or necessary for life.

Mr. Warren gives lip service to the idea that sin is what separates us from God, but rather than appealing finally to this truth, he appeals finally to human psychology. Says he, “But often this feeling of abandonment or estrangement from God has nothing to do with sin. It is a test of faith - one we all must face.” (p.109) In response to one suffering the psychological experience of God’s absence, Mr. Warren does not say, “It’s not about you.” Instead he caters to, and indeed elevates, human experience. The biblical remedy for the feeling that God is distant is instruction in the biblical truth that He will never leave us or forsake us (Matt. 28:20) and that it is our own sin that has made a separation between us and our God (Is. 59:1-2). The proper response to feelings of distance from God is repentance. One must repent of his sin that would account for separation from God, and/or one must repent of the unbiblical belief that God has left him. Instead of so instructing his readers, Mr. Warren assures them that experience of separation from God is natural, normal, and often has nothing to do with sin.

Mr. Warren draws upon a number of Scripture texts in support of his view. A whole book could be written on Mr. Warren’s handling of Scripture from various versions. The present forum affords space to treat only a few examples. He heads the present Chapter with Isaiah 8:17, “The Lord has hidden himself from his people, but I trust him and place my hope in him.” This is meant to suggest that Isaiah is saying basically the same thing that Mr. Warren is saying in this Chapter, that even though God is hiding Himself, I still will trust Him. However, in reality this text says nothing of the kind. Mr. Warren has pulled it completely out of context. Isaiah was a prophet whom God called to be His witness of judgment to the rebellious Kings and people of Judah. God did not hide Himself from Isaiah. It was quite the contrary; God revealed Himself and His Word to Isaiah and charged him with bringing this Word to a nation of sinners. It was this sinful people from whom He hid Himself. He did so not because this was a “vital” pendulum swing in their “relationship.” His turning away from them was an act of judgment and wrath. What Isaiah 8:17 actually is saying may be summarized in this way: The Lord hides Himself, i.e. removes His favor from, the house of Jacob because of their sin, but He has spoken to Isaiah and he will wait for Him.

Mr. Warren also cites a number of the Psalms of David, in which David despairs of the help and favor of God. For example, he appeals to Psalm 22, wherein David cries out, “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?” (v.1) In order rightly to understand this and many similar Psalms of David it is necessary to appreciate first the uniqueness of David in the history of God’s people. His experiences must not automatically be taken as typical of every Christian life. Many readers find great affinity with the grandeur of the comfort expressed in Psalm 23, and also identify with the anguish expressed in Psalm 22, but few readers are called to walk in steps so high nor so low as those which David trod. Secondly, it is necessary to bear in mind the prophetic nature of David’s anguish. Mr. Warren cites verse one of this Psalm, “Why have you forsaken me?” as just another example of how “David frequently complained of God’s apparent absence.” (p.108) Jesus Christ cited this same verse as He hung on a cross and died to take away the sins of God’s people. Much of this Psalm is prophetic of the crucifixion of Christ. Verses 11 through 18 virtually describe the crucifixion in great detail. The Gospels quote this Psalm in numerous places in their telling of this story, and John 19:24 cites Psalm 22:18 with the preface, “that the Scripture might be fulfilled.” Also, John 19:28 similarly declares Psalm 69:21 as fulfilled in the death of Christ. Mr. Warren woefully cheapens the deep richness of what is expressed in these Psalms by utilizing them only as a means of advancing the view that such darkness is “absolutely vital for the development of your faith” and that it “has nothing to do with sin.” It has everything to do with sin. Sin is at the very root of such darkness, and the darkest of all separation from God was fulfilled in the death of Christ for the propitiation of sin.

Ironically, Mr. Warren closes this Chapter and his discussion of the worship of God with one of his few ventures into the subject of the death of Christ. Having just told us on the previous page that our separation from God has nothing to do with sin, but is absolutely vital for the development of our faith, he now says that “the greatest reason for worship” is that “God’s Son died for you!” (p.112) In his previous references to the death of Christ, the reader was left to wonder how this can be a death “for” anyone. Here he elaborates in a manner that is more clear than at any previous point, “…Jesus took all of mankind’s sin and guilt on himself.” (p. 112) This book misses the biblical truth of God, Man, Sin, and Redemption on such a grand scale that it is difficult to see how the few elements of truth encountered here and there fit into the whole. It is admirable that Mr. Warren wishes to bring the focus of worship onto what God has done in Christ for us. But even in this there is an attempt to round off the sharp edges of truly Christian orthodoxy. He speaks of the death of Christ not as what God has done, but what God as “allowed,” as he says, “Why did God allow and endure such ghastly, evil mistreatment?” (p. 112) The biblical truth is that no one takes away Christ’s life from Him, but He lays it down on His own initiative (Jn. 10:18), and that this was planned and intended by God before the foundation of the world (Acts 2:23, Eph. 1:4, etc.) Also, he speaks of the death of Christ as taking away the sin and guilt of “all mankind.” Earlier, on page 97, Mr. Warren said that what God cares about the most is, “The redemption of his people. He wants all his lost children found! That’s the whole reason Jesus came to earth.” Now Mr. Warren, and his readers, will have to decide whether or not “his people” and “all his lost children” consists of “all mankind.” A popular Evangelical view is that Christ died for “all mankind” but that only those who choose to believe thereby become “his people.” It is this unbiblical notion of popular Evangelicalism that requires the correlativity of a finite “god” and a sovereign “man.” It is this metaphysics of correlativity that lies at the heart of Mr. Warren’s message. Though such a question requires much more elaboration, we shall have occasion to enlarge this discussion in the coming Days of this book.

Day Fifteen - Formed for God's Family

Mr. Warren now proceeds to a discussion of his second purpose of human life, which he says is to be a part of “God’s family.” (p. 117) At several points in the prior chapters he touched upon the matter of Man’s “relationship” to God. He spoke to us of Man without relation to God (p. 20, 25), though he never has explained how the creature can exist without relation to the Creator. He spoke to us also of Man acting to begin a relationship with God (p. 20, 34, 58), though he never has explained how the creature can determine reality, and, indeed, all eternity, for the Creator. These ideas, combined with the lack of further explanation, leave us only to conclude that Mr. Warren does not see the God-Man relation in terms of a Creator-creature distinction. Up to this point his comments concerning the God-Man relation have come in various contexts. With the theme of the current chapter he has occasion to focus upon the matter of this relation more directly. We cannot impugn the starting point of his discussion in this chapter: “The Trinity is God’s relationship to himself. It’s the perfect pattern for relational harmony, and we should study its implications.” (p.117) However, as he proceeds in this discussion, Mr. Warren does not study the Trinity or its implications. The acknowledgement that the Trinity is the pattern for human relationships and the charge to study this matter is an encouraging particle of truth in Mr. Warren’s presentation. But, it affords nothing to state that we ought to study the Trinity and its implications if everything that follows omits such study. Had Mr. Warren actually done the study for which he calls, it would have nullified what Mr. Warren wishes to say about the “relationship” of God and Man and, indeed, necessitated the complete reworking of his concepts of God and of Man. What follows below is a basic introduction to the needed study of “relationships.”

The idea of relationship in the world of Creation involves mutuality. The Universe of created reality consists of a mutuality of myriad individual things. A dynamic of natural forces such as gravity, electromagnetism, and energies of various kinds permeates all that exists in temporal reality. Additionally, things bear more or less a functional relation or share various attributes. Knowledge of temporal reality is gained largely through discerning the relationship that one thing bears to another. A seed germinates in the earth, is fed by water and nutrients present in the earth, grows then to undergo photosynthesis via the energy of sunlight, sends roots deeper into the earth, and ultimately bears fruit yielding seed. Any one of these things taken by itself and contemplated quite apart from any relation to the other things cannot fully or truly be understood. Knowledge of a thing necessarily involves knowledge of its interrelations with other things. Of course, the mutuality of two particular things, such as the Moon orbiting Earth, may be of much greater moment than that of two other particular things, such as a particular leaf of a tree in Australia vis-à-vis a vein of coal far below a village in Italy. There is a great deal we can say about the leaf without reference to the coal, and vice versa. However, as we press to exhaust knowledge of the leaf, we cannot discount the fact that the leaf exists in the sort of world in which veins of coal run through the ground. All things in temporal reality exist in mutual relationship and cannot otherwise exist or be known. This mutuality is what is meant by the “correlativity” of things. The idea of “relationship” implies correlativity. Everything in Creation exists in correlativity to every other thing in Creation.

Beyond the elementary idea of relationship we may consider also the personal relationship. In temporal reality there not only are things, but there also are Persons. Personal relationship involves mutuality no less than the relationship of inanimate things, but the unique attributes of Persons brings additional dynamics to bear. The individual Person cannot exist in total isolation from other individual Persons, but must be considered in mutuality with a body of People in which he was born and lives. A great social and cultural problem throughout human history since our Fall into Sin has been to find a proper view of the reality of Person vis-à-vis the reality of People. This problem is but a particular - and eminently personal - case of the Ancient problem of the One-and-Many. What is the more basic, and therefore controlling, reality: the Unity of People, or the Diversity of individual Persons? A People is composed of Persons. Apart from the reality of Persons there can be no reality of People. On the other hand, Persons are correlative to one another, and it cannot be otherwise. The reality of People consists in the correlativity of Persons. Apart from the reality of People there can be no reality of Persons. So, what is the answer? Any answer that attempts to weigh Persons more heavily than People, or People more heavily than Persons, is in essence a non-Christian answer. The Christian answer is just as Mr. Warren suggested at first. The mutuality of the Trinity is a pattern for the mutuality of the things and Persons of Creation. We may not ascribe a priority of unity over diversity, or of diversity over unity in temporal reality because the ultimate principles of both Unity and Diversity exist outside of Creation and reside in the Creator. The Unity of God, the only uncreated, provides the pattern of the unity of the “Universe” of Creation. Likewise the Diversity of God in three Persons provides the pattern of the diversity of multiplicity in Creation. Creation is analogous of the Creator. There is one God and so there is one Universe; there are three Persons of the Trinity and so the Universe is comprised of a multiplicity of things.

The full richness of this analogy resides in the Christian idea of the temporal unity and diversity of human Persons patterned after the ultimate Unity and Diversity of the three Persons of the Trinity in one God. God is not a thing among things in Creation; He is the Creator. God is correlative only to Himself. The things of creation relate to God as creature to Creator. This is not a “relationship” of mutuality, it is a relation of temporal being to One in whom “all things hold together” (Col. 1:17). Neither does the Human Person, as an aspect of Created reality, exist in a “relationship” of mutuality with the Creator. In His Word God tells us that He has created us in His image (Gen. 1:27) and so we bear a temporal analogy of His infinite and ultimate Personal Attributes. But this is in analogy, not in mutuality. In Isaiah 55:8-9 God charges us, “ ‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways My ways,’ declares the Lord. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts.’” Paul admonishes, “Oh, the depths of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen.” (Rom. 11:33-36) The Scriptures speak descriptively of Man as, for example, the “offspring” of God (Acts 17:28), the “friend” of God (Jn. 15:15), and the “bondservant” of God (Phil. 1:1). But we cannot take these descriptions to imply a mutual correlativity of God and Man, such as in the Human relationships of offspring, friend, and bondservant. For the Scriptures teach us more didactically that the essence of the Christian “relationship” of God to Man is Creator (Gen. 1:27), Judge (Ps. 9:8), and Redeemer (Col. 1:13-14); and the “relationship” of Man to God is creature (Gen. 1:27), sinner (Rom. 3:9-18), and redeemed (Eph. 2:8-9). There is a correlativity of mutuality of the Persons of the Trinity, and patterned after this there is a correlativity of mutuality of the Persons of Man. We do not share intellect, emotion, and will correlatively with God, but we have the temporal reality of intellect, emotion, and will because these are based firmly, though analogically, in the infinite and ultimate Intellect, Emotion, and Will of God.

However, Mr. Warren fails to study the implications of this. Having stated the germ of the concept, he fails to flesh it out to fruition. Mr. Warren rightly states that God is fully complete within Himself and has no need of anything outside Himself, but he then proceeds to characterize God as ardently desiring a family composed of Human Persons, and justifies his view by noting the difference between a need and a desire. According to Mr. Warren, “…[God] devised a plan to create us, bring us into his family, and share with us all he has.” (p.118) The core of Christian Orthodoxy is comprised of the Doctrines of Creation, Sin, and Redemption. The first part of the plan described by Mr. Warren clearly aligns with the Doctrine of Creation. The second part, “bring us into his family,” evidently was meant to align with the Doctrine of Redemption. We notice two important things. First, he wishes to speak of Redemption without having spoken of Sin. This cannot rightly be done, and the determination to do so guarantees a muddled idea of Redemption. Second, implied in Mr. Warren’s version of the “plan” is that upon creation Man resided outside God’s family so that it was necessary from the outset for him to be brought into it. If Man’s status as outside the family of God is not to be accounted the result of Sin, then the only alternative to this is a notion that this was his original status upon creation. Previously, Mr. Warren gave lip-service to the idea that Man’s original state was to be in relationship with God, but this was lost through sin. On page 28 he said, “When Cain sinned, his guilt disconnected him from God’s presence.” On page 85 he said, “We were made to live in God’s continual presence, but after the Fall, that ideal relationship was lost.” In this chapter he leapfrogs the idea of Sin altogether. His wavering on this point is indicative of his idea of God-Man mutuality.

Rather than to proclaim an orthodox idea that the mutuality of God’s relationships is subsumed within the Trinity, Mr. Warren characterizes the “relationship” of God and Man in terms of the same dynamic of mutuality as a relationship of Man to Man. Two Human persons who wish to live in a mutually satisfying relationship must speak and work together in order to devise desired goals and to bring them about. To suggest, as does Mr. Warren, that the creature may exist without relation to the Creator, is to represent the being of the “creature” and the being of the “Creator” as correlative in the sense that they subsequently may achieve the mutuality of “relationship.” In prior chapters Mr. Warren spoke of the mutual benefits both God and Man may enjoy via their relationship together. He told us that Man stands to gain a great deal from his “relationship” to God, for in this way he can “discover” his purpose (p. 18, 20, 25, 59). He also told us that God stands to gain a great deal from his “relationship” to Man, for Man is able to induce in God great emotional experiences of enjoyment (p. 63, 64, 66, 79). The issue between God and Man, as Mr. Warren frames it, is How can God and Man work together to develop a “relationship” in which both mutually benefit? All through this book Mr. Warren speaks of God and Man in a way that presumes their correlativity. He does not honor God as God in a Creator-creature distinction, but would suppose to involve God in the correlativity of the things of temporal existence. Though he gives lip-service to the idea that Man is the creation of God, he nevertheless speaks of Man as in some measure controlling the God-Man relation. Says he, “When we place our faith in Christ, God becomes our Father…” (p.118) This is completely opposite the biblical truth. In his view Man resides in a temporal world of being and becoming, with his dynamic of relating to God in the Garden of Eden, losing this relationship and becoming “disconnected” from God’s presence, and subsequently becoming a member of God’s family. In mutuality to this we see God, in Mr. Warren’s view, subjected to this same temporality of being and becoming. In his view God is our “creator” in some sense, but then suffers the “disconnection” from Man and so “yearns” for Man. Mr. Warren’s idea of the correlativity of God and Man leads directly to the notions that as Man is “disconnected” from God, so God is “disconnected” from Man, and that as Man then is left to “yearn” for God, so God is left to “yearn” for Man. He represents God as devising a plan to resolve the problem, but then characterizes His Word as a “point of view” that the Bible “offers” to Man’s consideration. If Man decides to go along with the plan, he then initiates an action called “placing faith in Christ” and God thereby “becomes” his father. The biblical orthodoxy of these things already was recounted numerous times in the essays above, and the reader shall not be over-taxed with yet another recounting of it here.

We may proceed only briefly to point out further consequences of Mr. Warren’s failure to study adequately - or even at all - the implications of the mutuality of the Trinity for the mutuality of Human relations. He moves on in this chapter to state categorically, “Your spiritual family is even more important than you physical family because it will last forever.” (p. 118) He makes it clear that when he speaks of “spiritual family” he means the Church, as he describes it as “our relationship to other believers.” (p. 118) This amounts to the confident assertion that the Church is more important than Kin. He defends this position by pointing out a series of problems that attend Kin relations, such as divorce, mobility, generation gap, and death. He asserts that contrary to this the Church “will continue throughout eternity.” (p. 118) He elaborates, “It is a much stronger union, a more permanent bond, than blood relationships.” (p. 118) A number of observations are in order. First, while Jesus clearly stated that our final state will transcend familial relations (Mat. 22:30), it is far from clear in Scripture that ecclesiastical hierarchy survives eternity intact. Second, the visible Church, which must be in view in Mr. Warren’s remarks as implied by his phrase, “our relationship to other believers,” has its own dirty laundry that he neglected to mention: such as, heresy, denominational splits, scandal, infighting, and even war. Even a cursory look at Church history would dispel the notion that the Church offers Christians a “stronger union” and a “more permanent bond” than Kin. Third, the Church as “family” of God is only descriptive in Scripture, and there are other descriptions also that Mr. Warren does not consider, such as the Church as the Bride of Christ (Rev. 21:2,9; Eph. 5:25-27) and as a Holy Nation (Ex. 19:6; I Pet. 2:9). It is a distortion of the total biblical picture to ignore these metaphors and to focus upon “family.” Fourth, devotion to Kinship rests squarely upon the 5th Commandment, “Honor your father and your mother” (Ex. 20:12), while ecclesiastical faithfulness (Heb. 10:25) rests upon this Commandment only indirectly. Mr. Warren’s failure to study the implications of the Trinity properly has left him in the position of having to decide which of the many “relationships” of Man shall be ultimate in Human life. He wishes to choose Church over Kin. After all, membership in the Church is the second of his five purposes for Human life. There are many others who argue for Kin over Church. This debate is never-ending because the whole question is invalid. The truth of the Trinity and its implications in Human life is that there is a proper function of the individual Person, a proper function of Kin, of Nation, and of Church, and that the Word and Law of God is over all. None of the temporal realities of Human life may be pressed into ultimacy without thereby being corrupted. God alone is ultimate and all avenues and aspects of Human life rightly will work in proper concert for His Glory alone.

Day Sixteen - What Matters Most

In this chapter Mr. Warren maintains that learning to love other people is what matters most. Says he, “Love is not a good part of your life; it’s the most important part,” (p. 124) and, “Relationships…are what matters [sic] most in life.” (p. 125) It always seems safe to make liberal use of superlatives when speaking of love, for how can anyone say too much about love? However, when an author repeatedly resorts to superlatives, his effusiveness begins to ring hollow. Mr. Warren already assured us on page 30 that, “Nothing matters more than knowing God’s purposes for your life, and nothing can compensate for not knowing them.” Then, on page 70 we were told, “…learning to love God and be loved by him should be the greatest objective of your life. Nothing else comes close in importance.” First, Mr. Warren says that the most important thing is that an individual should know God’s purposes for his life. Next, he says that the most important thing is an individual’s relationship with God. Now we are told that the most important thing is an individual’s relationship with other individuals. So many things take turns being the “most important” thing that the overall message of this book cannot be systematically integrated.

While it is difficult to over-emphasize the importance of love, it is not at all difficult to trivialize it with a lot of fuzz and fluff. What comes to us in this chapter is on the order of what we read in those chain-email messages that promise all kinds of good things if only we will forward the message to ten of our friends. For example, Mr. Warren suggests that love is so difficult that it takes all our lives to learn it. “Learning to love unselfishly is not an easy task. It runs counter to our self-centered nature. That’s why we’re given a lifetime to learn it.” (p. 123) Immediately a question presents itself that is completely ignored by Mr. Warren: Is our self-centeredness an attribute of our original created nature or our nature as corrupted in sin? Presumably, Mr. Warren would see self-centeredness as a defect and therefore to be charged to sin. But, in case Man remained without sin, he would have eaten of the Tree of Life and lived forever (Gen. 3:22). As it is, our days upon the Earth are fleeting. If love is so difficult that it takes all our lives to learn it, then how is it that we have life that is “just a vapor that appears for a little while and then vanishes away” (Jas. 4:14) when we have important lessons to learn, but would have had life eternal in the event we had no lessons to learn at all? The puzzlement of this question confronts us only if we have glossed over sin in our thinking and thereby have romanticized concepts of love and of life. This is what we see presented here in this chapter.

A truly Christian outlook on these things will honor God as God, will acknowledge the creaturehood of Man and the corruption of his nature in sin, and will confess the summing up of all things in Christ. God, our Creator, speaks to us with authority about the nature of love, the proper occupation of Human life, and the proper occupation of His Church. Is there no truth in God’s Word to us that Mr. Warren must resort to concepts arising from his own mind? For example, he cites I Corinthians 13:3 to the effect that love is of great importance in life, but then ignores the elaborate description of love in the remainder of the chapter and instead makes up something that he would like to think of God as having said, “God says relationships are what life is all about.” (p.125) Is this, indeed, what God says? In support of this view Mr. Warren appeals to the Law of God, noting that, “all ten [Commandments] are about relationships.” (p.125) But, could anyone suggest a law that did not involve relationship? Surely, one must be in some relation to God and to other people in order to keep or to violate the Commandments. But to say that the Commandments are all about “relationships” is like saying that life is all about breathing, since it is necessary that we must breath in order to do anything else. Mr. Warren cites also Jesus’ saying that the Law is summed up in love of God and love of neighbor. In broaching the subject of God’s Law Mr. Warren had the standard of love in his hands, as it were, but let it slip through his fingers. He takes the summary of the Law in love to mean that the crux of the Law is “relationships.” This makes “love” into a complete abstraction rather than an objective standard. He proceeds to speak of “love” as though it somehow may have reality distinct from deed. This is expressed most eloquently in the quotation of Mother Teresa that he favorably cites, “It’s not what you do, but how much love you put into it that matters.” (p.125) This is absurd. One may as well say, “It doesn’t matter what you do so long as you breathe.” In reality one’s actions matter a great deal. We cannot say that love matters more than deeds, for what one does is the standard that determines whether indeed there is love. The reason the Commandments are summed up in love is because a motive of love will keep the Commandments. Thus, what one does or refrains from doing determines whether he has love. “Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. We shall know by this that we are of the truth, and shall assure our heart before Him.” (I Jn. 3:18-19)

As though the totally abstract nature of Mr. Warren’s idea of “love” needed any further demonstration, he proceeds to elaborate, “The best expression of love is time.” (p. 127) “Your time is your life,” he says. (p. 127) As noted above, one could just as easily say that your breath is your life. (Indeed, one could make a biblical argument for this view from Genesis 2:7) There could then result a great debate over whether life is time or breath. In reality time and breath are media or context in which life is lived. To reduce life to time is to turn attention away from all of the questions and issues of life and to focus it instead upon an abstraction. Mr. Warren sharpens his focus upon an abstraction even further as he proceeds to declare that love also is time. Says he, “…the best way to spell love is ‘T-I-M-E’.” (p.127) On the strength of this abstraction he then posits that, “The essence of love is not what we think or do or provide for others, but how much we give of ourselves.” (p. 127) But, how can we “give of ourselves” apart from what we think or do or provide? As he develops this theme he makes it clear that what he has in view here is “spending time” with people. Mr. Warren attempts to make his idea of love as time seem biblical by citing I John 3:18, the very same text cited above. He chose this text evidently because it states emphatically that love must not be in word only. Mr. Warren says that, “Words alone are worthless,” (p. 127) and maintains that true love requires time. I John 3:18 says that words alone will not suffice (it does not say that words alone are “worthless”) and that added thereto must be - not time, but - deeds. This was the very point of citing this text above. Now Mr. Warren cites this same text in support of his notion that love is time, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the text calls not for “time” but for “deeds” or “action.” What are we to make of a fellow who, in defense of his view, cites a text that precludes his view? The difficulty comes about in that his view makes a sharp distinction between love and deeds. His citation of Mother Teresa to the effect that it does not matter what we do so long as we love is more favorable to this view than anything the Bible says. Mr. Warren elaborates on the theme of Mother Teresa to say that the essence of love is specifically not what we think or do but instead is how much time we spend with people. There is no discussion of what might be done during all of this time spent. Presumably, he considers that it does not matter.

In Scripture life and love are not abstractions that may be contemplated independent of actions. What it means to live is bound up in the concrete reality of the Human being as the creation of God, made in His image and fallen into sin. What it means to love is patterned after God’s love for Creation and is bounded by the constraints of His Law. The Bible explains very clearly how the Commandments are summed up in love: “Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. For this, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; love therefore is the fulfillment of the law.” (Rom. 13:8-10) Love of neighbor is not merely having a “relationship” with one’s neighbor, but relating to one’s neighbor in such a way that does him no wrong. What characterizes such manner of relating? Again, the Scripture is clear: “Love is patient, love is kind, and is not jealous, love does not brag and is not arrogant, does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, it not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.” (I Cor. 13:4-7) Clearly, what we do matters greatly and profoundly. “Spending time” is a meaningless concept apart from a consideration of what specifically is done. Love cannot be sharply distinguished from our thoughts and actions, as Mr. Warren proposes, but is known and demonstrated by our thoughts and actions. Love does not exist in contrast to deeds, but in context of deeds.

Mr. Warren’s thesis has the outward form of rational argument: “The best use of life is love. The best expression of love is time. The best time to love is now.” (p 128) His ideas of life and of love are abstractions that invoke an emotional response. The reader who flows along in this emotional tide is left with the impression that he has read something profound. However, the reader who would press to grasp the truly biblical practicality of Mr. Warren’s formula is left with a corresponding series of difficult questions. If the best expression of love is time, and the best time to love is now, then when is the best time to build the house, or to plant the garden? When is the best time to sew the clothes, or to tend the flocks, or to repair the window? When is the best time to read a book, or to cook the dinner, or to mow the yard, or to split the firewood, or to write in your Purpose-Driven ® Journal, or to go to the store, or to clean the bathroom, or to teach the algebra lesson, or to pay the bills, or to change the diaper? When is the best time to do all of the other things you need to do besides loving? In the fuzzy abstraction that Mr. Warren calls “love” there is no room for contemplation of such questions. According to him, “Busyness is a great enemy of relationships.” (p. 125) This is ludicrous nonsense. The issue of love is not whether or not you are busy; the issue is whether or not your busyness conforms to the Law of God. According to the biblical idea of love as the foundation of the Commandments, busyness that conforms to the Law is the substance of a truly loving relationship.

Day Seventeen - A Place to Belong

What God is doing among men involves a variety of Human relationships. There is the reality of the individual Human being, who bears the indelible stamp of the image of God upon his nature. There also is the reality of a variety of institutions in which collections of individuals relate together for various purposes. We may think principally of Family, Church, and State. In more highly developed societies we see also Economy, Trades, Schools and so forth. Taken together these constitute a culture, or, we might say, a people. The Word of God authoritatively controls the proper function of all institutions of Human relationships. His Word is the final rule of faith and practice in all various activity and modes of relating. Christ is Lord of His people. Thus, He is Lord of the individual, the Family, the Church, the State, and the Economy, etc. The status of the individual vis-à-vis cultural institutions, and the status of the institutions relative to one another, has been a perplexing question throughout Human history. It has been so mainly because throughout Human history men have not seen fit to acknowledge the Lordship of Christ over all things. But even among Christians great care and wisdom are needed in order to discern and to manage correctly the interrelations of individuals and institutions. Because the institution of the Church deals directly with exegesis and Doctrine, there is the temptation among Christians to elevate the Church to the place of Christ as Lord over all Human beings and relations. We see Mr. Warren fully indulge this temptation in discussion of his second purpose of Human life. He states quite bluntly, “The church is God’s agenda for the world.” (p. 132) Also, he says that God “…created the church to meet your five deepest needs: a purpose to live for, people to live with, principles to live by, a profession to live out, and power to live on.” (p. 136) Such an idea makes far too much of the Church and far too little of the individual and the Family. We see clear indication of such difficulties in Mr. Warren’s presentation.

First, Mr. Warren’s idea of the Church involves a fundamental misunderstanding of the individual. In making the case that Christians need the Church for spiritual protection he says, “Satan loves detached believers, unplugged from the life of the Body, isolated from God’s family, and unaccountable to spiritual leaders, because he knows they are defenseless and powerless against his tactics.” (p. 136) To declare that an individual is “defenseless and powerless” outside the Church is a direct denial of James 4:7, “Resist the devil and he will flee from you,” and also a denial of I John 4:4, “Greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.” Mr. Warren has so built up his idea of the Church that he suggests it supplies to the individual Christian the power and spiritual defense that in reality are supplied only by God Himself. In many places the Psalms declare that God Himself is our strength (Ps. 28:7), our rock (Ps. 18:31), our fortress (Ps. 91:2) and our deliverer (Ps. 144:2). In Ephesians chapter 6 Paul undertakes a lengthy and detailed exposition of the “armor of God” that will protect the believer against the schemes of the devil. Among all the resources for our protection we find no mention of the Church. In reality the Church is an assembly of some very well-equipped soldiers, whose equipment and marching orders are provided by their only Lord.

Second, Mr. Warren’s idea of the Church involves a fundamental misunderstanding of the Family. He builds an idea of the Church as a collection of individuals in which all the basic needs of the individual are satisfied. Apparently, in his mind an individual would have no one to live with unless he joined a Church. In an attempt to make his case seem biblical he states, “Even in the perfect, sinless environment of Eden God said, ‘It is not good for man to be alone’” (p. 130) We cannot imagine that Mr. Warren is unaware - and therefore we must suppose he chooses to ignore the fact - that in Genesis 2 God addressed the problem of Man’s loneliness not with a Church but with a Family. It is a distressing abuse of Scripture for Mr. Warren to suggest that Genesis 2:18 proves our need for a brother while ignoring the fact that in Genesis 2:22 God presented to Adam not a brother but a wife!

Under the heading “Your Choice” (p. 136) Mr. Warren attempts to draw an analogy between Church membership and Family membership. This is done in a section that stresses the importance of Church membership for the individual and that urges the individual to make the choice to become a member. How is Church membership analogous to Family membership? After reading Mr. Warren’s explanation the attentive reader is left wondering all the more how this analogy holds. The incredibility of his premise is striking: “Whenever a child is born, he or she automatically becomes a member of the universal family of human beings.” (p. 136) Can Mr. Warren actually be serious about this? How is it even remotely meaningful to speak of the “universal family of human beings”? The term family is not properly predicated of human beings generally, but its whole idea is to distinguish a group of related people from the mass of generalized humanity. Mr. Warren alludes to the birth of a child, but does not allude to any particular mother or father by whom he is born. Acknowledging the need of the child “…to receive nurture and care,” Mr. Warren then suggests that as a subsequent action “…that child needs to become a member of a specific family.” (p. 136) He seems in all seriousness to suggest that a child is born to no one in particular and thus automatically is a member of everyone generally, and then subsequently must “become” a member of a particular family. But, the truth is so plain and obvious that it seems pedantic to labor the point. A newborn child does not “automatically” become part of a meaningless abstraction called “the universal family of human beings”; a child is born to a particular mother and father and thus automatically becomes part of their particular family. It is but further indication of the absurdity of Mr. Warren’s analogy that to dispute it is only to state the perfectly obvious.

There is a valid analogy of Church membership and Family membership that we may glean from Scripture. It is based on the truth of how children are born into families, not on Mr. Warren’s incredible version. Looking at how children really are born into families we get a much different analogy of Church membership than Mr. Warren had hoped to construct. Children do not choose their parents, nor the time or place of their birth. They are born not of their will, but of the will of others and ultimately of the will of God. So it is with those who are born into God’s household. “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Jn. 1:12-13) “In the exercise of His will he brought us forth by the word of truth, so that we might be, as it were, the first fruits among His creatures.” (Jas. 1:18) “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.” (I Pet. 1:3) “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.” (Eph. 1:3-4) “For all who are being led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.” (Rom. 8:14) When a child is born he automatically becomes a child of the mother and father who bore him and a member of their family. In the same way, we who are born of God by His will have become His children and members of His household, the Church.

Of course, the emphasis of the biblical analogy of being born into the family of God is on the Church Universal as the People of God rather than on the Church Visible as a localized, particular assembly of Christians. But even when turning attention to the localized, visible Church we find issue with Mr. Warren’s outlook. He is concerned that “membership” in a local Church be viewed as that which arises from the sovereign choice or decision of the individual. For the sake of his analogy he stops just short of declaring that an infant chooses his family. But he calls upon his analogy to mean that a new Christian must choose a local Church family. This is in keeping with the overall theme of the sovereignty of Human initiative and choice that runs throughout this book. He concludes the current chapter by declaring, “You become a Christian by committing yourself to Christ, but you become a church member by committing yourself to a specific group of believers. The first decision brings salvation; the second brings fellowship.” (p.137) Parallel to his idea of decisional regeneration he constructs his idea of decisional Church membership. However, such a concept is totally absent from Scripture and from much of Church history. In the early centuries of the New Testament believers were “members” of one another simply by virtue of the fact that they dwelt in locality with others who also were born into the household of God. Originally, the basis of identity as a local Church was devotion together “…to the apostles’ teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” (Acts 2:42) Historically, Church “members” were called communicants and dismissal from the Church was called excommunication. Communicants were those who shared Communion together. The excommunicated were those who were barred from sharing in Communion. Regarding the immoral ones to be put out of the Church, Paul specifies, “not even to eat with such a one.” (I Cor. 5:11) In the ancient world if you held forth an orthodox confession of faith in Christ you shared in communion with those in your locale who likewise confessed Christ. You were “members” with the people you ate with. At one point in this chapter Mr. Warren acknowledges that the New Testament idea of “membership” was much more than “…simply adding your name to a roll,” (p. 131) but by the end of the chapter his decisional “membership” is very much involved in whether or not your name is on the roll. The New Testament and Ancient history know nothing of Mr. Warren’s “mega-church” and his decisional “membership.”

Whereas Mr. Warren makes far too much of the Church and far too little of the individual and the Family, when it comes to the State the picture is much different. He would have the individual and the Family bow to the Church, but evidently he would have the Church bow to the State. Here we cite no page number, for Mr. Warren does not discuss this matter in the book. But we glean from public information his idea of the relation of Church and State. The reader may follow this link on the Internet: http://kepler.ss.ca.gov/corpdata/ShowAllList?QueryCorpNumber=C1086705 , which will bring up a page on the Web site of the Secretary of the State of California documenting the fact that Mr. Warren’s Saddleback Valley Community Church in reality is a State of California Corporation. As such it is a creation of the State. Mr. Warren has much to say about the wonderful and powerful Church as “God’s instrument on earth” (p. 135), but in the end we find that this mighty arm of God must go to the State and seek permission to exist. After all of the inspiring talk about what it really means to be members of one another, we find that those who join Saddleback Church in reality become members of State of California Corporation No. C1086705. Let there be no mistake: Saddleback Church is singled out here only because Rick Warren’s book is under discussion. However, it is by no means unique as regards State incorporation. It is exceedingly rare to find a Church that is not incorporated. The challenge here is not for Mr. Warren only, but for the whole swath of Evangelicalism. A Corporation is an artificial person that is created and regulated by the State. “All corporations, of whatever kind, are moulded [sic] and controlled, both as to what they may do and the manner in which they may do it, by their charters or acts of incorporation, which to them are the laws of their being, which they can neither dispense with nor alter.” [Bouvier, Law Dictionary (1867; Sacramento: Lexicon Publishing, 1984), Vol. I, p.367] The term corporation is based upon the Latin root corpus, which means body. A corporation is a body created by and subject to the State; the Church is the body of Christ, created by Him and subject to Him alone. “No one can sever two masters.” (Mat. 6:24) All of the noble talk of membership, power, and mission rings hollow when emanating from a State-incorporated Church.

Once again, as we have seen many times before, the truth is exactly opposite to what Mr. Warren suggests. Nevertheless Evangelicalism immerses itself in this book. Has the gift of discernment disappeared from this age? There is, of course, the good and proper importance of the Church. In an effort to correct the errors popularized by Mr. Warren and others, care must be taken not to create merely compensating errors. The Church is not the source of spiritual power; God Himself and God alone is our strength (Ps. 18:1-3). The Church does not dictate principles to live by; our Law of life is the Word of God only (Ps. 119). The Church does not provide us people to live with; families provide the human intimacy we need (Ex. 20:12; I Tim. 5:8). And the Church is not the creation and servant of the State, but is the body, the bride, the household of Christ (I Cor. 12:27, II Cor. 11:2, I Tim. 3:16) The Church provides for the ministry of the Word and the Sacraments in the community of individuals and families, and for the edification of all through the cooperation of various gifts, “…we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by that which every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.” (Eph. 4:15-16) It is important to study the proper nature and function of the Church, and it is equally important to understand the Church’s interrelations with all the institutions of Human society. On these matters it is far beyond the scope of this writing to provide here anything beyond the bare sketches already given above. Many forefathers in the faith in ages past labored diligently and bequeathed to us much wisdom on these matters. The matter is pursued here only to the extent necessary to show that Mr. Warren’s book represents a retreat from such wisdom. The unwary reader must become a wary reader. What he reads in this book is pseudo-pious pabulum that does not resolve the complex issues involving the nature and interrelations of individual, Family, Church and State. Let us not follow Mr. Warren into retreat, but let us “wake up, and strengthen the things that remain” (Rev. 3:2) and rekindle true Christian orthodoxy in all aspects of life.

Day Eighteen - Experiencing Life Together

Mr. Warren elaborates upon the difference he sees between “real” fellowship and “fake” fellowship. He declares four factors that mark “real” fellowship. These are Authenticity, Mutuality, Sympathy, and Mercy. By Authenticity he means, “…when people get honest about who they are and what is happening in their lives. They share their hurts, reveal their feelings, confess their failures, disclose their doubts, admit their fears, acknowledge their weaknesses, and ask for help and prayer.” (p. 139) He describes Mutuality as, “…the act of giving and receiving. It’s depending on each other.” (p. 140) He says that Sympathy is “…not giving advice or offering quick, cosmetic help; sympathy is entering in and sharing the pain of others.” (p. 141) And, regarding Mercy he says, “Fellowship is a place of grace, where mistakes aren’t rubbed in but rubbed out. Fellowship happens when mercy wins over justice.” (p. 142)

Let us consider a collection of the key words of Mr. Warren’s descriptions: hurts, feelings, failures, doubts, fears, weaknesses, depending, pain, and mistakes. These are to be addressed with: help, prayer, giving, sharing, and grace. Here he speaks of the flaws and failures that constitute evidence of sin in human life, but he does not account for sin as the violation of God’s Law. For Mr. Warren, the hurts, feelings, failures, doubts, fears, weaknesses, pain, and mistakes represent not what we have become through sin, but “who we really are.” (p.140) For him, it is the “gut-level sharing” (p. 139) of our flaws and failures that make for “real” fellowship. His exhortation is that each individual needs to open up and share his inner life with others, and that apart from doing so fellowship can only be “fake.” Surely, if flaws, failures and hurts comprise “who we really are,” then true fellowship cannot occur without mutual discovery of such things. However, if flaws, failures and hurts represent the corruption of our nature in sin, then fellowship is enhanced only as the root problem of sin has effective remedy. True fellowship consists not in the sharing of our disease, for this we have in common with all men. True fellowship consists in the sharing of our healing. As sin is discounted, and consequently the remedy for sin is overlooked, so the true fellowship that depends on the healing of sin cannot come into fruition. The biblical way of fellowship is markedly different from Mr. Warren’s program.

First, the individual sharing of flaws, failures and hurts that Mr. Warren envisions is inappropriate in most cases. Biblical counsel is that, “A fool’s vexation is known at once, but the prudent man conceals dishonor.” (Pr. 12:16) There is no essential virtue in volunteering to others information concerning your hurts, feelings, failures, doubts, fears, weaknesses, pain, and mistakes. Indeed, in the general case it is outright foolish to do so. Mr. Warren suggests that it is to one’s benefit for him to reveal his vexations to a “small group,” for then he may receive sympathy and mercy. He acknowledges that such a course is risky, but argues that it is biblical by citing James 5:16, “Confess your sins to one another…” (p.140) However, the most that can be based upon this text with the certainty needed to establish a policy of fellowship is that one ought to confess to another against whom he is guilty of offense. Anyone whom you have offended deserves your confession. This hardly will carry the weight of providing a basis for the open sharing of personal fault and failure that Mr. Warren recommends. Clearly, in James one confesses his sin to another whom he has offended so that he may receive forgiveness. In contrast to this, Mr. Warren would have you to confess your flaws and failures and hurts to a group so that you may “have your feelings validated.” (p. 141) Forgiveness builds fellowship by healing the wounds between persons that result from sin. “Validating feelings” does not build fellowship, because such a concept assumes that the inner psychology of the individual is normative and so does not address the factors arising from sin that harm the community of persons.

In contrast to Mr. Warren’s idea that “real” fellowship consists of hashing over everyone’s hurts, feelings, failures, doubts, fears, weaknesses, pain, and mistakes, Paul urged the Philippians: “…whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, let your mind dwell on these things.” (Phil. 4:8) It is individuals of the Church speaking together of one another’s accomplishments and successes that fulfills Paul’s instruction to the Philippians. There are very public sorrows, such as death or illness, in which we are to be a comfort and help to one another. As well there are very public sins in which one person’s offense against another is witnessed and therefore known to all. But, the sort of “gut-level sharing” of hurts, feelings, doubts, failures, fears, and weaknesses that Mr. Warren advocates amounts to gossip. It clearly is gossip when two people speak together about such things as they pertain to a third party. How is it any less gossip if the only difference is that a person takes initiative to share such things concerning himself? It is not healthy for a local Church body to have within it the free flow of sordid information such as Mr. Warren prescribes. Any local Church that actually attempts to implement Mr. Warren’s regimen of gut-spilling for a sufficiently sustained interval likely will experience some serious problems as a direct result. At the very least this sort of thing will serve to concentrate an undue power into the hands of the few who are in a position to collect the most amount of information about the most people.

Second, the “gut-level sharing” that people need to do is to be done within the Family, and not in an arbitrary “small group.” Families are the most natural small groups in a Church. The advantage of the Family not only is that it comprises a natural small group, but also it provides the sort of intimacy that is appropriate for the “gut-level sharing” that Mr. Warren describes. In I Timothy 5:8 Paul exhorts, “But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever.” This is a very strong and serious exhortation. It is given in context of directions for the material care of widows, and has the force of emphasizing that widows must not become a burden upon the Church unless they have no family. This illustrates the importance of the family as primarily responsible for the care of its members. The principle holds true no less when the concern is care of an immaterial sort. In several places throughout the Epistles (I Cor. 14:34-36, Eph. 5:22-33; 6:1-4. I Tim. 3:4, 12, Tit. 2:2-8, I Pet. 3:1-7) it is emphasized that wives are to be subject to their own husbands, husbands are to be devoted to their own wives, teaching them and caring for them, children are to respect their parents, and parents are to take care in raising their children and maintaining an orderly household. The level of intimacy Mr. Warren describes is appropriate in marital and parental relations. There is an appropriate place for one-on-one counseling outside the Family, but troubled people far too often flee the Family in search of it. Even if we grant the appropriateness of the scale of counseling and therapy we see today, this still is far from the mass free-for-all gut-spilling that Mr. Warren envisions for the Church.

It is a valid observation that the institution of the Family is in grave disarray in our day. The cause of so much counseling and therapy taking place outside the Family these days is that people so often have serious issues with their own spouses, children, parents, etc. In many cases the Family is not functioning as it ought to do for its members, as prescribed in Scripture. Tragically, this holds true also in the Church. However, the remedy of this problem is not for the Church to form “small groups” to take the place of the Family. The Family is one aspect of God’s created order. It may not be dismissed or replaced on Human whim. The remedy of the problem is for biblically qualified ministers in the Church to exercise great care in treating individual needs outside the Family where deemed necessary, while also working diligently to repair and to strengthen the institution of the Family so that people in the Church may effectively take care of their own. On the previous Day of this book we saw that Mr. Warren takes the erroneous view of elevating the Church over the Family. Thus, the Family already is discounted in his agenda. His proposed regimen of “small group” dynamics is but further indication of his low view of Family.

The problem with individuals that gives rise to hurts, feelings, failures, doubts, fears, weaknesses, pain, and mistakes is Sin. The problem with the Family that makes it ineffective in providing the comfort and help that such individuals need is Sin. The remedy of the problem is not to form “small groups” to replace the Family; to tell individuals that their flaws, failures and hurts constitute “who they really are,” and to urge them to spill their guts to a group so their feelings may be “validated.” The remedy of the problem is to teach people the Christian truth that Human nature is spoiled by Sin; to teach them the difference between sins that must be confessed to another party who has been offended and sins that must not be broadcast publicly; to urge them to cultivate a public atmosphere that focuses upon that which is true and pure and godly and perfect and of good repute; to urge them to confess their private “feelings” and “hurts” with their spouses or parents, within the biblically ordained intimacy of the Family, to receive the forgiveness, comfort and help they need; and to correct and to strengthen the Family that it better may serve its proper function in this way. The root of the problem is Sin; the root of the remedy is Redemption and forgiveness. The more Mr. Warren avoids coming to terms with Sin, the less his teaching is able to speak to the true need or to witness to the true remedy. The most that he has made of Sin up to this point in the book is failing to glorify God (p. 55) or a broken relationship (p. 85). In truth Sin is Man breaking the Covenant and the Laws of God, for which we bear moral guilt before Him. Now Mr. Warren wishes to speak of those things - failure, mistakes, weakness, pain, etc. - that characterize the corruption of our nature in Sin, not as plagues upon our being that we must bring before God, but as aspects of the “real” self that we must bring before the Church. Mr. Warren’s idea of fellowship is the Church collectively hashing over all the sordid affairs of its individual members, and this is termed getting “real.” In this he actually reverses the truth. The reality of Christian fellowship is in the repair of the individual through Redemption from Sin, and the healing this provides our community as we seek forgiveness for public wrongs and deal privately or in our families with secret hurts.

Day Nineteen - Cultivating Community

In this Day Mr. Warren continues his exhortation of what it takes to cultivate “real” fellowship in the Church. Since an elaboration of the Human effort in cultivating community begins to sound like something that can be done independently of God, Mr. Warren begins with an analysis of Human effort. He says, “Only the Holy Spirit can create real fellowship between believers, but he cultivates it with the choices and commitments we make.” (p. 145) He wishes to make his idea of “dual responsibility” seem biblical by citing Ephesians 4:3, where in a single statement Paul ascribes unity to the Spirit and also exhorts us to be diligent in preserving it. A statement that we are responsible to make efforts toward righteousness hardly necessitates the correlativity of Human effort and Divine effort, but Mr. Warren’s concept of “dual responsibility” clearly involves this correlativity. The idea of the cooperation of Human and Divine efforts is called Synergism, referring to a supposed synthesis of various energies. This notion pretends to place the energy of God and the energy of Man on a single continuum. The Synergist pretends to exalt God by placing Him on the extreme end of the continuum. However, if God’s energy works on a continuum with Man’s energy, then at the point of any particular effort either Man is working or else God is working; if Man is at work, then at that particular point God is not at work, or if God is at work, then at that particular point Man is not at work. Contrary to this, the truly biblical idea is not the Synergism of “dual responsibility,” but the “Creator / creature distinction.” God and Man do not inhabit a single continuum. God constantly is at work in His Sovereign Providence over all creation. For example, Psalm 127:1 says, “Unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it.” Who builds the house? The Synergist says that building the house is the “dual responsibility” of God and Man - God and Man cooperate in building the house. In this view, at any particular point of the construction process, either Man is building or else God is building. The truly biblical idea is that Man builds the house in the sense of his finite effort as it functions within the parameters and laws of the created order, and that God builds the house in the sense of the infinite energy of His Sovereign Providence by which He sustains the created order. This is the whole point of Psalm 127:1. Unless God is working in His infinite Providence to build the house, those men who labor in the temporal order build in vain. Mr. Warren characterizes the work of the Holy Spirit as utilizing the building blocks supplied by Man’s “choices and commitments.” Thus, he concludes that, “It takes both God’s power and our effort to produce a loving Christian community.” (p. 145)

The Synergism of Mr. Warren’s basic position is evident also in his remarks concerning humility. He says, “Pride blocks God’s grace in our lives.” (p. 148) How can anything of the creature “block” anything of the Creator? Only if a measure of autonomy is reserved to Man, and only if the grace of God is placed upon a continuum with this measure of Human autonomy - only in these events could it be at all meaningful to say that God’s grace may be “blocked” by Human attitude or action. God may withhold His grace from those who are persistent in their sins. For example, in Romans 1:24, 26, and 28 it says that “God gave them over…” However, it must be stressed that God is the active voice in this scenario. He gave them over. It is entirely inappropriate to characterize these sinners as “blocking” God’s grace. Mr. Warren cites I Peter 5:5 in defense of his view, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” Here again we see that God is the active voice on both sides of this. The proud do not “block” His grace; He opposes them. A truly biblical outlook ascribes infinite freedom to God, who calls dead sinners to life (Ephesians 2:5) just as he called Lazarus forth from the tomb (John 11:43). A Synergistic outlook must labor to find a way in which the power ascribed to Man to “block” God may interact with the grace of God that is supposed to be greater than anything. Mr. Warren does no such laboring here. He simply states that building “real” fellowship is the “dual responsibility” of God and Man, and then proceeds in his chapter without any further explanation.

On Day Eighteen Mr. Warren spoke of four characteristics that he says mark “real” fellowship: authenticity, mutuality, sympathy, and mercy. On this Day he adds five more to bring the total set to “nine characteristics of biblical fellowship.” (p.151) These are: honesty, humility, courtesy, confidentiality and frequency. Since Mr. Warren entertains the Synergism of the correlativity of God and Man, he cannot fit all of his ideas into a coherent system. Instead, he must resort to compensating his errors with other errors. On the previous Day Mr. Warren created a problem where there is in the Church the free flow of sordid information about everyone’s hurts, feelings, doubts, fears, weaknesses, failings, etc. Now, on the current Day he offers a compensating idea that he calls “confidentiality.” Of confidentiality he says, “It means that what is shared in your group needs to stay in your group, and the group needs to deal with it, not gossip to others about it.” (p. 150) Of course, Mr. Warren’s “group” is not a family, so what is “shared” already is gossip. Limiting gossip to a “group” instead of the whole Church does not somehow justify it. On this Day Mr. Warren has a lot of serious exhortation against gossip. An obvious solution to a problem of gossip is for everyone to stop “sharing” about all their hurts, feelings, doubts, fears, weakness, mistakes, failings, etc. However, this would mean going back to the previous Day and scratching all of the talk about “authenticity.” Instead, Mr. Warren seeks to compensate “authenticity” with “honesty” and “confidentiality.” For him, “authenticity” without “honesty” results in a situation where, “Everyone knows about the problem, but no one talks about it openly.” (p.147) He says, “This creates a sick environment of secrets where gossip thrives.” (p. 147) For him, the problem of gossip is not the “sharing” itself, but “sharing” coupled with a failure to “deal with it.” For him, “confidentiality” does not mean keeping your hurts, feelings, doubts, fears, weakness, mistakes, failings, etc within your family or within the privacy of one-on-one counseling, but confining the gossip to a “small group” instead of telling the whole Church.

In an environment where problems not only are known but also are talked about, there is bound to be an elevated level of conflict. This would seem only to pose further problems. But, Mr. Warren sees this added conflict as a good thing, because in his view, “…the tunnel of conflict is the passageway to intimacy in any relationship.” (p.147) This is tantamount to saying that conflict is necessary in order to have “real” fellowship. Just as Mr. Warren conceives of hurts, feelings, doubts, weakness, pain, failure, etc. as aspects of the “real” self, so he also conceives of conflict as a necessary component of “real” fellowship. This is not a biblical outlook, but is an example of the popular and worldly Yin and Yang philosophy that “You cannot appreciate the good until you have tasted the bad.” Mr. Warren also states, “In every church and in every small group, there is always at least one ‘difficult’ person, usually more than one…God put these people in our midst for both their benefit and ours.” (p. 149) This is the same thing as saying that we cannot have “real” fellowship unless we have some “difficult” people to deal with. According to this view, in Heaven, when everyone’s hurts, feelings, doubts, fears, pain, weaknesses, failings, etc. are banished, then no one is “real” anymore, no one is a “difficult” person, and thus there cannot be “real” fellowship.

Another compensating error that we encounter in this Day Nineteen is Mr. Warren’s concept of “Frequency.” With this he returns to the idea of time. On Day Sixteen Mr. Warren argued that, “Your time is your life.” (p. 127) On that day he made earnest appeal that we should cultivate relationships, for love means far more than things. He did this erroneously by reducing love to mere time. Nevertheless, there is a correct emphasis upon the importance of personal relationships. What is interesting is that the examples he used involve the family. He told us, for example, of a problem with the typical male outlook, “I don’t understand my wife and kids, I provide everything they need. What more do they want?” (p. 127) His appeal for us to “spend time” was specifically an appeal to spend time with our families. In our commentary on that Day we dwelt on the matter that a deficit of time itself was not the problem and that “spending time” itself was not the solution. In this context the important thing to note is that Mr. Warren’s emphasis on that Day was “spending time” with family. However, on the very next Day Mr. Warren made it clear that his interest in Family is only as a pretext to speak allegorically of the “family of God.” It is the Church, not the Family, he describes as, “A Place to Belong.” Here on Day Nineteen we find that his idea of “spending time” is not with the Family but with the “group.” It is in reference to the “group” that he now says, “You have to spend time with people - a lot of time - to build deep relationships.” (p. 150, italics in the original) Earlier in this Day Mr. Warren acknowledged a problem with the Family, “Unfortunately, many people grow up in families with unhealthy relationships, so they lack the relational skills needed for real fellowship.” However, his solution is not to labor to repair the Family, but to train people outside the Family to relate to a “group.” His advice on page 127 to the man who could not understand his family’s dissatisfaction was, “They want you! Your eyes, your ears, your time, your attention, your presence, your focus - your time. Nothing can take the place of that.” Now on page 150 Mr. Warren would have this same man spending his time - a lot of time - with his “group” instead of his family.

We embarked upon a truly biblical idea of these things in our commentary of the previous Day, wherein note was made of Paul’s exhortation in Philippians 4:8 to dwell on that which is true, honorable, right, pure, lovely, good, excellent, etc. The truly Christian way of doing this does not involve balancing these things against sin in a worldly Yin and Yang tension. The marvelous attributes of God and the truly “real” nature of His creation and of Man may be known for what they are without the need of any experience of darkness to make them seem brighter. A truly biblical view is that sin is a stain and that death is an enemy. Indeed, the worldly Yin and Yang tension arises from this truth. It is because in reality sin is a stain and death is an enemy that the universal instinct of human nature is to resist sin and death. However, it is because unbelief cannot successfully frame a view of reality in which sin and death consistently may be opposed that the unbeliever must embrace sin and death as fundamentally normal. It is the unalterable instinct to resist that which is accepted philosophically as normal that produces the Yin and Yang tension. Of course, Yin and Yang is a characteristically Oriental outlook on the Good and Evil tension. But the same issue equally is unresolved in Western philosophy and is expressed as a Dialectical tension. True Christianity banishes such tension because in the Christian system of things sin is a stain and death is an enemy. Sin and death are not accepted as normal aspects of creation, but represent abnormal corruption. The Christian system of things provides the only way of truly and consistently opposing sin and death. Thus, in Christianity the Dialectical tension of unbelief is not so much resolved, but eliminated. The true Gospel of Jesus Christ is a powerful message amid the errors of unbelief. But the Gospel message cannot truly be communicated apart from a clear acknowledgement of sin as the basic problem and of redemption in Christ as the basic solution. How especially tragic it is then to see ostensibly Christian writers embrace the worldly Dialectical or Yin / Yang outlook and merely sprinkle it over with “god talk.”

Day Twenty - Restoring Broken Fellowship

In this chapter Mr. Warren expounds what he calls “seven biblical steps to restoring fellowship.” (p. 154) The necessity of this chapter is guaranteed by the content of the prior chapters. Mr. Warren’s emphasis over the last several chapters has been on the factors that make for “real” fellowship. We have seen that a prominent aspect of Mr. Warren’s idea of “real” fellowship is the open transfer of information regarding hurts, feelings, fears, pain, failings, doubts, etc. He has acknowledged that this practice prompts gossip and is very strong in condemning gossip and in urging confrontation of those who gossip. He also has acknowledged that this practice prompts conflict, but assures us that, “the tunnel of conflict is the passageway to intimacy.” (p. 147) He even goes so far as to consider that some may leave the church as a result of gossip or conflict, but is firm that, “…the fellowship of the church is more important than any individual.” (p. 150) Now, when the emphasis is upon reconciliation, he brings a much different view of the matter.

He now tells us on page 154 that, “Restoring broken fellowship is so important, Jesus commanded that it even takes priority over group worship.” It is not true that the church is more important than the individual. But having affirmed this position, Mr. Warren now finds it necessary to compensate with the equally untrue position that the individual is more important than the church. Here we see the wavering of the dialectical tension exhibited most clearly and dramatically. On the one hand Mr. Warren presents the group as more important than the individual. For him, on page 150, the group so outweighs the individual that the exodus of individuals is of little or no concern so long as the fellowship of the group is maintained. On the other hand Mr. Warren presents the individual relationship as of supreme importance. For him, on page 154, the individual now so outweighs the group that we are to reach beyond any rift, hurt, or conflict to preserve the individual relationship. There is in Mr. Warren’s thinking the irresolvable dialectical tension between fellowship and relationship. Throughout the last several chapters the emphasis has been upon fellowship. However, the true nature of biblical fellowship has not been observed; rather we have seen an idea of fellowship that involves the unrelenting revelation of hurts, feelings, fears, pain, failures, etc. This course unavoidably will result in conflict - not fellowship. This necessitates that now in the present chapter the emphasis must shift to “restoring relationships.”

Mr. Warren appeals to II Corinthians 5:18 as it is put in the so-called “God’s Word Translation” in support of his notion that, “God has given us the ministry of restoring relationships.” (p. 152) There is no doubt that it is a very good thing to restore relationships. Indeed, we might build a biblical case that God calls us to restore relationships whenever possible and appropriate. We might think for example of Matthew 5:9, 24, Mark 9:50, Romans 12:18; 14:19, and others. But we may not build such a case upon II Corinthians 5:18. This text does not involve reconciling one man to another, but clearly has to do with the reconciliation of men to God. The “ministry of reconciliation” spoken of in v. 18 is clearly expounded in the verses that follow, as we see from an actual translation, for example, the New American Standard: v. 19, “namely, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and He has committed to us the word of reconciliation.” v. 20, “Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were entreating through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.” There is no room for “interpretation” here. The “ministry of reconciliation” announced in v. 18 is the work of missions whereby we bring the “word of reconciliation” to the world, entreating men on behalf of Christ to be reconciled to God. In further support of his view Mr. Warren cites this same text again on page 154, this time from “The Message,” which is Eugene Peterson’s idea of what the Bible says. The way Peterson construes II Corinthians 5:18, God has “called us to settle our relationships with each other.” As explained above, this is completely foreign to what this text of the Bible actually says. But Mr. Warren accepts “The Message” as a type of “Bible,” and so he can make his ideas seem “biblical” by appeal to it. In reality this is not Bible study, but a grievous abuse of Scripture. We quarrel not with Mr. Warren’s position that we ought to seek reconciliation of human relationships where possible and appropriate. Our quarrel is with his method of biblical argument that snatches phrases here and there from the most liberal paraphrases of Scripture with apparent disregard of what the texts actually say and mean. As a result, his idea of “restoring fellowship” is equally muddled as is his method of biblical argument. Let us look briefly at the “seven biblical steps to restoring fellowship” that Mr. Warren proposes.

Mr. Warren’s first step is: “Discuss the problem with God.” (p. 154) The idea of a man having a “discussion” with God is awesome and wondrous. Yet, Mr. Warren throws the expression out rather glibly, as though this were to be the common experience of everyone. As he proceeds it becomes evident that by this phrase what he really means is prayer. “Discuss the problem with God” is supposed to mean “pray about the problem.” A truly biblical idea of prayer concerns Man, the creature and the sinner, coming before God, the Creator and Redeemer, with praise for Who God is, thanksgiving for His Providence, and petition for the needs arising from the contingencies of Human life. An image such as we derive from the phrase “discuss the problem with God” can only be meaningful if we view Man and God as correlates upon a single continuum - God, of course, inhabiting the greater end of the continuum - and Man appealing to God for the advice His greater wisdom affords. One cannot construct two more widely divergent ideas of prayer.

Mr. Warren’s step two is to take the initiative in seeking reconciliation. Here he provides sound counsel that whether we are the offended or the offender it always is important not to delay in taking the initiative in seeking reconciliation. Also in this connection he wishes to represent as biblical the notion that unresolved conflict “blocks our fellowship with God.” (p. 155) In an attempt to enlarge his point beyond the basic wisdom of taking the initiative in reconciliation, Mr. Warren ends up grasping at straws. The texts he cites in support of his view - I Peter 3:7 and Proverbs 28:9 - have nothing to do with “unresolved conflict.” Since Evangelicalism conceives of Man as having no fellowship with God unless Man should initiate it, it is only natural that Evangelicalism also would hold the corollary that Man has the power to “block” this fellowship at any time. We provided fuller discussion of the Evangelical idea that Man blocks God in discussion of Day 19, and the reader is referred there for more on this topic. Truly biblical insight is that, “If God is for us, who is against us?...I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Rom. 8:31, 38-39)

Mr. Warren then advises, “Sympathize with their feelings.” (p. 155) He elaborates, “Focus on their feelings, not the facts. Begin with sympathy, not solutions.” (p. 155) In this we see that Mr. Warren proposes a sharp distinction between fact and feeling. The discrepancy between fact and feeling has troubled philosophers for millennia. In this question is bound up the entire problem of Human experience. The basic question of psychology centers in the necessity of the facts of reality to undergo interpretation in the individual Human consciousness. Mr. Warren does not consider such matters, but instead issues a blanket proclamation that we ought to focus on feelings and not facts. However, at times feelings are contrary to fact, in which case the true remedy is exactly opposite to what Mr. Warren proposes, i.e., the need is to focus upon the facts and not the feelings. So adamant is Mr. Warren concerning his priority of sympathy that he suggests the deceptive practice, “Nod that you understand even when you don’t agree.” (p. 155) This exploits the disconnect between fact and feeling and drives them further apart rather than working to bring them together. The fact of reality is that you are nodding. You interpret your nodding as, “I understand.” The other party interprets your nodding as, “I agree.” A “fact” that means everything therefore means nothing.

We shall not quibble with his next point, “Confess your part of the conflict.” (p. 156) It certainly is true that in anything that one is guilty of offense, upon conviction of sin he ought to make full and heartfelt confession, seeking forgiveness. This constitutes a refreshing oasis amid a desert of pabulum.

In his next point Mr. Warren is back to popular psychology vs. biblical wisdom. Says he, “Attack the problem, not the person.” (p. 157) This is but a variation of the common teaching of Evangelicalism that, “God loves the sinner and hates the sin.” In order for such sentiments to hold up it is necessary to make some real and meaningful distinction between the “problem” and the “person.” If a “problem” may exist independently from any “person,” such that the “problem” may be attacked without thereby attacking the “person,” this implies that “problems” arise from no fault of any person. Problems, therefore, are fundamentally mysterious in this view. Therefore, in this view people who appear to have serious issue with one another really are equally victims of a “problem” and need to stop battling one another and join together to battle the “problem.” But, people, such as Mr. Warren, who speak in this manner, never tell us where such “problems” come from and neither do they tell us how an independently existing “problem” could be combated, nor how we could know that it had been defeated. In truth, problems of the nature that are manifest in personal conflict arise from the actions of the persons involved. Problems are the responsibility of persons and cannot effectively be separated from the persons whose actions created them. The dialectical tensions of the mindset such as Mr. Warren exemplifies produce the most odd combination of opposing concepts. For several chapters Mr. Warren has been drilling us with the dire need for us all to “share” freely with others all about our fears, failings, hurts, feelings, doubts, mistakes, etc., otherwise our fellowship would be “fake.” Now, in dialectical tension with this, he urges us that the problems we face in conflict with one another may be attacked quite independently of the persons involved and so have nothing to do with the hurts, feelings, pain, fears, mistakes, etc., that are so important for us to “share.”

Mr. Warren’s next principle is, “Cooperate as much as possible.” (p. 157) This is a good principle with solid biblical precedent, and he cites a very appropriate text, Romans 12:18, from a fairly decent translation, in support of it. However, it soon appears that what Mr. Warren really means is, “For the sake of fellowship, do your best to compromise…” (p. 157) Cooperation does not equal compromise. There is a reason that Romans 12:18 says “if possible…” The most genuine and secure peace among men arises from the truth of God. When men are eager to compromise this truth in pursuit of peace it exposes their efforts to be superficially contrived. This principle of compromise goes hand-in-hand with Mr. Warren’s seventh and last step: “Emphasize reconciliation, not resolution.” (p. 158) This step brings us far from where things were in the prior steps. Before (page 157), we were to focus on the problem and not on the person, so we could be free to reconcile with the person in common cause against “the problem.” Now (page 158), we are told we may achieve common cause by focusing on persons and not on problems. He suggests that by mutually compromising our principles we may render “problems” irrelevant. He says, “When we focus on reconciliation, the problem loses significance and often becomes irrelevant.” (p. 158) In the dialectical pendulum swings of Mr. Warren’s thought things change constantly.

To sum up Mr. Warren’s approach to resolving conflict: first, “discuss” the problem with God, then studiously ignore the facts and compromise your principles to the point that the problem becomes irrelevant, all for the sake of “fellowship.” But, what sort of “fellowship” is it if no one will acknowledge the facts and compromise is the order of the day? If an estranged person should be “reconciled” into such a “fellowship,” the greatest significance of such “reconciliation” would be that the secretary then would be able to record 6843 bodies in attendance instead of 6842.

Day Twenty-One - Protecting Your Church

With this Day 21 Mr. Warren brings to a close his discussion of what he considers to be the second purpose of human life - to be a member of a church. In the prior six Days Mr. Warren made it very clear that he considers the church as more important than the family or the individual. Since “membership” in a church nowadays technically consists of becoming a member of a state-created corporation, Mr. Warren does not venture into the realm of discussing the relative status of church and state. Bypassing such discussion altogether, he nevertheless insists that church “membership” is of paramount importance. For him, the church - as opposed to the family - is the “place to belong.” The family at the dawn of the 21st Century is in a state of deep crisis. Individuals increasingly fail to realize within their families a “place to belong.” Rather than to sound the alarm and work to repair the family, Mr. Warren puts his effort into directing people away from their families and into the church instead. He even has put great effort into transforming the term family so that people will come to think of the church as the “family of God.”

The focus of the current chapter is on preserving the “unity” of the church. Mr. Warren acknowledges that this is a difficult undertaking. He told us on page 118, in the opening day of his discussion of the church, that the church is “…a much stronger union, a more permanent bond, than blood relationships.” But that was when it was his concern to argue for the priority of the church over the family. Now that it is his concern to argue for the “unity” of the church, he paints a much different picture. He acknowledges now, on page 162, that “People become disillusioned with the church for many understandable reasons. The list could be quite long: conflict, hurt, hypocrisy, neglect, pettiness, legalism, and other sins.” In what follows, Mr. Warren elaborates what he terms “practical advice” of the Bible in preserving the “unity” of the church amid these acknowledged problems. The first thing to note here is that he launches forth into a discussion of preserving “unity” without bothering to expound upon the nature of “unity”. He tells us that unity “…is the essence, the core, of how God intends for us to experience life together in his church.” (p. 160) But he is rather nebulous in describing this “essence.” He says, “As believers we share one Lord, one body, one purpose, one Father, one Spirit, one hope, one faith, one baptism, and one love.” (p. 161) He affixes a footnote citing a number of Scripture texts to document his list. But none of this is incorporated into his text and all of this is glossed over as his discussion rather quickly turns to, “But for unity’s sake we must never let differences divide us.” (p. 161)

What makes a church really a church? Of what does the unity of the church consist? Mr. Warren exhibits not the slightest curiosity concerning such questions and is no help at all in exploring them. The first of what he calls the Bible’s “advice” is to, “Focus on what we have in common, not our differences.” (p. 161) In this statement Mr. Warren seems completely oblivious of the factors that allow him to speak of “we” and “our.” What makes the church distinct from the mass of the human population generally? If any localized group of people begin to meet together at regular intervals, is this automatically a “church”? If not, why not? If not, then what is needed above and beyond the bare fact of congregation in order for there to be a “church”? Again, in his initial discussion on page 118 Mr. Warren expresses a view of these things. He says, “Every human being was created by God, but not everyone is a child of God …When we place our faith in Christ, God becomes our Father, we become his children, other believers become our brothers and sisters, and the church becomes our spiritual family.” The theological problems inherent in such an analysis already were discussed in our commentary on Day 15. For our purposes here it is interesting to note that Mr. Warren appears to acknowledge that there is a sharp distinction between the church and the world generally. A group of people constitutes a “church” in that they are fellow “believers.” But again, is it the mere fact that something is believed that makes one a “believer”? Here is where Mr. Warren’s analysis fizzles. He feels that it is important for us to follow the Bible’s “advice,” however, he never has explained why the Bible has any more authority than thoughts that “all by themselves” arise in the human mind.

In reality the Bible is the eternal Word of God, our Creator, Judge, and Redeemer. As His creatures, we are obligated to devote ourselves entirely to the content of this Word. Those who confess the truth of this Word as the Word of their Creator, Judge, and Redeemer are “believers” in that they believe the particular content of this teaching. Those who deny the Bible are “unbelievers.” Everyone - even the atheist - believes something. Everyone - even the most thorough secularist - harbors some kind of faith. Everyone is a “believer” from some perspective or other. The Christian employs the terms believer and unbeliever from the particular perspective of Christian doctrine. It is the assembly of those who profess belief in the sense of Christian doctrine that constitutes a church. The “unity” of the church consists in the communion of individuals as they share a particular content of belief. Paul was very specific about the nature of unity, as we see clearly in Ephesians 4:4-6, one of the texts to which Mr. Warren alluded, “There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.” One Lord, one faith, one baptism. We are united by the God who calls us. We are united by our common faith - our confession of who God is as the invisible, eternal, infinite Creator of all reality - our confession of who Man is as the creature made in the image of God and fallen into sin - our confession of God’s determination to judge sin and His determination to judge the sins of His people in the death of Christ, His only begotten Son, who was buried and rose again on the third day and ascended to the right hand of the Father in heaven - our confession of the Spirit, who was sent to dwell within us to comfort us, to empower us, to help us to pray, and to bring to our remembrance all that Christ taught. We are united by our common practice of baptism and the Lord’s supper.

These are the things that establish our identity as a people. These are the things that mark us out as “we” verses the mass of humanity generally. Christian doctrine constitutes a difference between the church and the world. For the sake of Christian unity we must let such differences divide us from the world. Mr. Warren evidently would acknowledge this much. However, it seems that he fails to acknowledge that occasionally, for the sake of truly Christian unity, it is necessary for differences to divide those who nominally are within the “church.” God’s truth is determined by God. We know this truth because we have His Word to us. Those who confess this truth are “believers” and those who deny this truth are “unbelievers,” and this is the case whether or not a particular individual nominally is part of a “church” or claims to be a Christian. Mr. Warren seems to espouse the view that once a “church” is identified, its “unity” is inviolate and must never be disturbed by any conflict or controversy. If his view had been the prevailing view throughout church history, there never would have been a Reformation of the church in the 16th Century. Mr. Warren wishes to grasp Christian Orthodoxy sufficiently to distinguish “church” from “world,” but his grasp is not sufficient to distinguish within “church” those who are faithful from those who are apostate. There are particular things that establish us as “us,” and when we no longer share those things in common, we no longer are “us” in a truly Christian sense. We have as much duty to separate from apostate “Christians” who may inhabit the “church” as we have to separate from the world.

Mr. Warren cites a number of verses from Romans chapter 14 in order to make his case that biblical “advice” is never to criticize anyone in the church. He omits consideration of quite a number of other texts, and so his presentation cannot be comprehensive or systematic. In his epistles to the Corinthians Paul’s concern was a little different than in his epistle to the Romans. In the Corinthians Paul dealt with very serious cases of sin in the church and he severely rebuked them for their failure to criticize. In I Corinthians 5:3 Paul states clearly that he has “judged” the one fallen into sin. The Greek term is krino, derived from krisis, from which we get our English term criticize. It is the same word that is used in Romans 14:3, 4, 10, and 13. Paul went on in this chapter to admonish them, “I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he should be an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler - not even to eat with such a one.” (v. 11) He wonders at their failure to criticize, “Do you not judge those who are within the church?” (v. 12) Urging them to be faithful in this responsibility, he elaborates, “Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, matters of this life?” (6:3) Elsewhere he invites the wise to judge what he is saying (10:15), and to judge for themselves concerning head-coverings (11:13). Also, Paul exhorted the Thessalonians, “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us…And if anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of that man and do not associate with him, so that he may be put to shame. And yet do not regard him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.” (II Thes. 3:6, 14-15) Even as Paul closes his epistle to the Romans he is concerned to leave them with a similar warning, “Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them.” (Rom. 16:17)

The texts from Romans chapter 14 that Mr. Warren relies upon clearly involve the treatment of those who are weak in their faith regarding convictions of diet or observances of days, as the first verse of the chapter plainly indicates, “Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions.” There is a big difference between one whose weakness will not allow him to eat meat or drink wine and one who spreads a teaching that everyone must hold to the diet he prescribes. In Romans chapter 14 Paul urges that we must not upset the faith of a weaker brother by ridicule of his weakness, and in chapter 16 he urges that we must not allow those with a contrary teaching to make a dissension or hindrance. It takes discernment or judgment (krino, krisis) to know when it is appropriate to forbear with grace and when it is a shirking of responsibility to forbear. At times it is our grave spiritual duty to judge and to ostracize. Our failure to do so causes as much real damage to the true Christian unity of the church as does unwarranted criticism. Categorically dismissing all criticism as wrong is a huge failure to discern the systematic teaching of the Bible.

There appears to be an instinct within Mr. Warren that his first blush on the matter of criticism cannot stand on its own. On page 164 he states most forcefully, “It’s the Devil’s job to blame, complain, and criticize members of God’s family. Anytime we do the same, we’re being duped into doing Satan’s work for him.” This is a very serious charge he brings against those who criticize. Such an outlook makes it very easy for Mr. Warren to deal with criticisms such as this present commentary. As he would construct reality, all criticism is of the Devil. However, on the facing page he already has moved on to another discussion that takes him into much different waters. On page 165 he takes up the matter of “conflict resolution.” He sets out the procedure given in Matthew 18:15-17 for dealing with conflict, and summarizes, “What should you do if the person is still stuck in stubbornness? Jesus says to take it to the church. If the person still refuses to listen after that, you should treat that person like an unbeliever.” The reader has not even turned a page yet after reading Mr. Warren declare that criticism is inherently satanic, but encounters on the facing page Mr. Warren now declaring that if someone will not listen to your criticism, you should treat them like an unbeliever!

There is no wisdom in telling us that we must never criticize and then in the next breath telling us the manner in which we are to pursue criticism. This teaching is gravely lacking in systematic completeness. At its root there is a nebulous idea of “unity” sorely lacking content rather than the solid rock of biblical doctrine. The Bible is brought in after the fact in order to provide some legitimacy to the fuzzy ideals, but in that case it can provide only “advice.” Sound Christian wisdom for the unity of the church will begin with the truth of God’s word concerning the identity of the church and the nature of unity in the communion of truth, and will exercise discernment in the comprehensive and systematic teaching of Scripture concerning forbearance and judgment.

Day Twenty-Two - Created to Become Like Christ

With this chapter Mr. Warren begins discussion of what he considers to be the third purpose of human life. He expresses this purpose as, “You were created to become like Christ.” (p. 169, 171) This is a very noble-sounding ideal, and it seems to speak well for Christianity, since it holds up Christ-likeness as the proper goal of human life. But in reality this expression bears the subtle seeds of corruption. The idea that we must become like Christ implies that we begin from a posture short of that ideal. Stating that we were created for the task of this becoming then implies that our posture short of Christ-likeness was our original condition. The truth, of course, is markedly contrary to this. In reality we were created good and perfect and Christ-like, and fell from this original estate into an estate of sin. Our task of becoming Christ-like is not a challenge to become something greater than our original estate, but is the ministry of sanctification whereby God works His grace in us to recover something of what was lost.

But, are we not being too hard on Mr. Warren? Perhaps his expression, “You were created to become like Christ,” was worded with consideration only of alliteration and concision. Indeed, in his elaboration does he not cite Genesis 1:26 to the effect that we were created good and perfect in the image of God? (p. 171) And does he not acknowledge that the image of God in us “…has been damaged and distorted by sin”? (p. 172) And further, does he not warn his readers most sternly and truthfully that in all their becoming they never will become gods? (p. 172) It is quite encouraging to encounter these glimpses of orthodoxy. However, these glimpses are incongruous with Mr. Warren’s overall thesis, whereas his expression “You were created to become like Christ” as worded is quite at home with the bulk of his remarks. This expression brings with it the subtle corruption of humanism rather than the faithful construction of orthodoxy. Its weakness cannot be attributed to the inherent limitations of jingoism, but accurately implies a principle of humanism that is at work in the essential message of this book. In order to demonstrate how this is so, it first is necessary to explore the humanistic origins of the being vs. becoming tension.

The humanistic outlook has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy. From the earliest days of Greek civilization, philosophers struggled with the inner tension of human experience expressed as “being vs. becoming.” The idea of being implies something static vs. the perpetual flux of human experience. This discrepancy tended to suggest that human experience had no true contact with reality. Eastern thinkers, who were developing at this same time, accepted this suggestion, and the Eastern mindset soon matured into what we now know as Buddhism. The distinctive of ancient Western philosophy was a loyalty to the instinct to accept human experience as somehow connected to the reality of things. Thus, the challenge for the Greeks was to account for the discrepancy between being and becoming - between the static order that must characterize any intelligible concept of being, and the constant flux that undeniably characterizes human experience. Since they were unbelievers, who did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, the Greek’s foolish heart was darkened and they became futile in their speculations. (Rom. 1:21, 28) Thus, they assumed that the human mind could interpret reality - including the reality of the human self - without reference to anything outside the self. This perfectly describes God’s status vis-à-vis reality. He exhaustively interprets reality without reference to anything outside Himself, which He does precisely because He created reality to be what it is. “It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves.” (Ps. 100:3) In sin the humanist pretends to do what God actually does. This is the essence of idolatry: denying the authority of God to define and to interpret all of reality, and ascribing this authority to another who is not God. Not only is such speculation sinful, it also is an intellectual dead end. The best that humanist Greek philosophy could do was to propose that the human experience of being vs. becoming was analogous of the essence of being itself. This view supposed that being was a continuum ranging from non-being on one end to absolute being on the other, with the human mind and the world of its experience falling somewhere in between.

Ours is not the first era in which expressions of Christian orthodoxy have become corrupted by humanistic elements. The Ancient “church fathers” were at many points influenced by Platonism. The “Scholastics” of the Middle Ages were heavily influenced by Aristotelianism. The Ancient and Medieval Creeds and Confessions were heroic efforts to purge these influences and to restore to the church a truly orthodox confession. In our day we see the influence of humanism no less and our task remains to struggle against it. The subtlety of the task is amplified by the fact that modern “liberal” theology has learned how to apply the vocabulary of orthodoxy to the being vs. becoming scheme of humanism. “Creation” in this scheme of things refers to the “essences” that make one instance of being higher on the scale than other instances; “Sin” means being low on the scale of being; and “Redemption” means raising up on the scale toward absolute being. True Christian orthodoxy stands completely opposed to this scheme even though orthodoxy is expressed utilizing the same terms. A truly Christian idea of these things is that “Creation” means that God exists outside and independent of the world of our experience and has brought it into being by His power and will, including the human being, to whom He has given to bear His image; He does not exist at the extreme end of a “scale of being,” but is uncreated Being over-against the created being of His own device. “Sin” means that we willfully have broken the law and covenant of God, and so have come under His judgment and wrath; all aspects of our nature are corrupted in sin and with us all of creation has suffered corruption. “Redemption” means that in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ God has made atonement for our sin; in His grace He works in the hearts of His people to confess the truth of all these things.

The idea that the purpose of our “creation” is to “become” like Christ fits into the humanist scheme and does not fit into the Christian scheme. Regardless of the employment of certain vocabulary such as “creation” and “sin,” the basic idea presented in this chapter is that one of the main purposes of human life is a process of becoming. Mr. Warren has given himself seven chapters to develop this idea and the current chapter consists mainly of introductory remarks. Is the being vs. becoming humanism of Mr. Warren’s formula to be attributed merely to the imprecision that necessarily attends alliterative jingoism, or does it truly reflect the basic ideas that lie at the root of his thinking? The remainder of the current chapter provides some clues.

Rightly he exhorts his readers, “God’s ultimate goal for your life on earth is not comfort…” (p.173) This is most true. The Bible has only derision for those “whose god is their appetite.” (Phil. 3:19) But Mr. Warren goes on in his statement to declare that he considers “character development” to be God’s ultimate goal for life. He reiterates this thought later in this chapter. “Much confusion in the Christian life comes from ignoring the simple truth that God is far more interested in building your character than he is anything else.” (p. 177) Of course, there is no doubt that character development is very important. There are a lot of things that are very important. But, it actually distorts the place and the importance of things like character development to elevate them to the “ultimate goal for your life.” His meaning is unmistakable: character development is the most important thing. The trouble is that Mr. Warren has the habit of seizing upon a very important thing and trying to make it the most important thing. The result is that we end up with a whole series of “most important things.” There evidently is one for every occasion. Back on page 125 he told us that “relationships are what life is all about,” and are “…what matters most in life.” And before that he told us on page 70 that loving God was the most important thing. “Nothing else comes close in importance,” he said. But, even prior to that, on page 30, he told us that, “Nothing matters more than knowing God’s purposes for your life, and nothing can compensate for not knowing them.”

Encountering so many “most important things,” depending upon what page you are reading, exhibits not merely confusion. In essence it exhibits the dialectical mode of thought that is characteristic of humanism. The humanistic attitude denies that God exists outside of our temporal “scale of being” and that He speaks with ultimate authority concerning the nature of this being. Humanism then supposes that the human mind is left to itself to speak of being the best it can. But, it cannot succeed. It cannot pronounce concerning what is the “most important thing,” for once having so spoken, another important thing will rear its head with a rival claim to ultimate importance. If this claim is honored in the humanist mind, then there only will be another rival claim. There is no end to it. Contrary to this, Christian wisdom identifies the most important thing in human life via the revelation of God in Scripture. Wise and learned men of the church met in what is called the Westminster Assembly and published in 1646 what is called the Westminster Catechism. This Catechism declares the Christian and biblical truth that “The chief end of Man is to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever.” This is a biblical truth that may be seized with singlemindedness. No other rival “most important thing” ever will come along to challenge its place. For over 350 years the church has not improved upon this expression of biblical truth. In this work Mr. Warren attempts to speak on the same subject, but ignoring the Westminster expression he enters into the dialectical tension of humanism and as a result he ends up with a whole handful of “most important” things.

The basic humanism of Mr. Warren’s approach also is exhibited in his synergism. He assures us, “You cannot reproduce the character of Jesus on your own strength.” (p. 174) This indicates a positive trend. Our strength is wanting. We are disabled by sin. It is necessary that the power of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit should transform us. But, as his discussion continues we find that in fact Mr. Warren intends to couch our power in tension or correlation to God’s power. In a sense, he ascribes a superiority to our power over God’s power. He says, for example, “We allow Christ to live through us.” (p. 174) “We must cooperate with the Holy Spirit’s work.” (p. 174) “The Holy Spirit releases his power the moment you take a step of faith.” (p. 174) “Obedience unlocks God’s power.” (p. 174) “God waits for you to act first.” (p. 175) All of this fits into the being vs. becoming scheme of humanism and not into the Christian scheme. The humanist “god” is the absolute being at the ultimate end of the scale. The humanist task is to approach unto this “god.” The humanist does not pretend that he has everything within himself to achieve this, but he holds the key to unlocking the process. The humanist “god” may be very wise and powerful, but his power is locked. It takes the will of the humanist to “release” it. Such a “god” must wait upon human initiative. There is so much this “god” could do in the life of one who struggles to raise himself up on the scale of being, but he is unable to do it until and unless the humanist should “allow” it.

In stark contrast to this, Christian truth proclaims that the human heart is desperately sick in sin (Jer. 17:9) - that in fact the sinner is dead in his sins (Eph. 2:1). God must come in His own initiative and make us alive together with Christ (Eph. 2:5). It is He who has begun a good work in us (Phil. 1:6), and He also shall bring it to pass (I Thess 5:24). The effort that we make toward godliness is not in process of achieving a new nature, but is motivated by the new nature already bestowed upon us in Redemption (II Cor. 5:17). The power is God’s, the initiative is God’s, and all the glory is God’s. Obedience, Bible study, character development, etc. are not techniques for raising ourselves up on a scale of being, but are the obligations of our new nature in Christ. No one can block, lock, or inhibit the power of God in human life. He does not need us to “release” it. There certainly is a psychological reality to the experience of maturation and becoming like Christ. But the Christian truth of this experience is that the redemptive power of God is the beginning of this and not the outcome of a process. Let us press on to the coming days of this discussion to see whether perhaps Mr. Warren steers us back toward orthodoxy.

Day Twenty-Three - How We Grow

Mr. Warren begins discussion of his idea of what makes for spiritual growth. Growth, he maintains, is initiated by and hinges upon human decision. He characterizes the Disciples of the New Testament as having made the choice to follow Jesus. This implies that discipleship is optional. One who decides to forgo discipleship is characterized as simply missing out on the advantages of God’s purposes (p. 180) Biblical truth is contrary to this characterization. The biblical truth is that we did not choose Jesus, but that He chose us. (John 6:70; 13:18; 15:16, 19) His call of discipleship is not an “invitation,” but a command. One’s failure in discipleship is not a matter of missing out on personal fulfillment, but is sinful disobedience.

Mr. Warren’s misunderstanding of the imperative of discipleship leads also to his misunderstanding of the dynamic of discipleship. Biblically, the call of discipleship is a command and the dynamic of discipleship is obedience. However, in keeping with his portrayal of the call of discipleship as an “invitation,” he construes the dynamic of discipleship as “cooperation.” He says: “Spiritual growth is a collaborative effort between you and the Holy Spirit. God’s Spirit works with us, not just in us.” (p. 180) Recently, on Day Nineteen (p. 145-151), Mr. Warren touched upon the theme of the “collaborative effort” of Man and God. There he spoke of what he called the “dual responsibility” of Man and God in cultivating fellowship within the church. This commentary on that Day (see above) points out that the idea of Divine / human “dual responsibility” implies the humanistic idea of the correlativity of God and Man. Mr. Warren’s present discussion of “collaborative effort” is simply another example of this same thing. The reader is referred to the discussion above for a fuller treatment of “correlativity” and the idea of “synergism.” The present discussion shall focus upon Mr. Warren’s flirtation with truth in his development of his idea.

Of redemption, Mr. Warren rightly says, “…you can’t add anything to what Jesus already did.” (p. 181) He applies this idea specifically to redemption from sin and contrasts this with discipleship. His net result is to say that while redemption is totally God’s work in Christ for us (which, though true, he contradicts in numerous other places of this book), discipleship, on the other hand, is our work. He says, “God has given you a new life; now you are responsible to develop it…” (p. 181) Expounding upon this theme, Mr. Warren flirts yet again with truth. Says he, “To change your life, you must change the way you think.” (p. 181) He provides the illustration of a speedboat on autopilot. Correctly, he maintains that the best way of changing the course of the boat is to change the autopilot rather than to attempt to override it by sheer will. In like manner, he adjures us, we need to change our inner “autopilot” in order to realize true and lasting change of our lives. This means we need to change the way we think. He says, “Your first step in spiritual growth is to start changing the way you think. Change always starts first in your mind.” (p. 182) The reason for this, he previously explained, is because, “Behind every thing you do is a thought. Every behavior is motivated by a belief, and every action is prompted by an attitude.” (p. 181) This exhortation is true. But, how may we change autopilots? It is at the point of this question that Mr. Warren departs from the soundness of the nugget of wisdom and reverts to the humanistic scheme that characterizes the overall tone of his book. He bases his answer on a modern corruption of Romans 12:2b, “Let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think.” (p. 182)

The reader may recall that back on Day Five Mr. Warren’s topic was “God’s view” of life. (p. 41-46) In that chapter he quoted Romans 12:2 from “Today’s English Version.” Now he cites the so-called “New Living Translation.” From their titles it is evident that these “translations” are meant to resonate with the modern reader. They both are in agreement that Romans 12:2b is to be put as, “Let God transform you…” However, there are two monumental problems. 1) There is nothing at all in the original Greek that would suggest - least of all require - such a rendering. It is quite evident that “Let God transform you…” is put not because this is what the original text says, but because this is what is supposed to resonate in the mind of the modern reader. But, attempting to be “relevant” to the modern mindset leads directly to the second problem. 2) This rendering actually accommodates the mindset of the world rather than challenging it to be transformed! It is beyond tragic that a text of Scripture in which God commands us not to be conformed to the world, but to be transformed, was rendered into English in such a way that is in conformity to the worldly mindset and excuses readers from transformation! Additional discussion of this travesty may be found above in this commentary on Day Five.

The invitation, “Let God transform you” resonates with the modern mind because the modern attitude will not accept that Man is the creature of God and owes a duty of obedience to God. Modern Man will speak much of “god” and often is quite favorable to the idea of “god” as a resource of greater wisdom or power. The modern idea of dissatisfaction or failure involves only the finitude of Man’s wisdom and power. Man harbors a basic goodness, he is sure, and requires only a little outside expertise to help him along the way. The Evangelical comes to this modern Man and says, in effect, “Why don’t you give ‘god’ a try? He has plenty of power and wisdom to help you; in fact, he eagerly desires to help you, but before he can help you it first is necessary that you ‘release’ his power in your life. If you will let him transform you, you will be pleased with the result.” Even if one responded positively to such an “invitation,” he still would not have honored God as God. There is something pseudo-pietistic about the pretense of exalting “god” as a source of greater power, love, and wisdom. But so long as this is coupled with another pretense that Man can “block” or “release” these resources on his own terms, then it clearly is implied that Man’s power is greater, since it can block “god’s” power, and that Man’s wisdom is greater, since Man determines when it is best to release “god’s” resources.

The truth is that discipleship is not an “invitation,” but a mandate. The dynamic of discipleship is not “cooperation,” but obedience. Rightly understood, Romans 12:2b is not an invitation to avail of God’s resources, but a command to be transformed from a worldly to a godly attitude. We are transformed by the renewing of our minds as we honor God as God. This means we admit the truth - of who God is as the Almighty Creator - of who we are as His creatures, made in His image, yet who have fallen into sin against Him - and of redemption in Christ. We are transformed as we admit that God’s Word is legislative for all our thought and experience of reality. We are transformed as we “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” (II Cor. 10:5), and in obedience we think every thought after Him.

Mr. Warren’s idea of transformation conforms to this world, and so really is not transformation at all. Though he also terms his idea of transformation as “repentance,” he makes it clear that by this he means simply, “You take on Christ’s outlook and perspective.” (p. 182) In Mr. Warren’s conception, the authority of Christ is reduced to just another outlook on life that it would behoove us to consider. This is consistent with his notion, expressed in Chapter 5, that the Bible “offers” for our consideration God’s “view” of things. Embracing the Word of God as a point of view to be considered is the most that a worldly mindset will do. The characterization of discipleship as an “invitation” to take on the “perspective” of Christ is in reality conformity to this world.

Since Mr. Warren has not correctly identified the worldly mindset, but indeed has indulged it, therefore he also has not correctly identified the transformed biblical mindset. He has boiled the issue down to a question of maturity vs. immaturity. This way of putting the point completely sets aside the true challenge of Romans 12:2. In reality Romans 12:2 commands us to turn away from a wrong worldly mindset and to be renewed unto a true godly mindset instead. Mr. Warren challenges us to advance out of immaturity into maturity. While immaturity may be regarded as wrong in a sense, its wrongness consists only of a misguided emphasis or a self-absorbed motive. The immature goes on from the point of his immaturity to grow into maturity. Romans 12:2 is not a call that we should add something to our worldly mindset until it becomes a godly mindset. Worldliness does not and cannot grow into godliness. Worldliness must be scrapped entirely, all the way down to its most basic ideas of who God is, who Man is, and the nature of Man’s problem. Transformation means starting over with a completely different conviction concerning these things, which we gain by the grace of God to receive His Word.

Mr. Warren presses the matter of maturity by citing I Corinthians 14:20, where Paul exhorts us to be mature and not as children in our thinking. This, of course, is biblical wisdom, but as he proceeds from this point what we find is a superficial teaching rather then any real Bible study. He suggests that the essence of immaturity is selfishness, and cites Romans 8:5 in an effort to make this seem like a biblical concept. He had to resort to something called the “New Century Version” in order to get the desired wording. But, the wording is incorrect. In reality Romans 8:5 says nothing at all about selfishness. In reality it simply contrasts the attitude of the flesh and the attitude of the Spirit: “For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.” (NASB) Properly understood, this contrast is parallel to that alluded to in Romans 12:2, and it tells us in greater detail that the transformed mind is imparted by the Spirit. Ours is not to “release” the Spirit, ours is to obey. Further in Romans chapter 8, in verse 7, it clearly is stated that the mind set on the flesh is not even able to subject itself to the Law of God. Righteousness originates in God. As Mr. Warren has misconstrued the contrast of Romans 12:2, so he has misconstrued that of Romans 8:5, and has done so in both cases with the aid of questionable paraphrases of Scripture.

Pressing on, Mr. Warren then wishes to construe the biblical concept of maturity as simply “thinking of others.” His means of attempting this is so lacking credibility that it is impossible to discuss it apart from furnishing a full quotation of his point: “In his great chapter on what real love is, Paul concluded that thinking of others is the mark of maturity: ‘When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.’[I Cor. 13:11]” (p.183) Let the reader judge: what is there in I Corinthians 13:11 that could even remotely be understood as Paul declaring that “thinking of others” was “the mark of maturity”? When Mr. Warren wanted the Bible to say that immaturity was simply selfishness, he found some kind of today’s new relevant century hip millennium living contemporary paraphrase that provided the necessary vocabulary. However, when he wishes the Bible to declare that maturity is simply thinking of others, he evidently could not find even the loosest of paraphrase that would say that. So, we are presented with a text having nothing whatsoever to do with the point he wishes to make. To be sure, maturity is important, and there is a rich and needful Bible study that could be undertaken on this subject. Mr. Warren does not provide such study, but rather cheapens the idea of maturity by suggesting that the biblical teaching is subsumed in the notion of merely “thinking of others.”
Moreover, Mr. Warren then suggests that “thinking of others” is the root of Christianity. His conclusion of the matter is thus, “Christianity is not a religion or a philosophy, but a relationship and a lifestyle. The core of that lifestyle is thinking of others.” (p. 183) The only commentary of such a statement that really is needed is simply to point out that someone who is the pastor of one of the largest churches in American today actually said it. Throughout this treatise Mr. Warren departs again and again from that which truly is the core of Christianity, namely, the three pillar doctrines of Creation, Sin, and Redemption. Western civilization never would have achieved its heights if Christianity really were what Mr. Warren says it is. The only reason that Mr. Warren has a milieu of Evangelicalism in modern America in which he could start and operate a church is because of the tireless effort and hardship of thousands of faithful and godly fathers of the church in the early centuries A. D, throughout the Middle Ages, and into the early Modern era. We stand on their shoulders as they taught us to stand upon the Word of God. If we could go back in time and suggest to them that Christianity is not a religion or a philosophy, but a relationship and a lifestyle, their most charitable response - every one of them - would be to suppose that we had lost our minds. And if, further, we were to suggest to them that the core of Christianity is “thinking of others,” they would be hard-pressed to discern whether this was mere foolishness or heresy.

Day Twenty-Four - Transformed by Truth

In this chapter Mr. Warren brings us an eloquent exhortation concerning God’s Word. Rightly, he emphasizes the uniqueness of God’s Word. Says he, “God’s Word is unlike any other word.” (p.185) Rightly, he emphasizes the power and authority of God’s Word. “The Bible must always have the first and last word in my life,” he says. (p. 187) Rightly, he encourages us to read God’s Word, to study it, to commit it to memory, to meditate upon it, and to apply it to our lives in every outward, practical way. “You should consider it as essential to your life as food.” (p. 186) Rightly, he cautions that human judgment and tradition are spoiled by sin. Rightly, he urges that only the Word of God is flawless. Every reader ought to give hearty assent to these exhortations.

This chapter stands out in sharp contrast to the remainder of this book. It comprises an essay that could stand on its own as a stirring call for dedication to and study and application of the Bible as the unique, infallible, and authoritative Word of God. As such, it stands in critique of the prior chapters. Under the microscope that Mr. Warren teaches in this chapter, all his prior chapters wither. He tells us on page 185 that God’s Word is unlike any other word, but on page 21 he failed to distinguish clearly between God’s Word and words that “all by themselves” appear in the human mind. He exhorts us on page 187 that, “The Bible must always have the first and last word in my life,” but on page 136 he told us that it is the Church that provides us “principles to live by.” He tells us on page 186 that it is the Word of God that “frightens the Devil,” but on page 136 he said that it is the Church that provides our defense against Satan. He is most emphatic on page 185 that, “Spiritual growth is the process of replacing lies with truth,” but only two pages earlier, in the prior chapter, he said that, “Thinking of others is the heart of Christlikeness and the best evidence of spiritual growth.” Numerous other perplexing examples could be cited. Perhaps the most dramatic discrepancy involves the matter of memorization of Scripture.

In the present chapter Mr. Warren lists memorization of Scripture as one of five methods of assimilating its truth. “There are enormous benefits to memorizing Bible verses,” he says. (p. 189) But in Appendix 3, wherein he explains his use of so many different version of the Bible, he argues in a way that precludes memorization. He says that, “…we often miss the full impact of familiar Bible verses…simply because they have become so familiar!” (p. 325) Continuing, he says that, “We think we know what a verse says because we have read it or heard it so many times.” He says that he has employed so many different versions of the Bible, “…in order to help you see God’s truth in new, fresh ways.” It cannot be stressed too strongly that what Mr. Warren argues in Appendix 3 runs directly and completely counter to the memorization of Scripture. In Chapter 24 Mr. Warren argues in favor of memorization so that the contents of Scripture will become familiar to us. In Appendix 3 he derides familiarity and suggests that we can miss the meaning of Scripture due to familiarity (!?). In Chapter 24 Mr. Warren explains that memorization occurs as a result of constant review. In Appendix 3 he warns that such constant review is unhelpful because it leaves us in a state where we only think we know what Scripture says. The memorization he terms as having “enormous benefit” in Chapter 24, he identifies in Appendix 3 as the sure means of missing what God says. It is important to reiterate that Mr. Warren’s arguments in Appendix 3 are given in explanation of his use of 15 different translations and paraphrases of Scripture. Of course, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to memorize Scripture if constantly reading it in so many different versions. Memorization is successful only when concentrating on a particular translation. The method presented in this book of consulting 15 different version of the Bible effectively precludes memorization. Accordingly, Mr. Warren argues in his Appendix that one is likely to miss what God says if he restricts himself to the same old familiar translation. Yet, he wishes to speak to us in Chapter 24 of the “enormous benefits” of memorization. How shall we account for such a dramatic contradiction presented to us by a single writer within the pages of a single volume? Ultimately, such wavering must arise from an inner conflict that would be beyond the scope of anyone to grasp. I shall not delve into speculation. However, as good as this chapter is as a basic exhortation for Bible study, it does bear within it some subtle seeds of corruption. We shall examine two examples.

In his discussion of the authority of the Bible, Mr. Warren says, “The Bible must become the authoritative standard for my life.” (p. 186) Of course, the Bible already is the authoritative standard for everyone’s life, whether they acknowledge it or not. That is precisely why it is a mortal failing for unbelievers to refuse to bow before their Creator and Judge. If it really were possible for the Bible to become this authoritative standard upon anyone’s selection of it to serve this purpose, then this would only prove that it cannot be the Word of the infinite, eternal and sovereign Creator of all things. As authoritative standard, God’s Word is the only sure foundation upon which human evaluation can occur. If men pretend to esteem the Bible only once it has passed under human evaluation, then in the nature of the case it cannot be esteemed correctly.

Second, Mr. Warren asserts that, “…our receptiveness determines whether or not God’s Word takes root in our lives.” (p. 188) This is the same thing as saying that the effectiveness of God’s Word depends upon human will. And, this is the same thing as saying that God depends upon Man. And, as Rushdoony put it: “What depends on Man is less than Man.” To be sure, it is a grave responsibility for one to cultivate his appetite for the Word of God. However, this is not the same thing as to say that Man “determines” the success of God’s Word.

“For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
And do not return there without watering the earth,
And making it bear and sprout,
And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater;
So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me empty,
Without accomplishing what I desire,
And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.”
(Is. 55:10-11)

If one approaches the Bible as something that his own evaluation has determined should “become” an authority in his life, then this implies an authority within him by which the Bible is elevated to this status. In this case the inner authority always will outrank whatever authority is ascribed to the Bible. The supposed preeminence of human authority also is attested by the notion that man controls the extent to which God’s Word is effective in his life. Mr. Warren already in this chapter enunciated a more orthodox doctrine of God’s Word. This Word is “living and active” (Heb. 4:12), is creative (Gen. 1), and does not fail to accomplish God’s desires (Is. 55:11). However, opening the door to notions that ascribe to Man some measure of authority along side or above God’s Word leads directly to the notion of the correlativity of God and Man. The idea of correlativity does not honor God as the Creator that the Bible truly teaches Him to be, denies that Man is a sinner who owes a debt to God, and therefore conceives of redemption as anything but the orthodox doctrine of the Atonement in Christ.

I should like to close this section with a brief word about Bible translations and paraphrases. Over the last twenty years or so there has been an explosion of various Bible versions. Most of them are of a variety that is meant to try to get through to readers of the popular modern mindset. These take great liberties with the text in order to express things in jargon that does not sound too “holy” or scholastic. Many such versions still call themselves “translations,” but in my book they are not. I offer the following illustration:

Someone was having trouble browsing the Internet and resorted to calling in technical assistance. The technician made necessary adjustments and then browsing the Internet once again was successful. Curious, the customer asked the technician for an explanation of the problem. The technician said, “Your ISP changed their DNS Servers, but your local machine had DNS Server IP Addresses statically assigned, and therefore could not pick up the changes via DCHP.” Relating this incident to others, the customer’s friends also were curious about the nature of the problem and asked concerning the technician, “What did he say?” Now, there are two different senses in which this question may be understood, and thus two different answers that may be given. The question “What did he say?” could be meant literally, and the only satisfactory answer would be to relate the technician’s words verbatim. Or, the question could be meant hermeneutically, in which case a satisfactory answer consists of an interpretative explanation of the technician’s remarks. A lot of people would find the technician’s literal remarks uninteresting and would focus upon hermeneutics. But hermeneutics cannot float about in the air. It must be based upon some definitive word. Apart from the definitive word, there would no means of discerning whether the hermeneutics was correct. In the case of the human speaker, there remains the issue of whether the word itself is correct. God’s Word is by definition correct. His Word is truth. The question “What has God said?” also may be understood in two different senses and therefore may be given a literal or a hermeneutical answer. The popular appetite these days seems to be for hermeneutics. However, the hermeneutics of a paraphrase cannot substitute for the literality of a translation. A translation must strive to tell us literally, “What has God said?” Many works claiming to be translations clearly do not do this. The Bible study and memorization that Mr. Warren urges in this chapter ought to be done in an actual translation of Scripture. For deeper study, a number of original language helps for the layman are readily available and not difficult to use. By all means, let the Bible study that Mr. Warren urges seriously be pursued by all readers.

Day Twenty-Five - Transformed by Trouble

Mr. Warren began the prior chapter by saying that, “Spiritual growth is the process of replacing lies with truth. Jesus prayed, ‘Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.’ Sanctification requires revelation.” (p. 185) He begins the present chapter by declaring it “obvious” that God “depends more on circumstances to make us like Jesus than he depends on our reading the Bible.” (p. 193) If sanctification requires the revelation of Scripture, then how can “circumstances” be more effective in sanctification than the Bible? We may consider this assertion in two different directions.

First, Mr. Warren clearly declares that God is dependent, and only questions what is His greatest dependency. This is not surprising given that it has been his consistent characterization of God as correlative to Man. The idea of the dependence of God upon “circumstances” merely extends the notion of correlativity, so that God is seen as correlative, not to Man only, but to “being in general.” To be sure, Mr. Warren reserves attributes of great power and wisdom to God alone, as He is said to “use” circumstances to His own ends. However, in this conception the laws and principles that govern “being in general” lie above and behind “god” equally as they lie above and behind “circumstances.” For, if God does not cause circumstances, but merely “uses” them, and if God thus “depends” upon circumstances in order to accomplish His purposes, then there must be some other principle at work in the Universe that organizes and orders all things. If God is not the infinitely autonomous (i.e. totally independent), omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign Creator and Determiner of all things, then all things are subsumed in either an impersonal and totally static principle of unity, or else a blind chaos of perpetual flux.

The Christian truth is as was just stated: God is the infinitely autonomous (i.e. totally independent), omniscient, omnipotent, sovereign Creator and Determiner of all things. Therefore, we need not struggle to determine whether the Universe is a static unity or else a chaotic diversity. The Universe is characterized by both a temporal unity and a temporal diversity. The temporal unity of the created order derives from the fact that all things come to pass according the secret counsel of God. The temporal diversity of creation derives from the manifold nature of creation coupled with the limited human experience of creation through successive moments of time and discrete coordinates of space. The truly Christian outlook on things exactly reverses Mr. Warren. God does not depend upon circumstances; circumstances depend upon God.

The second direction in which we may consider Mr. Warren’s initial claim involves the matter of the Bible as it relates to human experience. He suggests that experience is more effective in transforming our character than is the Bible. Having consigned God to a position of dependency, Mr. Warren then has no basis for holding God’s Word up in the same light in which he held it in the previous chapter. A dependent God brings forth a dependent word. The word of a dependent God cannot but exist in correlativity to every other word that may emerge in the Universe. In this case “circumstances,” or contingency, becomes the universal. Mr. Warren’s suggestion is that “circumstances” are more universal in human life than God’s Word, for, while we may fail to read God’s Word, we cannot fail to be confronted with circumstances. However, this outlook must presume that human experience is normative. Again, we may exactly reverse Mr. Warren: human experience does not explain Scripture; rather, Scripture explains human experience.

Scripture explains that human experience is not normative. Scripture explains that our first parents fell into sin, and that therefore all of creation was corrupted. Human experience is corrupted. Having experiences may provide us opportunity to grow into maturity, but it is not the bare fact of experience that provides growth. The corrupted experience of a corrupted person living in a corrupted world presents the person with a basic problem. The problem of human experience is how to interpret it. Mr. Warren would have us to believe that circumstances are a better tutor in spirituality than the Bible. However, in reality circumstances pose a problem for which the Bible has the only answer. Human experience was not a problem for Man in the original ideal of Creation, but became a problem due to sin. Apart from the Christian doctrine of sin, there is no escape from having to presume human experience as normative. Mr. Warren’s idea of “circumstances” reflects the fact that he never adequately has accounted for sin in this treatise.

The universality and normality of experience in Mr. Warren’s view comes out plainly in his idea of evil. He cites the view of Joni Eareckson Tada that, “…only in suffering will we know Jesus.” And then he adds in his own words that, “We learn things about God in suffering that we can’t learn in any other way.” (p.194) We must be sensitive to the great suffering of Mrs. Tada, and certainly we must not discount the spiritual lessons she learned through her suffering. However, it also must be stressed that suffering was not originally required as a means of knowing God, and cannot be declared as universally required even now. Suffering comes into the picture through sin. Our original estate of creation was perfect and without suffering, and in this original bliss Adam knew God more fully and wonderfully than the most spiritual of the giants of faith in our day. It is only in a Yin and Yang outlook, in which good and evil are alike original, in which human experience is normative, and in which “god” is dependent, that one could represent suffering as an essential component of spirituality.

Another example of this same outlook is Mr. Warren’s saying, “You’ll never know that God is all you need until God is all you’ve got.” (p. 194) This is the same thing as saying that it is impossible for one to know his need of God apart from eliminating all other things from his life. Such a notion suggests that one must undergo a Job-like crisis in order to come to appreciate his need for God. However, we must hasten to realize that Job was subjected to his trials precisely because he already knew - and was fully devoted to - his need for God. The point of his suffering was a satanic attempt to break him of his devotion, not a divine attempt to develop his devotion. The same thing could be said of a number of other texts that encourage us in the midst of problems in life. James 1:2-3 says, “Consider it all joy, my brethren, when you encounter various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces endurance.” Faith does not derive from trials; it is tested by trials. Also, I Peter 1:6-7 says, “In this you greatly rejoice, even though now for a little while, if necessary, you have been distressed by various trials, that the proof of your faith, being more precious than gold which is perishable, even though tested by fire, may be found to result in praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.” Here again, trials do not somehow produce faith; rather, trials “prove” faith even as fire proves gold. Faith does not come from experience or circumstances; “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.” (Rom. 10:17)

Mr. Warren seems to hesitate between two opinions. Throughout the first two pages of this chapter he expounds his idea of a dependent God and the supposed necessity of suffering in human experience. Then, beginning on page 195, he launches into a completely different outlook. He says that, “…God is sovereignly in control.” He proceeds with a very able phrase-by-phrase survey of Romans 8:28-29, and declares that, “Your life is not a result of random chance, fate, or luck. There is a master plan. History is His story. God is pulling the strings.” But in the end Mr. Warren reverts to his former view of a dependent God and the universality of circumstances. Having noted that God works all things according to His purpose, he concludes by saying, “Everything God allows to happen in your life is permitted for that purpose!” (p. 196) Now we see that when Mr. Warren says that, “God is sovereignly in control,” and that, “God is pulling the strings,” what he evidently means is that God “allows” or “permits” circumstances. He does not comment on the ultimate cause of circumstances. Surely, he would agree that God causes circumstances to some extent. But, ultimately, in the view of things that Mr. Warren expounds, the extent to which God causes circumstances cannot rise above an essential correlativity to every other cause of circumstances. Thus, in this view, the only universal left is the universal of “experience” or “circumstances” in which both God and Man exist.

In context of such an idea of “circumstances” as Mr. Warren posits, there can be no clear, biblical idea of sin. Consequently, neither can there be any clear, biblical idea of redemption. Mr. Warren demonstrates this consequence quite clearly. In his view Jesus becomes not so much a Redeemer as a Role Model. Mr. Warren says, “Since God intends to make you like Jesus, he will take you through the same experiences Jesus went through.” (p. 197) Attempting to prove that what he is telling us is biblical, Mr. Warren then cites Hebrews 5:8-9, and asks, “Why would God exempt us from what he allowed his own Son to experience?” (p. 197) Hebrews 5:8, “…He learned obedience from the things which He suffered,” is a reference to the death of Christ, as verse 7 makes clear, “He offered up both prayers and supplications with loud crying and tears to the One able to save Him from death.” We see, then, two things. First, for Mr. Warren, the death of Christ was an “experience” that emerged out of the universality of “circumstances,” which God merely “allowed.” In truth, the death of Christ was the most singularly unique and powerful event in history, and was accomplished “by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God.” (Acts 2:23) Second, we see that Mr. Warren discounts the nature and importance of the death of Christ in that he cites Hebrews 5:8 as proof that God expects us to undergo all of the same “experiences” as did Christ. Back on Day Seven Mr. Warren characterized Jesus at the hour of His crucifixion: “Jesus stood at a fork in the road,” and applied this to all his readers by adding, “You face the same choice.” (p.57) When God is held to be correlative to Man, the uniqueness and authority of His Word is compromised, “circumstances” become universal, and Jesus becomes simply a role model.

This corruption of the ministry of Christ extends even to His coming in the flesh. Mr. Warren says, “We can rejoice in knowing that God is going through the pain with us. We do not serve a distant and detached God who spouts encouraging clichés safely from the sidelines. Instead, he enters into our suffering. Jesus did it in the Incarnation, and his Spirit does it in us now. God will never leave us on our own.” (p.199) Thus, we see that for Mr. Warren the Incarnation of Christ was nothing more than God “entering into our suffering” so we do not have to suffer alone. The scheme of things presented in this chapter supposes the universality of “circumstances” in which God and Man together have “experiences.” This universal of “circumstances” is characterized by a Yin and Yang tension of good and evil. A God who is subject to such a universal may be powerful enough to prevent or “allow” circumstances in our lives, but he does not ultimately cause or control circumstances: he depends upon circumstances; circumstances do not depend upon him. Such a God can speak only relative or contingent words into the world of “experience.” Such a God knows that unless we own up to the suffering that is an essential aspect of the basic nature of reality, we can never fully know him or develop our own nature. Accordingly, such a God “permits” or “allows” us to undergo suffering. Such a God “allowed” Jesus to undergo suffering. Indeed, such a Jesus was incarnated just in order to demonstrate that God suffers within the contingency of “circumstances” even as we do, and calls us to share his “experiences” with him.

In Christian truth, God was there prior to the existence of anything. He created all things by His Word. He bears no correlativity to the things of His creation. He spoke our world of reality into existence by his Word, and His Word goes forth into this reality definitively. Originally, His creation was completely perfect and good. Our perfect human nature was spoiled and the whole of creation was subject to futility because of our sin. Man has no right to interpret his experience of reality according to anything that he harbors within himself. Man does harbor the image of God, which is an aspect of the general revelation of God in nature, however, general revelation never was meant to be a testimony independent of the Word of God. Experience may be interpreted only as it is subject to the authority of God’s Word, which defines and determines all things. God imparts faith to us through this Word. It is by this Word we learn that the root of suffering lies in our sin, and that God has made propitiation for our sin in Christ. The incarnation of Christ was so that He could bear the wrath of God due us for our sins in His body upon the Cross. Our faith in these things comes via hearing His Word. The trials and tribulations of this life put our faith to the test, but trails themselves are not the source of our faith or our growth. We are not transformed by trouble; we are transformed by God.

Day Twenty-Six - Growing Through Temptation

At the head of this chapter Mr. Warren quotes James 1:12. (p. 201) This same verse also is cited at the conclusion of the chapter. (p. 208) On page 204 he cites James 1:14-16. However, completely absent from any mention or consideration is James 1:13. Beginning his chapter with verse 12, Mr. Warren subsequently resumes discussion of this text at verse 14, leapfrogging verse 13. It will be most instructive in this discussion to take up the verse that Mr. Warren omitted: “Let no one say when he is tempted, ‘I am being tempted by God’; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.” (Jas 1:13) It is quite odd that this very clear and important teaching regarding temptation should be omitted from a chapter that purportedly is devoted to this topic, while verses surrounding it are cited repeatedly. The verse that is left out brings the correction that sorely is needed of the view espoused in this chapter.

Mr. Warren suggests that temptations are “stepping stones” on “the path to spiritual maturity.” (p. 201) His outlook would imply that temptation is necessary for spiritual growth. But James 1:13 tells us that God does not tempt anyone. So, are we to think then that “stepping stones” on our “path to spiritual maturity” are not supplied by God? Who, then, supplies them? We understand from many biblical texts that the Devil is the Tempter. Are God and the Devil then co-laborers in laying out our “path to spiritual maturity”? Indeed, not! A truly biblical view is expressed in the Lord’s Prayer. Our Lord taught us to beseech God, “…do not lead us into temptation…” (Mat. 6:13) Temptation is a hindrance to growth. We should seek to avoid temptation, and it should be our prayer to be free of it. But Mr. Warren’s view is that, “Character development always involves a choice, and temptation provides that opportunity.” (p. 202) And, “You can’t claim to be good if you’ve never been tempted to be bad.” (p. 203) Thus, he represents temptation not as a hindrance, but as a necessary means of achieving spiritual maturity. Lest the reader should wonder whether perhaps he has misunderstood Mr. Warren, he states his point in the most clear and unmistakable terms. He declares it “one of the most important spiritual truths you will ever learn” that, “God develops the fruit of the Spirit in your life by allowing you to experience circumstances in which you’re tempted to express the exact opposite quality!” (p. 202)

The principle in this chapter is parallel to that of the prior chapter. In the prior chapter Mr. Warren argued that we cannot really know God except through suffering. Here he argues that we cannot really exhibit the fruit of the Spirit except through temptation. Of course, exemplary character traits are called “fruit of the Spirit” because that is what God calls them in Galatians 5:22. They are called “fruit of the Spirit” because it is the work of the Spirit to produce this fruit in us. Mr. Warren gives lip-service to this truth, but as he develops his idea it becomes evident that his concept actually differs from that of Galatians. Mr. Warren says, “God teaches us love by putting some unlovely people around us … God teaches us real joy in the midst of sorrow … God develops real peace within us…by allowing times of chaos and confusion …patience is developed in circumstances in which we’re forced to wait…” (p. 202) If this were true, then these traits more rightly would be called “fruit of temptation.”

In truth, godly traits do not emerge from repeated exposure to their opposites. Godly traits are contrary to the world and the flesh, which are corrupted in sin. Godly traits are the fruit of His Spirit in our lives. For example, Jesus did not tell his disciples that they would gain peace after they had lived long enough in the chaos and confusion of the world. Rather, He told them: “Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, do I give to you.” (Jn. 14:27) The whole point of Galatians 5:16-24 is that the flesh, as corrupted in sin, is contrary to the Spirit of righteousness. Repeated “experiences” of corruption do not produce righteousness. But, in the world according to Mr. Warren righteousness cannot be known except in context of and in contrast to evil. He says, “You can’t claim to be good if you’ve never been tempted to be bad.” Of course, if there were only evil and never any good, then neither could we know evil to be evil. Thus, in this outlook good and evil require one another: they mutually provide one another a context in which to be known and to have meaning. In such a world temptation provides us the “opportunity” to be good. Such a world is engulfed in a Yin and Yang tension, as we have had many prior occasions to observe in this treatise.

A truly biblical outlook contrasts markedly with the view Mr. Warren presents. “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all.” (I Jn. 1:5) God, contained within Himself, is complete and perfect goodness. His being has no context outside Himself in terms of which His existence might be known or might have meaning; He completely exists and is completely explained in terms only of who He is in Himself. Likewise, His goodness has no other context than His own being in terms of which it might be known to be good. He is definitive goodness. He created our world of reality, and in its original ideal it was “very good.” (Gen. 1:31) The original goodness of creation was not established by contrast to a more ultimate - or equally ultimate - principle of evil. The original goodness of creation was established by the definitive goodness of the Creator. There is no context of evil required in order for goodness to be known to be good. The original quality is goodness; evil is a subsequent, derivative quality. Evil is a fall from goodness - a corruption of goodness. Goodness is not identified within a context of evil; rather, evil is identified within a context of goodness. Evil emerges out of goodness via a process of corruption, but goodness cannot emerge out of evil by any means whatsoever. There cannot be tooth decay unless there first is a tooth. However, there indeed can be a tooth without there ever being tooth decay.

The truth regarding good, evil, and temptation leads to the plain and compelling outlook that temptations are not “stepping stones,” but stumbling blocks. Mr. Warren’s “stepping stone” idea of temptation cannot be held in absolute consistency, because of necessity it involves the dialectical worldview of Yin and Yang. This outlook is doomed to pendulum swings between two incompatible views: 1) temptations are useful “stepping stones” because without them our claim to goodness can have no validity, and 2) temptations are ominous signs that Satan hates us (p. 205) We have seen many other examples of dialectical pendulum swings throughout this book, and within the pages of this brief chapter we see yet another example. After carefully explaining the necessity of temptation to provide opportunity to do good, so our claim to goodness might have validity, Mr. Warren then proceeds to exhort us on page 206, “wise planning reduces temptation.” He quotes Ephesians 4:27, “…do not give the devil and opportunity,” and also cites a number of Proverbs that exhort us to “avoid evil.” He coaches us how to analyze temptations in our lives, so we might be wise in avoiding situations in which temptation is likely to occur. In contrast to the prior pages of this chapter, an exhortation at this point to “reduce” and “avoid” temptation is quite strange. Are we to “reduce” our “stepping stones” on the “path to spiritual maturity”? Are we to “reduce” opportunities to do good? Are we to “avoid” validation of our claim to goodness? What ever happened to “one of the most important spiritual truths we will ever learn”? What ever happened to, “Character development always involves a choice, and temptation provides that opportunity”? (p. 202) Yin has given way to Yang. The pendulum has crossed over to the other side.

Mr. Warren presents some good material on the nature of temptation and the avoidance of temptation, but this material cannot be fully integrated into his overall system. His system of things is most influenced by what he considers “one of the most important spiritual truths,” that God develops good character in us by means of tempting us to exhibit bad character. Such a notion is flatly and directly contradicted by the verse that Mr. Warren omitted from his discussion, James 1:13, which tells us in no uncertain terms that God does not tempt anyone. Therefore, what nuggets of true wisdom there may be in this chapter do not find a solid home in which to dwell, and indeed, we find the pendulum already swinging back again as the chapter concludes. In the final paragraph Mr. Warren assures us, “Temptations keep us dependent upon God.” (p. 208) Having just spent several pages urging us to avoid temptation and coaching us in methods of reducing temptations, he now reverts back to telling us that temptations render a valuable service to us.

We saw in the prior chapter Mr. Warren’s idea that God is dependent upon “circumstances.” This muddies the Christian truth of the absolute independence of God, but it also muddies the Christian truth of the dependence of Man. If the absolute independence of God is not held in purity, then of necessity the idea of God is subverted in a concept of correlativity. In terms of this error not only is God wrongly held to be dependent, but as well the dependence of Man is misconstrued. Mr. Warren’s idea that temptations keep us dependent upon God is a prime example of this. In this view “circumstances” are universal above and behind both God and Man, such that God is dependent upon “circumstances” and the dependence of Man upon God is said to be cultivated by these same “circumstances.” This is the only sort of dependence Man can possibly have upon a “god” who is himself dependent. The Christian truth of these things is that God is the Creator of all reality and as such is totally independent of anything outside Himself. He is absolute truth and goodness in and of Himself, and does not require the existence of any thing in context of or contrast to He might be known to be who and what He is. All things, i.e., our world of reality, all “circumstances,” and we ourselves, are His creation, and as such are wholly dependent upon God to every extent and at all times. There is no “circumstance,” such as temptation, that is needed in order to create or to maintain our dependence upon God. Temptations are not a help, but are a hindrance. We are to pray to God to be free of temptation and to be delivered from evil.

Day Twenty-Seven - Defeating Temptation

In the prior chapter Mr. Warren suggested that temptations are “stepping stones” on our “path to spiritual maturity.” He explained in terms that are impossible to misconstrue that he views temptation as an essential factor in our task of spiritual growth. In the present chapter his message is quite the contrary. Now he tells us, “To avoid being stung, stay away from the bees.” (p. 211) The inconsistency this exhibits already was manifest even before the prior chapter concluded. The major importance of taking due notice of such inconsistency is that it demonstrates that Mr. Warren’s thinking is not systematic. Thus, the particles of truth that we find sprinkled here and there in this book cannot be systematically integrated into his overall message. A few examples of such particles are to be found in the present chapter. Rather than to expound further upon the inconsistency these represent in comparison with the prior chapter - sufficient exposition of which appears in the commentary of that chapter - discussion of the present chapter shall focus instead upon Mr. Warren’s four “keys to defeating temptation.” (p. 209)

The first of Mr. Warren’s “keys to defeating temptation” is, “Refocus your attention on something else.” (p. 210) His general idea is that attempting to fight temptation directly by a determination to overcome it is ineffective because contemplation of that which we hope to conquer actually promotes continued mindfulness of the enemy. This is wise counsel, as far as it goes. However, some elaboration is needed. First, not all temptation is regular. That is, one not always is tempted in an area of particular weakness. Disciplining oneself to refocus attention is especially effective in case of familiar temptation, but one also must be wary of the sudden, unexpected temptation. Sins vary from the dramatic to the mundane. One need not think long about obvious, dramatic sin, in which case an immediate refocus of attention is in order. On the other hand, there are complex issues such as fuel great ethical debate. Such matters require scrutiny in order for one to determine whether he is confronted by temptation at all. Some times concentration of attention upon temptation is needed in order to identify it as temptation and to determine the proper course of action. In case of regular, habitual temptation, such as preys upon our weakness, Mr. Warren’s counsel is true: one ought to refocus attention onto something else.

Another point of elaboration is that the refocus of attention is not properly undertaken as a psychological technique. Mr. Warren cites Philippians 4:8 (p. 212), a text that sorely was needed, though conspicuously absent, back in chapters 18 and 19. He brings this text in now as a technique for defeating temptation. However, in context of Philippians chapter 4, this exhortation is not presented as a technique for achieving some psychological end. Rather, it is an element in Paul’s general exhortation concerning the proper ordering of our lives. Our minds ought to dwell on truth, honor, righteousness, purity, loveliness, goodness, excellence, and worthiness as a matter of course - not as a psychological technique. It is true that a person so focused will confront less temptation. The diminishing of temptation is the de facto result of a well-ordered life. But, the goal and the motive is a well-ordered life - not the defeating of temptation. Consider this illustration from computer programming. There are two general approaches to correcting errors (sins) in a computer program: debugging and anti-bugging. Debugging is the skill of analyzing the code to find the errors and to correct them. Anti-bugging is the skill of designing the code in such a way that it will not have errors in the first place. Thus, the term “anti-bugging” is a bit of a misnomer, for the emphasis, the goal, and the motive is to write a good computer program, not to deal with errors. In the same way, refocusing attention ought to be done for the purpose of pursuing godliness, not primarily as a technique for dealing with temptation.

Mr. Warren’s next “key to defeating temptation” is, “Reveal your struggle to a godly friend or support group.” (p. 212) His discussion of this point basically rehashes the material in chapters 18 and 19, wherein he suggests that our weaknesses, hurts, and failings constitute the “real” self, and that sharing these things in “small groups” constitutes “real” fellowship. The reader is referred to commentary on those chapters (above) for full critique of such notions. The present discussion shall deal with these notions insofar as they are presented as a technique for defeating temptation.

Mr. Warren would like to make his point to seem biblical by citing James 5:16, “Confess your sins to one another.” (p. 212) However, in the prior chapter he already, and rightly, stated that, “It is not a sin to be tempted.” (p. 205) A biblical exhortation to confess our sins does not support an unbiblical notion that we ought to confess our temptation. At the head of this chapter Mr. Warren cites I Corinthians 10:13, wherein it plainly is stated that God will not allow us any temptation greater than our capacity to endure. It seems terribly odd, then, that in the course of this chapter he should declare that, “Some temptations are only overcome with the help of a partner…” (p. 212) Being a direct contradiction of the plain teaching of Scripture, Mr. Warren’s technique of confessing temptations manifestly is unbiblical. Being unbiblical, it necessarily involves a number of other difficulties.

Such a notion contradicts Mr. Warren’s own wise counsel, given over the prior few pages, to “refocus your attention on something else.” In his prior discussion he taught, “Ignoring a temptation is far more effective than fighting it. Once your mind is on something else, the temptation loses its power. So when temptation calls you on the phone, don’t argue with it, just hang up!” (p. 211) Now, barely two pages later, he teaches, “Don’t repress it; confess it! Don’t conceal it; reveal it. Revealing your feelings is the beginning of healing.” (p. 213) Such rhyming jingoism has psychological power. The unwary reader is prone to suppose that he has read something wise, rather than realizing that he has read something that contradicts what he read only two pages before. Mr. Warren continues, “Hiding your hurt only intensifies it. Problems grow in the dark and become bigger and bigger, but when exposed to the light of truth, they shrink. You are only as sick as your secrets. So take off your mask, stop pretending you’re perfect, and walk into freedom.” (p. 213) On page 210 Mr. Warren said, “…resisting a thought doesn’t work. It only intensifies our focus on the wrong thing and strengthens its allure.” In that section his counsel was to ignore temptation because attempting to resist it would only intensify it. Now, he calls ignoring temptation “hiding,” and claims that hiding it will intensify it. Before, he told us that “once your mind is on something else, the temptation loses its power.” Now, he tells us that, “problems grow in the dark and become bigger and bigger.” Before, it was wisdom to ignore temptation and to refocus your attention onto something else. Now, unless you confess your temptations, you are wearing a “mask” and “pretending.” On page 211 he told us that, “when temptation calls you on the phone, don’t argue with it, just hang up!” On the very next page he begins a discussion in which he says, in effect, that when temptation calls, ask it to hold the line a minute while you set up a three-way conference call with your “partner” or “small group.”

That teachings should oscillate so widely within the space of so few pages indicates a void of clarity. This book overall exhibits this same lack of systematic consistency. Thus, the various instances of wisdom we find here and there have no systematic framework in which to be integrated. The present chapter provides yet another example of this. The wisdom of Mr. Warren’s teaching to ignore temptation is immediately nullified by his unbiblical teaching that we must confess our temptations to a “partner” or “small group.”

Temptations are potential failings; sins are actual failings. In many cases confession of sin is required and therefore therapeutic, however, it never is required or beneficial for one to confess his temptations. The mind and heart of Man is corrupted in sin. It is “desperately sick.” (Jer 17:9) All kinds of thoughts arise in the mind, which, if actualized, would bring about the most hideous evil. It is neither necessary nor helpful for one to develop the habit of divulging such thoughts. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts our hearts (Jn. 16:8), and it is God to whom we must turn for grace to help in time of need. (Heb 4:16) In case of the actual failing of sin, especially habitual failing, one certainly will need to deal with human agency. For the sake of the present discussion I repeat here what is presented more fully in commentary on chapter 18, that surely there are occasions in which a sinner needs to confess to others and requires counsel. When needed, counsel ideally ought to occur within the intimacy of the family, or if necessary, in the privacy of qualified outside counseling. It is important to emphasize that these are avenues for dealing with sin, not temptation. Mr. Warren has brought such matters as confession and counseling into a discussion of temptation. Inasmuch as he has not properly accounted for sin in this treatise, it is not surprising that ministry intended for dealing with sin should be discussed in a context that is out of place.

With his final two points Mr. Warren returns to biblical wisdom. “Resist the Devil,” he says, citing James 4:7. (p. 214) He is quite biblical in expounding the means of resisting. Citing Ephesians 6:17, he exhorts us to take up “the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.” He recounts Christ’s example in the wilderness, defeating the temptations of the Devil with the Word of God. “This is why,” he says, “memorizing Scripture is absolutely essential to defeating temptation.” (p. 215) To this we all may return a hearty “Amen!” Building upon this theme he adds, “I challenge you to memorize one verse a week for the rest of your life.” (p. 215) That is quite a challenge. It would be challenging enough for one who has a particular Bible translation that is his constant companion. But, it is an insurmountable challenge for someone who adopts the outlook presented in Mr. Warren’s Appendix 3. There he claims that the familiarity of a favorite translation actually is a hindrance to understanding it fully. In order to know what God really is saying, he claims, we must read it in “new, fresh ways.” (p. 325) Anyone who buys into this way of thinking will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to memorize one verse of Scripture each week. The folly of Mr. Warren’s Appendix 3 nullifies the wisdom of his exhortation to resist the Devil by means of the Word of God.

Mr. Warren’s final point is, “realize your vulnerability.” (p. 215) He elaborates, “Given the right circumstances, any of us are [sic] capable of any sin.” (p. 215) This is most true. The cure of Redemption determines our eternal destiny with God, and empowers us to walk in “newness of life” (Rom. 6:4), but it does not grant us temporal perfection, or even perfectibility. It certainly is true that it is a dangerous thing for anyone to presume that he is immune to temptation. Paul, a giant among spiritual giants, missionary to virtually the entire Ancient Western world, and author of a large portion of the New Testament, admitted that he had not obtained perfection, and confessed that it was his perpetual struggle to pursue it. (Phil. 3:12-13)

It is indeed refreshing to see a number of sound and wise points put together in one chapter. But at the same time it is all the more dismaying to see this wisdom nullified by so many other points of unbiblical counsel. Also, the points of true wisdom found here concerning ignoring and avoiding temptation serve to nullify the entire prior chapter concerning temptation as a necessary “stepping stone” to spiritual maturity. The church sorely is in need of a voice of biblical wisdom and clarity. How tragic it is to see multiple millions turn instead to a book such as this.

Day Twenty-Eight - It Takes Time

With this chapter Mr. Warren brings to a close his discussion of what he considers to be the third purpose of human life, to become like Christ. Over the prior six chapters Mr. Warren painted a picture in which human life is engulfed in a process of becoming. Rather than the truth that we originally were created perfect and Christ-like, Mr. Warren suggested that God’s original purpose was for us to become Christ-like. This view accounts for our failure by suggesting that we have quite a lot of becoming yet to do. In truth, our current state of failure is due to the loss of our original Christ-likeness because of sin. Thus misconstruing the nature of our problem, Mr. Warren inevitably also misconstrues the remedy. He speaks of the Incarnation of Christ as him simply “entering into our suffering.” (p. 199) He also suggests that the death of Christ simply was an “experience” that we should expect to replicate. (p. 197) In such terms, Christ can at best be a role model rather than a Redeemer. Therefore, Mr. Warren characterizes the mind of Christ as an “outlook” and a “perspective” that we are advised to adopt. (p. 182) Of course, Mr. Warren speaks of God as having superior power and wisdom, but also states that God waits for us to act first (p. 175), claiming that our action “releases” or “unlocks” God’s power in our lives. (p. 174) Thus, Mr. Warren characterizes God and Man as having synergistic collaboration in a process of becoming.

The emphasis of the current chapter is that this process of becoming requires a lot of time - that in fact it requires a lifetime. In keeping with the notion that this process of becoming is supposed to be one of five purposes of human life, Mr. Warren declares that God “will use your entire lifetime to prepare you for your role in eternity.” (p. 222) A scheme of things that reduces the death of Christ to an “experience” and reduces the authority of God to an “outlook” or a “perspective” can accommodate no truly biblical idea of sin or of Redemption. As a result, Mr. Warren fails to distinguish clearly between sin and immaturity. It is granted that maturation is a process that occurs over time. However, maturity is not the entire issue with the failure of human life to measure up to Christ. To confuse sin and immaturity serves only to muddle both concepts.

For example, Mr. Warren cites Lane Adams, who compares the process of spiritual growth to the Allied strategy in the Pacific Islands during World War II. Mr. Warren declares, “The moment you open yourself up to Christ, God gets a ‘beachhead’ in your life.” (p. 218) This is meant to liken God’s work in human life to the gradual conquest of a hostile island. The point intended is that conquest is gradual rather than instantaneous. Mr. Warren adds, “You can only give God as much of you as you understand at that moment. That’s okay.” (p. 218) This illustration implies that obedience is gradual. The idea of a “beachhead” clearly indicates that God has no access to our lives except as we allow him. Mr. Warren plainly states his view that Christ “takes over” our lives gradually, over the course of a long process of great struggle. Any part or aspect of life that is pursued independently of the Lordship of Christ thereby is pursued in sin. Confusing sin and immaturity, Mr. Warren suggests that it is “okay” for one to live in sin until he is ready to surrender more territory to God.

Of course, if asked to speak on the matter in these terms, Mr. Warren no doubt would attest that sin is inexcusable and that immediate obedience is required. In fact, he already has stated as much. The reader may recall that back in chapter nine Mr. Warren expounded upon obedience as one of the things that makes God “smile.” A review of his argument on that point will be instructive for the current discussion. On page 72 he said, “God doesn’t owe you an explanation or a reason for everything he asks you to do. Understanding can wait, but obedience can’t. Instant obedience will teach you more about God than a lifetime of Bible discussions. In fact, you will never understand some commands until you obey them first. Obedience unlocks understanding.” On page 218 Mr. Warren states that we need understanding before we can obey; on page 72 he said that we need to obey before we gain understanding. Obedience is a matter of sin and repentance; understanding is a matter of maturity. The variation of his teaching regarding obedience and understanding is the result of his continued failure to distinguish properly between sin and immaturity.

On page 219 he appeals to the history of Ancient Israel as an example of God shepherding His people through a long process of maturation. He cites Deuteronomy 7:22 as indication that God “prefers to work in incremental steps in our lives.” In this text God declares to Israel at the beginning of their conquest of the promised land that that He would not drive out their enemies all at once, but “little by little.” In reality this text has nothing whatever to do with the point Mr. Warren wishes to make. It is plainly indicated in the text that the reason for the gradual removal of the enemy was so that wild animals would not grow numerous in the land before Israel could grow to occupy it all. This has nothing at all to do with God working incrementally in our lives to develop maturity, and so is not remotely a supporting text for such a notion. Moreover, the history of Ancient Israel is not a story of the gradual development of their character. It is a story of sin, disobedience, and failure, punctuated by the lives of those kings and prophets who exhibited repentance and obedience. By appeal to Ancient Israel for a precedent for gradual development, Mr. Warren once again confuses sin and immaturity.

Sin is a matter of law, and therefore a matter of obedience. Immaturity is a matter of growth and the cultivation of attributes. For example, telling a lie is a matter of bearing false witness, which is a matter of the ninth Commandment, and therefore a matter of sin. The Commandment requires instant obedience. One is not excused from obligation until such time as he has understood himself sufficiently to give his witness-bearing over to God. However, witness-bearing that is in conformity to the law still involves a matter of maturity. Faithfulness to the Commandment does not entail that one at all times and in every circumstance ought to make full disclosure to everyone of everything he knows. Maturity is a matter of cultivating the sense of knowing what to say when and to whom. “Like apples of gold in settings of silver is a word spoken in right circumstances.” (Pr. 25:11) The proper response to conviction of sin in one’s life is repentance. Repentance means to turn around and to go back. One cannot go onward from sin and eventually arrive at righteousness; one does not “grow” out of sin into righteousness. In contrast to this, the proper response to conviction of immaturity in one’s life is growth. One matures as he cultivates the nucleus of righteousness. Maturity is to go on from a basic character of obedience to develop out of this a more refined expedience. (I Cor. 10:23) One does indeed grow out of immaturity into maturity. Such growth is joyful and glorious. Paul said that he pined not for what lay behind as eagerly he pressed on toward what lay ahead. (Phil. 3:13)

Mr. Warren has so misconstrued the distinction of sin vs. immaturity that he presents quite a contrary view of spiritual growth. “Growth,” he says, “is often painful and scary. There is no growth without change; there is no change without fear or loss; and there is no loss without pain.” (p. 220) This idea of growth is a further example of Mr. Warren’s Yin and Yang tension of “becoming.” In this view, “becoming” occurs on a continuum at some point between nothingness at one extreme and absolute Being on the other extreme. Accordingly, the idea holds that the process of becoming is influenced by both extremes. Thus, Mr. Warren says, for example, that we cannot know God except through suffering (p. 194), that we cannot claim to be good unless we have been tempted to do evil (p. 203), and now he tells us that we cannot grow except through fear or pain. Contrary to this notion, God tells us that perfect love casts out fear, and that fear involves punishment. (I Jn. 4:18) Also, we learn that our final state abolishes pain, for it is classed among those things, like death, that shall pass away. (Rv. 21:4) Fear and pain are not necessarily avenues of growth or precursors to maturity. They are symptoms of the fall. Growth occurs as sin is abolished. Surely, Paul indicated that he “counted all things as loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord.” (Phil. 3:8) But the sort of loss he intends is the loss of refuse. He means the loss of the sort of “righteousness” deriving from fallen humanity, which amounts to “filthy rags.” (Is 64:6) The growth-change-loss scheme that Mr. Warren outlines may be true in a technical sense, however, one is not psychologically traumatized by the loss of rubbish. It is neither fear-inspiring nor painful to cast off that which hinders us from true devotion to God.

There is no doubt that maturity is acquired through a process of growth, and we readily can agree that in the typical case this growth occurs over a period of time. But saying this much is quite a different thing than saying that the whole of human life is a process of becoming that is preparatory to eternity. Much of what Mr. Warren says under the heading of maturity really belongs under the heading of sin, as he has not adequately distinguished between sin and immaturity. Thus, he ends up saying in effect that God is not in a hurry for our obedience and that real growth cannot occur except through sin. True biblical wisdom calls for immediate and unquestioned obedience to the law of God on the one hand, and on the other hand encourages cultivation of maturity. True biblical wisdom carefully distinguishes sin and immaturity, so that one is not encouraged to “confess” his temptations or to embrace fear and pain as partners in growth. When confronted with sin, we need to repent and go back; when confronted with immaturity, we need to press on and grow. Certainly, we all need to become like Christ. But, our premise in so striving is as sinners, having fallen in our first parents from an original perfection. Our motive in striving is the power of God in our lives as in His grace He bestows upon us the Redemption that is in Christ. So we always must in his Grace practice obedience and cultivate maturity. Mr. Warren’s discussions do not help us to understand these things or to practice them.

Day Twenty-Nine - Accepting Your Assignment

With this chapter Mr. Warren begins discussion of what he considers to be the third purpose of human life: to serve. With this emphasis, he takes the reader in a radically different direction vs. the prior seven chapters. There is enough practical wisdom in this book to instill in its readers a general confidence. However, the content is not developed systematically. Therefore, the nuggets of wisdom that may be found here and there float freely and deny anyone’s attempt to make a firm grasp of them. This difficulty already has been demonstrated a number of times, but as we progress through Mr. Warren’s purposes we see this disintegration demonstrated on a grand scale in that his purposes seem to clash with one another. Having confidently declared on page 173 that, “God’s ultimate goal for your life on earth is not comfort but character development,” he now tells us on page 227 that, “You were put on earth to make a contribution.” In the first case Mr. Warren is discussing a purpose to “become like Christ,” and the focus is upon the inner development of the self. In the second case he is discussing a different purpose that focuses outside the self.

It is true in a general sense that we ought to strive for continual improvement of character. At the same time it also is true, generally speaking, that we ought to be engaged in service of one kind or another. But the general sense in which these things are true provides us no insight into how, specifically, we might go about pursuing them. Nor does the general sense explain how these two purposes integrate. It certainly is a valid exercise to focus discussion upon sanctification or service alternately, in order to derive a more specific idea of each. But, such focus tends to abstract the ideas out of the integral unity in which they rightly cohere. Proper contemplation of each one will include deliberation of how each one integrates with the other in the larger system of Christian truth. One does not gain a completely true idea of character development without consideration of the service that his inner character would supply. Conversely, one cannot fully understand true Christian service without consideration of the personal qualities that must animate the minister. If care is not taken, one easily may end up with ideas of sanctification and of service that seem mutually exclusive.

Humanism cannot but to hold service and personal development in tension as conflicting ideals. In the modern world we see this tension exhibited in Socialism vs. Libertarianism. The ideal of Socialism is the “common good.” Socialism demands the individual to renounce personal ambition and to dedicate himself in service to humanity as a whole. The ideal of Libertarianism is the “freedom” of the individual. Libertarianism demands that the individual must be free of the tyranny of the majority to become whatever his potential will allow. It is not the present purpose to elaborate on the tension between Socialism and Libertarianism; it suffices only to note that in their respective concepts altruistic service and personal development are in conflict. The truly Christian ideas of service and sanctification are not in conflict, but integrate within the all-encompassing authority of the Word of God and the Lordship of Christ.

Mr. Warren’s treatment fits more into the Humanist idea of tension rather than the Christian idea of integration. It is granted that Mr. Warren does speak of integration. For example, on page 231 he says, “Jesus taught that spiritual maturity is never an end in itself. Maturity is for ministry! We grow up in order to give out.” These few sentences and the remainder of the paragraph are the sum of what Mr. Warren has to say about the integration of sanctification and service. These few words sound a theme that requires development. However, it is a theme that enjoys no development in this book. The bulk of Mr. Warren’s rhetoric is devoted not to Christian integration, but to Humanistic tension. His new emphasis appears to head toward integration. His remarks on page 231 serve to correct his errors on pages 173 and 177. However, what we find in this chapter as a whole is, in reality, not a correction, but a compensation. As we have had many prior occasions to note, Mr. Warren’s thesis fits best within a Humanistic outlook, in which everything exists in tension and errors require and compensate one another. On page 173 Mr. Warren wrongly asserted that character development is God’s “ultimate goal” for our lives. On page 177 he wrongly declared it a “simple truth” that, “God is far more interested in building your character than he is anything else.” Now, on page 231, he corrects these errors by declaring that, “spiritual maturity is never an end in itself.” Previously he had assigned “ultimacy” to sanctification. This was an error. Now, he takes away this ultimacy. The proper method of denying the ultimacy of sanctification is to integrate sanctification and service under the ultimacy of the Lordship of Christ. However, what Mr. Warren does is to deny the ultimacy of sanctification by means of ascribing ultimacy instead to service.

For example, he tells us on page 232 that, “We are only fully alive when we’re helping others.” In such a pseudo-profound formula, service is portrayed as the key that makes human life truly life. Thus ultimacy has been taken away from sanctification and has been ascribed instead to service. Also, on the same page he states in the most clear terms that, “It is through ministry that we discover the meaning of our lives.” Rather than truly being integrated with sanctification under the ultimacy of God, Mr. Warren wrongly raises service to a position of ultimacy as that which gives meaning to life. The error of having ascribed ultimacy to sanctification is not really corrected, but merely compensated by an offsetting error of ascribing ultimacy to service. And so begins yet another pendulum swing of the dialectical tensions that are characteristic of Mr. Warren’s book.

Mr. Warren guarantees the humanistic nature of his idea of service as he says, “We don’t serve God out of guilt or fear or even duty, but out of joy and deep gratitude for what he’s done for us.” (p. 228) Surely, there is great joy in Christian service, and surely, we must be seized by a deep gratitude for what God has done for us. However, these things never can replace or nullify the fear of God that must motivate our every thought and action (Jb. 28:28, Ps. 19:9; 111:10, Pr. 1:7; 9:10; 10:27; 14:26; 15:33; Ec. 13:13, etc.), nor substitute for the duty that we owe to God as our Creator and Judge. Joy is a consequence of Christian service, and gratitude is an experience derived from contemplation of our sin and of God’s grace in Redemption. As such, these never can replace the fear of God and our duty before God as the true and godly motive for Christian service. In suggesting that fear and duty may be replaced by the psychology of joy and gratitude, Mr. Warren only solidifies the Humanistic nature of his concept of service. In this conception, service is not a matter of obedience, but endures only so long as pleasant experience can be maintained. Mr. Warren has afforded himself six more chapters to flesh out his idea of service. We shall see whether perhaps a fuller treatment might give a more biblically refined idea of these things.

Day Thirty - Shaped for Serving God

As Mr. Warren further develops his concept of service, he further deepens the tension between it and his concept of sanctification. He devoted the entirety of Chapter 28 to expounding his idea that God is “never in a hurry.” (p. 218) Good fruit ripens slowly, he tells us. His conclusion is that God “…will use your entire lifetime to prepare you for your role in eternity.” (p. 222) Now we are told that from eternity past God designed and prepared each individual for a unique ministry that they are to fulfill in their lifetimes. “Before God created you, he decided what role he wanted you to play on earth. He planned exactly how he wanted you to serve him, and then he shaped you for those tasks. You are the way you are because you were made for a specific ministry.” (p. 234) Before, our whole lifetime is devoted to preparing for our role in eternity; now eternity prepared us for our role on earth that is to occupy our lifetime.

In the framework of such tension, there is the mistaken impression that the whole point of this life is preparation for the next (p. 36, 39), so that, “you will never feel completely satisfied on earth, because you were made for more.” (p. 50) This mistaken impression then is balanced by the compensating mistake that the whole point of this life is to make a contribution (p. 227), because, “It is through ministry that we discover the meaning of our lives.” (p. 232) In truth human life is neither fully devoted to preparing for eternity nor is it fully devoted to temporal service. Mr. Warren’s approach provides no true wisdom, but leaves the reader with only a constant struggle to try to find a balance between two opposing ideas. Given that Mr. Warren’s emphasis in this cyclical tension has shifted from the former mistake to the latter, this commentary accordingly turns to consider particularly his idea of service.

Mr. Warren announces that he has created the acrostic SHAPE to help us to remember the five factors he says determine our suitability for service. The letters of the acrostic signify Spiritual gifts, Heart, Abilities, Personality, and Experience. (p. 236) In the remainder of the current chapter Mr. Warren expounds upon the first two of these factors, reserving discussion of the rest to the following chapter.

In Mr. Warren’s SHAPE scheme, the S indicates Spiritual gifts. Rightly, he declares, “You can’t earn your spiritual gifts or deserve them…They are an expression of God’s grace to you.” (p. 236) However, it is apparent that he does not fully or accurately embrace the idea of the grace of God, as he subsequently declares, referring to spiritual gifts, “An unopened gift is worthless.” (p. 237) In order to grasp a fully biblical idea of the “spiritual gift,” it is necessary to appreciate the difference between two different Greek words that are translated “gift.”

One term is dorea, together with another derivative doron, from the root do. This means “gift” in the sense of offering or sacrifice. Employing this term, Redemption often is called the “gift” of God, for example in Jn. 4:10, Rom. 3:24; 5:17, Eph. 2:8; 3:7. The other terms is charisma, from the root charis, and means “gift” in the sense of grace bestowed. We see this sense of the term in, for example, Rom. 1:11; 11:29; 12:6, I Cor. 7:7; 12:4, I Tim. 4:14, II Tim. 1:6, I Pet. 4:10. The distinction of meaning between these two terms is not watertight, but is sufficiently clear to teach us that the spiritual gift is God’s sovereign endowment. It is the source of human power and initiative; it does not need to be “opened” by human power or initiative; nor by any human power or initiative can it be rendered “worthless.”

In Mr. Warren’s scheme of the worthless, unopened gift, the church is “cheated” when the spiritual gift is neglected. This is based upon his idea of the utter uniqueness of the individual. “If you don’t make your unique contribution to the Body of Christ,” he says, “it won’t be made.” (p. 241) This represents yet another example of how Mr. Warren’s purposes are in tension with one another. When his emphasis was upon the church, then the church became everything. In this context he told us that, “…none of us can fulfill God’s purposes by ourselves.” (p. 130) and that, “…the fellowship of the church is more important than any individual.” (p. 150) Now, his emphasis is upon the individual, and now, in tension with his prior view, the individual becomes everything. Now he tells us that each individual has a totally unique contribution to make, which he alone can make.

In reality, our sovereign God is able to bring His will to pass in human history. What He means to accomplish in the church will be accomplished. In His sovereignty and power He bestows gifts upon his children so they might minister in various ways. But no one is indispensable, and God depends upon no man or body of men for the accomplishment of His will. If one is negligent or unfaithful in service, God will raise up another to accomplish the ministry. It is true that many spiritual giants throughout history have had very great and unique ministries, and we are grateful for this and rely heavily upon their heritage. However, many others also have had ministries just as great, though with little or no notoriety or celebration. Also, we cannot say whether those whose ministries we celebrate rose to their prominence due to God’s providence in closing a gap left by a very gifted but unfaithful servant whose name we never knew. From the other end of things, it is an unbearable burden to be told that God expects you to make a totally unique contribution to the church and that if you do not make it, it will not be made. It is an unbearable burden because it is not true. Who knows how many, as a result of this book, will unknowingly forgo meaningful service that is within their grasp because they are engaged in a quest to discover that totally unique contribution that will give meaning to their lives. Granted, Mr. Warren emphasizes that the ideal of service often is fulfilled in common or menial things, but provides no guidance for one to discern whether the thing he sees a hundred other people doing might nevertheless be his “unique contribution.”

Mr. Warren concludes this chapter with a discussion of his idea of “heart.” Says he, “The Bible uses the term heart to describe the bundle of desires, hopes, interests, ambitions, dreams, and affections you have. Your heart represents the source of all your motivations.” (p. 237) He provides no Scripture reference for this assertion. His idea of heart is a great deal more elaborate than the actual biblical idea. In the Old Testament the term that usually is translated heart sometimes is translated kidney. Conversely, the term that usually is translated kidney sometimes is translated heart. In both cases the terms are of obscure origin, and they generally are understood to mean “inner man.” In the New Testament the term kardia sometimes is translated mind. The most that can be made of the biblical concept is to think of the heart as the religious seat of the inner man. Rather than consisting of the sum total of one’s desires, hopes, interests, ambitions, dreams and affections, the biblical heart consists of the core motive that explains why all these things are what they are. Mr. Warren came closer with his statement that, “Your heart represents the source of all your motivations.”

Mr. Warren considers the heart to be a factor in what “shapes” a person for service because, in his view, “Your heart reveals the real you.” (p. 237) He cites Proverbs 27:19 in support of such a view, “As in water face reflects face, so the heart of man reflects man.” His use of this Proverb implies the normalcy of the human heart. That is, he seems to assume that whatever is found in the heart will suit one for a particular service to God. In this view of things, the Proverb merely explains that there is a variety of outward service because there is a variety of what may be found in the heart. However, presupposing the normalcy of the heart does not alter the true nature of the heart - it only leads to a false view of man’s basic problem. The outlook here is very similar to what Mr. Warren expressed in Chapter 18, that the sum of our hurts, faults, feelings, failings, flaws, pain, trouble, etc. comprises “who we really are.” (p. 140) Rather than to see these things as our enemy, they are normalized as aspects of the “real” self. Likewise, in the current chapter Mr. Warren suggests that whatever is found in the heart comprises the “real” self and points to the proper avenue of service to God.

The biblical teaching concerning the human heart is quite contrary to this. In order to understand a truly biblical idea of the heart, it is necessary to come to terms with a truly biblical idea of sin, and this Mr. Warren never has done in this book. In the original ideal of Creation, the heart, as the religious seat of the inner man, was created in the image of God. Whatever arose in the heart in its original estate did, indeed, eminently suit the man for God’s service. But, man did not strive in his original estate. He willfully rebelled against the Law of God and thus fell into sin. And, sin corrupted the heart. The corruption of sin spoiled the human being and, indeed, spoiled all of nature (“cursed is the ground because of you” Gen. 3:17). In the estate of sin, what is found in the heart does not suit a man for God’s service, but suits him for God’s wrath. In the estate of sin the heart is deceitful and desperately sick (Jer. 17:9, see also Ecc. 9:3 and Mat. 15:19). In the days of Noah, “The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Gen. 6:5) Thus, God saved Noah and his family through the Arc, while bringing the judgment of death upon all mankind. Corresponding to the rescue of Noah, God determined in Christ that out of the mass of fallen humanity He would save His people from their sins.

By the prompting of God’s redeeming grace David is convicted of his sin (Ps. 51:5) and pleads, “Create in me a clean heart, O God.” (Ps. 51:10) Jeremiah delivered the Word of the Lord that His people would return to Him with their whole heart, for as the Lord said, “I will give them a heart to know Me.” (Jer. 24:7) This He accomplished in the death and burial and resurrection of Christ. For we who are in Christ, “…the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us, for while we were still helpless, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly.” (Rom. 5:5-6) “Now, He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.” (II Cor. 1:21-22) “And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying ‘Abba! Father!’” (Gal. 4:6) This grace of God in redemption shall banish from our hearts all sin, evil, pain, and suffering in eternity (Rev. 21:4). As we live out our lives on earth we still inhabit a corrupted earth and live among corrupted people, and, indeed, still suffer to a degree the corruption of our own nature in sin. The grace of God in our hearts does not immediately nor completely restore our hearts to the original ideal of Creation. The Spirit of God in our hearts gives us hope and power to build up righteousness amid corruption. We are sealed, not perfected. His Spirit is our pledge of the perfection to come. The expectation of temporal perfection is a grave mistake. God will “…establish [our] hearts unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints.” (I Thes. 3:13) Our perfection comes at the coming of our Lord. As we walk in this life, in the hope of this pledge and in the grace of redemption, it is God Himself in whom we trust and not in the heart. “Trust in the Lord with all your heart.” (Pr. 3:5) “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool.” (Pr. 28:26)

The foregoing presents a very sketchy summary of the biblical teaching concerning the heart, but it is sufficient to show that Mr. Warren’s teaching is a regrettable departure from it. He suggests that the heart possesses an inherent soundness and that “Listening to your heart” (p. 237) is a viable method of discerning your Christian ministry. A truly biblical teaching is that he who trusts in his own heart is a fool. A truly biblical idea is that the redeemed heart possesses not an inherent soundness, but an acquired soundness. The temporal heart may be redeemed, but is not perfected. The acquired soundness of the redeemed heart prompts greater and more consistent trust in the Redeemer, but never justifies trust in the heart itself. “Listening to the heart” is the way of Hollywood. The godly one devotes himself to listening to the Word of his God.

Day Thirty-One - Understanding Your Shape

In this chapter Mr. Warren continues discussion of the five factors he says determine one’s suitability for ministry. The emphasis in this discussion is upon the individual, and accordingly, the individual is considered to be utterly unique. “Only you can be you,” he tells us. (p. 241) It was pointed out in commentary of the prior chapter that this emphasis is in tension with the emphasis upon the corporate body of people that Mr. Warren had in view when discussing the church. In that discussion the individual was discounted and made subordinate to the corporate body. He told us in that context that, “…none of us can fulfill God’s purposes by ourselves.” (p. 130) Now, in the present context he is telling us that each individual has an utterly unique contribution to make, and, “If you don’t make your unique contribution to the Body of Christ, it won’t be made.” (p. 241) Commentary of the prior chapter discusses this tension in greater detail. Commentary of the present chapter shall focus upon Mr. Warren’s discussion of the remaining three factors indicated by his acrostic SHAPE: Abilities, Personality, and Experience.

The idea of ability is fairly straightforward. Mr. Warren provides a basic summary of the idea and urges his readers to use their abilities for the glory and the kingdom of God. It would seem that in the process of doing this Mr. Warren is mindful of the tension this poses with his earlier discussions, for he comments along lines that attempt to integrate his ideas of the individual and the church. He says, “Part of the church’s responsibility is to identify and release your abilities for serving God.” (p. 242) The suggestion here is that one’s abilities are bottled up in some manner and that it takes the church to “release” them. Similarly, Mr. Warren previously said that God’s power is bottled up in some manner and that it takes the individual to “unlock” it. (p. 174) In both cases the dynamic is the same: two parties are thought to exist in an essential correlativity; if one party is thought to be prominent, then this tends to imply that the other party is insignificant; significance is rescued for that other party by way of raising it up in prominence, but then this only tends to imply the insignificance of the first party; such insignificance cannot be accepted, so the emphasis shifts back to the first party, and the cyclical tension is perpetual.

In a prior discussion Mr. Warren attempts to rescue Man from insignificance by crediting him with power to alternately “block” or else “unlock” the power of God. In the present discussion, Mr. Warren attributes great prominence to the individual, who supposedly has an utterly unique contribution to make. Where would the church be if any particular individual chose not to make his unique contribution? According to Mr. Warren, a foregone contribution “won’t be made,” and so the church is “cheated.” The poor church is at risk of being reduced to insignificance vis-à-vis the sovereign individual, who alone has the power to determine what ministries will or will not occur in the church. But then here comes Mr. Warren to rescue the church from insignificance. While the individual is portrayed as utterly unique in his abilities and potential contribution, the church then is portrayed as having the controlling power to “release” the potential. So now, in the midst of Mr. Warren’s discussion of the individual, is the church regaining prominence? Is the individual now in danger of lapsing into insignificance? Mr. Warren again comes to the rescue. He says, “God has a place in his church where your specialties can shine and you can make a difference. It’s up to you to find that place.” (p. 243) In the scheme of Mr. Warren’s tensions, abilities come from God, but the individual must “unlock” God’s power, but the church still is necessary because it is the church that must “release” the abilities, but the individual still counts for something because it is up to him to determine what place in particular his abilities shall occupy. Given that Mr. Warren’s current emphasis is on the individual, the individual comes out of the tensions with a fairly strong prominence.

Mr. Warren continues his emphasis on the utter uniqueness of the individual with his discussion of personality. “When God made you, he broke the mold,” he says. (p. 245) His case for this is the fact that the number of possible combinations of DNA is greater than the total number of particles in the Universe. However, this implies that personality is a chemical effect. It also implies that whatever is found in the human personality is normal and the basis of godly service. These implications are quite unfounded in terms of truly Christian theology. The Christian will grant that DNA chemicals determine certain physical characteristics such as hair color, eye color, stature, and so forth. However, the Christian will deny that the sum total of what makes a person human is determined by DNA. Also, the bewildering variety of possible DNA combinations is uninteresting in a discussion of the uniqueness of the individual. DNA is the last thing that might account for the uniqueness of the individual. There may be virtually countless possible combinations of DNA, however, there are not virtually countless different hair colors or eye colors. Really, there is a fairly small set of different hair textures and colors, eye colors, skin colors, ear, nose, and lip shapes, statures, and proportions, and every one of five billion people fits into one of these very limited categories of physical characteristics. How many times have you heard it said that so-and-so looks exactly like [insert name of celebrity]? I cannot count how many times I have been told that I look exactly like a singer named Michael McDonald. Perfect strangers have stopped me on the street and asked, “Has anyone ever told you that you look exactly like Michael McDonald?” I think some of them were hoping I would answer, “I am Michael McDonald,” so they then could ask me for an autograph. I never heard of the fellow before people started telling me that, but now having seen his picture I have to agree there is a remarkable outward similarity. The point here is that what makes McDonald and myself unique individuals is not our DNA. Uniqueness of personality derives from immaterial factors. Personality is an aspect of the human soul. There really is no way to distinguish strictly between personality and heart.

The human soul or heart is corrupted in sin. As was elaborated in commentary of the prior chapter, the inner man cannot be trusted to present a sound direction or style of ministry. Mr. Warren says, “Like stained glass, our different personalities reflect God’s light in many colors and patterns.” (p. 246) There is, of course, some truth in this. However, the personality also reflects the corruption of sin in our lives. Due to this corruption, there are many ways in which our personalities present an obstacle to ministry. Francis Schaeffer had a volatile temper. This aspect of his personality did not “shape” him for ministry, but posed a difficulty that he had to overcome in order to accomplish his remarkable ministry. We cannot simply look into our “personalities” and take whatever we find there as evidence of what we are to do for God. Whether or not it “feels good” (p. 246) is not a reliable indicator of godly ministry.

Finally, Mr. Warren presents the factor of “Experience.” Everyone who ever applied for a job is familiar with the pedigree of “experience.” The experienced worker is more preferable than one lacking experience. It makes sense that one’s experience in life would tend to suit him for particular ministry. Mr. Warren catalogs a variety of areas of life experience, ranging from family and educational experience to work experience, spiritual experience, ministry experience, and finally painful experience. It is upon this last sort of experience that Mr. Warren fixates. He conjectures that it is the painful experiences that “…God uses the most to prepare you for ministry.” (p. 246) This priority of pain is reminiscent of a similar line taken in a prior chapter involving “real” vs. “fake” fellowship. Back in chapter 18 he told us that “real” fellowship involves being “honest” and “authentic” about who we “really are,” which means freely disclosing all about our hurts, feelings, fears, failings, mistakes, doubts, weaknesses, etc. In a similar manner he now suggests that, “God never wastes a hurt! In fact, your greatest ministry will most likely come out of your greatest hurt.” (p. 246) It is quite stunning how Mr. Warren has so suddenly changed the flow of his thesis. All through discussion of his “SHAPE” scheme over the last two chapters the focus has been upon the positive things that would suit one for ministry. Through the first four of the five factors in the “SHAPE” scheme he has argued that our spiritual gifting, our inner natural inclinations, and our natural abilities all work together to point the way into our best service to God. As he began to discuss the factor of experience, he listed several different areas of positive experience - what we learned growing up, our strengths in education, effectiveness on the job, meaningful spiritual experience, and history of prior successful ministry. But then he came to the element of “painful experience.”

Once having mentioned pain, now all of the positive encouragement of all of the prior two chapters is set aside. Now, in contradistinction to all of that, he tells us that “your greatest [emphasis in the original] ministry will most likely come out of your greatest hurt.” It will not come out of our greatest spiritual gifting. It will not come out of the greatest passion of our heart. It will not come out of our greatest ability. It will not come out of our greatest personality trait. It will not come out of our greatest experience. It will come, he insists, out of our greatest experience of pain. It will come out of our greatest hurt. All through discussion of his purpose number three - to become like Christ - Mr. Warren told us that the purpose of our whole lives was to prepare for our role in eternity by becoming like Christ. When he turned to discuss his fourth purpose - to serve others - he attempted to integrate these conflicting purposes by suggesting that, “Jesus taught that spiritual maturity is never an end it itself. Maturity is for ministry! We grow up in order to give out.” (p. 231) But now it is not our spiritual maturity, but our pain that equips us for ministry. “God intentionally allows you to go through painful experiences to equip you for ministry to others.” (p. 247) Is it not amazing how Evangelicals will stand on their heads and do back-flips syntactically in order to avoid saying that God causes us problems? “Intentionally allows” is oxymoronic. “Intentionally” is properly paired with what one causes or positively does, not with what one might merely “allow.” In the prior chapter, Mr. Warren confidently intoned that, “Not only did God shape you before your birth, he planned every day of your life to support his shaping process,” and that, “He would not give you abilities, interests, talents, gifts, personality and life experiences unless he intended to use them for his glory.” (p. 235) But when it comes to pain and hurt - the things that he now expects us to believe equip us for our greatest ministry - he cannot bring himself to say that God causes them. He must resort to grammatical gymnastics such as “intentionally allows.”

God “intentionally allows” us experiences of pain and hurt, Mr. Warren claims, because he wishes for us to “…understand a powerful truth: The very experiences that you have resented or regretted most in life - the ones you’ve wanted to hide and forget - are the experiences God wants to use to help others. They are your ministry!” (p. 247) Our pain is our ministry, he says. “People are always more encouraged when we share how God’s grace helped us in weakness than when we brag about our strengths,” he says. (p. 247) So much for, “God doesn’t waste abilities; he matches our calling and our capabilities.” (p. 244) Already, before the chapter is concluded, the tensions that necessarily must plague the sort of world that Mr. Warren hopes to create prompt one notion to dismantle another. He began discussion of his “SHAPE” scheme urging us to utilize our giftings and abilities to glorify God, and now he ends it by urging us instead to embrace our pain and hurt because God is more glorified in our weakness than in our strength. At this point we wonder why Mr. Warren did not spend these two chapters on “SHAPE” warning us that our giftings, abilities, and interests are distractions, that to emphasize them is only “bragging,” and that our real ministry is instead our pain and failure. We shall have occasion to elaborate on the dialectical tension of strength vs. weakness in commentary on the coming chapters.

Day Thirty-Two - Using What God Gave You

The dialectical tension that is characteristic of Mr. Warren’s ideas of God and Man is further illustrated in this chapter. He presents in the chapter heading a Danish proverb: “What you are is God’s gift to you; what you do with yourself is your gift to God.” (p. 249) In Mr. Warren’s outlook, God gives gifts to Man, and in correlation to this Man gives gifts to God. “God deserves your best,” he exhorts us. (p. 249) This is presented not as a matter of obedience, but as a matter of the etiquette of reciprocity. Repeatedly Mr. Warren declared that our compliance with the wishes of God is not a matter of duty, but the reciprocity of doing for God because of God’s doing for us. (p. 95, 228) The dynamic of such correlation is an imaginary force that plays out in an imaginary world in which pendulums sway to and fro. God has done His bit, we are told, and now it is up to us to do our bit. But, the pendulum cannot linger long at any one pole without soon becoming subject to pressure that would send it back whence it came. Such oscillations clearly may be traced through Mr. Warren’s exposition.

In order for us to give God our best, Mr. Warren tells us, it is necessary that we discover our “SHAPE.” The subsequent discussion basically rehashes his prior exposition of the five points of his “SHAPE” acronym. However, the more practical he seeks to become, the more the inner tensions of his scheme are provoked. “Begin by assessing your gifts and abilities,” he tells us, “Take a long, honest look at what you are good at and what you’re not good at.” (p. 250) Of course, mere introspection will not reveal Divine gifting, so immediately Mr. Warren’s plan undergoes alteration due to pressure. “Ask other people for their candid opinion,” he advises next. (p. 250) Of course, popular opinion is not infallible. Next, he advises that we check circumstantial evidence. “Where have I already been successful?” (p. 250) Additionally, he acknowledges the professional services of “spiritual gift tests and ability inventories,” but also offers a number of cautions. “Another problem,” he says, “is that the more mature you become, the more likely you are to manifest the characteristics of a number of the gifts.” (p. 250)

This last statement requires another reading: “Another problem is that the more mature you become, the more likely you are to manifest the characteristics of a number of the gifts.” The last part of that sounds like the solution: “The more mature you become, the more likely you are to manifest the characteristics of a number of the gifts.” But, Mr. Warren does not present this as a solution: he presents it as a problem! This is at first surprising, given Mr. Warren’s prior emphasis upon maturity. In discussion of his purpose number three - to become like Christ (chapters 22-28) - Mr. Warren focused upon maturity. In that section he argued that the whole purpose of our lives on earth was “character development” (p. 173) In chapter 23 he suggested that the essence of maturity was “thinking of others,” and that thinking of others was the “core” of Christianity. (p. 183) One would think that drawing upon such sweeping and forceful assertions Mr. Warren now would be primed to tell us that maturity was the key - that the nature of our spiritual gifting would emerge through our maturity. However, what we find is exactly opposite to this. Incredibly, he now tells us that maturity is an obstacle to discovering spiritual gifts. He acknowledges that with maturity comes the likelihood of manifesting spiritual gifts, but he considers this not to be a solution, but a “problem”!

Lest the reader suppose that there has been a typographical error, or that somehow Mr. Warren’s intended meaning failed to come through, Mr. Warren goes on in terms that are impossible to misconstrue, “You may be serving or teaching or giving generously out of maturity rather than because it is your spiritual gift.” (p. 250) Here he expresses unmistakably a radical contrast between maturity and the spiritual gift. It is a surprising sort of statement in a way, but really it is a consistent expression of a tension that already is well established in Mr. Warren’s writings. This tension is expressed succinctly on page 181, where he says, “God has given you a new life; now you are responsible to develop it.” In context of this remark, and in other places as well, Mr. Warren speaks of the “dual responsibility” and “collaborative effort” of God’s part and Man’s part. This same tension results in an essential conflict between Mr. Warren’s third and fourth purposes. His third purpose is maturity, which is said to be Man’s part. His fourth purpose is service. The present discussion involves God’s gifting, which equips us for service, and which is said to be God’s part. Thus, in Mr. Warren’s conception maturity and gifting have nothing whatsoever to do with one another, and in fact maturity is said to be a hindrance that interferes with discerning our gifting.

Where does this leave us in our quest to “discover our SHAPE”? Mr. Warren’s first thought was to take a long, honest look at ourselves; this did not seem sufficient, but getting the opinions of others does not settle the matter either; our track-record of service does not tell the whole story; professional “assessments” have their shortcomings; and the gifting we exhibit due to maturity is an outright “problem”! Now he says, “The best way to discover your gifts and abilities is to experiment with different areas of service.” (p. 250) “Many books,” he says, “get the discovery process backward.” (p. 251) He names no such books, but he paraphrases their backward message, “Discover your spiritual gift and then you’ll know what ministry you’re supposed to have.” This sounds very much like what Mr. Warren told us on page 250, “Begin by assessing your gifts and abilities. Take a long, honest look at what you are good at and what you’re not good at.” But then on the facing page he tells us that, “It actually works in the exact opposite way. Just start serving, experimenting with different ministries, and then you’ll discover your gifts…Don’t try to figure out your gifts before volunteering to serve somewhere. Just start serving.” (p. 251) So much for the “long, honest look.” He ends up in a position that is the “exact opposite” of where he started. He is aware of reversing the position of “many books,” but seems oblivious of reversing his own position on the facing page.

The imaginary pendulum began with us taking a long, honest look at ourselves. Before we had yet turned a page it already had swung over to the pole of “Don’t try to figure out your gifts…just start serving.” As Mr. Warren moves on in his discussion to consider “heart,” “personality,” and “experience,” we find the pendulum quickly undergoing pressure to flee this pole and cross back over to the other side. He quotes the “Bible” as saying, “Make a careful exploration of who you are and the work you have been given, and then sink yourself into that.” (p. 251) That sounds a great deal like the order of those “many books” that Mr. Warren says have it backwards. Paul is saying, according to the new, relevant, contemporary, millennium, century, today’s paraphrase that Mr. Warren chose to cite, that one first should “make a careful exploration of who you are…and then sink yourself into that.” The pressure builds. Then the topic turns to “experience.” Experience, says Mr. Warren, is one of those factors that determines our SHAPE. How long does it take to acquire experience? And, by “experience” Mr. Warren consistently means “pain, or failure, or embarrassment.” (p. 252) We never perceive the lessons of such “experience” immediately, he tells us. “Extracting the lessons from your experience takes time.” (p. 252) What is the procedure then? Does he now continue to tell us that the “many books” have it backwards? Does he tell us, “Don’t try to discern the lessons of your experience, just start serving?” No, indeed. The pendulum has completed its course back to the place where he began the discussion. The message now is, “I recommend that you take an entire weekend for a life review retreat, where you pause to see how God has worked in the various defining moments of your life…” (p. 252)

Through such oscillations Mr. Warren has made the spiritual gift a meaningless abstraction. “There are no definitions of the spiritual gifts given in the Bible,” he assures us, and elaborates that, “any definitions are arbitrary.” (p. 250) So, in his view of things one can teach, practice hospitality, exercise discernment, preach the Gospel, heal, etc. simply because he is mature, in contrast to doing such things because of spiritual gifting. The reason this poses a “problem” for Mr. Warren is because in this view of things there is a radical difference between one serving because he is mature and serving because he has been spiritually gifted, but there is no reliable way to discern this difference. In the end Mr. Warren can only say that we should not even try to figure out our spiritual gifting, but we should simply start serving and then our gifting shall become apparent. How may it be determined that a regimen of service is a solution that will reveal our spiritual gifting, but that maturity is a problem that will conceal our spiritual gifting? There is no way possible to determine such a question. It is totally arbitrary and we have nothing but Mr. Warren’s say-so at the root of it. Far from the gifts themselves being arbitrary, this is the real point of arbitrariness in his scheme of things.

In reality, maturity and spiritual gifting are integrally united in the human person. The exercise of spiritual gifts is not effective apart from maturity. At the same time, maturity is not contentless. Maturity is manifested in various qualities and characteristics. Spiritual gifts become evident in maturity. This is shown quite plainly in Paul’s lecture to the Corinthians concerning spiritual gifts and maturity (I Cor. chapters 12 through 14). The occasion for his lengthy address to them was because their fascination with spiritual gifts independent of maturity was causing problems. Contrary to Mr. Warren’s suggestion, it was not their maturity that caused them a problem discerning spiritual gifts; it was their immaturity that caused the problem. Indeed, in the 13th chapter Paul even holds up maturity as greater than the gifts. He speaks of the gifts as things that shall pass away, and says in verse 10, “when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.” The original Greek word that is translated “perfect” is teleios, which derives from the root telos, meaning end in the sense of completion or maturity. This same word is translated “mature” in many places. For example, in the following chapter, still in the midst of his exhortation concerning the spiritual gifts, Paul urges the Corinthians, “Brethren, do not be children in your thinking; yet in evil be babes, but in your thinking be mature.” (I Cor. 14:20). Following his statement in 13:10, that when the “perfect” comes, the partial will be done away, Paul develops the thought along the same lines of childishness vs. maturity. We see this same emphasis in Romans chapter 12. In verse 2 we are commanded to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, “that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect [teleios, mature].” Paul goes on in verse 3 to exhort us to have “sound judgment,” and this is the lead in to his discussion in verses 4 through 8 of the various members of the body who “have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.” (v. 6) We see this same thing again in Ephesians chapter 4. The various gifts (v. 11) are for the equipping of the saints (v. 12) unto a “mature man” (v. 13). “As a result,” Paul says, “we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even Christ…” (v. 14-15). Spiritual gifts are unto maturity, and maturity provides for the effective exercise of the gifts. Maturity is not the problem; it is the solution.

As he concludes the present chapter, a major emphasis of Mr. Warren is that one ought not to compare his “SHAPE” with others. He suggests, “There are two reasons why you should never compare your shape, ministry, or the results of your ministry with anyone else. First, you will always be able to find someone who seems to be doing a better job than you and you will become discouraged. Or you will always be able to find someone who doesn’t seem as effective as you and you will get full of pride.” (p. 253-254) It does not seem to occur to Mr. Warren that one might compare himself with another who is doing better and be inspired rather than discouraged. Nor does it seem possible to him that one might compare himself with another who lags behind and be motivated to help rather than to become filled with pride. His worry is that if one should compare and respond negatively, the experience would “rob you of your joy.” (p. 254) According to Mr. Warren, one should settle for the meager joy of mediocre ministry rather than the greater joy of the inspiration to excel. He cites a number of texts in attempt to make his position seem biblical. However, the texts are difficult to understand properly apart from detailed consideration of context, which Mr. Warren does not provide. At the same time he completely ignores numerous other texts that quite plainly prescribe comparison: I Cor. 4:16; 11:1, Eph. 5:1, Phil. 3:17, I Thes. 1:6-7; 2:14, II Thes. 3:7-9, Heb. 6:11-12. Another reason Mr. Warren urges avoiding comparison is that doing so makes one impervious to critique. He acknowledges that comparison invites critique, and his advice regarding critics is, “Ignore them.” (p. 254) In support of his view he quotes John Bunyan, “If my life is fruitless, it doesn’t matter who praises me, and if my life is fruitful, it doesn’t matter who criticizes me.” (p. 254) This is quite true, however, let the reader notice that “it doesn’t matter who criticizes me” is predicated upon “if my life is fruitful.” How may fruitfulness be measured? For example, is selling tens of millions of books a reliable measure of fruitfulness? If it is, then I suppose that Dan Brown, J. K. Rowling, and Rick Warren are beyond critique. However, while a fair indicator of popularity, book sales hardly corresponds necessarily to fruitfulness in the biblical ideal. Quite a lot of comparison and critique is needed in order to establish a claim to fruitfulness.

Day Thirty-Three - How Real Servants Act

In commentary of the prior four chapters it was noted that Mr. Warren’s current “purpose” of “service” presents a conflict with his previously elaborated “purpose” of “character development.” In his prior discussion he declared that God is “never in a hurry” (p. 218), and that “God gives us our time on earth to build and strengthen our character for heaven.” (p. 173) In his current discussion of “service” he now tells us, in conflict with his prior emphasis, that our time on earth is meant for making a unique contribution. (p. 227) The conflict of purposes arises from the failure to present the purposes in their truly biblical, integral unity. This failure also means that none of the purposes, as presented, can have any internal consistency. Such internal inconsistency already has been observed. For example, in his discussion of worship he told us on the one hand that “you are as close to God as you choose to be” (p. 99), and on the other hand that feeling distant from God is “absolutely vital” for our faith. (p. 109) In his discussion of the church he told us on the one hand that “the fellowship of the church is more important than any individual” (p. 150), and on the other hand that, “Restoring broken fellowship is so important, Jesus commanded that it even takes priority over group worship.” (p. 154) And in his discussion of sanctification he told us on the one hand that “temptations become a stepping-stone rather than a stumbling block,” (p. 201), and on the other hand, “Don’t carelessly place yourself in tempting situations. Avoid them.” (p. 215) Similarly, Mr. Warren’ s current discussion of service is internally conflicted.

Through the first four chapters of his fourth “purpose,” Mr. Warren has concentrated upon the notion of the unique contribution of the individual. “You were put on earth to make a contribution,” he began. (p. 227) “It is through ministry that we discover the meaning of our lives,” he assured us. (p. 232) “God wants to use you to make a difference in his world,” he declared (p. 233), and later emphasized, “If you don’t make your unique contribution to the Body of Christ, it won’t be made.” (p. 241) Toward such a noble end, he asserted with the greatest confidence, “God will never ask you to dedicate your life to a task you have no talent for … God doesn’t waste abilities; he matches our calling and our capabilities.” (p. 243-244). “God deserves your best,” he exhorted, “…he wants you to focus on talents he has given you to use.” (p. 249) He encourages us to avoid comparisons with others while we pursue these ideals, and instructs us simply to ignore critics. (p. 254) However, since such a notion is not rigorously biblical, it quickly results in conflicting notions, which the current chapter clearly exhibits. If everyone ardently is engaged in quest of his utterly unique ministry, then who is going to collect the trash and stack the chairs after a meeting? Mr. Warren acknowledges that such service is needed. (p. 258) But, who will perform it? It is absurd to suggest that stacking chairs after a meeting is an utterly unique contribution of an utterly unique individual, and that if such an individual fails to perform this service, then it will not be done. Such an absurdity would suggest that Mr. Warren’s notion of the utterly unique contribution must undergo correction. However, instead of correction, we find that the error merely is compensated with what turns out to be a conflicting error. Over-against the “shape” of the utterly unique individual, he speaks now of the “servant’s heart.”

Mr. Warren says, “While knowing your shape is important for serving God, having the heart of a servant is even more important.” (p. 258) On page 249 he told us that, “When you attempt to serve God in ways you’re not shaped to serve, it feels like forcing a square peg into a round hole. It’s frustrating and produces limited results. It also wastes your time, your talent, and your energy. The best use of your life is to serve God out of your shape.” Now, on page 258 he tells us, “God often tests our hearts by asking us to serve in ways we’re not shaped.” After stressing for four chapters the importance of “shape” as that which points the way to the ministry that will make us “fully alive” and through which we will “discover the meaning of our lives” (p. 232), he now tells us that having a “servant’s heart” is even more important and means that “often” we will be called upon to serve in ways that are contrary to our “shape”! Mr. Warren seems to acknowledge the tension of these opposing ideas. After declaring the superior importance of the “servant’s heart” over “shape,” he then almost immediately waffles with: “Your primary ministry should be in the area of your shape, but your secondary service is wherever you’re needed at the moment.” (p. 258) The “servant’s heart” is declared to be “more important” than “shape,” and in the immediately following paragraph “shape” is said to be “primary” and the “servant’s heart” is said to be “secondary.” Only in the flux of ideas that are in perpetual tension can the “more important” thing be labeled “secondary.”

Of course, “Heart” is one of the five major factors of the “SHAPE” acronym. What is the difference between the “heart” that is involved in the “shape” scheme and the “servant’s heart” that currently is under discussion? As was brought out in commentary of chapter 30, the biblical concept of “heart” is very general. The very most that can be said about “heart” is that it is the religious seat of the inner man. Consequently, there is no biblical basis for making fine distinctions such as “heart” in the “shape” scheme vs. “heart” in the sense of “servant’s heart.” Such a distinction is entirely arbitrary. It is incumbent upon Mr. Warren to elaborate his meaning, and this he sets forth to do. He discusses six characteristics that he says will animate what he calls the “real servant.”

The first of these characteristics is availability. Says he, “Servants don’t fill up their time with other pursuits that could limit their availability.” (p. 258) In the following paragraph he adds, “As a servant, you don’t get to pick and choose when and where you will serve.” (p. 259) The image we get is of someone who stands by ready to go anywhere at any time to do anything that is asked of him. Thus, Mr. Warren’s idea of the “real servant” enlarges to supplant his prior ideal of “SHAPE.” In the prior ideal, everyone must strive to discover his “SHAPE” so he can “dedicate his life” to making a “unique contribution” by “focusing on talents.” This was shown to be inadequate because it left no one to collect the trash or to stack the chairs. But, Mr. Warren cannot frame a solution to this inadequacy without the solution enlarging to become the total picture of servanthood to the exclusion of his prior ideal. Now he posits a concept of service in which everyone must avoid filling up his time so he will be available whenever menial tasks need to be done.

We see the further enlargement of the “real servant” concept in Mr. Warren’s discussion of his second characteristic. “Servants are always on the lookout for ways to help others,” he says. (p. 259) What the “real servant” does, he tells us, is to utilize his availability by constantly being on the lookout for little things to do for others. “You can begin by looking for small tasks that no one else wants to do. Do these little things as if they were great things, because God is watching.” (p. 259-260) Next, Mr. Warren tells us that, “Real servants do their best with what they have.” (p. 260) In his prior discussion Mr. Warren exhorted that, “God deserves your best.” (p. 249) Now, this high ideal is qualified. Now, excellence is labeled an “idol” (p. 260), and we are exhorted to follow the “good enough” principle, that, “It doesn’t have to be perfect for God to use and bless it.” (p. 260) The “real servant” idea further crowds out the “SHAPE” idea.

Fourth, Mr. Warren says that, “Real servants do every task with equal dedication.” (p. 260) In pursuit of the “SHAPE” ideal, Mr. Warren declared that, “God will never ask you to dedicate your life to a task you have no talent for.” (p. 243-244) This, of course, precludes stacking chairs. Acknowledging that a lot of tasks require no talent, Mr. Warren now cautions that, “God will never exempt you from the mundane.” (p. 260) However, since the “SHAPE” ideal was over-stated, that which now is brought in to compensate it likewise is overstated. So much was made of “SHAPE” in the prior four chapters that to compensate it to any extent serves to degrade it completely and to install in its place a competing ideal. It is not enough for Mr. Warren simply to remind us that having a “unique contribution” that “focuses on our talents” does not exempt us from the mundane. Now that the “real servant” ideal has supplanted the “SHAPE” ideal, the mundane becomes everything. “It’s a vital part of your character curriculum,” he tells us. (p. 260) In further support of the supremacy of the mundane, he goes on to tell us that, “Jesus specialized in the menial tasks that everyone else tried to avoid.” (p. 260) Thus, Mr. Warren has so enlarged his idea of the “real servant” that it has become for him the specialization of Jesus. It is true enough that Jesus came to serve, and that we ought to follow His example. But it completely misses the point of Jesus’ service to limit it to “menial tasks.” The menial or mundane, such as foot washing, was done as a type or an illustration of the great service Jesus rendered in taking our sins upon Himself on the cross. Apart from a truly biblical doctrine of sin, there can be no truly biblical doctrine of redemption. In this case, Jesus can be thought of as nothing greater than a role model who specialized in menial tasks and calls us to do likewise.

Mr. Warren concludes his discussion of the characteristics of the “real servant” with faithfulness and humility. There certainly is no quarrelling with such characteristics. However, Mr. Warren paints a picture of the available, dedicated, faithful and humble servant that leaves a lot of practical and logistical questions unasked and unaddressed. If everyone ardently is engaged in pursuing the ideal of the “real servant,” then who is in charge? In defense of his idea that excellence is an “idol,” Mr. Warren argues, “We would rather involve thousands of regular folks in ministry than have a perfect church run by a few elites.” (p. 260) Who directs the activities of the thousands of regular folks? According to Mr. Warren’s ideal God Himself is the director. “Your agenda will be whatever God wants to bring into your life,” he says. (p. 259) “When God puts someone in need right in front of you, he is giving you the opportunity to grow in servanthood.” (p. 259) “God will assign you whatever he wants you to do.” (p. 261) In this ideal, thousands of regular folks forgo filling their lives with activities so to remain available for service, and constantly are looking for opportunities to perform menial tasks, which they perform with complete faithfulness, as though they were great works, and God Himself supernaturally directs all of this activity without any human agency. This is a totally unrealistic vision with no biblical support.

In truth, God has instituted authorities in human society. Principally, God has instituted the authority of the parents in the family (Eph 5:22-6:4, Col. 3:18-25), the authority of the presbyters and deacons in the church (I Tim. 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), and the authority of the magistrate in the state (Rom. 13:1-7). In ultimate reality, God directs all things (Ps. 33:10-11, Pr. 16:4, 9; 19:21; 21:1, Is. 14:27; 45:7, Rom 8:28) ; in proximate reality, everything is to be done in decency and in order (I Cor. 14:40), according to the direction of the authority of human agency that is instituted by God. The idea of everyone doing just what he feels God has directed him to do is a sure prescription for chaos. If the masses are encouraged not to make any plans, but to be available on a moment’s notice to perform menial tasks, like Jesus, because a “real servant” does not get to pick and choose when and where he will serve, and are told that mundaneness is “vital” for their character development, and that they must not expect any recognition, but in fact must shun it - this is the surest prescription for the emergence of the elite that Mr. Warren claims to disdain,

Great pressure is exerted upon Mr. Warren’s untenable notion of the utterly unique contribution of the utterly unique individual. Compensating for the errors of this ideal, he ends up totally supplanting it with an equally untenable notion of the “real servant,” who has no plan and who, supposedly like Jesus, is totally dedicated to God “interrupting” his life with menial tasks. While service, i.e. ministry, rightly understood, is a legitimate and necessary pursuit of every Christian, Mr. Warren’s expose of service is not helpful. His discussion is so lacking biblical rigor and systematic consistency that it is no more than a trumpet producing an indistinct sound (I. Cor. 14:8)

Day Thirty-Four - Thinking Like a Servant

Mr. Warren continues his discussion of the “real servant,” and his notion of the “real servant” continues its conflict with his former idea of “SHAPE.” In his prior discussion, Mr. Warren discounted the mind. He told us on page 251, “Don’t try to figure out your gifts before volunteering to serve somewhere. Just start serving.” Now, his message is, “Service starts in the mind.” (p. 265) Along the lines of this new emphasis, Mr. Warren proceeds to expound upon five attitudes that he says characterize the mind of the “real servant.” In these discussions we note several points of consistency - indeed, even reiteration - of points that he made earlier. Consistency is a positive trend in a book that is filled with inner conflicts. However, it is regrettable that examples of consistency in Mr. Warren’s writing are on points that misunderstand or misconstrue the teaching of Scripture.

First, he says, “Servants think more about others than about themselves.” (p. 265) It certainly is a fine quality to think of others. However, self-less altruism is not the fundamental Christian ideal. It would seem to be a basic truth that the bedrock of Christianity is not to be found in self-less altruism, but it is necessary to make a point of it here because previously Mr. Warren stated that “thinking of others” is the “core” of Christianity. (p. 183) In the current chapter he states, “This is what it means to ‘lose your life’ - forgetting yourself in service to others.” (p. 265) He has enclosed the phrase “lose your life” in quotation marks, indicating that it is a familiar phrase. But, he includes no references indicating the source of the phrase. The phrase is familiar because it comes from a saying of Jesus that occurs often in the Gospels (Mat. 10:39; 16:25, Mk. 8:35, Lk. 9:24; 17:33, Jn. 12:25) Luke 9:24 is a good example of this teaching: “For whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake, he is the one who will save it.” Mr. Warren teaches that the phrase “lose your life” means “forgetting yourself in service to others.” (p. 265) It does not require great insight to understand that Mr. Warren’s teaching is contrary to Scripture. He would have Jesus to say, “Whoever wishes to save his life shall lose it, but whoever forgets himself in service to others, he is the one who will save it.” However, the meaning of Jesus’ saying is evident in His qualification, “for My sake,” and also in the parallel construction: whoever seeks his life will lose; and whoever loses his life will save. Clearly, to lose your life in the first clause cannot mean “forgetting yourself in service to others.” Jesus appeals to everyone’s innate desire to “save his life,” i.e., to preserve life rather than to perish, and states that the only means of doing this is to “lose your life” for His sake - i.e., in self-conscious sacrifice of life for the honor, glory, and praise of Christ, in dedication to His law, will, and providence. Mr. Warren cheapens the truly biblical idea of “lose your life” in the current chapter, even as previously he cheapened the Gospel by declaring its “core” to be merely “thinking of others.”

Next, Mr. Warren declares that, “servants think like stewards, not owners.” (p. 266) This also is a theme previously discussed. (p. 44f) Again, his current discussion proceeds in consistency with his prior discussion. Here he reiterates the idea that “God owns it all,” (p. 266) and that we hold this world’s goods in “stewardship” under God’s “ownership.” Commentary of Mr. Warren’s prior discussion pointed out that this outlook fails to provide for any kind of economic reasoning. One must admit the reality of human ownership of property in order to think and to act economically. But, the simple-minded platitude of Mr. Warren does not provide for the reality of human ownership. The reader may consult commentary of chapter 5 for a fuller discussion of this matter. Here it is important to note that in both his prior discussion and the current chapter, the major issue is the same. On page 46 he challenged, “Is the way you manage your money preventing God from doing more in your life?” Now, on page 267, he declares, “How you manage your money affects how much God can bless your life.” The ownership / stewardship scheme involves the unbiblical notion of the correlativity of God and Man. This correlativity in turn involves the tension of God on the one hand having the power to bless Man, and Man on the other hand having the power to “prevent” or “allow” God to bless. The biblical truth is that God is owner in the sense of Creator, and that analogous to this Man is owner in the sense of producer. The biblical ideal is for Man to own God’s property after Him. In terms of this ideal, the main concern is not whether human dealings with property prevent or oblige God’s blessing, but whether human dealings with property fulfill or violate God’s Law.

Third, Mr. Warren asserts that servants, “…don’t compare, criticize, or compete with other servants or ministries.” (p. 268) This as well is a reiteration of themes previously expounded on pages 253f and 163f. The reader is referred to commentary of chapters 21 and 32 for fuller discussion of this theme. What is important to repeat here is that Mr. Warren himself acknowledges not only the inevitability but also the duty of criticism. He declares on page 150 that, “God is very clear that we are to confront those who cause division among Christians.” This is very true. However, the important point left out of his discussion is, “By what standard?” Who is to say who is the one causing division? When Elijah met Ahab (I Ki 18:17-18) Ahab accused him of being the “troubler of Israel.” Elijah protested that, indeed, it was Ahab who was the troubler of Israel. Who was the troubler of Israel? Ahab pretended to be a standard unto himself. Elijah was a prophet declaring the standard in the Word of the Lord. The reader is left with no doubt at all concerning the identity of he who troubles Israel. The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by Suzanne Sataline that discusses splits and declining attendance in churches that have adopted the “Purpose-Driven®” model. The text of this article is available here. Who are the ones causing division in these churches: the ones who pushed for the “Purpose-Driven®” model, or the ones who opposed it? Mr. Warren declares that criticism is “the Devil’s job” (p. 164) But, he also declares that it is our duty to confront “divisive” people, even if it means they leave the church, because “the fellowship of the church is more important than any individual.” (p. 150) Again, the all-important question must be posed: By what standard? This is a question that Mr. Warren evidently did not see fit to address, but it is a question that any serious reader must not fail to address.

Fourth, Mr. Warren says that, “Servants base their identity in Christ.” (p. 269) There is a very rich Bible study that may be undertaken on the theme of our identity in Christ. However, instead Mr. Warren couches the idea of “identity” in “self-image” and “security.” Biblically, identity in Christ means that God identifies us with the righteousness of Christ instead of the sin of Adam (Rom. 5:12-21, I Cor. 15:21-22, II Cor. 5:21, etc.) Contrary to this, Mr. Warren summarizes the matter as follows: “If you’re going to be a servant, you must settle your identity in Christ. Only secure people can serve.” (p. 269) His point is that a servant must derive his security from his status in Christ rather than from the service itself. There is a formal sense in which this is true. However, the content that Mr. Warren develops does not fulfill the formal potential. His idea of our identity in Christ has nothing to do with sin and redemption. His whole concept is that Jesus had a good self-image and so we also may have a good self-image. Consistent with his notion of the prior chapter that, “Jesus specialized in menial tasks,” (p. 260), he returns to the episode of Jesus washing His disciples’ feet. Says he, “Jesus knew who he was, so the task didn’t threaten his self-image.” (p. 269) Mr. Warren seriously seems to understand this text as concerning only that the disciples had dirty feet and needed them to be washed. In his view, the only lesson we derive from the text is that Jesus had a good self-image and therefore was not “threatened” by the prospect of doing some foot-washing. In truth this text has nothing at all to do with feeling “threatened” or “secure” or having a good “self-image.” Clearly, Jesus’ foot-washing was an object lesson for the disciples. If there was nothing in view except the practical necessity of cleaning some feet, the washing would have been done before dinner, as the disciples arrived, rather than after dinner. Instead, Jesus specifically stated that His point in washing the disciples’ feet was to demonstrate to them the humility and attitude of service they ought to cultivate. This is yet another example of how Mr. Warren uses pop-psychology to interpret Scripture rather than using Scripture to interpret psychology.

Finally, Mr. Warren asserts that, “Servants think of ministry as an opportunity, not an obligation.” (p. 270) A number of times before he declared that our service ought not to be motivated by duty (p. 95, 228) Since Mr. Warren couched the lesson of Jesus’ foot-washing wholly in terms of psychology, he missed Jesus’ own clearly stated point, “If I then, the Lord and Teacher, washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet.” (Jn. 13:14) Jesus plainly states that we “ought” to serve, that is, that we have a duty and an obligation to serve. Mr. Warren attempts to romanticize service by supposing to remove all sense of obligation. His view poses a contrast between joy and obedience. Such a contrast is inevitable in a conflicted world in which the elements of life cannot be integrated. In such a world it is necessary that a mythical pendulum must sway to and fro between opposites that must co-exist but cannot be brought together. In such a world obedience destroys joy. In such a world joy precludes duty. In the present chapter duty is held at bay so that there might be joy. But, in chapter 9, back on page 72, joy was made subservient to obedience. The emphasis then was upon “instant obedience.” In true Christian orthodoxy, joy and duty are integrally united in the system of God, the Creator, Man, the creature who has fallen into sin and who has been redeemed in Christ. Lacking a clear and biblical idea of sin, Mr. Warren cannot frame a truly biblical idea of joy or of duty.

Day Thirty-Five - God's Power in Your Weakness

With the current chapter Mr. Warren concludes his discussion of what he considers to be the fourth purpose of human life - to serve. These commentaries have shown Mr. Warren’s fourth purpose to be in essential conflict with his third purpose. According to his third purpose, the whole of human life is to be devoted to character development in preparation for a role in eternity. According to his fourth purpose, eternity has prepared each one with unique gifts and abilities so the whole of human life may be devoted to making an utterly unique contribution. True concepts of discipleship and ministry are not in conflict with one another, but are integrally related in a unified system of Christian truth. Thus, the inner conflicts of a system prove that its elements cannot be rightly construed. Mr. Warren’s misconception of service is demonstrated most dramatically in the current chapter. Just as his idea of ministry has no systematic consistency with his idea of discipleship, so neither does it have any internal consistency.

Earlier in his discussion of ministry, Mr. Warren advanced the notion of the utterly unique individual, who is suited to make an utterly unique contribution, which, if any individual fails to make, then it will not be made. (p. 241) On the basis of such a notion he confidently declared that, “God will never ask you to dedicate your life to a task you have no talent for…God doesn’t waste abilities, he matches our calling and our capabilities.” (p. 243-244) This unique contribution is to be pursued, he assured us, according to our “SHAPE,” which he says is our unique set of gifts, passion, and abilities. God “…wants you to focus on talents he has given you to use,” he declares, and cautions, “when you attempt to serve God in ways you’re not shaped to serve, it feels like forcing a square peg into a round hole.” (p. 249) But, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since those discussions. In order to compensate his unbiblical and untenable idea of “SHAPE,” Mr. Warren advanced his equally unbiblical and untenable idea of the “real servant.” After assuring us on page 249 that, “The best use of your life is to serve God out of your shape,” he later declared on page 258 that being a “real servant” is more important than knowing your “SHAPE” and that, “God often tests our hearts by asking us to serve in ways we’re not shaped.” The result of this new emphasis is to leave us where things stand in the current chapter, which is a complete reversal of his position at the outset of this discussion six chapters ago.

At first, his emphasis was upon our abilities. “God has a place in his church where your abilities can shine and you can make a difference,” he told us. (p. 243) “What I’m able to do, God wants me to do,” he stressed. (p. 243) Now, his message is, “God loves to use weak people.” (p. 272) Mr. Warren could not paint a completely comprehensive picture of human ability signaling the call of God. Compensating for the shortcomings of such a view, he now has come to a contrary position that not only glorifies human weakness, but also goes so far as to disparage human ability. He says, “Our strengths create competition, but our weaknesses create community.” (p. 277) At one point Mr. Warren advised us to pursue our strengths because he considered ability as a natural pointer to God’s calling. Now he is telling us that strength is a liability and that we ought to “glory in your weakness.” (p. 277) However, neither can he paint a completely comprehensive picture of human weakness signaling the call of God. Let us press on to evaluate Mr. Warren’s idea of the nature and significance of human weakness.

Mr. Warren seems drawn to paradox. For him, the power of God is particularly exhibited in human weakness. Consequently, he makes much of Paul’s comments regarding a “thorn in the flesh” in II Corinthians 12. Mr. Warren declares, “A weakness, or a ‘thorn’ as Paul called it, is not a sin or a vice or a character defect that you can change, such as overeating or impatience. A weakness is any limitation that you inherited or have no power to change.” (p. 273) Surely, Paul referred to his weakness as a “thorn,” however, in the very same breath he also referred to it as a “messenger of Satan.” Also, in biblical imagery the “thorn” universally is a symbol of evil. The thorn is a major aspect of God’s curse on the earth because of our sin. (Gen. 3:18) Mr. Warren wishes to present an idea of weakness that has nothing to do with sin. However, a truly biblical idea of weakness has everything to do with sin. For Mr. Warren a weakness is simply a “limitation,” and he assures us with his characteristic jingoism that, “God is not limited by our limitations.” (p. 273) The irony is that only five sentences later he intones, “God will use us if we allow him to work through our weaknesses.” (p. 273) For Mr. Warren, God never is limited by our limitations, but evidently God is limited by our will. As he said also on the facing page, that our attempting to suppress our weaknesses “…prevents God from using them in the way he desires.” (p. 272) He suggests that God can do anything He pleases, but only if we “allow” Him to do it!

In discussion of weakness it is important for us to grasp the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian idea of weakness. In the non-Christian view, Man is not the creation of God, and therefore Man’s current state reflects what he always has been. Hence, for the unbeliever, weaknesses are ingrained in his basic nature. Contrary to this, the Christian admits that Man is the creature of God, made in His image, and made originally “very good.” (Gen. 1:31) The Christian admits further that Man fell into sin from his state of original goodness, and as a result the integrity of his being, in all of its attributes, was corrupted. (Gen. 3:17-19) This means that we must assess weakness on two different levels. There is what may be called “weakness” of one person’s skill or ability vs. another person. One person’s athletic ability may be considered weak in comparison to that of another person. This is a subjective idea of weakness. Distinct from this there also is “weakness” in the sense of defect. The term used in the New Testament: asthenes (and derivatives) has this latter meaning. Literally, it means without strength. Often it is translated sick or sickness. A sickness is a defect or a corruption of the human nature. This is an objective idea of weakness. A person who is sick is not weak in comparison with some and strong in comparison with others - he is weak in comparison with any healthy person and even in comparison with himself in a state of health. His sickness is weakness in comparison with an objective standard of health. In the non-Christian idea all weakness is subjective because all weakness is an aspect of the normal human nature. In the Christian idea weakness is at bottom objective. The essential concept of weakness involves defect, which arises from sin. Clearly, Mr. Warren’s idea of weakness aligns with the non-Christian view.

Whereas Mr. Warren relies heavily upon II Corinthians 12:7-10 in his effort to make his idea seem Christian, it will be most instructive to examine this text in depth. This text is a prime demonstration of the fact that “context” means something quite a bit larger than just the immediately surrounding verses. In order to understand correctly what Paul is getting at in chapter 12, one must pick up the discussion beginning as far back as chapter 10. In chapter 10 Paul provides the Corinthians with a defense of the harshness of his letters as compared to the unimpressiveness of his personal presence. This exercise entails some degree of what only may be regarded as boasting. This, further, necessitates a defense - or a theology - of boasting. He cites Jeremiah 9:24 and concludes, “For not he who commends himself is approved, but whom the Lord commends.” (II Cor. 10:18) Having made a case for his stature among them, Paul presses on in most delicate and diplomatic terms to warn the Corinthians of the “false apostles” (11:13) who had been capturing their attention in his absence. He announces to them at the outset that his is a course of “foolishness” (11:1). He pauses at various junctures to reiterate: “I am not speaking as the Lord would, but as in foolishness” (11:17); “I speak in foolishness” (11:21); “I speak as if insane” (11:23). Why speak to them in this manner? Why not forsake foolishness and insanity altogether? It was because of the boasting of the false apostles that the Corinthians were swayed toward them. These false teachers created a situation in which Paul could not denounce them and warn the Corinthians concerning them without appearing to enter into competition with them. Part of what Paul condemned in them was their boasting. How may he condemn them without exhibiting the very same offense that he condemned in them? How may he appeal for the Corinthians to return their devotion to his teaching without seeming to out-boast the others? “Boasting is necessary, though it is not profitable,” he declared (12:1) It was necessary for him to counter the allure of the false apostles by re-asserting his authority among the Corinthians. This he could do only by recitation of his credentials, which only could be construed as boasting. However, Paul could not make a pure case for himself. Though he was caught up into heaven and beheld inexpressible revelations, still he was not a man of unadulterated purity. The false apostles might have presented themselves as flawless, but Paul could not. “If I have to boast,” he said, “I will boast of what pertains to my weakness.” (11:30) Plainly, he asserts that his “thorn in the flesh” was a “messenger of Satan” for the purpose of keeping him from exalting himself (12:7). Though it was his perfectly legitimate prayer for this “thorn” to be removed, the answer he received was that God’s grace was sufficient in the midst of this weakness. (12:9). God told him that “…power is perfected in weakness.” (12:9) Paul summarized the matter, “Therefore I am well content with weaknesses, with insults, with distresses, with persecutions, with difficulties, for Christ’s sake; for when I am weak, then I am strong.” (12:10)

What we must see in this first of all is the Christian idea of weakness. Paul classed weaknesses along with insults, distresses, persecutions, and difficulties. He expressed that it was his heart’s desire to be free of these things. The right-thinking person does not seek out such things and “glory” in them. Next, we then correctly may discern the Lord’s assertion that “power is perfected in weakness.” In terms of a non-Christian idea of weakness, such a statement declares the Yin and Yang give and take of mutually opposing - and mutually necessary - forces. This view holds that power has no existence apart from weakness, for apart from weakness power could not be known to be power. In terms of a Christian idea of weakness, this statement means something very different. The reason that God’s grace is sufficient is not because Paul’s weakness is a prerequisite for the reality of God’s power. God’s grace is sufficient because God’s power is omnipotent in the universe. The idea that God’s power is “perfected” in weakness means that weakness simply constitutes a further occasion of the exercise of His power. God’s power is at work in any case, just as it was in original creation, when everything was “very good.” The corruption of everything in sin cannot skew God’s power from His course or objective. Corruption simply constitutes an occasion for the greater exercise of power in overcoming a rebellion against God’s course and objective. This hardly makes weakness necessary for the realization of God’s will. Paul can say “when I am weak, then I am strong” as a concise expression of the truth that when weakness has neutralized the best that fallen human power may achieve, then accomplishment of God’s will may be credited only to the power of God’s grace at work in us.

The missing factor in Mr. Warren’s exposition is sin. This has been the missing factor from the beginning. If sin properly had been taken into account, Mr. Warren never would have suggested that we might look within ourselves, “listen to our hearts” (p. 237), and thereby discern what we might do in service to God. For, taking sin into account would have precluded natural ability and natural inclination being esteemed automatic indicators of godliness. Lacking this proper understanding, Mr. Warren attempted to make natural ability and natural inclination (he called it HEART) everything. But soon it became apparent that this was impractical, because if everyone is out following their HEART, it leaves no one to collect the trash or to stack the chairs. So, compensating for this discrepancy, he then suggested that weakness is everything instead. But here again the factor of sin is not taken into account. For Mr. Warren, weakness is simply a “limitation.” Now, instead of our abilities pointing the way to godly ministry, it is our weaknesses that point the way, and weakness is exhibited in pain and failure and hurt. If sin properly had been taken into account, Mr. Warren never would have declared, “Your greatest life messages and your most effective ministry will come out of your deepest hurts.” (p. 275) Properly taking sin into account would have shown weakness to be basically the consequence of defect. A truly biblical approach to these things views our natural abilities as God-given but corrupted in sin, and views our weaknesses as stemming from this same corruption. We cannot implicitly trust in our abilities or “listen to our heart.” Neither can we “glory in our weaknesses.” These ideas form a perpetual tension in which each requires the other (due to the irresolvable errors in each) and in which they never can be systematically united. The only systematically coherent outlook is the truly biblical Christian idea of God, the Creator, who made Man in His own image, and of Man, who fell into sin and corruption, and of redemption in Christ, in which our interests and abilities are redeemed through the power of His grace in our lives.

Day Thirty-Six - Made for a Mission

Mr. Warren speaks of his purposes as though each one were most important. This trend is continued now as he takes up discussion of his fifth purpose: missions. “You were made for a mission,” he declares (p. 281). “Nothing else you do will ever matter as much…” he assures us. (p.284) Throughout this book we have been presented with a series of various things, each one of which in its turn was presented as the “most important” thing, than which nothing matters more. Such a procedure guarantees the deficiency of the presentation, for the accuracy of any one assertion of preeminent importance only proves the spuriousness of all other such assertions. Of course, it is possible that all such assertions are mutually inaccurate. Mr. Warren’s current assertion is that our mission is that which matters most, indeed, that our mission is that for which we were made.

By mission Mr. Warren means outreach to the world. He explains, “Your ministry is your service to believers, and your mission is your service to unbelievers.” (p. 281) There is no doubt that Christ has mandated the church’s mission to the world. However, considerable discussion may be undertaken concerning the particulars of this mission. Of what does such a mission consist? What is its nature and message? Mr. Warren elaborates his view of the mission of the church. “The mission Jesus had while on earth is now our mission because we are the Body of Christ. What he did in his physical body we are to continue as his spiritual body, the church. What is that mission? Introduce people to God!” (p. 282) Again he says, “Your mission is a continuation of Jesus’ mission on earth. As his followers, we are to continue what Jesus started.”

In Mr. Warren’s view there is a single mission of the church, which is the continuation of the single mission of Jesus. This mission he describes in the most nebulous terms as, “Introduce people to God.” However, there is a problem inherent in this presentation of the matter. It was Mr. Warren’s concern to characterize Jesus as devoting His whole life to His mission, as he now calls the church to devote herself to this same mission. In this connection he cites Jesus’ saying in John 19:20, “It is finished,” as a concluding “bookend” of a “well-lived, purpose-driven life.” (p. 282) Such a text is very useful in demonstrating that Jesus was occupied with His mission to the very end, however, it suggests to the reader that His mission was “finished,” i.e. accomplished. How, then, can the church be charged with continuing a mission that is “finished”? Mr. Warren does not entertain such a question. At the top of page 282 he cites Jesus declaring that His mission is “finished,” and near the bottom of the same page he urges the church “to continue what Jesus started.” Was Jesus’ work finished, so that we cannot possibly continue it? Or, did Jesus begin a work that now is our responsibility to continue? This dilemma is guaranteed by an outlook that presumes a simple singularity of Jesus’ mission. But, is this singularity warranted? A survey of the biblical texts reveals the plurality of Jesus’ works. In one sense He started a work that we are to continue. In another sense He completed a work that is utterly unique in human history and that cannot be replicated or continued. Mr. Warren’s discussion suffers gravely from his failure to acknowledge this distinction.

First, let us look at the sense in which the church must continue the work that Jesus started. As we survey the Gospels, we see a variety of activities in the life of Christ. He taught the multitudes, performed signs and wonders, proclaimed the Kingdom of God, healed diseases and infirmities, debated with Scribes and Pharisees. Peter summarized such activity by saying that Jesus “went about doing good.” (Acts 10:38) Peter also said that Jesus was an example, and that we ought to “follow in His steps.” (I Pet. 2:21) Jesus Himself said, “…he who believes in Me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go to the Father.” (Jn. 14:12) Surely, not only is it possible that we continue this work of Jesus - we are commanded to do so. The church, like Jesus, must “go about doing good.” There is much good that can and must be done in teaching, healing, proclaiming, and even in debating with the established religious and political leaders of the day. This Jesus did, and He calls us to do these works and even greater works. Supremely, there is the work of the church in bearing witness to Christ and proclaiming His Gospel throughout the earth. (Mat 28:18-20, Acts 1:8) It is in contemplation of this latter work that we turn to consider the unique work of Jesus, that is finished, accomplished, and cannot be continued.

Jesus spoke at length with His disciples at the last supper, instructing them and encouraging them in many things. Just prior to going out and being apprehended by the Roman cohort, He concluded with a lengthy prayer to the Father on their behalf. John 17:4 is in the preamble of this prayer. Jesus prayed, “I glorified Thee on the earth, having accomplished the work which Thou hast given Me to do.” Here there can be no mistake. Jesus plainly declares that the work itself is finished. It is “accomplished.” The term in the original Greek is a derivative of telos, which means end in the sense of fulfillment. Another derivative of telos occurs also in John 19:28, “After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, in order that the Scripture might be fulfilled, said, ‘I am thirsty’” It is two verses later that He utters “It is finished,” which also employs a derivative of telos. Clearly, Jesus refers to a finished, completed, fulfilled, accomplished work - a work that the Father had given Him to do, and that He glorified the Father by accomplishing. There is no sense in which His followers will “continue” this work. What is this work? It is His work of Atonement whereby He redeemed us from our sins.

Mr. Warren speaks only generally, singly of Jesus’ work in the body. Says he, “What he did in his physical body we are to continue as his spiritual body, the church.” (p. 282) As noted above, there is much good that Jesus did in the flesh that He calls us to continue doing. However, consideration of such things hardly exhausts the works He accomplished in the flesh, and disregards that work for which the Father sent Him into the world: the redemption of His people from their sins. In speaking of the works that Jesus accomplished in the flesh, it is a grave injustice to omit propitiation for sin. Paul said, “He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death.” (Col. 1:22) Peter said, “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross.” (I Pet. 2:24) The finished work that Jesus accomplished in His body was to bear our sins upon the cross. This is a completed work, meaning that redemption is an accomplished fact. There is no sense in which the church may “continue” this work, meaning that there is nothing the church or any man can add to the work of redemption.

In the most charitable light, a call for the church to “continue” the work that Jesus “started” has reference to various relief efforts of teaching, feeding and healing. However, in support of his call, Mr. Warren cites five texts of Scripture (Mat. 28:19-20, Mk. 16:15, Lk. 24:47, Jn. 20:21, Acts 1:8) in which Jesus charges His disciples with bearing witness to Him throughout the world and making disciples of all the nations. This preaching of the Gospel is not a work that Jesus “started” and that we are to “continue.” Rather, it is predicated upon the work that Jesus “finished” upon the cross, in testimony whereof He rose up from the dead. Mr. Warren’s idea of church missions is so ill-defined that everything the church might do, as everything he characterizes Jesus as having done, falls under the single umbrella of “introduce people to God.” Such a view necessarily fails to understand the biblical truth of these things, for it either suggests that Jesus’ mandate to the Apostles was to “go about doing good,” or else it suggests that He began a work on the cross that now we are to continue. Either way, the truth of the matter cannot be rigorously understood or applied. Mr. Warren’s nebulous generalities fail properly to distinguish the work that the church continues to do from the work that Jesus accomplished and completed.

The basic premise that is implied in the phrase “introduce people to God” is that some kind of estrangement exists between Man and God such that both mutually yearn for the other and such that both would benefit from an introduction. Repeatedly, we have seen Mr. Warren suggest just such an estrangement in prior passages of this book. We have seen that he represents Man’s basic problem as being “disconnected” from God and thereby wandering through life without a purpose, but that God wishes to give us a “fresh start.” (p. 28) He represents God’s word as a “view of life” that the Bible “offers” for our consideration. (p. 42) He told us that the reason Jesus came to earth is so we could “fully understand God’s glory.” (p. 54) He told us that the only way of pleasing God is by being ourselves. (p. 75) He told us that God so benefits from the enjoyment we provide that He would rather die than to live without us. (p. 79) He assures us that, “God doesn’t expect you to be perfect,” (p. 92) and instead maintains that, “God is not mad at you; he’s mad about you.” (p. 98) Eventually he comes around to saying that our estrangement from God is “normal” and even “absolutely vital for the development of your faith.” (p. 109) Of course, Mr. Warren assures, God is not really distant, but only seems distant. But we have the power to block his grace, he tells us. (p. 148) And so, he maintains, “God waits for you to act first.” (p. 175) After all, he asserts that God is dependent upon circumstances. (p. 193) Further, he declares that the core of Christianity is “thinking of others” (p. 183) and that the significance of the Incarnation was that Christ “enters into our suffering.” (p. 199)

The sort of world that Mr. Warren imagines is one in which God and Man share an essential correlativity as they struggle to establish and to develop a “relationship.” Mr. Warren assures us that, “God wants to be your best friend.” (p. 85) He characterizes the man without God as wandering aimlessly through life nobly searching for something to fill the void. He characterizes God as yearning for a “relationship” with such a Man, but able to help him only so far as Man will “allow” Him to do so. According to this outlook, Man, the searcher, eagerly would embrace the truth if it should come along, and needs only an “introduction” to a “god” who equally eagerly awaits Man to act first, so his power can be “released.” In Mr. Warren’s scheme of things, Jesus was the expert in making these “introductions.” This is the work that Mr. Warren says Jesus “started” and now the church must “continue.” But, such an outlook does not faithfully embrace the identity of Christ or the purpose of His coming. In order to speak truly of Christ’s mission on the earth, one must emphasize His supreme purpose to bear the sins of His people in His body upon the cross. Omission of this emphasis in this chapter is consistent with Mr. Warren’s failure to come to terms with sin at many points throughout this volume. To be sure, mention of sin in various contexts is sprinkled here and there in the text. On page 112 he declares that, “Jesus took all of mankind’s sin and guilt on himself.” However, what Mr. Warren has to say about sin in this book does not fit systematically into the bulk of his remarks, which represent a studied avoidance of the subject.

In reality, the work of Christ is markedly different from what Mr. Warren portrays. Biblically, God is the Creator of all reality and so providentially controls whatsoever comes to pass in reality. The estrangement of Man from God came about as the result of sin, which is defined as the breaking of God’s covenant and violation of His law. As sinner, Man does not merely miss out on the benefits of a “relationship” with God - he comes under the wrath of God for his sin. As a result of sin, Man not merely becomes estranged from God - he becomes the enemy of God. The work of God in Christ was to redeem His people from their sins, which He accomplished in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. We, who were God’s enemies, have been reconciled to God. Rather than something to avoid mentioning - or to mention only terms of sentimental platitudes - the fact of sin is something that ought to be faced squarely. Because of the fact of sin, our state of corruption, decline, decay, and eventually death is not a normal condition that is to be accepted as just “a part of life.” The only way of struggling against disease, moral corruption, and death is to acknowledge that these things are no part of the original Creation ideal, and have reality now only as a result of sin. Apart from acknowledging the fact of sin, things such as disease, corruption and death can only be regarded as aspects of the normal human condition. Avoiding or denying the fact of sin leaves one in no position to embrace the remedy for sin in the work of God in Christ. What God did in Christ was to avert His wrath - due us because of our sin - away from us and onto Christ. This was the work that Christ accomplished in His body. To characterize such as work as “introduce people to God” not only fails to honor the true deepness and seriousness of this work, but it also cheapens this work in the most worldly way. To suggest that this was a work that Jesus merely “started” and is up to us to “continue” is to misunderstand this work on the most fundamental level. To omit contemplation of this work in deference to those other works of Christ that the church indeed must continue is to misunderstand on the most basic level the ultimate reason for the incarnation of Christ.