Analysis of Rick Warrens The Purpose Driven Life Michael Hardin www.preachingpeace.org Dece !

er "##$

%irs&' le& e say &ha& ( find &his !ook &o !e a very good !ook' if certain presuppositions are held. This pro p&s several fur&her )ues&ions* are &hese my presupposi&ions and are &hey biblical' &ha& is' are &hey gospel presupposi&ions+ Warren has done a service &o ,hris&iani&y !y poin&ing ou& &ha& a real and vi&al' vi!ran& and living rela&ionship &o -od is essen&ial &o ,hris&ian e.is&ence. He is saying &ha& our daily e.periences can all !e in&erpre&ed as salva&ion/his&ory' our lives' our his&ories' our s&ories do coun&' we coun&0 -od coun&s us' values us and es&ee s us. All of &his is correc& as far as i& goes. 1u& as so e have o!served' &here is so e&hing inco ple&e a!ou& all of &his. Wha& is issing+ Well' wha& is issing is rela&ed &o Warrens presupposi&ions. Wha& are &hese+ %irs&' is &ha& Warren pre ises 2esus as &he very na&ure of -od hi self 3p $45' we are no& in &he dark' we are enligh&ened. This is a good A&hanasian pre ise and 2ohannine e&aphor and ( co ple&ely agree as would any ,hris&ian ( &hink. 1u& &his is a rare kind of s&a&e en& in &his !ook and i& does no& func&ion as a her eneu&ic of any sor&. The pro!le follows in &ha& &here is no& a ,hris&ological focus in opera&ion in Warrens doc&rine of -od. Warren &akes his knowledge of -od' no& fro 2esus' !u& fro a fla& reading of &he 6crip&ures. To know -od' Warren encourages us &o go learn 7aspec&s of -ods charac&er fro an e&y ology of &he varied He!rew &er s applied &o -od in &he He!rew 1i!le 38#45. This her eneu&ic sugges&ion vir&ually eli ina&es any hope for discerning &he kind of -od 2esus !elieved in' preached and revealed. The 7%a&her is co ple&ely iden&ified wi&h every&hing said a!ou& 7-od in &he He!rew 1i!le' lock' s&ock and !arrel. More so' i& is possi!le &o see &he roo&s of &he conserva&ive ,alvinis& &radi&ion !ehind &he view of -od presen&ed in The Purpose Driven Life. ,hap&er 9 3:The Reason for ;very&hing<5 !egins wi&h an asser&ion &ha& paraphrases &he Wes& ins&er ,onfession* :(&s all for hi =-od>. The ul&i a&e goal of &he universe is &o show &he glory of -od. (& is &he reason for every&hing &ha& e.is&s' including you. -od ade i& all for his glory. Wi&hou& -ods glory' &here would !e no&hing. Wha& is &he glory of -od+ (& is who -od is. (& is &he essence of his na&ure' &he weigh& of his i por&ance' &he radiance of his splendor' &he de ons&ra&ion of his power' and &he a& osphere of his presence. -ods glory is &he e.pression of his goodness and all his o&her in&rinsic' e&ernal )uali&ies.<

Heres Wes& ins&er 3in 8?495* :There is !u& one only living and &rue -od' who is infini&e in !eing and perfec&ion' a os& pure spiri&' invisi!le' wi&hou& !ody' par&s or passions' i u&a!le' i ense' e&ernal' inco prehensi!le' al igh&y' os& wise' os& holy' os& free' os& a!solu&e' working all &hings according &o &he counsel of his own i u&a!le and os& righ&eous will' for his own glory0 os& loving' gracious' erciful' long suffering' a!undan& in goodness and &ru&h' forgiving ini)ui&y' &ransgression and sin0 &he rewarder of &he &ha& diligen&ly seek hi 0 and wi&h all os& @us& and &erri!le in his @udg en&s' ha&ing all sin' and who will !y no eans clear &he guil&y.< A& s&ake in &his !usiness of &he glory of -od' is Warrens iden&ifica&ion of -ods glory wi&h &he 6hekinah of &he He!rew 1i!le' which func&ions as an affir a&ion of &he ,on)ues&ing' ; pire 1uilding' All/Powerful -od. The %our&h -ospel oves in an en&irely differen& direc&ion. When &he wri&er of &he %our&h -ospel uses &he &er s doca, docazw 3a ong o&hers5' &his glory of 2esus is always associa&ed wi&h his re@ec&ion and forgiveness on &he cross. The 6hekinah' for &he wri&er of &he %our&h -ospel' is pree inen&ly displayed in 2esus/who/lays/down/his/ life/foro&hers. (& is &he e.&raordinary ercy' grace and &ru&h of -od in 2esus 32ohn 8.848?5 &ha& is &o !e e)ua&ed wi&h 7glory no& an a!s&rac& se& of e&aphysical proposi&ions. The radical difference &ha& 2esus !rings in his ar&icula&ion of &he ,rea&or' &he abba, &he one who loves &he world' who heals &he world' who !rings peace and reconcilia&ion is o!scured in The Purpose Driven Life. 2esus non/re&alia&ory pos&ure and &eaching is never !rough& in&o con@unc&ion wi&h &he %a&her. How 2esus ac&s is no& an indica&or of &he charac&er of &he %a&her for Warren. 2esus life conno&es nei&her agency 3as in &he %our&h -ospel5 nor pries&hood 3as in &he ;pis&le &o &he He!rews5 for Warren. Warrens doc&rine of -od has no real chris&ology. Warrens 7-od has ye& &o !e decons&ruc&ed !y 2esus. This is i por&an&' for &he -od of Rick Warren is in fac& no& &he %a&her of 2esus 3no& ye&5' Warren does no& know i&' !u& his -od is ore like Pla&os &han 2esus. The evidence for &his is in Warrens version of &he gospel. His doc&rine of &he a&one en& is a pri e e.a ple. Warren pre ises an e&ernal hell and an e&ernal heaven 3A9' Pla&onic arche&ypes dressed in !i!lical language5. This necessi&a&es a punishing -od' a need for law' @us&ice and re&ri!u&ion. Warren preaches Ansel s penal sa&isfac&ion &heory of &he a&one en&. The good -od !uys off &he righ&eously angry -od. The penal sa&isfac&ion &heory of &he a&one en& fails in &he long run for i& canno& pass &he creedal &es& where 2esus is and e.presses and reveals &he a!solu&e inner charac&er of &he na&ure of -od. ;ven &hough Warren has !een &augh& &he i por&ance of &his 3$45' he has no& ye& worked &hrough i&s significance for all of his &heology.

Warrens !ook appeals &o people who are also s&ruggling wi&h &he effec&s of &he gospel on cul&ure' where &hey wan& despera&ely &o !elieve in a loving' caring' good -od !u& firs& have &o deal wi&h &he angry Bne. ( would sugges& &ha& &he sa&isfac&ion &heory of &he a&one en& is popular !ecause i& 7deals wi&h &he angry -od. (& acknowledges &his god and appeases hi . 6o we are lef& &o have a rela&ionship wi&h a po&en&ially angry and wra&hful -od 3&he -od of our Puri&an forefa&hers' &he -od of ,alvinis and Augus&ine5. ( would ask Mr. Warren' can one have a heal&hy rela&ionship wi&h a -od who is po&en&ially such a &hrea&+ Do we ask children &o go and &ry and have an in&i a&e rela&ionship wi&h an adul& whose &e per is known &o !e shor&+

The Purpose Driven Life is s&ill s&ruggling &o !ring -ospel ou& of

y&h.

A second presupposi&ion of Mr. Warren and one &ha& is necessary for his an&hropology' in spi&e of his unders&anding of -enesis 8/"' lies in his assu p&ion of &he wes&ern no&ion of &he au&ono ous ego0 &he self or self/consciousness as &he es&a!lished cen&er of hu an e.is&ence of wha& akes hu ans 7!eings. Warren accep&s &he e&aphysics of individualis . There is a good dose of &he Can&ian 7knowing self who dares &o &hink in his an&hropology 3also found !y way of hu anis in ,alvinis& scholas&icis 5. Referencing &he au&ono ous ego' we igh& go fur&her !ack &o Descar&es or even Aris&o&le &hrough A)uinas. 1u& we will end ul&i a&ely in Pla&o and Pla&os an&hropology' &he philosophical self' self reflec&ive and self/evolving. This is &he dyadic s&ruc&uring of rela&ionships &ha& resul&s fro dualis . Pla&os Repu!lic consis&s of &hese 7selves all s&ruc&ured !y &he philosopher' no& as a D&opia' !u& as a &o&ali&arian s&a&e' a s&a&e where ar&s and ar&is&s are cas& ou& for &hey will no& i e &he i e of &he 7polis. There are scapegoa&s in Pla&os an&hropology and &here have consis&en&ly !een scapegoa&s in wes&ern an&hropology since &hen. Warrens -od &hrives on scapegoa&s' sin offerings' and sacrifices. Warren is no& &o !la e for &his' ,hris&iani&y worldwide is infec&ed wi&h Pla&o. This is &he god of y&h' no& &he -od of &he -ospel' &he %a&her of 2esus. 1u& &he gospel !reaks &hrough in The Purpose Driven Life even here. Warren consis&en&ly s&resses relationships as essen&ial &o ,hris&ian e.is&ence. He is a!solu&ely on &he oney a!ou& &his. Rela&ionali&y is no& @us& a principle in physics !u& also in an&hropology. Carl 1ar&h and Die&rich 1onhoeffer !o&h e phasiEed &his in &heir work on -enesis 8/A as well as &heir respec&ive e&hics. -irard has coined &he &er 7in&erdividual &o underscore &he non/conscious i e&ic en&angle en&s we have daily wi&h o&hers. This an&hropology is &riadic' &here is you' e and us. All &hree are real' including our rela&ionship' no& @us& you and e. ,hris&ian an&hropology will &ake i&s cue' no& fro &he socio/poli&ical real of Pla&o via Ho!!es' !u& fro &he corpora&e e&aphors &ha& a!ound in Few Tes&a en& ,hris&ology 36on of Man' 6uffering 6ervan&' 6econd Ada ' &he Gine' e&c5.

6o' even &hough Warrens ecclesiology is a collec&ion or ga&hering of au&ono ous egos' and he e phasiEes fellowship' rela&ionali&y as an anthropological principle is no& in evidence. Any no&ion &ha& we are our rela&ionships' any no&ion of corpora&e solidari&y is evacua&ed. Warrens an&hropology works i&self ou& as &he social con&rac& now played ou& as church. Bur e.&ernal rela&ion &o agreed/upon Law is wha& defines our hu anness. As long as we all agree on wha& is righ& we can e.clude wha& is wrong. This is no& &he 1ody of ,hris& where we are all necessary &o one ano&hers e.is&ence. Warrens ecclesiology has ore &o say a!ou& Pla&o &han 2esus. Bddly' Warren no&es &he solu&ion &o his own pro!le ' !u& fails &o u&iliEe i&. He has nearly a &housand !i!lical references and says' :( haven& always )uo&ed &he en&ire verse' !u& ra&her focused on &he phrase &ha& was appropria&e. My odel for &his is 2esus and how of&en he and &he apos&les )uo&ed &he Bld Tes&a en& 3sic5. They of&en )uo&ed @us& a phrase &o ake a poin&.< Warren has no idea &ha& &he reason &ha& 2esus and &he apos&les only )uo&ed par&ial &e.&s was !ecause a& &i es &hey were also i plici&ly cri&i)uing wha& had !een wri&&en. Where Warren has a fla& view of 6crip&ure' 2esus and &he apos&olic church had a dyna ic view of &he rela&ion of -ods work and word. %irs& ( wan& &o look a& &wo &e.&s &ha& are used !y so e &o asser& &ha& 2esus affir ed in whole &he au&hori&y of &he He!rew 1i!le. When 2esus )uo&es Psal 88#' he adds an aside 7David hi self' speaking !y &he Holy 6piri& declared...< 6o e see here a warran& for saying &ha& &he He!rew 6crip&ures are 7-od!rea&hed 3a la " Ti A*8?5. 1u& 2esus selec&ive use of Psal 88# as a her eneu&ic al&erna&ive &o ili&an& no&ions of Messiah vi&ia&es &ha& in&erpre&a&ion. More &han likely' &his phrase is ean& ironically as in :Hour 1i!le says &his and since you !elieve your 1i!le is inspired you us& answer &he )ues&ion.< (& has !een shown &ha& 2esus could !e @us& as ironic as 6ocra&es. (n &he discussion you will o!serve &ha& 2esus challenges &he 7&eaching of &he scri!es. They say &he Messiah is &he 6on of David. Tha& !eing &he case' in&er@ec&s 2esus' how can David call his son' 7Lord+ This akes no sense. More so' 2esus underscores &he 7au&hori&y of &his &e.& !y declaring &ha& David spoke !y &he Holy 6piri&. (n o&her words' you can& !ypass &his &e.&' you have &o deal wi&h i&. 2esus' speaking wi&h !eau&iful irony &hen declares &ha& &he Messiah canno& !e placed in &he sa e con&e.& as Davids son. This eans &ha& &he 7Messiah was &o no& !e unders&ood in Davidic warrior/king ca&egories.

We have &he sa e &hing going on in 2ohn 8#*A4/AI. Here 2esus' in descri!ing his rela&ionship &o &he %a&her' is a!ou& &o !e lynched. (n &his o! scene' 2esus is going &o !e pu!licly e.ecu&ed for viola&ing 7law &ha& is' co i&&ing !lasphe y. 2esus says' :(s i& no& wri&&en in your Law' 7( have said you are gods+ 3Psal J"*?5 (f he called &he 7gods &o who &he word of -od ca e K and &he 6crip&ure canno& !e !roken K wha& a!ou& &he one who &he %a&her se& apar& and sen& in&o &he world+< Bnce again &he phrase :and 6crip&ure canno& !e !roken< is used ironically. Fo& only can &his !e de ons&ra&ed wi&hin &he larger 2ohannine use of irony !u& also in &he fac& &ha& &he law referred &o has a possessive pronoun' i& is :your Law.< (n nei&her case do we need &o see in &he &e.&s so e kind of &heory of inspira&ion0 on &he con&rary' !o&h &e.&s give us a &heory of non/inspira&ion. Wha& do ( ean !y &his+ When we looked a& Mark 8" and 2esus use of Psal 88#' we saw &ha& 2esus e.plici&ly chose &o refu&e &he Has onean in&erpre&a&ion !y no& )uo&ing Psal 88#* "/A' $/9. 2esus refused &o perceive his ission in &er s of a ili&an& deliverer. 2esus e.plici&ly re@ec&ed &his L7chris&ologyL and i& is so e&hing he does &hroughou& &he en&ire gospel &radi&ion. Re e !er' even &he disciples didn& ge& i& while he was alive' how uch less &he crowds or &he au&hori&ies. 1u& &his use of Psal 88# is indica&ive of a her eneu&ic. This sa e her eneu&ic can !e found in Ma&&hew $ where 2esus con&ras&s his speech wi&h &ha& of Moses in &he Torah. Fo a&&er how you slice i&' Ma&&hew $*89/"# is no& a!ou& a!oli&ion of Torah !u& a!ou& i&s fulfill en&' a fulfill en& seen in &he 7( say un&o you por&ions. (& is &he re@ec&ion of religion and &he affir a&ion of &he spiri&uali&y 3and sociology5 of forgiveness and non/re&ri!u&ion. (& is &he re@ec&ion of a ili&an& spiri&uali&y' @us& as 2esus use of Psal 88# is a re@ec&ion of an&i 3M ili&an&5 ,hris&ology. This can !e fur&her seen in 2esus use of (saiah. We have grea&ly !enefi&ed fro 1ruce ,hil&ons research on 2esus use of &he (saiah Targu . Dn)ues&iona!ly' (saiah was 2esus favori&e !ook' &he lens &hrough which he perceived his peoples his&ory. (n Luke 4 and in Luke 9' 2esus ci&es &he (saiah &e.& and four ou& of four &i es 3a& a ini u 5 2esus o i&s &he con&inuing (saianic &he e of vengeance on &he -en&iles. This is again of a piece wi&h 2esus her eneu&ic on de y&hologiEing &he 7violen& -od. (n each case where 2esus ci&es (saiah' i& is always in &he con&e.& of one way or ano&her challenging his hearers &o consider wha& -od wi&hou& re&ri!u&ion would look like. This si ilar principle can also !e found in 2esus para!les. (n &he para!les' fa iliar escha&ological i agery is given a &urn on i&s head. %or e.a ple' &he kingdo is -od is never conceived of as a reign of coercion' ra&her' -od is like &he paren& who cares no& for honor or s&a&us !u& hu !les hi self and RDF6 &o his es&ranged child. -ods reign is a place where sparrows are fed and lilies are clo&hed. 2esus para!les are su!versive 3HerEog5 !y &heir very insis&ence &ha& -od is no& like &ha& which had !een conceived.

Fow' Ana!ap&is&s have always recogniEed a ,hris&ological cen&er &o 6crip&ure. They did no& ask 7How is 2esus like -od+ !u& 7How is -od like 2esus+ This is how ( would s&ar& y reflec&ions. (f ( ever had &he oppor&uni&y &o si& down wi&h Mr. Warren' ( would wan& &o &urn hi on&o &aking wha& he says and applying i& &o &he -od who 2esus reveals. 2esus prac&iced wha& he preached. (& is &his principle of posi&ive i i&a&ion &ha& underlies &he 2ohannine an&hropology and ,hris&ology 32ohn $*8Iff5. ( would sugges& &o Rick Warren &he ,hris&ological i plica&ions of following 2esus and &hus' knowing and loving -od. How shall we &hen live+ Warren does no& perceive 2esus as a odel for lifes&yle and !ehavior. He says :,hris& likeness is no& produced !y i i&a&ion !u& !y inha!i&a&ion 3referencing &he Holy 6piri&5.< Like Pla&o' Warren !anishes i esis 3i i&a&ion5 fro his !lessed real and &he ,hris&ian is lef& &rying &o figure ou& which laws in &he 1i!le s&ill apply and which ones don&. ;very single church spli& has occurred as people wres&le wi&h &he defini&ion of &hese legal her eneu&ical !oundaries. 7-odly ha!i&s' al&hough no& defined 389$5' are e)ua&ed wi&h 7&he charac&er of ,hris&. 1u& wha& -odly ha!i&s is Warren referring &o+ Fo& s oking' no& drinking' non/pro iscui&y+ Br caring for &he sick and &he poor' cas&ing ou& de ons and announcing &he good news of -ods i anence+ He says' :,hris&likeness is &he resul& of aking ,hris&like choices.< How would Warren descri!e &hese choices if he will no& consider 2esus life as an e.a ple+ How can Warren ignore &he &echnical use of &he &er akolouqein 3&o follow5 in Ma&&hew' &he 2ohannine chris&ology of agency or Pauls use of &he &er mimesis 3i i&a&e5+ Discussing a!ili&ies 3gif&s' &alen&s5 &ha& -od uses 3"4"/"4A5' Warren lis&s over A# differen& &ypes of voca&ions fro ar&is&s and scholars &o &ailors and &eachers' far ers and anagers. (n &his lis& of gif&s -od uses' is en&ioned 7 aking weapons and 7!eing a solider. Fow le& e ge& &his righ&. ,hris&like choices de&er ine godliness according &o Warren. 1u& can he really see 2esus choosing &o polish his 6 i&h and Wesson' or sharpen knives for &he revolu&ion+ Would 2esus assis& in &he anufac&ure of a&o ic or !iological weapons or &he cons&ruc&ion of an A!ra s &ank+ Does Warren see 2esus carrying a dagger or a ache&e' an AC/49 or Mace+ Does he &hink 2esus would go ou& on pa&rol and fire his gun' sho& a round of whi&e phosphorus or &hrow a grenade+ How in &he world does Warren co e &o &hese voca&ional conclusions+ He ei&her &akes 6.-.%. 1randons &hesis seriously &ha& 2esus was a ili&an& reac&ionary or he has no& s&udied &he -ospels very well. (f Warren would allow hi self a ,hris&ological cen&er &o his 1i!le reading' he could &hen affir &he i i&a&ion of 2esus' &aking seriously &he no&ion of disciple as appren&ice' and affir ing &he posi&ive i i&a&ion of 2esus. We could &alk a!ou& ,hris&ian Life as wi&nessing &o &he end of en i&y and ha&e and discri ina&ion. 6adly' Warren is s&ill wedded &o his legal -od and &he 7rule of law 3a necessary correla&e of his penal a&one en& &heory5. He has ye& &o perceive wha& Paul has said a!ou& 7,hris& !eing &he end of &he law.

,hris&iani&y has long s&ruggled wi&h &he place of 7Law in &he ,hris&ian life' !u& unlike Paul and &he vas& a@ori&y of &he apos&olic church' ,hris&iani&y has placed &he Law fron& and cen&er. This is par&icularly eviden& as &he church developed following &he ascension of ,ons&an&ine &o &he &hrone. 1o&h He!rew 6crip&ures and Ro an law lie !ehind odern @urisprudence. Pro&es&an&s chide ,a&holics for &heir adherence &o law 3canon law' oral law' cul&ic law' e&c5 ye& see &o !e unaware &ha& &hey &oo have issed &he poin&' and like &he pre/conver&ed 6aul' are co ple&ely unaware of &heir Eealous devo&ion &o law. The de!a&es following &he Refor a&ion a!ou& &he place of &he Law in &he ,hris&ian life were only possi!le !ecause nei&her Lu&her nor ,alvin were a!le &o see clearly on &his su!@ec&. Al&hough in&erpre&ers of Paul' &hey si ply could no& follow Paul in &his direc&ion ins&ead op&ing for &he pos&/ Augus&inian solu&ion' an ad i.&ure of law and gospel. The rela&ionship of law &o gospel has !een de!a&ed clear in&o &he presen&. %ro &he second cen&ury church un&il now' we find &ha& ,hris&iani&y canno& see &o e.is& wi&hou& so e rela&ionship &o Law. More is &he pi&y' for &he Few Tes&a en& is clear &ha& we are se& free fro &he Law' no& !y denigra&ing &he 2ewish Torah 3how uch an&i/6e i&is &here is in &he churchesN5' !u& !y recogniEing &ha& in &he new covenan& &he Law is placed in our hear&s. This is no& &o !e e)ua&ed wi&h so e %reudian super/ego 3al&hough i& can !e isunders&ood and e.perienced as such5. Ra&her' &he solu&ion' for Paul' is &he pneu a&ic presence of -od ac&ive wi&hin us and living in us consis&en& wi&h -ods own in&ernal charac&er. Br chris&ologically we ay say i& is ,hris& o!eying &he %a&her in and &hrough us. This is &he direc&ion of Pauls &hough&. This is &he change in our &hinking &o which we referred earlier. And &his is &he poin& of Pauls discussion of &he Holy 6piri&. We recall &ha& !o&h Lu&her and ,alvin were unco for&a!le wi&h &hose in &heir &i e &ha& had sugges&ed such. They were called 7spiri&ualis&s or 7en&husias&s. And &hey were hun&ed down and e.&er ina&ed. Bf course' ,a&holics have long shunned &hese &ypes as well. Why is &his so+ 1ecause &he church' in i&s !rokenness' needs law &o con&rol i&s e !ers. He&' no single Few Tes&a en& au&hor see s &o ove in &his direc&ion' even &he Le&&er of 2a es. (s &he Holy 6piri& &hen an in&ernal law+ Fo. -od is no& law0 -od is love. The 6piri& is &he presence of -od &o us. 6i ply pu&' as we are aware of -od wi&h us' we will know how &o live and ac& in love. (f we are no& aware of &his we need an e.&ernal law &o &ell us wha& &o do. ,hris&ians do no& see ' for &he os& par&' &o !e aware &ha& &hey need no e.&ernal law. ,hris&ians are &o !e led !y &he 6piri& &ha& co es fro &he %a&her &hrough &he 6on 3&he Christus Praesens5. We have !een ra&her afraid of &his &hroughou& &he his&ory of &he ,hurch !ecause we sense &ha& wi&hou& Law &here can only !e licen&iousness. %ollowing 2esus or !eing led !y &he 6piri& ay in fac& lead &o a 7!reaking of &he law or cul&ural ores. We see &his in &he -ospels in 2esus life. There is a following of 2esus &ha& will always appear &o !e ou&side &he nor of &he Law and i& is frigh&ening &o &hose who have ade &he law cen&ral &o &heir ,hris&ian life. %or &he ,hris&ian' however' doing -ods will is no& an i personal o!edience &o an e.&ernal Law' i& is a personal o!edience &o a loving' caring' saving -od.

%ur&her' &he 6piri& is no& a )uan&ifia!le reali&y0 &herefore' &he 6piri& canno& !e con&rolled ei&her !y &he acade y or &he ,hurch. Fei&her can cul&ure or cul&ural law con&rol &he 6piri& al&hough i& ay a&&e p& &o do so. Bur personal rela&ionship wi&h 2esus has i&s own in&ernal dyna ic of o!edience or lis&ening. This is &he poin& of Paul in Ro ans ?/J or &he 6er on on &he Moun& or &he las& eal discourse of &he 2ohannine -ospel. We are !rough& in&o an e.&raordinary rela&ionship wi&h &he Trini&arian -od' !efore who we live' in who we find all eaning' &o who we render &hanksgiving' love and our wills' and &hrough who we find ourselves living rede p&ively. (n conclusion' &heological correc&ness or or&hodo.y is no& @us& an in&ellec&ual ga e. Wha& we confess a!ou& -od has i plica&ions for every&hing else we say and &hink and do. Morali&y and &heology are flip sides of a coin. (f one has a -nos&ic 3dualis&ic or Pla&onic5 &heology' ones e&hics will conco i&an&ly !e -nos&ic. Pos&/ odern ,hris&iani&y can hardly afford &o si ply wal&E !y difficul& &heological )ues&ions or sweep &he under &he rug in &he na e of so e a orphous no&ion of uni&y. Think a!ou& i&. Wha& if &he early church had no& !eco e involved wi&h &he -nos&ics+ Wha& if &hey said well i& doesn& really a&&er wha& you !elieve as long as you sincerely !elieve i&+ Wha& are &he resul&s of a -nos&iciEed Pro&es&an&is ' grounded ore in Pla&o and less in 2esus+ Philip Lee in Agains& &he Pro&es&an& -nos&ics sugges&s re@ec&ion of &he good ear&h' a disdain for &he ecology of &he plane& and a conco i&an& accep&ance of &he 1o !' our willingness &o des&roy physical reali&y wi&h ili&an& &echnology0 &he &riu phal vision of &he au&ono ous self and i&s priva&e revela&ions0 &he separa&ion of &he sacred and &he secular and &he conse)uence of escape fro any social e&hic0 &he worship of &he (ndividual and e)uali&y for &he few. 6ound all &oo fa iliar+ When ( challenge Rick Warrens view of -od or 2esus' his her eneu&ic or view of 6crip&ure' ( a saying &ha& &heology coun&s as uch as devo&ion' for &heology is &he ar&icula&ion of our e.perience in &he ligh& of wha& -od has done for us in 2esus ,hris&. (f we !egin wi&h false pre ises or faul&y presupposi&ions we will end up isin&erpre&ing our e.perience and as a resul& our social e&hics will no& !e ,hris& cen&ered. Warrens clai s a!ou& -od a& &i es !order on &he here&ical and have far ore &o do wi&h law &han -ospel. (n &he -ospel' :violence is no& an a&&ri!u&e of -od< 3;pis&le &o Diogne&us5. (n &he kingdo of -od we do no& have a violen& -od and &herefore violence is no& a &ool for social s&ruc&uring. 1ecause we do no& have a -od who desires or needs scapegoa&s or sa&isfac&ion' we would no& need &o scapegoa& o&hers. We could !e forgiving and forgiven' loving and loved 3in shor&' we could !e church' &he escha&ological co uni&y in &he here and now5.

We can see why i& is i por&an& &o have an an&hropology whose conse)uences help us see &ha& we are all in &his &oge&her' as a species. Hu ans are a corpora&e personali&y. ;very!ody coun&s. Bur ,hris&ian an&hropology can &hen !e her eneu&ically consis&en&' and leave our e&hics looking a lo& like 2esus. ( a lef& glad for &he fac& &ha& &his !ook will crea&e a hunger in people for rela&ionship wi&h -od0 ( a lef& frus&ra&ed &ha& Warren has no& really proclai ed &he -ospel' ye&. ( look forward &o when &ha& happens. ( know wha& The Purpose Driven Life looks like &hanks &o Rick Warren' !u& wha& ( wan& &o know is wha& does The 2esus Driven Life look like+ This is a conversa&ion wai&ing &o happen. %or now' (ll go !ack and read 1onhoeffer' Cierkegaard or &he 1lu hard&s.