Talk:The Purpose Driven Life

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

	Books Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 ANY NON CRITICISM? 2 NPOV Query 3 Search for This 3.1 This is a ridiculous suggestion 4 User 68.121.254.253 5 Just a thought 6 Adding Disputed Tag 7 Criticisms 7.1 Selective use of various translations 8 Fair use rationale for Image:Pupose.jpg

[edit] ANY NON CRITICISM?

How about add a section on what this book has done for people (there are many stories, how about the lady that stoped a serial killer in part by reading him some of this book, great story i listened to her book on tape, amazing really). this would balance out the criticism section that easily finds itself on religion articles. information should be balanced. clayClayscot 13:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

==Hyphenation Sentence zapped?== I just noticed that someone (BreathingMeat?) got rid of the statement I made about lack of hyphenation in the book's title and its frequent hyphenization on bestseller lists. True, I didn't have a source cited, but I could dig one up pretty easily. What is the rationale not to include that comment? If there is none, I'm putting it back.KConWiki 17:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Query

When I was perusing this page, I noticed that in the 3rd paragraph in the criticisms section, involving secular criticisms, the article seemed to violate the NPOV policy by stating several criticisms as fact, rather then the views held by some, giving the impression that the article was purporting one view over another. It would be greatly appreciated if someone would remedy this, removing this comment as well.

I think the third paragraph is the best, containing properly referenced material instead of weasely stuff such as "Many Christians believe" and "Critics say". As I read it, the existing text seems to clearly be summarising points made in the Business Week article, rather than presenting an editor's personal opinion as fact. BreathingMeat 08:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search for This

For those of you able do a google search I recommend searching the following keywords: "robert shuler" and "new age" and "rick warren".

Someone should expand on the similarities, and influences not immediately obvious. Could you see Paul or Peter promoting this kind of book? Anything that appeals to the masses is usually a huge red flag in my book - especially in this day and age.

Please sign your posts on talk pages, user 204.225.191.55. Andrewa 05:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This is a ridiculous suggestion

There is no direct link between Warren and Shuller or new age philosophy (read the Wikipedia section on New Age and you will find no similarities). These are assertions of misinformed bloggers whose slander has been repeated so often that it now appears to be fact. This sort of entry has no place in an encyclopedia and goes against the BLP policy.

[edit] User 68.121.254.253

This page obviously needs to be monitored because user 68.121.254.253 has a heart on for this book and the author Rick Warren, since this user has been deleting the criticism sections of the articles entirely and bolding lines of the articles as to make it some kind of sales pitch for the book.

--67.160.187.216 12:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just a thought

Doesn't it seem a little NonNPOV to have 17 links to criticize the book and only 5 links to pages that support it. Seems a little lopsided. I know that if it were the other way around, there would be all kinds of remarks about the article not being POV. Seems like all the articles related to Christianity have a more than healthy dose of criticism. --Icj tlc 21:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that it's necessarily NonNPoV to have more negative external links than positive. If there is more negative information available than positive (of research quality) then it is natural that there would be more negative content in the Wiki article. On the other hand, we do need to be careful not to use this - or any - Wiki article as a soapbox (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) by loading it with unbalanced information, no matter how noble we consider our agenda to be: this brings the whole process into disrepute and does no good in the long run. As it stands, I think the article seems a little negative, but not in an unbalanced way. The Rick Warren article contains considerably more positive material so on the whole I think we're OK. BreathingMeat 20:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to use Wikipedia as a soapbox and after re-reading my entry, I see how it might have been misunderstood, I apologize. I intentionally did not change the article becasue I don't want to start an edit war with those that are opposed to the teachings of Rick Warren (see above entries). All I was trying to say is that this article seems lopsided, perhaps it should be renamed Criticism of the Purpose Driven Life. The book and other venues of Purpose Driven Ministry have done a lot of good for a lot of people and I just think it's sad that that isn't represented here. Comments welcome on my talk page. Icj tlc 22:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would be opposed to a name change of that magnitude. If you were to add something, in good faith, what would it be. Realistically, significantly more could be added about the content of the book without violating copyright. Or, maybe something about its impact on American Christianity and culture. Although the criticism is substantial, it has been culled, and with some thought, it may be possible to cull it somemore. But taken as a whole, the article seems fairly well-balanced to me. Even so, the criticism in the article is legitimate, even if it paints Mr. Warren and the book in a bad light. Your criticism is legitimate as well, and with a good faith effort, I think more content could be added without creating an edit war. Regards, Steven McCrary 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Steven's comment. The answer is not to give the article a more limited name, but to make the article less limited. If some positive material of an encyclopedic quality were added, there is no legitimate reason for an edit war to ensue. BreathingMeat 23:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Disputed Tag

After taking Fidas Viva's advise to read and study all Purpose Driven related articles "carefully, slowly and prayerfully," I have come to the conclusion that the majority of the crticisms were posted by him. Also, the list of crticisms here are almost a carbon copy of the criticisms on the Rick Warren page. Also based on several of Fides Viva's comment both on the talk page and in the article itself, such as "If you have nothing constructive to add to the Criticism section such as articles and essays exposing Rick Warren as the false teacher he is and all the Scripture twisting and false teaching he has in the Purpose Driven® Life book," and "The following articles, essays and audios deal with these and other concerns regarding the Purpose Driven® Life movement particularly, and Rick Warren's teachings in general," and after reading several of the article's listed in this section, I've found that the majority of them are criticisms of Rick Warren and his teachings in general, not specifically, the Purpose Driven Life book, which is the subject of this article. Rick Warren has an article in WikiPedia and criticisms of him or his teachings should be posted there. ONLY criticisms of the Purpose Driven Life book itself should be posted on this page. Also, as listed in above comments, the alleged "Occultic" and "Forbidden" practices are not taought in the PurposeDriven Life book. Whether they are "Occultic," "Forbidden," or in fact even taught by Rick Warren should be discussed elsewhere, the fact is, they are not mentioned anywhere in the Purpose Driven Life book itself. Will add more to this section later. Icj tlc 06:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Icj, Here are my concerns:

• I am not sure how to separate Rick Warren from the teachings in PDL, since that work is one of his most widely published. Seems to me that most of the referenced articles regard PDL.
• I have not looked at all of the references, but if none of them deal with occultic practice, remove the text.
• I had a similar discussion regarding the Bill O'Reilly page, that is, which page should criticisms be placed, the page about him, or the page about his show (The O'Reilly Factor). There was no consensus on that page, so must of the criticism remained on The Factor page. Seems to me that the criticism should be on one page or the other, not both. I am inclinded to leave PDL criticism on this page, remove it from the other page, and place a note on the other page to that effect.
• On the other hand, I do agree that some of the criticisms on this page seem directed at Warren and not at the book. This article is not the place for those criticisms, and should be moved from this page.

Thanks, SteveMc 22:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My biggest issue here isn't that Rick Warren and his work are being critisized, as I said in every entry I've made on this talk page, I do not agree 100% with Rick Warren or his theology. My issue is that the teachings that Fides Viva is critisizing (whether they are occultic or forbidden not withstanding) are not taught in the Purpose Driven Life. It's that plain and simple. My other issue is, as you stated, the critisisms should be on one page, not every page affiliated with Rick Warren. From what I have seen, the critisism section on his page and here are almost identical. The order of a few things are changed around, but the links are the same. If you want to critisize Rick Warren, do it on that article, if you want to critisize PDL, than do it here. Not both. I am not here to push my POV, I just want this to be an accurate article worthy of WikiPedia's standards, right now, it's not. There are 3 paragraphs covering the history of the book, with 1 paragraph describing the content of the book, 5 links to websites affiliated with Rick Warren/PDL, 21 links to critisisms, and 0 links to sites that support the book and/or ministry of Rick Warren, although the first paragraph states that this book is the most influential to ministers. But people keep telling me that it sounds balanced to them, so I don't know. Icj tlc 22:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've removed all the ad hominem arguments I could from the "Criticisms" section. I've also removed the mega-churches comment, which I believe should go under Rick Warren's other popular book, The Purpose Driven Church (which curiously has the same criticism about it). --JDitto 22:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

Upon reading this article, this article looked more like it was written as a persuasive article rather than one meant merely to inform. It looks like most of the positive news were crammed into the lengthy introduction, ending with a single negative point. Then all the negative points were given it's own section, totally making little of Reverend Billy Graham's recommendation from the start. Some of the arguments don't even have to do with the book, but with the author and his other book! (Which I've already removed, by the way.) So it begs the question, is this really NPOV?

I also read about the criticisms about redemption, especially "failing to accurately represent the nature of sin, repentance and hell and the blood sacrifice of God's son Jesus as the means to be forgiven by God for sins and allow man to have a relationship with God". Not only was this lacking in reference, but in The Purpose Driven Lifethe book, it says:

"When he paid for our sins on the cross, the veil on the temple that symbolized our separation from God was split from top to bottom, indicating that direct access to God was once again possible." (Page 86, Paragraph 2, 2nd sentence)

It's described fairly, isn't it? For now, I'll keep it on. If no one finds a reason to keep this, I'll take it out. --JDitto 22:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selective use of various translations

We have, "...some contend that when citing Scripture, Warren jumps from one Bible version to another, cherry-picking whichever paraphrase or translation supports whatever point he attempts to convey. The practice of using translations selectively is defended by others.", but the citation given (http://www.smalltownpastor.com/archive/12.asp) is defending the use of translations per se, but the point being made is not that Warren uses translations, but that he picks and chooses between any one of 15 different translations to find the one that suits the point he (and not necessarily the scripture) wants to say there. So I suggest that second sentence about 'others' defending the selective use of various translations should go, unless we find a citation that really does say that. Jinlye (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Pupose.jpg

Image:Pupose.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)