Fuller Theological Seminary alums: John Ortberg

The gentleman on the left is John Ortberg, 53, the senior pastor of Menlo Park Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) in California.

His congregation’s demographics are very much in line with PCUSA findings.  For those who don’t know, Menlo Park is near Stanford University and Silicon Valley.  Therefore, many of the 4,000 people attending his services each week are no doubt high-earners, extremely intelligent and, quite possibly, looking for that much more out of life.

And Ortberg has an answer — Monvee, ‘the future of spiritual formation’.  The Sola Sisters, always on the lookout for new Christian movements of which we should beware, tell us that Bob Buford’s Leadership Network — heavily involved in church growth — partnered with Ortberg to bring the programme to us.

First, a bit about Ortberg, who is originally from Rockford, Illinois.  He earned his Bachelor’s degree from Wheaton College, not too far away.  He went from there to Fuller Theological Seminary for his M.Div. and a Ph.D. in clinical psychology.  He also served as teaching pastor at Willow Creek Community Church for several years.

Psychology and theology

In my review of Fuller’s curriculum the other day, I didn’t go into the clinical psychology aspect of Fuller’s curriculum.  The school runs courses separate to those from the school of theology, however, it is interesting that a seminary would have such a focus in an area which many Bible-believing Christians would view — correctly, in many cases — as being antithethical to a life in Christ Jesus.  As The Lighthearted Calvinist so aptly demonstrates time after time in the prison ministry (Keryx) in which he participates, the Word of God is the only book we need to live a godly and healthy life.  Psychology is man-made and man-centred.

Indeed, Ortberg plays on this man-centredness in his latest book, The Me I Want To Be: Becoming God’s Best Version of You (Zondervan, 2010).  One has only to look at the cover to see that it’s all about … well, ME!  He’s a Joel Osteen for those into psychology and self-development.

However, it’s worse than that.  Ortberg also combines contemplative practices and works-based Christianity with the self-help.  The Monvee site has an online self-assessment (to take part, you’ll need to register).  It allegedly helps you find your own ‘spiritual inhibitors’ preventing you from discovering your pathway to God.

Some of you reading this might be asking, ‘What’s so wrong with combining psychology and church?’  As Pastor Bob DeWaay warns us (emphases mine throughout):

They were all justified and sanctified through New Testament teaching and the gospel Paul preached. There was no sanctification plan for fornicators that was different from a sanctification plan for swindlers.

One very bad idea churches have chosen is to divide people into fellowship groups based on their former sin. This only happened after evangelicalism began to believe that psychology could sanctify people. Therapy groups soon were brought into churches to replace normal fellowship. The great thing that Christianity has to offer, and found nowhere else, is the forgiveness of sins. If we were justified and sanctified as Paul said, then we can leave the past behind.

Who needs grace or Scripture?

Pastor DeWaay* of Critical Issues Commentary discussed Monvee in August 2010. He points out theological error in several places.

First, human ability over Christian teaching:

Like fellow modern evangelical Rick Warren, Ortberg thinks we do not need more Christian doctrine. He writes: “People would rather debate doctrine or beliefs or tradition or interpretation than actually do what Jesus said. It’s not rocket science. Just go do it.”¹² Obviously he assumes we can do what Jesus taught without means of grace. He also says, “You already know more than you need to know.”¹³ That statement proves that Ortberg’s theology is man-centered. He assumes if we know something, we have the ability to do it. Clearly we then would not need Bible teaching as a means of grace if we had read through the Bible even once …

Furthermore, simply knowing something does not imply the ability to do it. Jesus taught this: “Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:48). If Ortberg is right and all we have to do is go out and do what Jesus taught because it is not “rocket science,” then all Christians could be perfected right now if we just went out and did it. But Ortberg says, “It is easier to be smart than be good. You don’t need to know more from the Bible; you just need to do what you already know.”¹⁴ This is appalling. No wonder Bible-teaching churches are disappearing from America. Our Christian leaders think we have a technological problem that can be solved by applying knowledge with the correct technique. God uses the teaching of the Bible to sanctify Christians. Sanctification is not a “how to” issue.

Second, mystical contemplation:

When I read books that I intend to write about, I make notations in the margins to help when I do the writing. As I flip through my notated book on “ME,” I see that the most common notation throughout the book is “no means of grace.” For example, Ortberg writes: “People often wonder how long they should be in solitude. You can experiment, because spiritual practices are about freedom.”¹⁶ He holds to an idea called “the flow of the Spirit” which is found throughout the book as well. I do not know what that is. But whatever it is, one is instructed to experiment to see how they specifically may find it. Where does the Bible ever promise that if we sit in solitude, we will find something called “the flow of the Spirit”? The answer is never. It is no wonder Ortberg promotes Catholic mystics—they invented various ideas about experimenting to find God.

I was teaching on this once and someone challenged me to prove that we cannot create our own ways to come to God or grow in God. The answer is found in the scripture. Paul is speaking of various religious practices invented by men. He writes: “These are matters which have, to be sure, the appearance of wisdom in self-made religion and self-abasement and severe treatment of the body, but are of no value against fleshly indulgence” (Colossians 2:23). The term “self-made” can also be translated “self chosen piety.” Self chosen piety is precisely what Ortberg teaches and Paul forbids. The means of coming to God and growing in God are revealed in scripture and are the same for all people. If we have different needs as we go through life they are covered by God’s providence—not by signing up for a personality test.

Third, exalting mysticism and its practitioners:

Ortberg has written curriculum with mystic Ruth Haley Barton. He praises false teacher Dallas Willard. He praises the Roman Catholic Saint Benedict. He praises Roman Catholic mystic Henri Nouwen. He cites New Age writer Teilhard de Chardin favorably. He cites the Roman Catholic Thomas Merton favorably. He promotes the Roman Catholic Richard Rohr‘s teaching on the Enneagram. It would not be unfair to say that there is no popular, “Christian” mystic he does not approve of.

Fourth, ignoring Scripture:

… he cites The Journal of Happiness Studies to promote the idea of “connectedness.” He also cites a social researcher: “The single most common finding from a half-century’s research on life satisfaction, not only from the U.S. but around the world, is that happiness is best predicted by the breadth and depth of one’s social connections.”¹⁰

Notice that sociology and psychology have pushed theology out of the picture. Ortberg speaks of connecting with “somebody,” but that is not the Biblical concept of fellowship. We only have fellowship with one another if we have fellowship with God based on the blood atonement. Why do I need a supposed Christian book from a Christian publisher to learn psychological and sociological ideas stolen from the world? I do not. Frankly, the church doesn’t need this tripe …

When Ortberg writes on the topic of “fellowship” he includes nothing that defines fellowship Biblically—nothing specifically Christian. Nature has eaten up grace. Evangelicalism has in fact pushed the means of grace to the sideline in favor of what can be gleaned from the natural world. Paul’s teaching in Romans 1 about being able to know about God through nature does not indicate that such knowledge is a saving knowledge—rather it is a condemning knowledge.

Fifth, utopian universalism:

Ortberg also mimics Emergent writers. Consider this:

One day there will be a glorious harmony between God and all that he has made. God wants no one left out. As you flourish, you help in God’s re-creation of the world he wants to see.⁵

This implies universalism and glosses over the issue of coming judgment. God does not need our help to create the world He wants to see. He is coming again and is going to judge the present world. That fact never comes up in Ortberg’s book. (In fact the gospel itself never comes up other than in a very truncated form on page 253.)

Finney and Fuller

DeWaay lays the blame for Ortberg’s type of thinking squarely at the feet of Fuller and 19th century evangelist (and heretic) Charles Finney:

Sociology underlies the church growth movement. Donald McGavran, who invented the movement by applying sociology to missions at Fuller Seminary in the 1950s, had a famous axiom: “People do not become Christians for theological reasons; they become Christians for sociological reasons.” His book Understanding Church Growth was required reading for me at seminary.⁸ I do not think that McGavran’s intent was to drive theology out of the evangelical movement, but eventually that was the effect. The church growth movement is based on McGavran’s use of sociology to grow the church. It makes theology a side point …

I suppose Monvee and Ortberg are the products of a long process dating back to the heretical Charles Finney.¹⁵ Finney taught the doctrine of human ability more fully than anyone since Pelagius himself. Finney believed that if God issued a moral law, then all people were capable of obeying it with no special work of grace. I cannot prove that Ortberg has studied Finney and learned his ideas from him. But they are the same ideas. It would not be overstating the matter to say that Finney ultimately destroyed American evangelicalism. In place of the gospel and the means of grace, we got the American ideal of pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps. Monvee merely carries Finney’s ugly legacy from the 19th century into the 21^st century.

DeWaay concludes:

In Ortberg’s thinking, we need to be more “you-ier.” The biblical concept is to be more Christ-like. We have gone from Christ-centered to self-centered. We have jettisoned the means of grace and replaced them with technology and the study of self. We are in serious need of repentance ...

If you still don’t see it …

The Boomer generation has lived half its life under the shadow of New Age influences.  Generations X and Y have lived most, if not all, of their lives in its shadow.  We’re used to it — the mind-expanding meditation, object-oriented techniques (crystals, labyrinths) and self-centred nonsense wrapped up as spiritual ‘insider knowledge’ — gnosticism, a heresy.

In ‘Mysticism for the Masses’, the Sola Sisters explain the error of combining New Age practices with Christianity, as Monvee does:

There’s just one problem here, but it’s a biggie: these Catholic monks, who were known as the Desert Fathers, cloistered themselves in the Middle East and Egypt; and, because of their close proximity to eastern cultures, ended up being heavily influenced by paganism to the point of grafting pagan practices into their prayers, chiefly, mantra meditation.  So in essence, these “spiritual disciplines” that are part of Monvee’s “Spiritual Formation” programs are classic, eastern occultic practices that have simply been “Christianized” with a sprinkling of the magic pixie dust of Christian terminology.  But make no mistake, these practices are occultic.

They helpfully list terms that fall into this category.  Please be aware of these practices and programmes, which are often marketed in church bulletins as being ‘helpful’, ‘holy’ and ‘ancient’:

– Spiritual formation

– Spiritual disciplines

– Ancient Future

– Contemplative prayer

– Contemplative spirituality

– Jesus Prayer

– Centering prayer (we have this at our church)

– Labyrinth

– Taizé (also at our church)

– Lectio divina

One of the Sola Sisters warns:

So a lack of biblical training coupled with the “churchiness” of these terms has made everyone think these things were okay to do.  And yet, nothing could have been further from the truth.  All of these things have their origins in the occult.   All of these things teach and promote some type of occultic meditation. Think I’m wrong?  Look them all up and see how they’re done, then look up transcendental meditation, trance channeling, spirit guides, new age meditation, and self-hypnosis, and you will see for yourself that the technique given for reaching “God” is exactly the same.  Exactly the same. Before being saved, I did this type of meditation probably thousands of time. This is how it goes: corral the mind using some type of “device” (breathing, chanting, using a mantra, looking at a candle or image, etc.), enter into an alpha level brain wave state, and listen to “God.” Now, the reason I put “God” in quotes there is because if a person follows this methodology, it won’t be God they’re listening to.  It will be something….but it won’t be God.  It will more than likely “feel” spiritual….but only because Satan himself can masquerade as an angel of light.

She’s right.  They all operate on the same principle.  That’s why I stopped early on in my New Age dabblings nearly 30 years ago.

Christianity really is different

The Sola Sister lays it on the line:

Throughout recorded history, humans have worked very hard at gaining access to God’s presence through their own devices, on their own terms.  That’s exactly what mysticism is – an attempt to gain access to God through one’s own means.  That’s why every false religion – at least the ones I’ve researched – have some type of mysticism at their core.  And this is precisely what makes Christianity so distinctively different: we are given access to the one true God, but it is only through the means of God’s choosing.  God chose his Son, who having lived a sinless life was able to make atonement for us and who also – here’s the amazing part – gave us his own righteousness so that when God looked upon us, he would see the righteousness of Christ instead of our own wretched sinfulness.  We would be “hidden” in Christ, our sins covered, and therefore safe in the presence of God.

And she explains the danger of combining mysticism — occultism — with Christianity:

You’ve got a once solid, Christian nation that slowly began to drift toward works righteousness and moralism.  That’s bad enough, but when you add in the mysticism, you’ve got the missing ingredient that renders Satan’s new potion completely toxic.  Remember the problem of works righteousness not being able to deal with the conscience very effectively?  Well, occultic mysticism closes the gap in this way: occultic meditation WILL give a person a supernatural experience.  Now, it’s a demonic supernatural experience, but nonetheless it is supernatural.  And what do we know about Satan? Among other things, we know that he is a supernatural being, he’s a liar, and he prowls the earth like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.  Does he sound like a gentleman?  No – he will not announce himself at the door and state his intention to deceive.  And mysticism is one of his favorite stomping grounds. This alpha brain wave state that a person enters into during meditation? …

Once he gets any of us into this altered state of consciousness, with our God-given barriers down, and our minds primed for deception, will he tell us the truth, that instead of reaching God this way we will be led us into a dark, demonic, dangerous realm?  Will he remind us of the many biblical admonitions to flee from this type of divination?  Well – what do you think?

If you know anyone who has done any of the practices mentioned above, I urge you to warn them that these things are not Christian.  And don’t take my word for it – do the research for yourself.  The truth is that we have only one Mediator who grants us access to God – and He is Jesus (1 Tim 2:5).  And Jesus tells us that when we pray, we are not to babble endlessly like the pagans, who “think they will be heard for their many words (Matt. 6:7).”  Does this not sound eerily like mantra meditation?  He tells us that we are to walk by faith and not by sight (2 Cor. 5:7), meaning, when our spiritual lives grows cold, we are to hold fast to what we know to be true, instead of seeking some kind of postmodern whipped up experience to help us “feel” more spiritual.

Amen, sister!  What more can I say, other than to advise you to stay away from mysticism, Monvee and spiritual development.  Stay close to your Bible and closer to Jesus Christ, our only Mediator and Advocate.  And there the lesson endeth.

Tomorrow: our final Fuller alum

——————————————————————-

*Before anyone mentions this in the comments, I did want to acknowledge that Pastor DeWaay is currently undergoing treatment for alcohol-related hepatitis.  This news came out only a few weeks ago.  Unfortunately, he has had to leave his church, Twin City Fellowship, near Minneapolis.  Like many who have followed his searing and spot-on critiques of erroneous — if not heretical —  ‘Christian’ practices and beliefs over the years, I shall be praying for his complete recovery and eventual return to ministry.

More on diaprax and the postmodern Church

Yesterday, we examined diaprax — dialectic + praxis. Christian author and  researcher Dean Gotcher coined the word diaprax after intensive study of Marxist influences in the church.  Today, we look at other aspects of the church which lend themselves to diaprax.

Cell groups

Rick Warren is fond of the small — or cell — group.  It’s often used for Bible study or prayer.  It works like a workshop in that the leader is the non-judgmental facilitator who wishes to guide the group from thesis through to synthesis.  Smaller Alpha groups work along this model.

I was sorry to read that the traditional, Reformed Anglicans Ablaze appears to support small groups.  Recently, its author, Robin Jordan, featured a ‘message’ from Rick Warren on the importance of this type of ministry:

Here is a message Rick sent to the Saddleback family explaining why small groups are so important to a believer’s spiritual growth. You’re welcome to adapt it for your own congregation —

It’s the classroom for learning how to get along in God’s family.

It’s a lab for practicing unselfish, sympathetic love. You learn to care about others and share the experiences of others: “If one part of the body suffers, all the other parts suffer with it. Or if one part of our body is honored, all the other parts share its honor” (1 Cor. 12:26 NCV). Only in regular contact with ordinary, imperfect believers can we learn real fellowship and experience the connection God intends for us to have (Eph. 4:16, Rom. 12:4–5, Col. 2:19, 1 Cor. 12:25).

REAL fellowship is being as committed to each other as we are to Jesus Christ: “Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers” (1 John 3:16). This is the kind of sacrificial love God expects you to show other believers—loving them in the same way Jesus loves you.

Hmm.  Well, I did try to warn Mr Jordan (but to no avail) about another emergent programme he touted earlier this year, Fresh Expressions.  I tried to contact him privately but his blog only allowed for Google account holders to post comments.

Of small groups, Dr Robert E Klenck in his essay, ‘The 21st Century Church: Part 3’ says:

[Warren] is aware of research by Lyle Schaller, of the Leadership Network, that shows the relationship between the number of friendships that one has in the church, and the percentage chance then of that person leaving.  Close relationships are formed in the small groups, thus, people are required to participate in them.

And this is a concern.  This type of group then becomes psychologically close.  Warren asks members of these groups to ‘confess’ their sins publically to one another, as the Oxford Group (not Oxford Movement) did in the last century.  Warren’s is known as an ‘accountability group’.

Let’s look at what’s left unsaid in Warren’s push for small groups.  It’s about church unity, which will become increasingly important as we move towards a worldwide Christian Church.  It is in small groups where that ‘unity’ can take root and where submission to the accountability group through public confession of sins effects this relationship. It’s all rather … cultish. Instead of focussing on God for salvation through the Holy Spirit and the Word, the small group member (unless he is the leader) looks to the group for affirmation, correction and forgiveness. The horror.

Imagine mentioning in passing during one of these gatherings that you disagreed with an aspect of the service on a Sunday morning.  The small group is there to monitor your behaviour and responses.  Expect to be corrected and brought into line with the received ‘paradigm’ of the small group, and by extension, your church at large.  Church unity is all, even when that church is in error.

Unbelievers and ‘felt needs’

Like his mentor, Robert Schuller, Rick Warren also surveyed potential members of his congregation early in his ministry.  He focused only on the unbelievers and, like Schuller, constructed his church around their ‘felt needs’.  ‘Felt needs’ are highly important to diaprax, which eschews what we would call ‘fundamental’, ‘eternal’ or ‘absolute’ truths.  There is no truth.  What may be true today may not be true tomorrow.  We must change constantly.

Warren’s secular guru, Peter Drucker, may have had an even larger role to play in the church growth movement (CGM) than Schuller.  Dr Klenck notes (emphasis in the original):

He holds a doctorate of theology degree from Fuller Theological Seminary – one of the strongest proponents of the church growth movement.

Organizational management “guru” Peter Drucker, who is very involved in this movement, stated:

“…noncustomers are as important as customers, if not more important:  because they are potential customers. … Yet it is with the noncustomers that changes always start.”[6]

Thus, in this movement, it is imperative that unbelievers are brought into the church; otherwise, the process of continual change cannot begin.  There must be an antithesis (unbelievers) present to oppose the thesis (believers), in order to move towards consensus (compromise), and move the believers away from their moral absolutism (resistance to change).  If all members of the church stand firm on the Word of God, and its final authority in all doctrine and tradition, then the church cannot and will not change.  This is common faith.

The tension must be present, otherwise we cannot move away from orthodox Christianity towards … a man-oriented church unity through a worldwide religious organisation.

Leaving God out of it

Bob Buford, another of Peter Drucker’s followers, started the Leadership Network in 1984, designed to put church leaders in touch with each other.  Note what its mission and values statement reads in part (emphases mine):

The mission of the Leadership Network is to accelerate the emergence of the 21st-century church.  We believe the emerging paradigm of the 21st century church calls for the development of new tools and resources as well as the equipping of a new type of 21st century church leader, both clergy and laity.  This new paradigm is not centered in theology but rather it is focused on structure, organization, and the transition from an institutionally based church to a mission-driven church.  We value innovation that leads to results …

God the Father?  Christ crucified and risen?  The Holy Spirit?  Grace?  Scripture?  Hellooo?

Have a look in Dr Klenck’s essay and scroll halfway down to see that neither God the Father nor His Son appears in the increasingly-used circular ‘core’ diagram.

TQM fine for the secular world

Having spent several years not only working in quality assurance but holding international certification, I can say that there is nothing wrong with Peter Drucker’s TQM for goods and business processes.  If, like Dr Klenck, you think there is, consider the reliability of everyday objects that you use: lightbulbs, cars and — in his case — surgical instruments.

I do agree with him that TQM has no place in the religious world at all.  In that case, yes, ‘total’ would mean ‘totalitarian’, whereas in a manufacturing plant or services company, it ensures that you get repeatable, measurable, reliable results every time.

Peter Drucker’s error

This is where Peter Drucker has gone wrong.  To him, a church (or another religious house of worship) is like a restaurant or shop which relies on what’s known as ‘footfall’, or ‘lots of traffic’.  In reality, some churches are smaller.  Some are larger.  What’s important is that they are pure and follow God’s holy Scripture.  Yet, Drucker said in an interview:

Consider the pastoral megachurches that have been growing so very fast in the U.S. since 1980 and are surely the most important social phenomenon in American society in the last 30 years. There are now some 20,000 of them, and while traditional denominations have steadily declined, the megachurches have exploded. They have done so because they asked, “What is value?” to a nonchurchgoer and came up with answers the older churches had neglected. They have found that value to the consumer of church services is very different from what churches traditionally were supplying. The greatest value to the thousands who now throng the megachurches—both weekdays and Sundays—is a spiritual experience rather than a ritual.

Hmm.  How many orthodox Christians attend church and ask, ‘Did I receive value for money here today?’  Frankly, I don’t think a seeker would either, although he probably goes back because there’s free popcorn, coffee and a pastor who walks the stage and works the audience like a comedian.  A pretty good show.

It’s about the money

I mentioned before that CGM is very much focussed on money.  In time, probably when most of us will be too elderly to blog or the Internet is restricted to the elite, church members’ tithes and financial contributions will go towards providing welfare for the world.  This is what the Council for Foreign Relations (CFR) intends, anyway.

Already, Anglican parishes in England are sending in a proportion of their donations annually to the diocese for various programmes for the disadvantaged.  Whilst there is nothing wrong with that, some objections must be brewing among those in the pews.  A couple of years ago, our church was asked to complete a survey, giving our views on how much we would like for the diocese to have and towards what programmes.  I can imagine that this came as a surprise to many on the parish electoral roll.

Dr Klenck notes:

The Leadership Network recommends numerous materials and research studies to pastors that are geared towards maximizing the amount of tithing, pledging, and giving in the church.  One of the “masters” of “stewardship” is John Maxwell.  Mr. Maxwell is the former pastor of Skyline Community Church, in San Diego, CA, and founded Injoy Ministries, a church consulting firm.

What next for the Church?

Part of the reason money is so important, is that the Church is set to become just another service industry.  Christ’s holy Bride sounds very much like a business when Bob Buford’s Leadership Network describes Her (emphases mine):

Partnerships, alliances and collaboration will become the norm, rather than the exception, and the relationships will be built on new loyalties and a new common mission. … The next movement will grow people, not parking lots. … These same people are in the congregations of the 21st century and they are going to be the “point people” for the partnerships and alliances that will achieve the vision beyond the property line.”

and Buford says:

The Church of the 21st Century is reforming itself into a multi-faceted service operation.

Don’t forget that one of the reasons why many CGM churches have a register of members’ professions and ‘spiritual gifts’ is that the government or the UN might one day require access to that information in order to evaluate how well a church is working with it on secular schemes for food, health clinics or day care.  So, if you start such a registry at the beginning, especially if you wish to encourage people to join personal accountability groups, you’ve laid the groundwork for future record-keeping and inspection. As such, it doesn’t come as a surprise to either the member or the church administration.

Tomorrow: Biblical reasons why you should avoid diaprax and CGM

Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church and management theory

In examining error this Lent, let us not forget the daddy of them all: Rick Warren.  I submit to you, whether you are Catholic or Protestant, your church or diocese is using his methods for a Purpose-Driven Church.

When you read analyses of Pastor Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church, they sound much like management treatises.  Words like ‘growth’, ‘capital’, ‘knowledge’, and ‘assessment’ pop up time and time again.  Low on the scale are words such as ‘Bible’, ‘God’, ‘Jesus’, ‘faith’, ‘sin’ and ‘redemption’.

Two strands dovetail in the Purpose-Driven Church: one from the US Government and the other from management guru Peter Drucker (1909-2005). 

First, the 1997 Welfare Reform Act from the US Government, which explains why there is such a commingling of state, philanthropic and church resources — common purpose, one might say.  A Crossroads Ministries essay, ‘The Pied Pipers of Purpose’, states:

Faith-based organizations, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1997 and subsequent legislation, are nonprofit organizations that have gone to the feeding trough of the State. This includes nonprofits that perform medical care, emergency relief, housing, care of the elderly, training, shelters, homeless, hospices, food pantries, welfare-to-work, job training, refuge services, child care, preschools, etc. Keep in mind that some nonprofits which perform medical care, also perform abortions or refer for abortions.[69] In order to get the faith-based agenda jump-started, philanthropy leaders working in collaboration, offer training to equip private charities with the new result-oriented mode of conducting business. These activities successfully prepare the nonprofits to receive faith-based monies from the State. Faith-based organizations are more complex than simple storefront charities. They “have program competence, but they need core competencies…. Capacity, planning capacity, supervisory capacity, multi-site management, logistics, human resources,” says Dr. Christine Letts of Harvard University.[70] If a faith-based organization restructures to meet the new demands of its donors, it is said to be “value-added.”

Combine this with Rick Warren’s heavy borrowing from Peter Drucker and his acolytes for Saddleback Church and you eventually arrive at the Purpose-Driven Church. 

First, who is Peter Drucker?  If you have worked in quality management or management consulting, as I have, you will have run across his name and probably employed his methods for consistent, demonstrable, successful, results-driven projects which bring in more money to your business.  Drucker was born in Austria to intellectual parents.  They were part of the Vienna Circle, a group of thinkers and government officials who sought to implement new ideas about human and economic potential.  The young Drucker emigrated to England in 1933 then, at the outbreak of the Second World War, went to the United States, where he worked as a management consultant for General Motors.  The author of 39 books and countless essays, he has been called a ‘social ecologist’ and ‘social philosopher’.  He had no interest in religion but was concerned about man’s happiness as a ‘social being’, which he believed could only be realised through communitarianism.   

He devised the concept of ‘management by objectives’: the continuous improvement and evaluation of knowledge and processes which would effect them.  This is a gross oversimplification, but this post is about Rick Warren, not Peter Drucker.  Peter Drucker’s theories work really well for corporations and consulting practices.  However, churches are a different matter altogether.  Yet, although Drucker was not a religious man, he stuck his oar into what he thought churches should be.  He said:

… social sector institutions have a particular kind of purpose [emphasis ours]…. The ‘product’ of a church is a churchgoer whose life is being changed. The task of social-sector organizations is to create human health and well being.

Really?  No, that is not the purpose of church, but it seems to be the purpose of our churches today.

In Drucker’s estimation, a church is no different from a hospital, a food bank or a museum.  It’s part of the identity of a social system and works with the public sector.  And together, in his view, these work to transform our society and change us as individuals for the common good.  The corporate sector (business) can enhance this by passing on its theories and methods for success.  These transform — change — not only the institution involved but those who volunteer for it.  Kinda scary when you take that to its furthest extent.  And human potential is all about change — someone else’s (not God’s) idea of change.  This is why I’m most wary of people being forced to volunteer for their church because ‘it’s what we are called to do’.  Better to perform a quiet act of individual charity independently than to get caught up in this.

Which leads us to Rick Warren’s Purpose-Driven Church.  Warren and Drucker knew each other.  Warren was a guest in his home.  Warren’s website quotes Drucker:

Peter Drucker calls Rick ‘the inventor of perpetual revival’

Rather like Drucker’s theory of Total Quality Management, or TQM. Great for the business world, but let’s not mix it up with God.  So, what are Drucker’s theories about church which Warren finds so attractive?

– Instituting quantifiable — measurable — spiritual standards: beliefs, behaviours, attitudes.  By whose standards?  Man’s!

– Undergoing continuous church restructure every time growth increases by 45%.  Whose standards are these?  Man’s!

– Implementing ‘accountability’ — working like a business in attempting to exceed growth and giving targets, withdrawing central funds if these are unmet.  Whose standards? Man’s!

– State-mandated targets for church schools, e.g. exam results or enrolment growth.  By whose standards?  Man’s!

But, Drucker’s influence goes further.  One of his acolytes, Bob Buford, started the Leadership Network in 1984.  This sounds very churchy, indeed:

a resource broker that supplies information to and connects leaders of innovative churches.

Jesus and St Paul would have approved.  Not.  Its aims are to train and equip pastors for the 21st century church so that we end up with ’emerging young leaders’ with ‘new tools and resources’ via an ‘ongoing peer-coaching network’.  In his network are a number of prominent NewAgers, all of whom seek to transform mankind’s future. Buford was also responsible for FaithWorks (1998), later renamed Halftime. 

Drucker devised the General Systems Theory and the ‘feedback mechanism’ (anyone employed today knows what that is). For churches, Buford has developed a Christian Life Profile.  Warren has created a Purpose-Driven Life Health Assessment for a believer’s spiritual condition.  Criteria in church-based assessments are likely to measure:

– Extent of congregation’s growth in numbers or increase in funds — lack of growth is failure.

– How many church members volunteered time to church or charity? 

– How much time did each spend and how often?    

So, what about those who might not have the intelligence or perceived talent to help transform their local church?  I’m talking about the believing high-school dropout who is a responsible and loving parent or an aged, lifelong church member who is house-bound. And what about those who are unable to volunteer at church because they care for an aging parent and work during the day?  Will there be a place for them in this man-made construct?

Furthermore, why should all of this be quantified and tabulated in a database, which it surely must be? 

But when thou doest thine alms, let not thy left hand know what the right hand doeth. (Matt. 6:3)

Crossroads asks the question (emphases mine):

… did the Purpose-Driven “covenant” idea actually originate in “organizational capital” theories? Has a psycho-social concept been dressed up in biblical language to make it palatable?Interestingly, these church covenants are so vaguely worded and undefined that new meanings could be assigned to the terminology as time goes on. As one critic noted, “The bottom line is this: Once you’ve signed a church membership covenant and boarded the CGM [church growth movement, ed.] train – you’re committed to its destination, even if it changes direction somewhere along the way. This is why Jesus commands us in Matthew 5:33-34 to not make oaths with men because when it’s all said and done we might find ourselves following the wrong god.”

Nowhere in the Bible is there a mandated assessment for belief, quantified acts of charity, attained targets or linking up with government programmes. This is quite insidious and dangerous for any church.  Before you know it, the government will start dictating the church’s terms.  We saw this played out in Europe in the last century.  Let’s not make a return trip.

For more information, see:

‘The Pied Pipers of Purpose’ (Crossroads Ministries)

Tomorrow: The biblical case against the Purpose-Driven Church