Archives

1

This entry has generated some conflict and I've been meaning to update it for some time. It seemed to be a conglomeration of information and not focused on the subject. As you will see, I've moved a couple sections to entries that specifically discuss that subject. For example, references to Rick Warren has been moved to Rick Warren. I have endeavored to make the writing of this entry more "encyclopedic" in style. While obviously biased to the subject matter, I want to uphold Wiki standards of W:NPOV, W:BLP, COI, etc. I trust I have done this correctly. If not, I am open to correction and learning to do it the right way.

One last comment, I know there is the propensity by some for criticism of Rick and the movement of churches he has generated. While there is certainly room for criticism, I ask that this section not be used for opinions - those belong in the blogoshpere. As someone has suggested, there could be a section for critics and supporters. However, I would hope we could keep this as a simple encyclopedia entry. CarverM (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like your thinking. A problem with sections for criticisms and defenses is that they tend to make an article read like a confused man arguing with himself, and the encyclopedic tone suffers. Also they tend to become too detailed (as the argument of the criticism/defense is explained) and the quality of the references is often not as high because they often come from that same blogosphere you mentioned.

It is probably worth mentioning in the article, though, that Rick Warren and the Purpose Driven brand are seen as controversial by a section of the church community. I see this as a notable and encyclopedic fact. Of course it would have to be done completely neutrally so as not to spark the debate within the article, and would need a good quality, non-inflammatory reference. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could write up something that was encyclopedic but didn't need a reference? The problem with trying to use a reference for this particular issue is that most of the criticism comes from single bloggers, most of them from the very conservative fundamental expression of the church body. CarverM (talk) 00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we shouldn't add unsourced statements to Wiki. Yes, most of the criticism comes from blogs and other such low-quality refs, so I'd be looking for a more academic type ref that simply notes that there is controversy, rather than taking a position on the issue. I'll see what I can find. BreathingMeat (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear why you put the no citation notice on the article. The "source" is the teaching in the book The Purpose Driven Church. What else is needed? CarverM (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the question above has not been answered, I have removed the citation until someone can provide a policy reason for it being there. CarverM (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While not opposed to a section devoted to honest criticism, the section as it stood was all opinion and no specific citations given for criticism. If criticism is to be allowed it should be specific and supported by definitive argument. Otherwise, write a blog; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Therefore I deleted the section. Revrac (talk) December 29, 2008

Someone, unidentified, keeps undoing my removal of the Criticism section. Again, I'm not against having a criticism section but this one does not conform to Wikipedia policies. Specifically: weasel words ^{[weasel words]}, verifiability WP:V, and biographies of living persons WP:BLP. If a reviewer wants to insert a viable critique, fine, but not this one. It represents a minority view, it is not cited except by minor, minor blog writers and it is slanderous. Revrac (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was me. I made a post to this page but for some reason it didn't get posted. As for the criticism section, there is no way to know if it represents a minority position. This page is not a biography of a living person and the sources are not " minor, minor blog writers". A quick Google search shows that the authors of the articles are at least somewhat known. Two of the authors have Wikipedia pages of their own. I would also like to see what is slanderous about the sources, because I didn't see anything. SirBob42 (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page is being treated like a biography of a living person as the bloggers are attacking a person, not an idea. Purpose Driven is an idea and this section should be on just that, not on Rick Warren. Maybe somebody can change this section to reflect such. My slander comment is just that. If you read some of the bloggers sites they are simply giving their opinion. And, mostly taking issues out of context. Again, if someone wants to put in a valid criticism, cited and discussed, then fine. I'm sure there are thousands of supporters who could also post an opinion. But, what good would that do? This is an encyclopedia and it should be kept clear and concise with verifiable sources. Revrac (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does this wikipedia article state that this makes pastors more effective? Is it a commercial for the book? I changed that to something more objective. And NO, I'm not a Christian or any other kind of bible thumper arguing against this concept.173.55.18.114 (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better to edit the page to Wikipedia standards than to delete it altogether. --Jpaff 21:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I've added an unsourced banner to this page. There aren't any references in the article at all, despite chunks of presumably quoted text appearing here. There are also many apparently factual statements regarding publication dates and Warren's teaching. There are also a number of more vague claims like "To be “purpose driven” is to be driven by God’s purposes, not our own" and "(The Purpose Driven Life) eventually became one of the best-selling books in history" - these should be replaced with tangible facts and substantiated with references. I'd do these things myself rather than uglying up the article with a banner, but I no longer own any of Warren's books so could not do a very good job of it. BreathingMeat (talk) 19:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear why you put the unsourced notice on the article. The "source" is the teaching in the book The Purpose Driven Church. What else is needed? CarverM (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if this information is sourced from that book, it should be referenced as such. Secondly, the book The Purpose Driven Church is a Primary Source which makes it not as good for referencing as a secondary source, and are more open to attacks of Original Research. Thirdly, I strongly doubt that The Purpose Driven Church can substantiate the article's claim that The Purpose Driven Life is "one of the best-selling books in history". This and numerous other statements in the article need to be referenced or they are not reliable. BreathingMeat (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. I will figure out how to better substantiate the information. Just FYI, in actuality it is one of the best selling single books in history. Just in English the book has sold well over 40 million copies. The book is available in over 65 languages and is on the way to over 100 translations. In most of the languages it is a best selling book. CarverM (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The term "purpose driven" extends beyond the religious or theological context that is presented here. The purpose of this article seems to border on the proselyting of new converts. I suggest shortening the material, using a neutral tone, and merging the article with a broader topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.104.225 (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this article is to describe the Purpose Driven brand helmed by Rick Warren. There are other uses of the term "Purpose Driven" and if and when they get Wikipedia articles, they should be disambiguated from this one. The purpose of this article certainly is not to proselytise, but to neutrally present the beliefs espoused in literature published under the Purpose Driven brand. Not so that readers may take up the beliefs themselves, but simply to describe them. If you believe that non-neutral statements are being made, please provide specific examples here, or feel free to be bold and re-word or remove them yourself! BreathingMeat (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BreathingMeat. This article simply presents the meaning behind a term that is becoming somewhat branded (though this is not the original intent) as Purpose Driven. With these words being in the title of two books that have sold well over 40 million copies in over 60 languages worldwide, the title of conferences and seminars delivered all over the world, it is well known in Christendom. Therefore, for people outside of the Christian worldview or those Christians who want to know more definitively what being "purpose driven" is about, this article attempts to be an encyclopedic information source. It is no more than that. If you think there are proselytising phrases here, point them out and we'll certainly try to say it better. CarverM (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that "purpose driven" should be expressed more openly. The article should not claim that the TERM was first used by Warren, but maybe something along the lines of the TERM, in the modern, religious, has been coined by Warren, but not the term in general. Warren was the first to use a term/phrase in the sense he has, but the actual term/phrase has been around for a long, long time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.141.156 (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made my attempt to establish context. "Purpose Driven" has been trademarked by Warren and it is within this context that the article discusses the term. BreathingMeat (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.133.141.156 (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]