Book Review: The Dark Side of the Purpose Driven Church

Book review
The Dark Side of the Purpose Driven Church

Full description of book:
Noah W. Hutchings, The Dark Side of the Purpose Driven Church, Expanded Edition (2005 1st Ed., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA: Bible Belt Publishing, 2nd Ed. 2007) ISBN: 1933641002

Review:

This book is one of the latest book critiquing the Purpose Driven paradigm by Rick Warren. Rev. Noah Hutchings is a Dispensational Pre-millennial Baptist who has his own radio ministry, Southwest Radio Church, based in Oklahoma City which engages primarily in end-times issues. He also has had the experience of being driven out of his former church due to their embrace of the Purpose Driven paradigm and has therefore taken note of this growing schismatic and hetero-orthodox movement within the visible Body of Christ, ultimately writing this book to expose the movement. With his radio ministry, Hutchings has had the privilege also of ministering to the many believers who were driven out of their churches as the leaders introduce the PD paradigm by stealth in an hostile takeover of the church through underhand tactics. Hutchings has therefore also reproduced some of the letters he has received detailing the anguish and destruction caused by the PD paradigm.

Detailed Analysis

As stated earlier, the many testimonies from victims of the PD paradigm is a plus point of the book; in fact the best plus point of the book. Such testimonies help us to empathize with the victims, and once again remind ourselves that this is not just an intellectual and academic subject, but that real lives and peoples are involved and are affected by the growing PD paradigm.

We have earlier stated that Hutchings seem to challenge the PD paradigm more because it goes against the conservative paradigm rather than the Bible, and here we will see why this is the case, under the following subject matters.

New translations of the Bible

Hutchings in this book of his attacks the usage of the new translations like the Message by attacking all new translations in general (p. 34), stating that they are based on the corrupt Alexandrian texts. However, whether the Alexandrian texts is indeed corrupted is irrelevant because firstly Warren's misquotation of Scripture and usage of corrupted 'paraphrases' does not depend on whether the Alexandrian texts are corrupted or not. Secondly, Hutchings has not proven this to be the case, and therefore to state it as fact is to alienate all non-KJV users, and even KJV users who are not KJV-Only adherents may be uncomfortable with such an accusation. The question therefore to Hutchings is this, Is it necessary to alienate all non-KJV users and even some KJV users when dealing with Warren's misusage of Scripture?

Hutchings has unfortunately also utilizes some of the arguments KJVOnly promoters use to promote their heresy. Stating that just because the KJV mentions the word 'doctrine' 44 times in the singular whereas the new versions like the NIV, NASV and the HCSB translated that same word differently (ie "teaching", "beliefs", "instruction", "instruct") (p. 69), Hutchings make a logical fallacious inference that the newer versions are against doctrines. This is analogous to saying that just because a Gospel tract does not include the word "Gospel" must mean that it does not in actual fact contain the Gospel; utterly ridiculous reasoning. Also, he calls other versions "anti-KJV versions" (p. 71), which is just plain KJVO rhetoric which fallaciously links any attack on the KJVO position with an attack on the KJV.

On Eschatology

Hutchings is a Dispensational Pre-millennialist, and unashamedly so. That is ok within certain limits, as if Hutchings truly does believe that Dispensational Premillennialism is truly biblical, then it must be expected that he would boldly teach and defend it as biblical truth. What is not ok however is the blanket attack on other Eschatological positions like Amillennialism and Post-millennialism which are contrary to his own eschatological positions. For example, on p. 83, Hutchings attacked Saddleback's Eschatological position, stating that

In the purpose driven church explanation, nothing is presented about the signs of the times in which Jesus will return; nothing about the Rapture or translation of the church; nothing is said about the millennial reign or the Kingdom age. Dr. Warren evidently accepts the replacement theology, preterist, A-millennial position. The only reason for Jesus coming again according to PDC eschatology is to bring an end to the world, which is a doctrinal position that most evangelical, fundamental churches would reject if they would really inform themselves about PDC theology.

Here we see Hutchings' uncharitable belittling of anyone believing anything other than his Dispensational Premil position. Whether Warren and/or Saddleback believes in what Hutchings claim to believe is irrelevant here, but Hutchings here use loaded words in attacking those who disagree or even does not state their agreement with his Dispensational Pre-mil eschatology , calling their eschatology 'replacement theology' and 'preterist'. Preterism is heresy, so is Hutchings here trying to smear all non-Dispensationalist Pre-mill believers with heresy? Fact of course is that historic reformed Amillennialism rejects both Replacement theology and Preterism. On such a topic, while disagreement is to be expected, it is hoped that Hutchings should be more charitable towards those of other eschatological persuasions, as those of us non-Dispensationalists who reject his eschatology based on what we consider to be valid scriptural grounds against it. Furthermore also, this is not a salvation issue here and therefore on this minor issue, we should extend Christian charity towards others of different persuasion, not to mention representing them fairly instead of erecting strawmen of their positions.

American Patriotism

While Hutchings' patriotism is to be admired, and the evidences for the growing destruction of American democratic system by organizations like the CFR (Council of Foreign Relations) is most probably correct, I most definitely have a bone to pick with Hutchings on this issue. As servants and ministers of the Gospel, we are to be non-partisan in the struggles between nations and our only supreme loyalty is to Christ. Therefore, I do not see why almost an an entire chapter (Chapter 14; pp. 162-165) in a Christian book should be devoted to defending America and criticizing Warren for aiding in her destruction. This most definitely confuses the line between Church and State, which is against Scripture as God's Kingdom is not of this world (Jn. 18:36). By all means, criticize Warren for his behavior, but do so by stating that a minister of the Gospel has no business playing politics at all. Hutchings' chapter here subtly reinforces a linkage between Christianity and America which is not biblical at all, as if to be biblical means that the person must support America. NO! America Christians should support America because they are Americans, not because they are Christians. The confusion between these two is worrisome indeed.

Business meetings, deacon board etc.

In a tract which Hutchings wrote which is also reproduced in his book pp. 144-148, Hutchings made a couple of statements on the tell-tale signs which accompany a PD takeover. While this may well be the case, it is worrisome in the way some of them are expressed, most especially in the Sign 6 (p. 145) which states that one sign of a PD takeover is the

Elimination of business meetings, church committees, council of elders, board of deacons etc.

Now, while this might be a symptom and is probably the case in many PD takeovers, the fact of the matter is that some of these are not biblical either, so this seems to show that Hutchings here "challenges the PD paradigm more because it goes against the conservative paradigm rather than the Bible". Where in the Bible is there such a thing as a business meeting mentioned? And where in Scripture is the gathering of elders called a "council of elders", and of deacons called the "board of deacons"? The fact of the matter is that such leadership structures appear to make the church more like a business corporation rather than a church. And if business meetings as such are eliminated, that is a good thing. Hutchings therefore appears to be more interested in preserving some of the status quo rather than continually reforming the church according to Scripture.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, we can see that the many testimonies in Hutchings' book is indeed a plus point. Yet, his dogmatic insistence on various issues mars the book, and make it more of a criticism based upon Tradition rather than Scripture per se. Yes, of course, various scriptures are quoted, and at various sections, Hutchings has refuted the PD paradigm well, especially with regards to the entrance of worldly rock music. However, besides these more peripheral issues of the PD paradigm and the various letters and testimonies included in the book, Hutchings' evaluation of the other topics are not well done, with his criticism of Warren's misuse of Scripture utilizing KJVO type arguments thus invalidating most of his arguments, and his evaluation of Warren's "Gospel" not being in depth enough. This is especially so after reading 4 books on the topic and writing one of my own, and therefore Hutchings' book pale in comparison to the superior critique of people such as the one done by Pastor Bob DeWaay in his book Redefining Christianity, which I strongly recommend.