I'm not making fun, because I love my "Old Time Religion," too. I'm just having fun. ;)
Posted on 12/31/2006 8:41:18 AM PST by Gamecock
The facade is beginning to peel back from the so-called ministry of Southern California Pastor Rick Warren, author of "The Purpose Driven Church" and "The Purpose Driven Life." Unfortunately, many among his ample flock have far too much invested in him, both emotionally and otherwise, to admit their mistakes and cut their losses.
Moreover, he certainly faces no possibility of in-depth scrutiny from the "mainstream media," as his brand of "Christianity" poses little or no threat to their liberal social agenda. Yet to the degree that anyone at all questions Warren as anything less than authentic, his response is thoroughly telling as to his true character, as well as the nature of his "ministry."
Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of the Internet news site, "World Net Daily," opened a can of worms by calling Warren to account over his fawning praise of the terrorist stronghold of Syria. While there, Warren lauded the brutish dictatorship as "peaceful," claiming that the Islamist government does not officially sanction "extremism of any kind."
When confronted by Farah, an American of Middle Eastern decent who knows too well the history of horror and tragedy faced by persecuted Christians in that region of the world, Warren immediately denied ever making such statements.
Subsequently, Farah offered as evidence a "YouTube" video from Saddleback Church, where Warren is pastor, inarguably proving Farah's statement. So Warren's church simply pulled the video from circulation and continued the denial, being unaware that a copy of the video file had been downloaded and is still in circulation. Warren's follow-up to this inconvenient circumstance is perhaps most telling of all.
In a concurrent set of moves, Warren sent a seemingly conciliatory e-mail to Farah while distributing another to his "flock," in which he characterized Farah's pursuit of the incident as nothing less than "doing Satan's job for him." Throughout this sorry episode, Farah's only error has been to suggest that Warren's disturbing behavior represents some new departure from consistency.
In fact, Warren is actually being entirely consistent. Whether his audience might be Farah himself, Syrian despot Bashar Assad or the Saddleback congregation, Warren tells each exactly what he believes they want to hear.
This pattern is the essence of what Warren is and what has made him so "successful" from a worldly perspective.
For those among his congregation who sincerely want to know the truth, the evidence is ample. Unfortunately, it always has been available, and any present "confusion" merely results from past decisions to ignore that evidence.
For example, his letter to the congregation decrying the "attack" and making his defense by invoking Scripture is barely four paragraphs long. Yet in those four paragraphs, he employs three different "translations" of the Bible. Why, it must be asked, does he not trust any single translation to convey God's message to humanity?
Could it be that he has his own message and agenda to advance, and that he has found it very convenient to utilize different wordings of different passages, not because they better convey God's purpose, but rather his own?
It would be better to ask, could his motivation possibly be anything else?
As Farah has refused to let this indefensible situation simply drop, Warren has responded by taking it to another realm, making personal attacks against Farah in an interview with the magazine, "Christianity Today." But once again, by so doing, Warren succeeds in revealing much more about himself than about his adversary.
Warren, who has not to date been known as any sort of standard bearer for Christian principle in the political arena, decries Farah (whose societal and moral views fall unambiguously on the right) and his ideological allies as part of a wrongful "political" encroachment on the faith.
In contrast, Warren's forays into the political realm prove, not surprisingly, to be decidedly leftist. At a recent conference on the African AIDS epidemic, Warren invited the very liberal Senator Barak Obama (D-Ill.) as a keynote speaker. He justified the inclusion of Obama, who avidly supports abortion and same-sex "marriage," on the grounds that Obama offered a worldly solution to ostensibly curb the spread of the disease through condom usage.
The morally ambiguous message conveyed by the advocacy of condoms, along with their inherent unreliability, make them nothing less than iconic to the abortion industry, which fully understands how much new business they generate. In the face of such pragmatism, one has to wonder what will be next. Perhaps Warren's church will sponsor a "designated driver's ministry" at every bar in its locale.
Appalling though Obama's inclusion in the conference may be, it is nonetheless entirely consistent with Warren's behavior from the beginning.
Leading a megachurch in the culturally disintegrating landscape of Southern California, Warren certainly knows that his prospects of maximizing the "flock" will be greatly enhanced as long as he shows proper deference to the real religion of the area, "political correctness."
In this, his Christian populism movement has proven to be far more palatable to the God-hating secularists of the surrounding communities than such stodgy, old-fashioned and "intolerant" notions as "Thou Shalt Not." And the Warren influence has been predictable wherever it can be found.
If other churches that abide in the Warren philosophy, such as Chicago's gargantuan "Willow Creek," were to truly uphold Christian values among their enormous congregations, they would certainly be a constant "thorn in the side" of their surrounding populace, acculturated into the modernism as those communities certainly are. Yet an amazing degree of compatibility and congeniality exists between the Warren Church model and the social structures of Chicago and Southern California.
The tradeoff between true Christian principle and acceptability to the locals is apparently worth the spiritual sacrifice it entails, with expanding parking lots, increasingly lavish facilities and, of course, fuller collection plates bearing witness. Meanwhile, such churches offer ever less of a worthwhile and much-needed alternative to the ailing world around them.
Ultimately, Warren gives conformist Christians, wearied from their ongoing battle with a world that is increasingly hostile to true Christian faith, an apparent "out" by offering a version that the modern world can find more acceptable while remaining in its present spiritual darkness.
Many among Warren's vast following have made the mistake, in light of his "purpose driven" ministering, of presuming, at the heart of the movement, a Christ-driven purpose. Yet as Warren's real character continues to be revealed, it is becoming apparent that members of that following are presuming too much.
(Christopher G. Adamo is a freelance writer and staff writer for the New Media Alliance. He lives in southeastern Wyoming and has been active in local and state politics for many years.)
Softening up. Watch for the "official Rick Warren bible" to come out next.
You mean, "How can we fool 'em today?" Sounds more like Clinton to me. Or Romney. (Is Giuliani waffling or denying his previous statements? I thought he was an in-your-face liberal.) I'm really not up on my evangelical who's who and haven't read this guy's book (only heard of him and it because of the girl in Atlanta who read to the courthouse murderer,) but he sounds like another "religious" cult leader from what I have heard.
Giuliani is trying to appear as conservative, despite his past positions on abortion, partial birth abortion, gay marriage/civil unions, amnesty for illegals and gun control.
Is he denying previous stands, changing his positions, or just avoiding talking about them?
You said -- "In all seriousness, I think it's too young to have it, because what hormonal pre-teen takes religion seriously? But that's the way it's set up. *SHRUG*"
Well, perhaps even earlier would be good. I say that, having come from being saved (my own choice) at 7 years old. I remember it and it was something I understood and it was something that was a legitimate choice since it's still with me all these years (over 50 years...). It was an old-fashioned tent revival meeting with those sawdust floors and chairs set out in rows and so on.
And you said -- "And, if that's NOT confusing enough...we have two "synods" (chapters, sectors, etc.) in the Lutheran faith. 'Wisconsin Synod' and 'Missouri Synod.' I was raised in the Missouri synod, which is much more strict and by-the-book than the Wisconsin Synod...of which now I am a member, but only because I'm still shopping around for a church that meets my needs. I'm a hard-liner (Missouri) at heart, but a congregation of that sort is hard to find in this part of the country these days. :( "
I remember reading about the Missouri Synod in a book "Battle for the Bible" -- which is on the issue of Biblical Inerrancy. That issue seemed to be a heated issue back then (somewhere in the 70s and 80s). I came to understand that the Lutherans, Missouri Synod, was the more conservative and Biblically-based group, back then.
http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Bible-Harold-Lindsell/dp/0310276810
Since then, the Evangelicals came out with a position (a modern day "Council" if you will, signed by many prominent theologians) on the Inerrancy of the Bible and that seems to be a settled issue, within that group of Christians (although not settled across the broad spectrum of the church).
Regards,
Star Traveler
Billy has made some troubling statements over the years as well.
Thanks for the post & add me to the ping list. I am sooo glad to know that at least a few other people see thru this guy. I was an outcast from my church for not swallowing the PDL nonsense. There are a lot of good practical suggestions in the book, but it is treated as holy scripture by most churches. I was a teacher, forced to teach from his literature for 6 weeks and I was in big trouble for pointing out things that were not scriptural. For thoses interested, read page one of chapter two. It's the type of thing that makes you feel all warm and fuzzy. Unless you a a child of rape or incest. If you reason what he says; God caused the rape or incest to happen because he was involved in every step of your creation. My God is not the author of sin so Rick Warren is wrong on this point and since the whole book is based off of chapter two it's not worth the paper it's written on.
I'm not making fun, because I love my "Old Time Religion," too. I'm just having fun. ;)
I absolutely expect that to happen.
I received a rather chilling prophetic word from someone who is a prophet and church leader who claims that Hillary will win the presidency and that Bill Clinton is actually the anti-Christ. Now that's enough to make you want to jump off the world! I'm a bit skeptical of this, of course, but who can tell? Now if she wins, hmmmm....
I shudder at the very thought.
We did it in our church and we suffered no division. I didn't see a lot of personal growth either, but we're all still there and growing larger all the time.
Boy, you sure don't like Protestants, do you? Works ARE necessary. Jesus tells us we need faith and works, but works don't earn you a seat in heaven. Only FAITH in Jesus Christ can do that. Get some facts under your belt before you say such things.
I'm so sorry to hear that. I had a massive heart attack in March and have recovered quite well. I pray he will as well. Mxxx
Infants can't make the choice to be a follower of Christ. That's the only reason I have a problem with infant baptism. I was baptized at one month in the Episcopal Church. Years later I was immersed and it made me realize that satan could no longer hold my past against me. It was immersed in that water! We dedicate infants in our church but don't baptize them. We're to believe and be baptized. Not the other way around. It is a commandment, not a rite of salvation as many have been taught.
Really? I am sorry to hear that.
He truly was courageous and steadfast in these crazy days. I will pray for him!
I went through confirmation in the Episcopal church but left soon after to join the local Methodist church because most of my close friends went there. I was married and had my family when I was a Methodist but later got saved in a Baptist church. Then I was introduced to the Holy Spirit filled churches. So I consider myself an episcomethabapticostal. It's been quite a trip but God taught me something through each denomination.
Actually infant baptism has a much more interesting past.
The early churched princes believed that dying without having been baptised denied one entrance to heaven. Rather than chance they might fall out of the saddle and hit their heads fatally on a rock prematurely, they opted for infant baptism.
This led to another problem, though. Sins, they believed, committed after one was baptised were mortal, sending them to hell.
Damned, literally, if you do and if you don't, they conjured up Limbo. Now, the post-baptismal sins could be worked off, giving infant baptism the go-ahead while still living the good life. Jesus could not be reached for comment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.