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.)
You mean Warren is to religion what McCain is to politics?
Yup. I don't see tha issue as being Warren's individual slavation, no one should call that into question. The issue is with the product he sells.
I keep thinking about the Parable of the Seeds. IMO, the seeds Warren sows are the ones that get swept away by the worries of the world. It's also not so different from the Gospel of Prosperity.
I'm not the world's expert on RW either.
But I'm at least as up on him in some respects as his accusers.
And, oddly, such accusers mostly come from denominational perspectives which seem to emphasize GRACE.
Could have fooled me.
Quix, I'm sure you're a good Christian, but this Warren guy is a con man. He's Elmer Ganrty with a publishing contract. Support him if it makes you feel better, but DO NOT give him any of your money or time.
Ditto for that grinning fool in Houston.
I mean no offense, but I've seen his type too many times not to recognize them. Pure snake-oil salesmen, every one of 'em.
Yes, I know. So now calling sin SIN is "abrasive and uncaring". LOL! I wonder if Saddam Hussein is thinking that right now.
Instead of attacking the author perhaps you can show where the statements are not true lest you be considered an accuser.
i UNDERSTAND your perspective.
I've been up close and personal with quite a number of internationally known Christian leaders. I'm not very impressed with a lot of them.
But your perspective is not mine.
Ditto!
You said -- "As I recall, he took over from Dr Walter Martin."
I didn't know that Dave Hunt had a connection with Walter Martin. Maybe he did. But, as far as taking over -- the organization that Walter Martin had was taken over by Hank Hanegraaff (AKA, the Bible Answer Man). There was a controversy about that, and there's still some controversy about Hanegraaff, even today.
You also said -- "Though he's very hostile to Holy Spirit operating a la Acts 2; I Cor 12-14 in our era."
I've got disagreements in my own close and immediate family about that, too -- not to say anything about my extended family (on both sides of the fence), and the rest of the Christian world. Hey..., I've got some people thinking Benny Hinn is the coming Messiah (from the way they talk to me, and that he raises the dead). Doesn't Dave Hunt have a book on Benny Hinn (or is that some other author)?
And then -- "Dave Hunt was narrow, rigid, hostile, parochial, prissy, arrogant, etc., in his attacks on many good men of GOD who mainly just didn't happen to see peripheral things as he did."
I've read several of his books, and been at meetings to hear him speak directly, and have listened to several of his radio shows -- and have never found him to be that way. I've found that he's heavy on documenting things and taking materials that others have written and/or said and provided those things in his books or when he's speaking -- and then -- has offered people to come back and correct what he has or deny it or explain it. So far, he's never been told that what he's quoted or written down or said was wrong (in terms of referring to other people's positions and what they did and said). He goes to great lengths to explain these things and make them clear.
And the fact of the matter is there is a lot of totally dumb stuff that some of these other preachers and/or leaders say and do.
If others are wondering about that -- check it out at his web site --
http://www.thebereancall.org/
Regards,
Star Traveler
No.
St Paul exhorts against such 'water' fights over such issues.
And, I've learned the hard way, there is no life and light exchanged to any kind of lastingly fruitful way hereon. It's an exercise in fuitility. No thanks.
You do know that Warren doesn't keep any of the royalties from his book don't you? He gives it all back to his church, and other philanthropies. Warren is NOT a con man. He may not be your cup of tea; he certainly isn't mine (I am a rather decided skeptic - it was the way I was brought up and suits my "nature" to boot). There isn't much of the live and let live spirit suffusing this thread. Sad really. We all different, have different backgrounds, and different ways of worhsip or no worship suit different individuals. Who are we to criticize and put down?
The problem with all of this is to find a balance and not be judgemental. The Bible encourages all believers to be wary of wolves in sheeps' clothes. This places a responsibility on us, as believers, to test everything and hold on to that which is true. That doesn't mean that we are all Pharisees.
My church did PDL and it made good points, but I did have issues with RW using numerous translations of the Word, even in one lesson. To me it seemed manipulative and, thus, raised questions in my mind about Warren's use of scripture.
We aren't wrong for using our knowledge of the Word, our intelligence, and most of all the discerning power of the Holy Spirit within. This is a command of Scripture.
And of course Quix is the sole judge of what is unBiblical and what isn't.
I suppose you would have us bow down and kiss your ring.
I'd be happy to be wrong about DAve.
I do recall some folks calling him to account about being wrong on some set of things about someone but I don't recall specifically what.
I suppose you would have us bow down and kiss your ring.
= = =
How sweet.
There fixed that for you
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.
Yes because Lord knows just preaching at 'em really hard has stopped the spread of AIDS...I don't agree with anything else Obama has said but I do have to wonder when Adamo will be writing a hit piece on Sen. Brownback (R) attending the same conference. Or is World Nut Daily not taking that path?
I know this is going to shock 'true conservatives' but sometimes solutions to problems can come from different parts of society and not just Republicans.
Such a request goes beyond anything I've seen Quix do over the past couple of years.
He tends to attack the integrity of the poster rather than the material.
Have you ever met even one person who was half as morally superior as yourslf?
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.