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.)
We can take some measure of comfort in the realization that these things crop up every decade or so, and then spring up wildly -- and die off quietly, fading into obscurity. (They never completely disappear -- even the Mel Lyman "family" cult is still going -- as are "The Children of God" -- even though their "leaders" have gone on to their reward quite some time ago.)
These things are "types and shadows" of something, however, that will one day arrive on the scene and not fade away to obscurity. When that monstrosity takes hold, it'll be pitched (spiritual) battle until the end of days.
Almond tree, very pretty
And the Almond flower is sweet
But the fruit of the Bitter Almond
Is so poisonous to me
(In other words, -enough- of that stuff and it's "cyan"ara!)
How the Purpose Driven Life Obscures the Gospel (PDF version great for printing)
How the Purpose Drive Life Obscures the Gospel (HTML Version)
Well, I think it's been established that he does not consider you to be a Warren staffer.
Still, there's one thing I'd like to know, which I don't think has been addressed yet. Are you a Warren staffer?
(Please pardon my rigid parsing of your statement; if there's one thing I've learned over the years, it's "Question Ambiguity.")
Thanks. I'll check them out later.
One of your overriding themes -- getting quite tiresome, the more strident you become -- might be summed up in the idea that God's gonna judge critics of Rick Warren.
OK, fine. If that's the case, then God does not need you flailing away at The Infidels.
Frankly, I find it rather boring, to have my logic, my citations of fact, my reasoned explanations of simple matters to be countered with stuff that is thematically consonant with the Spanish Inquisition's tactics.
I'd be afraid, IF you folks had the power to literally enforce your will on your critics. But you don't -- and so, you are reduced to repeating how evil, vile, "venomous" we are, ad nauseum, rather than confronting our arguments honestly.
Ping for later.
I found your post really humorous as I was previously wondering if anybody would parse my statement as you have. As somebody who has learned the same lesson I often ask others for clarification as well. I think questioning ambiguity is a good thing, although sometimes my dry sense of humor gets in the way.
[Initiate_Mother_of_All_Nightmares_mode]
(I guess that stuff about "if you deny me, I will deny you" has been "paraphrased" out of his "bible", eh?)Evidently along with Jesus warning us of the persecutions to come.
I think that 10th chapter of Matthew makes it very clear.
If Warren should manage to get Obama elected, and then become sort of a modern day Raputin... well, I fear for all of our lives, because we will be marked as "divisive" and "obstructive". Maybe even "suppressive", if I might invoke a bit of "clambake" nomenclature!)
That's pretty much Quix's M.O. I've been a victim of this nonsense of his for quite some time. Look at some of his other postings on other religious threads.
Thanks for another artful dodge.
One or two more, and you'll have crossed into the "not to reply is to reply" zone.
Yeah, it's been a while, but ISTR having a go-round or two over some UFO-cult stuff ISTR him being involved in.
[pinged, to avoid the inevitable whine]
That was humor. Hey, I did say sometimes my dry sense of humor gets in the way.
Thanks for another artful dodge.That was humor. Hey, I did say sometimes my dry sense of humor gets in the way.
And thanks for yet another artful dodge (wearing, as it might, two hats -- but still, another artful dodge).
Let's say one more, and I'll personally consider the matter settled to my own satisfaction. In other words, it's entirely up to you to determine what conclusion I'll draw. I think it's at this point fairly obvious which direction I see you leading me towards.
[Note to the peanut gallery: Does anyone know if there is some kind of "Purpose-Driven" directive that prohibits agents from disclosing their role in public?]
What???? Somehow I missed that comment from Warren. If so (and I'm not doubting your truthfulness) then he is even more troubling that I thought, and I was already troubled by him.
I think we have people from different walks of life here on FR trying to influence our thinking, just because there is a lot of like-minded people here doesn't mean there isn't charlatans among us.
Dry sense of humor approaching: I am not currently a Warren staffer.
Ah, the ol' quasi-ambiguity gambit.
Interesting, to say the least.
Your still-ambiguous statement hints at you having been a staffer in the past -- yet, leaves infinite plausible deniability, since a literal reading of it does NOT indicate that you were ever a staffer -- nor does it indicated that you were not.
So, one bonus round for you:
WERE you ever a staffer? And, if so, when did your staffer role terminate? (Last year? Last month? Last week? Last night? This morning?) And, if so, will your staffer role be restarted again? (And, if so, when? Next year, next month, next week, tonight, or perhaps right after you submit your reply?)
Your gamesmanship may be coy, but it does not serve you well, regardless of whether it's simply gamesmanship for gamesmanship's sake, or Really Bad Tradecraft.
I'd presume that if you are indeed a staffer (or "were", as the case may be), the temptation would be to put down the keyboard, and walk slowly away from the computer, hoping that the spotlight would fade away. But by the same token, I'd doubt that such a reaction would be permitted. It'd be really bad form for a "cut-out" to get "made", but far worse (to his handlers) for him to fumble the recovery.
I really wouldn't envy someone in that situation. I think I'd rather be selling pencils on the streetcorner, or writing Science Fiction novels.
Oh, and yes, as a matter of fact, the CIA once did make vague overtures to recruit me. I declined.
The conclusion I'm drawing from scripter's dodges to your question is scripter must be a staffer, otherwise a simple no would suffice as an answer instead of the "artful dodge."
Hey Star Traveler,
I'm so glad others on Free Republic know about Olivetree
and Dave Hunt is great. I live in Mpls and visited with Jan a few times. Her ministry is great!
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.