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.)
See Post #595 and consider the context.
Don Joe's quote: "After all, he's already on record as saying that people have to convert to Islam when in prison."
Actual quote: (Warren) said Nichols' conversion stemmed more from necessity – "You gotta convert to Islam if you're (going to survive) in a prison" – than belief.
Parenthesis added by me for clarity.
From post 595 in this thread:
After all, he's already on record as saying that people have to convert to Islam when in prison,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.
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/local/article_1286106.php
Here's a snip from that link:In initial news reports, she failed to mention the methamphetamine she gave her captor. Also little publicized was Nichols' subsequent conversion to Islam. Despite Smith's admission, Warren said the drug had no effect on Nichols' decision to surrender himself. Instead, he said it was an example of how "God uses imperfect people." He said Nichols' conversion stemmed more from necessity – "You gotta convert to Islam if you're in a prison" – than belief.
Sounds like Warren was referring to the practice of self-preservation in that quote. Convert to islam or become a target.
I think some have forgotten Warren is a man like so many other men. He is not God and should not be treated as such, his chosen path is to speak the word of God, not the word of Warren and unfortunately it's become too little of the former and too much of the latter.
I say this from watching him preach as well as interviews he has given. One thing I respect about Billie Graham, he never allowed his celebrity to outshine the Word of God he was here to deliver.
Well of course that's what he was referring to.
Sounds like Warren was referring to the practice of self-preservation in that quote. Convert to islam or become a target.
I thought it was fairly obvious.
It's known, in the New Testament, as "Denying Christ", and as I recall, what goes hand-in-hand with that practice is, "If you deny me, I will deny you."
I think you are dealing with a Saddleback troll.
Scary, I clicked on the OCRegister link you gave here and up pops todays edition with a big add for Rick Warren and Purposely Driven Life book.... the man is literally everywhere, but appears especially in Orange Country.
Exactly!
It's approaching hilarity -- like knowing there was a bank robbery around the corner, knowing that the suspect is reported to be wearing the same clothing, same approx. height, features, etc., and then, when stopped by a cop, who asks if you were in the bank, replying, "Well, I won't say that I've never been in that bank" -- knowing full well that it would only increase suspicion to the redline.
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."
Quite a nutso tactic for some innocent kid who just happened to be walking down the street at that moment in time.
(And, since I always look out for the literal-minded, no, I am NOT comparing Warrenism to bank-robbery.)
The conclusion seems to be that he wants people to believe that he's an operative -- or, that he is, in fact, an operative, but is forbidden to "admit or deny" when questioned, and thus trying to worm his way out of it via cute word games.
I like your homepage.
I'm familiar with the New Testament, thanks. It's sad that in a prison environment weak Christians will do whatever it takes to survive at the time; unfortunately it's all too common.
Ah, the ol' quasi-ambiguity gambit. Interesting, to say the least
And it was done on purpose. Sorry, couldn't help it.
Thanks for the bonus round.
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?)
Excellent questions!
I was going to write about how I contacted Saddleback Central and told them I had to get terminated for a couple of hours, and then to re-instate me later today. But then I couldn't honestly keep the humor going.
To answer your first question above: I have never been a Warren staffer. The other questions don't apply. Great questions, though.
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 disagree as I'm just having fun on a slow day at work. But... perhaps I should continue: perhaps I'm interviewing with Saddleback and this is an interview test... Are they going to hire me tomorrow after the interview?
Oh, and yes, as a matter of fact, the CIA once did make vague overtures to recruit me. I declined.
Interesting. My friends thought I'd work for the CIA, but the CIA frowns on people with criminal records, even if they were found guilty of crimes they didn't commit. Sigh.
I checked your profile and read that you don't read your freepmail... so, I was going to freepmail you my answer a couple of posts ago for no reason other than you don't read your freepmail. BTW, I'm not interviewing with Saddleback and have no plans to interview with Saddleback at any time in the future.
I think Gamecock may know what I do for a living (if he remembers) and I can't see Warren using my consulting business.
Thanks thanks.
Yes, I've listened to Scripture for countless hours. PTL.
Sad, yes, very sad -- but not nearly as sad as having a putative "Minister of the Gospel" dismissing the practice as a big "so what?"
I'm familiar with the New Testament, thanks. It's sad that in a prison environment weak Christians will do whatever it takes to survive at the time; unfortunately it's all too common.
Thanks for your exhortation and testimony.
Some may take such words and feel smugly triumphant. They are foolish to take that perspective. Judgment begins with the house of God. And has begun. And will intensify.
Have worked hard applying that verse for more than 30 years. Probably more than 45 years as much as I had light to do at each stage.
Of course, many situations and folks--even spiritual leaders--sometimes especially spiritual leaders--make it difficult to apply as written--straightforwardly--which is criminal for them to make it difficult to impossible to apply, imho.
What I think is hilarious is reading posts similar to this one and Arizona Carolyn's. It demonstrates that some people may think exactly what they want to think when they only have partial information.
Please rest assured, if it helps, that I'm no Warren staffer and can't imagine that ever happening.
Frowns?
Perhaps. But, "frowns" is not equivalent to "refuses", in that Palace of Ambiguity. While I do not have a criminal record, I know of at least one (ahem) "former" operative who was recruited "smack dab in the middle of criminal activity." Seems that for certain tasks, "it takes a thief," so to speak. (In her case -- and I'm not violating any "national security" issues -- it apparently made for an ideal cold war era courier behind the Iron Curtain.)
I dunno. I have yet to hear the gospel preached clearly by Rick Warren which would result in a saving faith. And since I spend a LOT of time listening to him for someone halfway across the country, that's saying something. It should be something he does at every opportunity, but he doesn't.
He also criticizes those ministries that criticize him even though they also are bringing people to a saving faith. So is it right to criticize/judge people's teaching or not? If not, I would argue that that extends not only to religion but to politics as well and we certainly have no right to judge what these other 'christian' politicians (like John Kerry?) have to say.
I guess one of the ushers at Saddleback was complaining to Chris Rosebrough
listen here (part 1)
and here (part 2)
and here (part 3)
that it's VERY hard to get people to actually get involved. I guess it's that faith without works thing huh...
Either that or they realize that the kind of 'works' Rick Warren has in mind aren't the kind of 'works' James had in mind.
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.