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.)
Osteen is the better of the two
Isn't misdirection such a fantastic tool for reframing the terms of a debate?
Viva la nuevo consensus-steering techniques!
And it's SO contemporary too! Just a little bit earlier this morning I listened to an interview on Fox "News", in which some effendi (whose name I forget) was asked a fairly straighforward question regarding the new "chipped" passports about to be issued -- and required for an increasing number of "travel applications", to coin a phrase. The question was simple. He was asked if the electronic passports can be used to track people's movements. They can, of course. It's been covered quite a bit; the passports can be "read" from a distance, by anyone with a reader, and apparently it's not too hard to get a reader. But the question pertained to government tracking of citizen movements.
The effendi was quite skilled in the art. He immediately leapt into a reply (I can't in good conscience call it an "answer"), explaining what information was in the chips, how important passports were, and nothing to worry about anyway, since it's only the government who'll be reading them. By the time he was done, the questioner (E.D. Hill) had apparently forgotten her own question (the goal of this maneuver!), and moved on, as if he had answered her question. He didn't. He gave a rambling dissertation of passport technology (watered down to the preeskool level), artfully evading the actual question.
We see this Delphiesque technique so much, that upon reflection, I guess I'm not really that impressed with the efforts in this context. It's kind of like walking through a gravel field, and spotting something on the ground. "Look! Look what I found! I found a pebble! Wow!"
So, to get back to the point -- lost for the moment in your exquisitely irrelevant counter, "There is such a thing as being 'unequally yoked with unbelievers,' and I do believe that Master Rick has mastered it."
The "transitioning" process (from non-Purpose Driven church to Purpose Driven, including marginalizing and getting rid of resistors), that goes with the PD method, was the genesis of many the problems prior to the public knowledge of the indiscretion (which ocurred years before this pastor was at the church).
By the way, do you agree with the Purpose Driven method of shaping the gospel to meet people's felt needs?
Words count.
I would expect a retired Marine to stand by what they say instead of playing word games.
As to Presbyterian churches, I'm aware that there's the "real" Presbyterian denomination, and the "Evangelical Presbyterian" offshoot, founded, IIRC, by the late Francis Schaffer.
I know of one particular "real" Presbyterian church -- the "Pill Hill" type (doctors and lawyers and so forth -- the "prestige" church in that town) -- which had become seduced by the "Shepherding and Discipleship" movement.
In fact, the Pastor of that Presbyterian church ended up in the midst of a fairly awkward situation, when the local newspaper got hold of the facts (no comment :) and did a week-long expose of the cult in question (the church that I founded, which kicked me out when I refused to "submit" to the guys who had taken it over and put it under the yoke of the "S&D" heresy).
Turns out that the Presbyterian Pastor had "submitted" himself to the leader of the pack over at the cult church! "Like, wow, man," eh? LOL!
After "it" hit the proverbial fan (courtesy of the newspaper getting around to covering the situation at the Presbyterian church around Day 4 of the series), the denomination's heirarchy found out about it, and they did some rapid house-cleaning.
Everyone from the Pastor all the way down to the church secretary -- even the church janitor, as I recall -- was quickly dismissed from their position.
The church then split roughly in half, with those who approved of the cultie stuff leaving, and forming an Evangelical Presbyterian church. They built a real nice building (as did the cult itself, a few miles away), and, got themselves a new pastor. (The Presbyterian heirarchy juggled things so that (working from long past memory here) he could get his pension, or most of it, but ONLY if he did NOT "engage in ministry" in any capacity. Forced retirement. So, the "splitees" had to get themselves another leader. I don't know if he was "submitted" or not.)
The point is, denominational labels mean nothing anymore. In the same town, the "leading" Episcopal and Methodist ministers got together to try to strongarm the local government to get a particular channel removed from the cable television system. (Since the cable system was a genuine monopoly, operating via a government franchise, protected from any competition, they pretty much had to do what they were told to do, if they wanted to keep their license.)
The channel these two "Men of God" wanted to get kicked off the "air"? It was "The Christian Broadcasting Network."
The rationale behind their demands? They claimed (sitting down?) The First Amendment! (Yup. We're gonna silence you in the name of freedom of religion.)
They weren't particularly subtle. The would rail -- in public, on the record -- about these "religionists", and their efforts to promulgate their ideas. Can't have that, now can we. These characters were pretty obvious hardcore lefties -- and pretty heavyhanded, too. They lost.
But, the lesson has been learned, and folks who are casting themselves as "change agents" are much more subtle these days. The wolf does NOT bare his fangs and start raving about "religionists". Instead, he smiles, and talks about party time in heaven.
Anyone looking at things via sharply focused denominational spectacles is going to miss the action by a country mile. It's not one denomination or another denomination or this denomination or that denomination that's going to get knee-tackled. It's any church that lets the enemy through the gates.
That said, I do forsee a not-too-trivial confrontation in the offing, in the not-too-distant future, between the Warrenites and the SBC, if for no other reason than that denomination (whether they call themselves a denomination or not) being the one Warren hangs his shingle under.
I can see a day coming in which either Warren is shown the door, and kicked out of the SBC, or, his forces, working from within, manage to subvert and "repurpose" the SBC to make it Warrenite-friendly. ("The Repurpose Driven Denomination"?)
[..."Be careful not to do your acts of righteousness before men, to be seen by them...do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing..." (Matthew 6:1-4) ...]
Warren bashers accuse him of chicanery. He answers them with forthright
financial and tithing information. Then he is accused of boasting. Sheesh!
See Posts #402, #415, #460
Method = Technique = Gimmick.
There are a couple of people on this thread who have been chopped into mince meat,
but they don't know it, because their mouth (fingers) still work. You know who they
are by their long, accusing, angry, meandering responses.
The good news is, they are here fighting with the "little dogs" instead of out
there somewhere embarrassing the rest of us.
For that matter, I can't recall too many (or any!) charges of financial chicanery. Sure, there's a definite "money-driven" agenda -- the man is quite up-front about advising churches on how to maximize their take from the sheep -- but I don't know of anyone accusing him of personally fattening his own wallet off "the movement."
Oh, I'm sure that someone has leveled that sort of allegation, so please spare yourself the effort of dredging up "proof" that it's happened. The point is, "financial chicanery" is far from the REAL issue. This guy is destroying the church, redefining the faith, seducing the very elect... THAT is the real issue.
His blatant pride, in violation of Christ's advisory to NOT boast of such financial "generosity" merely indicates that he "has his reward." What he does TO his own life is of no worry to the church in general. Yes, it's indicative of his character, and lack of Biblical grounding, but it doesn't destroy churches.
And the destruction of churches -- and lives -- is what is so troubling about this particular heretical movement.
If you have something to say, then spit it out. Don't play coy little "I said it but I didn't really say it but you know what I really meant wink wink" games.
Did Warren let the public know that he was a "reverse-tither" because he had been accused of something (or some kind of chicanery)? If so, I was not aware. Do you know this to be true? Please provide documentation.
When I have read about it or heard about the reverse tithing, it was not in the context of a defense.
So...If it was not in the context of a defense, then you see it as boasting?
And you didn't answer the question...Does he give 90% tithe to his church (as you stated) or does he use some of the 90% to fund his own self-controlled foundations (PEACE Plan, AIDS work, etc.)? If so, is that really tithing?
And Warren did not give "forthright financial and tithing information" as you stated. He did not give reviewed financial statements and receipts...He just said that he reverse tithes.
"Keep away from them...By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people." (Romans 16:17&18)
It will only get worse.
If I knew what you were talking about I might be able to respond, but carry on with whatever. You made the comment, "There is such a thing as being "unequally yoked with unbelievers," and I do believe that Master Rick has mastered it". I simply ask the question, "when did the disciples, the twelve and the seventy, become "believers"?"
Matt. 9:10-13, "And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."
Care to name names, since you pinged me to your previous post? Am I one of those people you consider "chopped into mince meat"?
Do you agree with the Purpose Driven method of shaping the gospel to meet people's felt needs as Warren wrote in The Purpose Driven Church?
And if Purpose Driven is just a method, as you say, then how is Rwanda a Purpose Driven nation (as reported by Warren)?
Just including you in the conversation.
"And if Purpose Driven is just a method, as you say, then how is Rwanda a Purpose Driven nation (as reported by Warren)?"
I have no idea, nor is it my concern. What I do know is that the Purpose Driven method works for my church and that is my concern.
...And that the sinners and tax collectors came and ate with Him.
...And that it was the Pharisees who charged Jesus with eating with tax collectors and sinners.
A lot of PD people use this passage to justify the church being conformed to the world's/sinner's desires...It doesn't fly.
BTW, would you have left this also?
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.