Posted by Helen on: 11.21.2006 /
Rick Warren is pastor of Saddleback, a megachurch in California. His church is hosting a global summit on AIDS and the church next week.
Senator Barack Obama is one of the invited speakers. This has caught the attention of The New York Times and also conservative Christian talk show host Kevin McCullough, who is asking:
Why is Obama’s evil in Rick Warren’s pulpit?
Kevin McCullough is urging people to call Saddleback and express their concerns:
I am encouraging you to do what my listeners have done for the past several days — call Rick Warren and ask him why Barack Obama’s evil worldview will be given the high honor of addressing the faithful. (949-609-8000 or info@saddleback.com)Then gently remind him that it would be sin to let him do so!
I hope Saddleback is also hearing from people who support their decision to include Barack Obama.
Comment by: Rachel
1I’m not too worried about the call-in campaign. Worldnet Daily is a pretty fringe magazine and doesn’t represent the mainstream evangelicalism that Rick Warren represents. I don’t think Rick Warren would pay much attention to them. Besides anyone who is familiar with Rick knows that he has always steadfastly refused to endorse political candidates or political parties and I’m sure he’s not about to start now.
Rick and Kay have had many people speak at Saddleback about HIV/AIDS, including Bono, and I’m sure the fundamentalists at Worldnet had a fit about that too. The conference is about HIV/AIDS, not politics, and Rick and his wife Kay are completely devoted to the AIDS cause. If anything, the criticism will probably encourage them to keep speaking out about the issue.
Comment by: Helen
2Thanks for your comments, Rachel. Bono will be at this one too, in fact.
Comment by: Rachel
3I’m sure the good folks at Worldnet Daily were also quite upset that Rick Warren was a co-sponsor of the Evangelical Climate Initiative and I’m sure they had a fit when he appeared on stage with a bunch of “godless” rock stars at the Live 8 concert. The fundamentalists are very threatened by Rick Warren and they have every reason to be. Rick is a very influential person and he has tens of thousands of pastors on his email list, who he has been urging to get involved in the HIV/AIDS crisis. My own pastors are on Rick’s email list and they recently connected with the local HIV Alliance to see how they could partner together.
The wind is changing. More and more evangelicals are embracing a holistic gospel that speaks to issues like poverty, economic justice and environmental stewardship. One-third of white evangelicals voted Democrat in the last election, something that no doubt appalls the Worldnet Daily staff with their Ronald Reagan T-shirt advertisement. The fact is that the pessimistic, separatist vision of the fundamentalists is losing. And the vision of “new evangelicals” like Rick Warren and others is gaining ground. Expect the writers at Worldnet Daily to get increasingly shrill and angry as this new wave of hope and social engagement continues to spread through our American churches.
Comment by: Dan
4In the words of Homer Simpson, “Woo-hoo!” :)
Comment by: Jim
5I with Dan who-hoo
Comment by: Helen
6Rachel, what you wrote reminds me of something encouraging I read a couple of days ago. This is from John Armstrong’s response to the Ted Haggard situation. John is at least as conservative theologically as Kevin McCullough.
Comment by: JG
7I find the whole American situation interesting - and disturbing.
By and large in the UK faith is not aligned with politics. If anything Christians are seen as left wing. I think I am aware of one small church that has been linked with the Conservative party which caused a bit of a stir but apart from that there is no sense of any link between Christianity and right wing politics that I am aware of in the public mind unless they are looking at America.
It is also strange to see “the war on terror” linked to right wing politics though more understandable. In the UK it was Tony Blair and the Labour government who loyally supported George Bush - even though Labour is the left wing party and it is the conservatives and liberals who have been critising him.
I suspect that if the Conservatives had been in power, they also would have supported the invasion of Iraq but not the mismanagement we have seen.
But it means that so far as I am aware perceptions here in the UK are very different from those in the States.
Perhaps Paul (Mayers) could offer his view?
Comment by: JG
8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right
is worth a read.
Comment by: JG
9and also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_left
Comment by: benjamin ady
10I always just thought of Rick Warren as “that PDL guy”. I rather think better of him now in light of the stuff in this post and comments. I went and glanced at wiki’s rick warren article. He actually looks like he has some good ideas. So much (once again) for my putting people in the “progenitor of stupid ideas, will now ignore” box. (but I never do learn. I’m sure I’ll do it again (and again …))
Comment by: JG
11Two thoughts occurred to me on my way home from work tonight. Contradictory thoughts I’m afraid.
1) In the Indpendent national newspaper is an interview with Sasha Baron Cohen - of current Borat fame. It includes a quote from Ian Kershaw, a major historian of the Third Reich:
“The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference…I think it is an interesting idea that not everyone in Germany had to be a raving anti-Semite. They just had to be apathetic.”
I have enormous respect for Paul (of PAF) for caring about this situation and for caring enough to be willing to get up and do something about it rather than sit back and do nothing. For caring rather than being apathetic. And this is so even if I have reservations about the wisdom of the protest on 3 Dec.
2) I have been thinking about why I have reservations about the protest and in some ways it is simply a gut feeling. But it occurred to me that one principle I feel strongly about is the right for minorities to be protected from pressure from the majority to conform to the will of the majority. That the majority should not allowed to impose its will on everyone - we see terrible consequences of this in nations which are ruled by the majority tribe and where minority groups are persecuted.
We may have no desire to protect Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill but the protest may set an unfortunate precedent.
Benjamin, as someone well and truly stuck in your “progenitor of stupid ideas, will now ignore” box it is good to know you do sometimes reconsider but won’t hold my breath in my case!
Comment by: JG
12Certainly am stupid - posted this in the wrong thread!
Comment by: Mike Clawson
13Helen, you wrote:
Actually, I just had lunch with John the other day (he lives here in the Chicago area) and I can say that he’s definitely not as conservative as a McCullough. Not by a long shot. He’s not quite an emerging or liberal Christian, but he has actually taken a lot of flak lately from the truly conservative branch of evangelicalism for not being conservative enough for them.
Just FYI,
-Mike
Comment by: benjamin ady
14jg,
oh dear–have I ignored you? now i shall have to go find out where, and remedy the situation. I apologize. but of course I can’t remedy it if it’s in one of the comments closed posts. hmmmm
Comment by: benjamin ady
15JG,
Not at all. You haven’t made it into the box yet. I see some questions about rwanda and iraq in the closed threads that actually look like they would lead to interesting discussion, and I think they are reasonable questions. It looks like we *agree* about brokenness and christian leadership. hmmmmm…. what thread did you *mean* to post in?
Comment by: Helen
16Mike, I’m glad you had lunch with John Armstrong! I have had some e-mail exchange with him and he has been very kind to me.
You said better what I was trying to say - he’s not quite emerging or a liberal Christian.
But the awesome thing is, he is listening and understands the concerns of people like you and me.
Benjamin - I also was pleasantly surprised to read about what Rick Warren is doing. JG, for what it’s worth, my view of Rick Warren wasn’t based on a ‘label’ - it was based on reading TPDL and not liking it. I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable to form a view of someone based on their own book.
However it IS good, imo, to be open to other information about what that person thinks and how they are trying to make a difference in the world. People can change; and also one book might not say all there is to say about them anyway.
Comment by: JG
17Benjamin, many thanks for your comments - apologies for my wrong assumption.
Helen - do you want to open up a discussion about Iraq? The question of Christians appearing to back George Bush is an important one.
In the UK we don’t get to vote for our leader. Instead each of the 646 constituencies elect one MP (member of Parliament). In practice the prime minister is the leader of whichever party has the majority of seats. As Labour held 346 seats (ie 346 labour MPs were elected) Tony Blair continued as Prime Minister. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005
This raises interesting ethical questions. Do you vote for the best candidate in your constituency or for the party you want to see win the election? What if you want to see Tony Blair returned to power but you have no time for the local Labour MP? And what if an excellent independent candidate stands for election. Do you vote for him?
In the US when you vote for your President, you simply have the choice between 2 or 3 candidates. What do you do if you have little time for any of the candidates? Just because you vote for one of them doesn’t mean you support everything that they stand for!
Comment by: benjamin ady
18JG–exactly. IMO, our system is a bit stupid and a bit broken. What we ought to have is instant run off elections. But the truth is, George Bush was elected largely by conservative Christians across the middle of this country–people like my parents who totally support spending 50% of the 2007 federal budget on the military (that’s 1.1 trillion dollars), and don’t see any dichotomy between that and calling themselves christians.
Comment by: JG
1950%? That is staggering.
In the UK, the war was largely opposed by the churches.
What concerned me was not so much whether we went to war or not (though I had my reservations) but rather, if there was to be a war then there would need to be substantial investment in Iraq afterwards to repair the damage and real “giving” to the Iraqi people. Real thought given to the consequences. I think if those issues had been flagged up and thought through, there would have been much less chance of the war being started - don’t start what you can’t finish.
But by talking only of not going to war (which George Bush and Tony Blair were never going to listen to) the issues post war appear to me to have gone uncommented on.
Comment by: joe
20No love lost on Saddleback from this quarter.
But church led by the Prophet Bono - now that would be something worth attending.
Comment by: Helen
21Thanks for your comment, joe.
I have a lot of respect for Bono too.
Comment by: charles saved by HIS blood
22Yes, as a 30 something follower of Jesus, I agree we as evangelical Christians shouldn’t follow any political party..however we should support those who have the most moral sense. Barak Hussein Obama is a Pro-death advocate on abortion..43+million babies and counting…I understand those with AIDS should be ministered to, however we CANNOT overlook the butchering of unborn babies.
Mr. Obama is not a good choice to have in the pulpit where God’s word is proclaimed.
Comment by: Helen
23Thanks for your comment, Charles.
Comment by: David H
24Should we follow those who truly have moral convictions or just those who appear to have them? And as followers of Jesus — since we are saved by His blood — where does he state that we should support those who have the most moral sense? And what did Jesus teach his followers about setting moral standards that they should expect others to follow? Look at both the words and the acts.
Abortion isn’t a good thing. However, we all do things that are not good. I’m sure, Charles, you will agree that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God — even me and you. And isn’t that what grace is, God choosing to overlook the things I do that aren’t good according to His standards.
So, Charles, when you consider judging others, think first: Who did Jesus judge? Then ask yourself if Barak Obama or you is more like those people.
Comment by: Forrest Gibb
25Helen, first off, I’m enjoying your site. I love this intelligent civilized discussion. Second, I’m afraid, at this point, I don’t have much to add to most of the discussions as I am just discovering all the different groups and terms.(emerging, emergent, dispensational, preterist etc.) God has told me to dig deeper into my faith. To learn. So I am seeking many different venues to further my understanding.
Third, Could you and others expand on your reasons for dislike of Warren’s PDL. PDL got me started on this journey and it was immensely helpful in getting me going in the right direction. I would recommend it to most people with basic understanding of what it means to be a Christian and had a desire to start their journey to find their purpose. The book isn’t perfect, but I belive it is a good starting point.
I am not a champion for Mr. Warren but I do want to know both sides of the argument. Blind faith in any man is as foolhardy as it is dangerous.
Comment by: benjamin ady
26I suspect Mr. Obama would not characterize himself as “pro-death”. It’s not really a reasonable characterization. I suspect he would prefer to see fewer, or no abortions performed. I would guess that he only disagrees with more conservative voters about the methodology of accomplishing this goal. Every Christian leader has weak points, including, no doubt, Mr. Obama. What about Martin Luther’s anti-semitism? Should we just throw out everything Luther wrote? Hardly.
Comment by: Pete Strobel
27Re: Rick Warren. I read his Purpose Driven Life along with many other evangelicals. I did not object to his words or his intentions. I wasn’t overly excited either. I’ve read many of his ideas in other places, and he gave pretty much an introductory overview and didn’t get much deeper.
Considering being a Christian and a Democrat: I am both. I uphold an orthodox, evangelical faith, embrace the Nicene Creed, read the Church Fathers, and have tea with CS Lewis, GK Chesterton, and George MacDonald on a regular basis. (We prefer Earl Grey, but that’s beside the point). Do I agree with the Democrat platform on abortion? No, I don’t. But platforms are platforms. Neither do I agree with the Republicans on abolishing Estate taxes, giving tax breaks to the rich, invading countries smaller than us, and paying corporations like Halliburton billions and trillions of tax dollars so they can profit by Bush’s mismanagement 10 timezones away. I don’t find either political party as embodying a pure Christian ideology or ethic. We build bridges with people so that some good may be done. I like doing good through the Democrats a tad bit more than through the Republicans….so that’s why I’m one of those centrist, conservative white guys that are not just going with the Republicans. I’m more of a Jim Wallis/Sojourners kind of evangelical….
Comment by: Pete Strobel
28Excuse me, I think I misrepresented myself: I drink ale and smoke a pipe with CS Lewis and GK Chesterton. It’s TS Eliot and Gerard Manley Hopkins that I drink tea with.
My apologies.
Comment by: David H
29On PDL: I drug out my much scribbled in copy of the book in response to the question. My key problem isn’t just the over-simplification of things, though that is a key failing. However, much more problematic is Warren’s constant return to God as the causitive factor for everything.
Chapter 2: You are not an accident.
Thus we are left to suppose that God caused the Tsunami that killed 250,000 people. He didn’t just allow it, he purposed it. He also purposed child-molester murderers and drunken drivers and every seemingly senseless act of violence that cuts off a life too soon. And here is the biggest problem: If he chooses the time of every death, then how can anyone say abortion is wrong. If it happened, then God must have caused it.
Later in Chapter 2:
My father is a child molester. My brother was schizophrenic and committed suicide when he was 20. Nature? Nuture? Which part did God cause? I have a problem if God gave my Dad the DNA that pre-disposed him toward his problems. I likewise have a problem if he gave my brother mental illness and then decided it would serve a greater purpose if that wonderfully talented, creative and intelligent young man drowned himself in a freezing river.
But let’s leave me out of the equation, perhaps I am too close to some of the issues above. Let’s look at Tay-Sachs. Tay-Sachs is a genetic disorder that requires the causitive gene in both parents. It strikes Jewish people almost exclusively. Children who get that special combination of DNA die horrible, painful deaths at a very early age. Does God choose that combination of DNA?
PDL isn’t just simple, it’s stupid. It is an aglomeration of the boxes western Christians make for God, stereotypes, thoughtless assertions that would lead to dangerous extrapolations, and lots of reinforcement for the sick form of Christianity prevelant in the U.S. today (especially in some of the stuff he wrote about financial well-being and stewardship).
If PDL got someone started on an examination of their spiritual life, then I applaud that. There can be helpful truth from many sources. But God, faith and the true Christian life are infinitely more complicated than Warren seems able to admit. He not only doesn’t provide a bridge for that gap, he doesn’t want to admit it is there. And it is a gaping chasm into which young faith can tumble and die.
Lee Stroebel gave this endorsement, which is carried on the back jacket of my copy: “If you only read one book on what life is all about — make it this one.”
That’s my biggest problem with PDL in a nutshell. Many people I know have read only one book of faith and spirituality — and PDL was that book. It has nuggets of truth, but they are nearly buried in a 300+ page mountain of fools gold and dumb rock. Start there if you must, but don’t stop.
Comment by: Helen
30Pete and David, thanks for answering Forest’s question about the PDL.
Comment by: Rachel
31I felt the same way, Pete. The book was OK but I wasn’t sure what all the hoopla was about. I wish that Rick Warren had experienced his awakening about poverty, HIV/AIDS and the environment before he wrote a best selling book.
Me too.
Comment by: Rachel
32Excellent points, David. I prefer authors like Brian McLaren who wrestle with the challenges of life and faith and don’t just offer neat and tidy answers.
I remember reading an article by Tony Campolo after the South Asian tsunami. In response to the question “Why would God allow this to happen?”, Tony answered simply “I don’t know.” But he said that while we don’t know the why, we do know the what - WHAT God wants us to do in response to this tragedy, reach out to our fellow humans who are suffering and give aid.
I’ve become more and more comfortable focusing on the what and not trying to answer the why. And I agree David, it’s very frustrating and hurtful when people try to offer pre-packaged answers for unexplainable tragedies.
Comment by: Pete Strobel
33Rachel wrote:
I remember reading an article by Tony Campolo after the South Asian tsunami. In response to the question “Why would God allow this to happen?”, Tony answered simply “I don’t know.”
It’s the age old question: Why does God let bad things happen to good people. OR Why does God let bad things happen, at all.
I guess it’s up to us to not put God in a “control freak” box. He isn’t a control freak. Humans can be, but God let’s things happen according to natural laws. Without an earth that had shifting continental tectonic plates, other things would be drastically worse. Allowing continental drift means, occasionally, earthquakes and tsunamis. Unfortunate. However it allows mountain formation, and other important geological events. It’s up to humans to not plant themselves on the coast OR, if they so choose, live with the consequences. Jim Fay’s Love and Logic childraising principles apply: there are such things as “natural consequences”. That’s how I would have answered the question Tony could not.
I simply don’t believe that everything that happens is a part of God’s plan. I believe we muck up God’s plans on a regular basis. He just takes what we dish out, and tries to bring people together to help each other out. But there’s a whole lot of free will on our parts. We either cooperate with God’s overarching “general” will or purpose for our lives, or we don’t cooperate. Once we get it, once we understand that love is the basic law, and ‘Love set in order’ are some of the specifics to that law, then we will find that God’s ways are a tad bit more understandable.
Comment by: Eliza
34Pete Strobel said
PS, could I ask then how one can differentiate between a natural world (without God) and a world in which God allows things to unfold according to natural laws, with “natural consequences” for poor choices? How, then, does one know that God exists, or still exists? (BTW, as a parent, I’ve read several of the Love & Logic books and appreciate the general technique of natural consequences as a teaching and discipline tool.)
PS also said:
When bad things happen, is it always the fault of people for making bad decisions, exercising their free will in an inappropriate direction? It seems like there is no guaranteed safe place to live: On the coasts there are hurricanes and tsunamis. In the Midwest there are tornadoes and snowstorms. Etc, etc. And often there’s no rhyme or reason to explain why illness or misfortune strikes certain people at certain times. It’s hard for me to see how free will, or natural consequences of bad choices, explains alot of the apparently random unfortunate events that occur, including the 2004 tsunami.
PS also said:
Forgive me for being obtuse, but could you explain how God’s ways might become more understandable by considering “Love set in order” as we think about mass sufferings from natural disasters, or any suffering for that matter from any “natural” event? I am having a hard time seeing how that ties in, how it might solve the age-old problem of why God causes or allows “bad things” to happen…
Comment by: Rachel
35Here is a follow-up article on the controversy over Obama’s invitation to speak at Warren’s church:
Evangelical pastor, Obama join forces to battle AIDS
Comment by: David H
36There is what I call the “broken world” perspective. There may be a different term, but that’s mine. It says that many of the bad things that occur are because the world — due to sin (pardons for using that word) — doesn’t operate as the creator intended. Jesus made reference to heaven and earth passing away (Mat. 24:35) and other biblical writers (Peter and John, in Revelation) make reference to a new heaven and new earth. The point appears to be that all things will be put right in this new creation. But in the here-and-now creation, according to those who accept the broken world perspective, it isn’t that God causes disasters, etc. They occur as a natural outgrowth of free will and sin. So it isn’t that people living along the coast in Indonesia did wrong by living there. Although, at least in the case of the Tsunami, many of those living along the coast in Indonesia were there because they were poor, which some would argue is the result of ongoing economic sin by the rich.
I come from the viewpoint that life happens — and God lets it happen because it is my life. Sometimes that is good, other times bad. But the issue isn’t so much about the actual events. Rather, what is crucial is the actions that follow them. I don’t believe God causes bad things to occur, but I do believe he watches how people respond to both the good and bad things that happen.
I have often talked with people about the causative role of God in the world. It isn’t that I don’t believe he ever does anything, just that he doesn’t frequently act in the ways that the Falwell’s and Robertson’s like to extol.
In John 9 Jesus is said to have talked with his disciples about the sin that had resulted in a man being blind. Traditional Jewish belief was that the man, his parents or possibly even grandparents had committed some offense against God and as punishment God made the child blind from birth. This was backed by words attributed to God in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy in relation to the 10 commandments.
But Jesus said: “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.”
Did Jesus mean the man being blind or the confluence of that man, his blindness, and the Son of God coming together at that time and place?
I do believe that the sins of the father are visited on the sons. The violence and sexual issues of my father probably did not begin with him and I have struggled in my life with their consequences. But I don’t believe God causes that to happen. In my mind, they are the natural outcome of living in a broken world full of broken people.
More importantly, there isn’t a lot of practical use to blaming God or my father for what has happened. The more pertinent issue is what will I do today, tomorrow and the days after with the broken life I have been given?
Comment by: Pete Strobel
37In response to Eliza:
I believe God allows natural consequences not only for bad or poor choices, but also for wise or gracious choices. Jesus said at one point: “We reap what we sow.” Not everything that happens to me happens because of choices that I have made. That would be simplistic. Some things happen to me due to heredity, to choices my parents made/make, to choices (good or ill) my neighbor or other citizens make. etc. Take for instance getting hit by a drunken driver. Who’s responsible, God? I don’t think so. I don’t think God wanted me to get hit by the driver. Who’s responsible? The drunken driver, of course. Not me: I was driving on my side of the street. Why did he suddenly veer into my lane just as I happened to drive by? I don’t know. It’s not God’s fault, it’s not my fault, it’s the drunk’s fault. Coincidences abound, but it doesn’t do much good to read too much into them.
Sometimes bad things happen to good people because we are interrelated, and someone else’s bad decisions impact me. It’s not always: Bad happens to me because I did bad. Now, obviously that happens sometimes, but not always. Sometimes clever evil people fashion the fall-out to hurt other people than themselves. The Nazis were very proficient at that. Yet all the evil they caused rests on their heads: they will need to account for it at the Judgement Seat.
As for geographically oriented disasters: I just think it is up to us to wisely weigh the pros and cons for wherever we live. I live in the NorthWest. We don’t get any hurricanes or tornadoes. We put up with rain so we can enjoy our forests. But if an earthquake happens: a big 9.0 on the richter scale, well…I have already been warned. The Juan de Fuca subduction zone runs under us. It is predicted. And bad things may happen to a whole lot of people at any time. I don’t think God will be timing it once a critical number of people sin a particular sin (like a 55% abortion rate, or some other arbitrary number.) Jesus said it rains on the just and the unjust alike. Misfortune or fortune: Blessings or Curses are at times…well, not dealt out because of what we do, or say, or don’t do or say. They just happen. AFTERWARDS, however, HOW WE RESPOND TO DISASTER is OUR choice, our calling or responsibility. We may get hit by a horrible disaster, but what I do for others, for my neighbors and those in my sphere of influence will indicate my faith or love. That’s where we can make a difference.
Comment by: Eliza
38David H and Pete Strobel - thanks - very informative comments, helpful for illuminating your “take” on these issues. David H, your comments on PDL really pointed out some key problems with it - I’m surprised you kept your marked-up copy around!
Pete - congratulations on November 2006 being the wettest month in the recorded history of Seattle! Over 15.3 inches of rain, capped off by a few snowstorms. But, yeah, that’ll be a minor memory if we get a big one on the Juan de Fuca fault - or if Mount Rainier erupts - or if avian flu arrives through the Port of Seattle… ;-)
Comment by: Eliza
39Today is Word AIDS day.
Comment by: Eliza
40Oops, I meant World AIDS day…
Comment by: David H
41I kept my copy of PDL because I have seldom read clear through a book that angered me so thoroughly on so many levels. Plus, after stopping dumbfounded at a display that said “13 million copies sold,” I figured there would be lots of people with whom I might one day have to discuss the book.
Comment by: Helen
42Eliza, thanks for the reminder that World AIDS day is today!
Here’s an article about Obama’s talk:
Obama Offers Frank AIDS Talk
Comment by: Rachel
43Here is the text of the speech Senator Obama gave at Saddleback Church.