Rick Warren's Political Purpose

I, and just about every conservative evangelical that I've discussed politics with, find nothing in Rick's quote above to disagree with.

As Rick says, there is a difference between "Evangelical" and "Fundamentalist". Often I feel that CA overlooks this. I get the impression that being a conservative Christian makes one either stupid or evil in the eyes of CA. That's sad.

I often get the impression that CA people believe that Christian Bush supporters are trying to create a theocracy, and have sold their soul to the Bush dynasty. I have even been accused of idolatry because I support Bush and the GWOT.

Lots of straw men have been created. Let's continue to talk - I think that in the love of Christ we may have more in common than we thought - or a lot less.

Speaking of love towards men, here's a great post from Iraq that also touches on the Abu Ghraib issues - http://www.michaelyon.blogspot.com/?BMIDS=17065070-3f7710d2-76337

By the way - I especially liked what Rick said here:

"I happen to agree with the liberals on many of their goals. I just happen to disagree with their solutions. For instance, I agree with a lot of the goals that liberals have for justice and for poverty; I just happen to believe that the answer is the church, not the government. I think that throwing money after it in the government fashion has proven ineffective."

I agree whole heartedly with Rick Warren's approach. I used to be very politically active in conservative politics. Then I became a Christ-follower and started to change. God does call us to help the "least of these..." However, he does not call the government to do it. It is the job of the local church. In fact, I agree with all of CA objectives except for the one on abortion. Though shall not kill is pretty clear to me. After that I can be on board. Homosexuality is a sin, but God does not allow descrimination. I am definitly a progressive Christian, just not in the way of CA.

Here's a related article on Rick Warren:

A Purpose-Driven Nation?
Rick Warren goes to Rwanda.

BY ALAN WOLFE
Friday, August 26, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

It is one thing to help 25 million readers find purpose in their lives. It is another when one of those readers is the man responsible for ending what journalist Samantha Power has called "the most clear-cut case of genocide since the Holocaust." Paul Kagame, Rwanda's president, was so impressed by Rick Warren's best-selling book, "The Purpose-Driven Life," that he invited the founding preacher of California's Saddleback Church to come to his country. Mr. Warren not only accepted but asked his network of believers to come to Rwanda in small groups to plant churches, care for the sick, educate the citizenry and assist the poor.

Historians are likely to pinpoint Mr. Warren's trip to Rwanda as the moment when conservative evangelical Protestantism made questions of social justice central to its concerns. Given his huge wealthy Orange County congregation, Rick Warren could have become satisfied with his national success and ignored problems abroad. Instead he has chosen to make issues of global poverty central to his ministry and for that he deserves his identification by Time magazine as one of the most important evangelicals in America.

Because of Mr. Warren's efforts, significant numbers of American Christians will learn about the harsh realities outside their relatively comfortable lives. They will understand, as Mr. Warren himself did, that the world stood by as Rwandans massacred one another. They will learn what it means to raise children in a society that ranks near the very bottom of the United Nations Human Development Index. Some of them will understand that the transmission of AIDS has as much to do with gaps in public health as it does with personal morality. Every follower of Mr. Warren who goes to Rwanda is almost certain to return a better person. Rwandans as well will be better off, thanks to what will be history's single largest faith-based initiative.

Yet I confess to a certain disquiet about Mr. Warren's venture. I was with him the day he left for Rwanda. Together with the Rev. Peter Gomes of Harvard, we addressed the problem of evil at a panel discussion organized by the Aspen Institute in Colorado. Mr. Warren was his usual eloquent self. Yet after listening to him speak, I am not sure that he is fully prepared for the enormous task that he has set himself.
Mr. Warren's message to the Aspen audience was similar to the one he offered Rwandans at Kigali's Amahoro Stadium in July: Spiritual emptiness allows evil acts to occur. If only evil were so simple. Many religious figures in Rwanda acted heroically in the face of genocide, but not all of them did. According to the U.N. indictment against him, Anglican Bishop Samuel Musabyimana did not want Tutsis killed in his archdiocese, so he asked that they be murdered elsewhere. Catholic nuns were even convicted by a war-crimes tribunal of participating in the slaughter. Belief in Christ by itself offers insufficient protection against evil. Mr. Warren should read Joseph Conrad or, if his tastes are more contemporary, Philip Caputo.

There is also reason to worry about the missionary zeal that Mr. Warren brings to his campaign. Rwanda is a 95% Christian country. Yet because the majority of its population is Catholic, evangelical proselytizing could easily produce strife. And Mr. Warren wants to extend his efforts to other countries, including ones, such as Nigeria, where a precarious balance between Protestants, Catholics and Muslims could be easily upset by his style of saving souls.

Tackling Africa's problems inevitably means addressing questions of economics and politics. Is there a Christian position on export diversification, energy subsidies, currency convertibility ratios, agricultural overcultivation or civil-service reform? That Rick Warren is serious about overcoming Rwanda's poverty is unquestioned. That he and his volunteers have any expertise or interest in economics and politics is unlikely.

My single greatest fear is that Mr. Warren and his followers will draw huge and enthusiastic crowds to their rallies, convert numerous souls to Christ and then leave when they discover that, for all their efforts, a country like Rwanda faces political and social problems beyond the reach of even the most earnest and popular humanitarian efforts. In short, there is a limit to the good that can be done until such countries alter the basic structure of their societies, eliminating corruption, curbing the abuse of power, setting up an independent judiciary and allowing a free press.
I do not believe that Rick Warren has a bad bone in his body. But I do believe that his remarkable enthusiasm is fueled by considerable naïveté. It has taken centuries for Rwandans to descend into the hell in which they exist. Not even becoming a purpose-driven nation is likely to bring them to heaven anytime soon.

From: http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110007165

Thanks, KSM.

----
What I worry about is the tyranny of activist judges, who completely keep throwing out what the majority says. Are we a democracy or not? Do we have a right to vote? And do my votes not count? Or can any single judge just consistently throw out what a majority of people have voted? Is this a democracy or not? I believe in a pluralistic America, and you know what? A lot of times in a pluralistic America, I lose. I lose because I don't get my way all the time. And you know what? That's okay. I'm willing to put up with the fact that I often lose in a pluralistic America because it grants me the freedom. And I believe that everybody has a right to be at the table. I think a gay person has the right to make their case and I think I have a right to make my case. And I think that in a democracy, we have a right to vote on it. I do not believe in judges who go out and find all kinds of excuses to thwart the will of the majority.
We have a constitutional government with democratic elected officials that have sworn to up hold the constitution. But they do not do itas the first amendment
Article [I.] (See Note 13)
(Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;) ( or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;)(or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.)
They haven’t made no law about religion. Our Government have made laws and rules in regards to freedom of speech look at Howard Stern there are more. Look at the curse words that the Religious factions have outlawed, and the Bible outlaws none, that shows Christians want to dictate what words is good and bad. But they the Christian Right Idolize and accept a lie and hypocrisy with loving and open arms. And who is trying to stop redress of the grievances.
No Religious groups will ever get along, Look at Iraq they are all Muslims but each group believes in some thing a little different in fact enough to die for it. If not for the Constitution their would be Religious wars in America So just be a Christian instead of a Religious begot
Matthew 18:20
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Funny how Rick Warren reduces social programs as "throwing money" at the government for "justice and poverty".

Perhaps Rick Warren will also publicly state that he opposes "throwing money" at corporate welfare of the Pentagon system? That he also opposes "throwing money" to the military industrial complex?

Does Rick Warren know what Bush's Iraq war is costing tax-payers? Big Government obviously *is* the answer (ahem, "Operation Infinite Justice"), not the Church.

This kind of Hallmark Card theology is truly depressing.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with Rick Warren. From what I've seen posted here, I'd say that's something I need to correct.

KSM:

I've tried to make it clear, at least in my posts, that it is not conservative Christians that I am raising my voice against, but what I call the Republi-vangelicals who are basically trying to codify their version of the Bible as the law of the land. I would be willing to bet that if you and I sat down and spoke for a few hours we'd probably agree on more than we'd disagree. I don't view any Christian as my enemy - but I do oppose those who would try and force their will upon me and constrain my worship to what they decide is proper.

I appreciate the Michael Yon link, but it's sort of distracting from this post. Maybe we can deal with Abu Ghraib at a later date.

Here's a problem that I wrestle with: the Bible does not forsee a democratic government where Christian votes can have a real impact on society. How, then, do you deal with your faith in the voting booth in a way that does not "ram it down someone else's throat"?

When Christ says to give up everything and follow him, I have to take that to mean that you give everything you have - including your vote. But, if I, as a liberal Christian, utilize my vote to "force" society to care for the poor, have I also "forced" my religion upon them? If my only reason is religious, then that answer has to be "Yes".

Personally, my arguments for anti-poverty programs begin with my religion, but they do not end there. There are many important benefits to society from them (and it really gets into a debate beyond the scope of this post). The religious beliefs I hold give a moral weight to my political beliefs they would otherwise lack, but they are not the sole basis of them.

That, to me, is the most upsetting part of the Republi-vangelical movement - they simply stop all thought (pro and con) with their interpretation of the Bible. All else, in their eyes, is just wrong and they are not open to any sort of discussion or compromise.

Any first-year Pol Sci major will tell you that discussion and compromise are the real foundation of our country and our way of life.

My goal in working with the CAfP is not to shout down the Right, but to add a balancing voice to the debate. I do get passionate about my beliefs and have been guilty from time to time of not living up to that goal. A lot of the reason for that, however, is that the majority of public voices from the Right would seek to deny me even the lowly status of a believer.

XT

Did pat use the Christian to enhance his richs he inherited a lot of money from his dad
In 1988, Robertson sold the Family Network to Fox for $1.9 billion. Not bad, when you consider the channel was originally launched in 1977 through the donations of viewers who had been promised a Christian alternative to "secular" television, then taken public in 1992. CBN got $136 million from the sale. Robertson's Regent University got another $148 million. Robertson personally received $19 million, and the rest went to the Robertson Charitable Remainder Trust, which will fund CBN after Robertson and his wife die. FP

"Operation Blessing" (whose airplanes have been used to further private diamond mining business in Zaire) to suggest that those who criticize Robertson must be biased. Why sow division within your comments? RJ
Yes, RJ, you are right on! Operation Blessing gave him cover as Robertson supported war criminals in Liberia who helped him amass his personal fortune in mines, etc!!
From Christianity Today article cited above:
But it's a mistake to see CBN as Pat Robertson's only source of income. CBN was not, for example, part of Freedom Gold Limited, Robertson's mining operation in Liberia (incorporated in the Cayman Islands with Robertson as president and sole director). Nor was it part of his Creative Energy Co., an oil refinery company. Nor of Robertson's horse-racing interests.FP
·Governments steal less if I was crooked preacher I would not want the governments hand in my till eather

Rick Warren deserves credit for leading an effort to make Christianity more Christ-like, principally by acknowledging that Christ was all about helping the "least of these." What I do not understand, though, and which troubles about Rick Warren's true motivation, is his blind acceptance of consiervative ideology that the government has no role to play in helping to lift people out of poverty. While well-intentioned social welfare programs in the past have admittedly failed in some respects, and perhaps have even incentivized to some extent the impoverished to remain so, the fact remains that charitable organizations acting alone cannot possibly do the job. The practical consequence, therefore, of Mark Warner's disdained for government-funded initiatives to help the poor with job training, day care, medical care, etc., especially while the government actively supports policies that endgender job loss, is that millions of people in America, mostly children, will go to bed hungry tonight and their future will continue to look bleak.

I just came across this thread by accident and I would just like to say a few words.

I, being a Liberal Democrat, don't have much of a problem with anyone, including Rick Warren, exploring the limits of his "passion" in any way he sees fit. I take exception with the idea that he assumes part of my make-up is how I handle the idea of God! He must refrain from these misbegotten assumptions to be as successful as he seems to want to be.

I might also add that I am of the firm belief that he, and many of his self professed minions, are simply Full of Sh*t and unworthy of a general public display. Whatever hyper-Religious people choose to be "passionate" about doesn't concern me in the least, and I sincerely wish they would keep it inside the Church's doors where it was intended to be in the first place.

I do not care to get involved in anybody's discussion, but I would simply ask of any of them: If the idea of "God" is NOT a creation of the Mind of Man, of whose Mind is "He" a creation?

I would prefer NOT to wait for a reply.

Thanks

Warren encouraged his disciple pastors to use his talk on going to War with Iraq in 1991, for the purpose of promoting the second official destruction of Iraq...he also said nothing about what happened to the poor people of Iraq from 91-03. Ive documented this on my site:

www.lifechurchvsiraq.com

I am a Presidential material from Uganda. How can the experience of the christian brothers in America be used to shape leadership in africa. I seek for an appointment with your leadership. 269 806 7002.

In regards to using the government (throwing money at the government...) to do the work of the Church.
Jesus told the rich man what he should do to have treasure in heaven. Sell all his stuff and give it to the poor, Matt. 19:21 The rich man went away.
Christ did not tell the disciples to go and TAKE the mans belongings, and give them to the poor.
Therefore I do not believe as a Christian I have the right to take your money, via the US government and give it to the poor because it is what I should be doing as a Christian.
God does NOT force people to do the right thing and neither should I by way of the government.

I hope Rick Warren has truly had an epiphany in the last 2 years. I have always been impressed with large churches who became big by and only by God through crisis and allowing God to be God. The Brooklyn Tabernacle is one such example. Their love and focus on the needy and destitute has truly been an exercise in "living Christ" and maintaining to all of the non-apologetic truths of the Bible and of historic revival protestantism. My problem with Warren in the past is his self- appointed title of "The architect of the church of the 21st century" (see inside cover of "The Purpose Driven Church".
Warren has bragged about growing churches that adhere to a gospel of numerical growth and meeting "felt needs". But such "church growth models" have seemed to lack in actually activating true growth in discipleship as was depicted in a recent study by the University of Virginia on the Willow Creek mega church. Not that growth in and of itself is bad, the methods deserve scrutiny. Hopefully, these "growth model" churches have grown spiritually as Warren seems to have lately by his comments and passions. The real acid test for each is their attitudes toward travailing prayer and complete dependence on The LORD to accomplish His will.
Perhaps if all evangelical pastors made a deliberate decision to defend the unborn, regardless of whether or not that was a passion, we would have had enough fire in the gut to get rid of it years ago. Silence of clergy in such matters is regrettable.