The Purpose Driven Left December 2, 2007
Posted by Paul Edwards in Hillary Clinton, Malcolm Gladwell, Rick Warren, Tipping point.trackback
Update: See my most recent post - Hillary’s ‘Home Run’ for The Purpose Driven Left - for a full analysis of her speech.
Rick Warren hosted Hillary Clinton at his Global Summit on AIDS and the Church this past weekend to standing ovations, an indication of Warren’s continued leftward march. Last year’s keynote speaker was Barack Obama. Melissa Rogers has the roundup of news coverage of Hillary’s speech.
Warren is becoming the new Jerry Falwell, without the passion for the same issues that motivated Jerry: abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Warren is much more inclined to be non-confrontational on these clearly behaviorial issues, focusing his energies on traditional leftist causes like AIDS and the environment. He’s learned you get much more favorable media coverage when you cover what the media favors. Rather than take a bold stand for the gospel and its clear message of repentance, Warren has opted to follow today’s religious Left as they revive the social gospelism of the early decades of the Twentieth Century, allowing Hillary to go unchallenged when she stated that Jesus never asked why a person was sick, a clear slap at conservative evangelicals who proclaim a gospel of repentance calling for a change in behavior. Jesus may never have asked why a person was sick, but he did say, “Go, and sin no more.”
By allowing Hillary Rodham Clinton to steal the show at his AIDS summit Rick Warren has solidified himself as a pawn for the Left while ardently swearing his allegiance to conservativism. Hillary’s speech was filled with the typical Leftist propaganda on the AIDS issue, thinly veiled in religious-speak. For Warren to give her message his defacto endorsement by giving her message a platform is evidence enough that Warren cares more about being connected politically than he does being convicted principally.
The September 12, 2005 issue of The New Yorker magazine features a lengthy article on Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church, headlined The Cellular Church: How Rick Warren’s Church Grew. Written by Malcolm Gladwell, author of The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference
On the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Saddleback Church, Rick Warren hired the Anaheim Angels’ baseball stadium. He wanted to address his entire congregation at once, and there was no way to fit everyone in at Saddleback, where the crowds are spread across services held over the course of an entire weekend. So Warren booked the stadium and printed large, silver-black-and-white tickets, and, on a sunny Sunday morning last April, the tens of thousands of congregants of one of America’s largest churches began to file into the stands. They were wearing shorts and T-shirts and buying Cokes and hamburgers from the concession stands, if they had not already tailgated in the parking lot. On the field, a rock band played loudly and enthusiastically. Just after one o’clock, a voice came over the public-address system—“RIIIICK WARRRREN”—and Warren bounded onto the stage, wearing black slacks, a red linen guayabera shirt, and wraparound NASCAR sunglasses. The congregants leaped to their feet…Not long after the Anaheim service, Warren went back to his office on the Saddleback campus. He put his feet up on the coffee table. On the wall in front of him were framed originals of the sermons of the nineteenth-century preacher Charles Spurgeon, and on the bookshelf next to him was his collection of hot sauces. “I had dinner with Jack Welch last Sunday night,” he said. “He came to church, and we had dinner. I’ve been kind of mentoring him on his spiritual journey. And he said to me, ‘Rick, you are the biggest thinker I have ever met in my life. The only other person I know who thinks globally like you is Rupert Murdoch.’ And I said, ‘That’s interesting. I’m Rupert’s pastor! Rupert published my book!’ ” Then he tilted back his head and gave one of those big Rick Warren laughs.
Can you imagine Jesus saying anything like this to a reporter? When Jesus was flattered by the politically connected, he ignored the compliment and went right for the spiritual jugular: “Truly, truly I say to you, Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:1-18). Anyone interested in truly getting to know Rick Warren should consume Gladwell’s essay.
The one thing about Rick Warren that gives me pause is he is a member on the Counsel on Foreign Relations. Many of the elite in this country are part of that group are many are trying to institute the North American Union. As far as his social activities, I say bravo, Mclaren, Warren, Campolo are putting Jesus to action. I don’t see that from many on the religious right. It’s more of “Accept Jesus” and all your troubles will be solved. Not always, but with a broad brush this is the case.
It’s odd that Paul Edwards, Biblical scholar and religious Rush Limbaugh, is so wrong on this. It was when the woman was caught in adultery and was about to get stoned by the religious right of the day that he told the woman (after rebuking the rightwing zealots) go and sin no more.
Hillary is absolutely right on this one thing: Jesus never asked why anyone was sick before healing them. How ironic that it’s the “real Christians” who are always out for blame and blood.
Skeptimal,
Please read Matthew 9:1-8. There you will find at least ONE time Jesus associated physical illness with SIN. Jesus didn’t ask why anyone was sick because UNLIKE US Jesus was GOD and didn’t need to ask (John 2:23-25). Also notice in the John 2 text that Jesus didn’t heal everyone who came to him for healing.
Paul,
So then, do you agree with what the Word of Faith people preach that sickness comes from current or past sin? or possibly sin from a previous generation?
Skeptimal,
You do raise an interesting point and something that I have been looking into as to how the religious right looks an aweful lot like those who Jesus rebuked in his day. Like those he rebuked they don’t even see the plank in their eye as they are pointing out the splinter in another eye.
I often wonder, like the bracelets WWJD, what he would do with the American Church. I am not talking about all the forms of “apostasy” like the Emergent Church, Marketing Church, Blab it grab it, I am talking about those supposed “watchers of the wall” those who consider themselves “orthodox”, who go around critizing EVERYTHING outside their tiny little box. I think Jesus would have very harsh words. Jesus spoke often about coming to him in a humble manner, about social justice, about prostitutes and tax collectors entering the kingdom before the pharisees. Christians(esp on the right) have God ALL figured out, Sorry I can’t accept the Christian Right and their marriage with the corrupt political right and see that as something that Jesus would endorse. Christians are the best at looking at life in a dualistic manner, us vs them, God vs Satan, Good vs Evil. Because we are good in God’s eyes then everything that we don’t agree with is evil. Republicans are “God’s party” so therefore democrats are evil. Forget the fact that most Dems are for the social good of most Americans, reforming the tax code to that the top 1 percent aren’t the only ones that benefit. The dems aren’t perfect but I think it is illogical to tie a faith to a political party, it removes the thinking that voters in this country need to make truly informed decisions.
Iggy,
NO - I do not agree with the prosperity word of faith movement. I agree with the Bible - “The wages of sin is death…” Sin is what we ARE and as a result it is what we DO. Sin is the cause of all illness, not necessarily the sins we commit but certainly the sin we inherited from the fall of man.
Eliminating SIN is what Jesus did on the cross (Romans 8:3) but its effects are still present with us. Stopping sinful behavior is the first step to eliminating sins consequences.
Paul,
I got a chance to hear the last part of your show today and really got to thinking about the logic behind your arguments. Having listened to you for sometime now, I understand that you are a reformed Calvinist. According to the Calvinism there is such thing as limited atonement. So by admission, there are a few, chosen/elect that will enter into God’s kingdom. Your argument against Warren was for not rebuking Clinton’s social message and not addressing the issue of Sin. If there is limited atonement then there are many that have sin in their lives, and there is nothing that can be done about it since it is preordained. So why don’t Calvinist embrace the social causes since you live in a very real world and maybe can help others who will never accept Christ. Instead, your logic wants to condemn people of their sin that God has already preordained they will be involved with. It seems like a double standard in logic to me. Maybe if Calvinist would be more involved in socialistic causes they might be able to more of a difference, instead of running around in condemnation of everyone that is not a “holy” as hey are.
Iggy,
You have much to learn about “Calvinsim.” Your view of that theological system is the typical distorted one held by most people who have never taken the time to thorooughly examine the doctrines of grace.
Calvinists DO embrace social causes. It was John Calvin who introduced a holistic approach to theology when he called on Christianns to allow their faith in God to inform ALL of their life, not just their spiritual lives.
However, biblical Christians place a priority on the gospel. The fact that God has chosen in Christ from the foundation of the world those who would make up His elect church, and the fact that few will ultimately enter heaven, is no excuse to stop proclaiming the only message by which the elect can be saved and replace it with a gospel that ministers only to the physical needs of people. Following your logic NO ONE could ever be saved because NO ONE would ever hear the gospel: “Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.” “It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe.”
You are wrong when you say that “If there is limited atonement then there are many that have sin in their lives, and there is nothing that can be done about it since it is preordained.” There IS something that can be done about sin - and Jesus did it by bearing in his own body the sins of the world, by condemning sin in his own flesh. Appropriating that gospel truth by faith in Jesus Christ is the remedy for sin and WHOSOEVER WILL MAY COME.
So I’ll continue to proclaim the gospel of God’s saving grace through the atoning work of Jesus Christ at Calvary AND supporting ministries like World Vision and Compassion International who are ministering to AIDS victims while doing so in the name of Jesus.
Paul,
I have been curious about that myself. When you say “WHOSOEVER WILL MAY COME” doesn’t that indicate Free Will? How can you have a doctrine of being preordained and have Free Will. Seems to conflict with me.
Also, what is so wrong with being conservative theologically and liberal socially? I have heard you get down on Campolo, Bono, Warren, etc. All these folks are out there making a difference for the cause of Christ. (not withstanding my beef with Warren being on the CFR)
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is of utmost importance, however, that alone will not solve all the worlds problems. I know a theocratic Christian world would be very pleasant to you (at least this is they way you come off on the radio). However, history has shown that theocracy is an awful way to run society.
Pixelmaster,
It is obvious you haven’t taken the time to examine the doctrines of grace, but have settled with a straw man. Every single Calvinist affirms free-will, but they deny that man is autonomous. Imagine you throw a piece of meat and a head of lettuce to a shark. Which do you think the shark will go for? He will always go for the meat because his nature dictates that he desires meat, even though he could physically chomp down and swallow the lettuce. It is the same with man, due to the fall, man has a sinful nature and will never choose Christ unless God changes his nature. Once God does change our nature, our will follows our desires and by his grace we really do choose him. Of course people can “choose” Christ for the wrong motives (ie to fix family, marriage ext), but this is not real faith and will be demonstrated by a lack of works or falling away. The scripture “whomsover will” is used often by Arminians to prove what they call “free will”. However, the context of this verse isn’t to prove freewill, or whether or not regeneration occurs before or after faith. I highly suggest that you read Augustine on original sin or Jonathan Edwards on “Freedom of the Will”, and it should answer your questions.
And just to sort one thing out, Jesus never proclaimed “social justice” in the modern commie sense of the word. That was 2000 years ago, please don’t read modern idealogies into the Word of God. Jesus condemned WRONG behavior of all types because it was fundementally against God’s character, not because he was preaching “power to the people”, or down with the bourgeoisie. Liberal and leftest social idealogies came from Godless worldviews like Marxism which gained their “ethics” not from a eternally immutable God, but from what man determined was good for him. So stop saying Jesus is in that camp please.
How deep must the well of God’s patience be, and how wide is the river of grace to engulf us. Even Judas was called “friend” at the betrayal. It is a marvelous comfort to me that mercy is not found being administered by man.~~ Lord, to whom shall we go?
Stay with the stuff Paul.
amen Don.
Huckabee…..Purpose Driven!
___________________
http://www.mikehuckabee.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_id=658
Don’t know if you all know this yet …but baptist preacher Huckabee is
Purpose Driven.
Ref. Link is to Huckabee’s official web page above…his blog…Huckabee
uses Rick Warren’s quote…hoping for an official endorsement from him.
There are 38.8 million baptist in the USA. This is what has spiked Huckabee
ahead in the polls suddenly. This could spell disaster for the US if these
millions of baptists vote. Approx. 50% of voters vote, then say, the last
election went something like 62 million for Bush vs. 59 million for
Kerry-Dems. —you see, now in 2008, we have 38 million baptist….then, add
on to that, millions of foolish nonbaptist christians who will get on the
bandwagon–especially, if Dobson and other ‘leaders’ endorse Hucakbee?
Huckabee has the baptist’s vote…then, think if PD Warren does official
endorse him. Huckabee is the worst choice on the republican ticket–and the
‘chrisians’ are fixed to give us another Bush. I’ve friends personally who
were PD ‘resisters’ and were thrown out of Lamar Baptist Church in TX.
Huckabee (and you know the baptist demonination has fully accepted PD false
teachings) does not recognize the error of PD—what kind of christian is
he–another deluded one, like universalist GW?
Dear All,
Let me clear up a few things here that need some clearing up from Paul’s original post:
> Rick Warren hosted Hillary Clinton at his Global Summit on AIDS and the Church this past weekend to standing ovations, an indication of Warren’s continued leftward march.
Incorrect. Warren did not host Hilary Clinton. ALL of the candidates were invited — only Hilary showed up..
> Warren is becoming the new Jerry Falwell, without the passion for the same issues that motivated Jerry: abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. Warren is much more inclined to be non-confrontational on these clearly behaviorial issues, focusing his energies on traditional leftist causes like AIDS and the environment.
AIDS is now a leftist cause? I thought it was a disease. There is certainly a significant aspect of the disease that is associated with a lifestyle that is biblically forbidden. However, a lot of people who have nothing to do with anything sinful are victims of this disease. As far issues like abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. go, Warren views them with a traditional, Southern Baptist, biblical eye. He has not chosen to get involved with these issues. And I would think that this is his right as an American — i.e., to choose which social issues he engages.
> He’s learned you get much more favorable media coverage when you cover what the media favors.
Actually, this is a serious allegation that impugns Warren’s character and suggests that he is only concerned with AIDS because of media popularity. That is a great assumption. In fact, it contradicts the very heart-warming story of why both he and his wife, Kay, are involved in helping with the AIDS problem. It originated with Kay Warren’s seeing of people with AIDS and her heart breaking over them. She shared her heart’s concern w/ Rick who decided to help her in her vision for bringing Christ into the AIDS crisis (see my book, Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him, pp. 20-22).
> Rather than take a bold stand for the gospel and its clear message of repentance, Warren has opted to follow today’s religious Left as they revive the social gospelism of the early decades of the Twentieth Century, allowing Hillary to go unchallenged when she stated that Jesus never asked why a person was sick . . .
Untrue. Rick Warren has specifically condemned the Social Gospel. In my published interview with him, I asked point blank if he was advocating the social gospel of liberalism, and he declared in no uncertain terms, “NOT AT ALL!” He went on to explain that what he is doing through helping out with AIDS and w/ his PEACE plan is to re-integrate the biblical spiritual Gospel, with the social good works that we are to do as Christians. He said he wants to bring evangelicalism back to what it was in the 19th century - “It’s the evangelicalism of William Booth–The Salvation Army–who said, “The whole Gospel, for the whole man, for the whole world” (see my book, Rick Warren and the Purpose that Drives Him, pp. 24-25).
> For Warren to give her message his defacto endorsement by giving her message a platform is evidence enough that Warren cares more about being connected politically than he does being convicted principally.
Quote an accusation - but no proof.
Richard Abanes
Richard,
I have not made an accusation without proof. I have made an observation based on Warren’s own words to Hillary at the conclusion of her speech at the AIDS Summit: “Great message. Home run! Home run! Home run!”
Hillary’s speech, as I pointed out carefully in my post, is at odds with biblical principles. For Warren to characterize it as a “great message” and a “Home Run,” is to put his political standing above the biblical principles to which seminary trained pastors ought to adhere.
When Kay Warren was a guest on my program a year ago, I specifically asked her where the Gospel fit into Warren’s CHURCH acronym. Her response was that the Gospel was hugging people.
Hugging people? There is more to the Gospel than merely being loving and nurturing. The biblical gospel involves a proclamation of man’s plight as a result of sin and God’s remedy to man’s plight as a result of the penal substitutionary sacrifice of His Son at Calvary. None of that is in the CHURCH acronym.
Hello Paul,
let’s break this down a bit and stay calm all around (I say that to myself as much as to you).
>I have not made an accusation without proof.
ME: Let me clarify. You said, “Warren cares more about being connected politically than he does being convicted principally.” how would you know this without some sort of document? Or email? Or recorded conversation? Or some statement? This accusation is indeed made without proof, unless you want to claim that you can actually see into Rick Warren’s heart — because this is an accusation that is directed at Warren’s motives. It is unprovable in the absense of any supportive evidence.
Let us say for the sake of argument, that he actually supports Hilary 100% (which I doubt since no one supports any candidate 100%). That might be a reason he applauded her. Or he might simply might be supportive of her remarks concerning our need to step up action to combat AIDS throughout the world (a far more likely reason for his words, since he seemed to be commenting directly on what she had to say about the AIDS crisis). Here is yet another reason for his positive atttitude toward her.
So, you see, I have just given you two alternative explanations for him having Hilary speak at Saddleback. neither of them point to him as someone who cares “more about being connected politically than he does being convicted principally.”
It would seem that if a political candidate happens to have the same views as you on a particular issue, then as an American, you would be able to express that by saying, “Great message. Home run! Home run! Home run!” Or, does Rick not have that right?
>For Warren to characterize it as a “great message” and a “Home Run,” is to put his political standing above the biblical principles to which seminary trained pastors ought to adhere.
Really? And what is the biblical principle that says we must not help victims with AIDS? Or care for those who have AIDS regardless of how they might have gotten it? Have you ever known anyone with AIDS? Visited an AIDS patient? Lost someone who was a friend to AIDS? Homosexuals have AIDS, as well as women, and children (often thru no fault of their own). The conference was about how to deal best with the AIDS crisis, not whether or not homosxuality is wrong — which is another issue entirely.
And as I said, ALL of the political candidates were invited. Only Hilary showed up.
> Hugging people? There is more to the Gospel than merely being loving and nurturing.
I have to laugh at this one — it sounds so Kay. I am surprised that you couldn’t understand her words and the spirit in which they were given. It is not difficult to see, at least to me, that in CONTEXT (i.e., dealing AIDS), what she was saying was that an intrinsic part of being a Christian and spreading the Gospel is helping people, loving people, and caring for people.
This was all Kay’s way of expressing how the gospel of salvation and the practical outworking of that (i.e., do to others as you would have them do to you - Matt. 7:12 and loving others - Mt 22:37-40) are so intertwined that they are one. They are not technically the same thing — but you should not have one without the other (read James, faith without works is dead, show me your faith by your work). I don’t think Kay was expecting to then have her simple, flowery, emotional expression to be squeezed through a doctrinal strainer for accuracy.
You have, IMHO, twisted what she said into some kind of namby-pamby apologetic for a social gospel, which as I have stated, is blatantly condemned by Rick (see above). You have the answers now to such comments. You might want to get hold of my book on Warren for more information and a look at precisely what he teaches and what is taught at Saddleback.
I bid you peace,
Richard Abanes