Emergent church

Absolutely essential to understanding the big-business entrepreneurial ethos of much of conservative Bible-believing evangelicalism today are these two pieces on Rick Warren--the man Fortune magazine aptly calls "the generation's great religious entrepreneur."

Myths of the Modern Mega-Church
Will Success Spoil Rick Warren?

As I read about Mr. Warren, I'm in the middle of reading a couple biographies of Jonathan Edwards and preaching through Galatians. So I wonder whether, had Fortune been around at the time, its editors would ever have been tempted to call Edwards or the Apostle Paul "the generation's great religious entrepreneur?" Yes, everyone sees the world through their own lenses, but still I doubt it. Fortune's label is quite right for Mr. Warren but wrong for Jonathan Edwards or the Apostle Paul.

Here are excerpts from one--only one--forum where Rick Warren spoke. Every statement is a direct quote from that one day. Mr. Warren made his comments in the course of an extended conversation with the following elite journalists: The New Yorker's Elsa Welsh and Jeffrey Goldberg, The New Republic's Frank Foer, Dan Harris of ABC News, The Atlantic Monthly's Joshua Green and Wendy Kaminer, The New York Times' David Brooks and Anne Kornblut, The American Prospect's Sarah Wildman, NPR's Juan Williams, University of Pennsylvania's John Diiulio, Rebecca Haggerty of NBC Dateline, Philadelphia Inquirer's Jane Eisner, The Washington Post's E. J. Dionne Jr.,USA Today's Jill Lawrence, John Parker of The Economist, Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute, Luis Lugo of the Pew Forum, and Byron York of National Review. The forum was moderated by Michael Cromartie of the Ethics and Public Policy Center:

RICK WARREN SPEAKS

As a writer, you never know who is reading your stuff and so I just wanted you to know I am reading you. I read a book a day and I read tons of magazines, tons of articles, and I just devour enormous quantities of material, and thank God for the Internet. I get The New York Times and I get The Wall Street Journal, and I get the local papers in L.A., but the rest I have to read online or in the magazines that I subscribe to.

There is a verse in the Bible that says the intelligent man is always open to new ideas; in fact, he looks for them. And so when Mike invited me to come to this and I saw your names, I really jumped at the chance. I enjoy these smaller, intimate meetings. You know, when you speak to 23,000, 24,000 people every weekend, crowds don't impress you anymore. So really, anywhere I go is going to be smaller than the group I talk to on Sunday. So it's not like I'm going to get a big wow out of a crowd.

I would much rather come and do this kind of thing where we can dialogue and talk back and forth. Last night, I was in Miami speaking to this huge international convention of all of the Spanish-language publishers and they gave me the city key to Miami, but really I would have more fun with you here today.
* * *
Bono called me the other day...

(Tim) Since the decline of his health about a year ago, requiring him to move in with his daughter, leaving Washington D.C. behind, my favorite columnist on American culture and politics, Joe Sobran, has been on hiatus. His articles are few and far between, about every three months, now, and I've missed him quite a bit. So it was a happy day, today, when a new column arrived--this one on our recurrent theme of why Senator Obama rocks, as hip, chic, submergent types see it.

For my money, the keys needed to unlock the submergent church scene are chronological snobbery--after all, they are chrysalises emerging from the slime of our patriarchal, authoritarian, institutional roots--and they hate authority. Thus their support for Senator Obama. He's new, he's about change; what's not to like?

But of course, neither Arcbishop McLaren nor Cardinal Obama are about change, not to even the slightest degree. They're carbon copies of one another. They're both relentlessly superficial, adroit, and non-Christian, in lockstep with our superficial, adroit, and non-Christian information class. Why bother faulting them with wanting to be on the winning side? It's positively democratic, isn't it?

But I do fault them with claiming originality in their consummately predictable, boring opinions. Sobran says it so much better...

NOTE: IF YOU'VE READ THIS ONCE ALREADY, CLICK THROUGH AND READ THE FINAL PARAGRAPH ADDED JUST LAST NIGHT. IT'S NEW AND IT'S AN EXCELLENT CONCLUSION. -TIM

(Tim) Two friends copied me on the following correspondence. I have chosen not to identify the person asking the question. The answer is given by Brian Bailey, an Indianapolis attorney who, with his wife Nicole and their children, are a part of Church of the Good Shepherd here in Bloomington.

A friend asks Brian this question: A commenter here at BaylyBlog linked to another blog about a woman in the Presbyterian Church in America (Missy Irons) who says she is in favor of homosexual marriage because it is their civil right. She claims that since we Christians are afforded protection through civil rights, then we shouldn't be hypocritical and deny them the same. (That's basically me paraphrasing a few of her blogs into one sentence, I'll admit). How would I respond? Is there any "secular" reason to oppose homosexual marriage?

Brian Bailey responds: I'm happy to take a stab at answering your e-mail...  I’ve numbered the paragraphs to streamline the response and give it more organization.

1.  The proponent of sodomite marriage as a civil right seeks to change the status quo across all previous cultures, eras, and places. Any earthling would admit sodomite marriage is a radical innovation peculiar to our post-20th century Western culture. The promoter has the burden to prove the existence of that right.

2.  To assert a right is necessarily to appeal to some source of authority beyond merely saying, This is the way I want things to be. The proponent must appeal to some source, beyond his predilections and preferences, for the alleged right to sodomite marriage. And to say that homosexual marriage is a civil right proves nothing. He must locate the source of the right.

3.  There are two, and only two, possible sources of a right: God or man.

4.  Historically, Americans have believed and declared that God is the ultimate source of their rights. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This is not a theoretical construct or a way to lend solemnity to foundational legal documents. A people steeped in the knowledge that they live, move, and exist in God (Acts 17:28), that the truth shall set them free (John 8:32), and that Thou shalt not steal (Exodus 20:15), will confess that God is the source of their rights.  See, e.g., Indiana Constitution, preamble (“TO THE END, that justice be established, public order maintained, and liberty perpetuated; WE, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to ALMIGHTY GOD for the free exercise of the right to choose our own form of government, do ordain this Constitution.”)...

(Tim) A friend just left me a voice message about the presidential forum being held tonight by Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Community Church. My friend was angered by Fox News reporting this afternoon that the forum will steer clear of divisive issues such as sodomite marriage and the slaughter of unborn children. Instead, Pastor Warren will focus on "human rights."

This is news? I'm not the brightest bulb in the room, but I knew this many months ago--long before the Iowa caucus or the New Hampshire primary. That Pastor Warren would do anything else is inconceivable.

No, I'm not watching Rick Warren build his name and fame tonight. Wracking my brain for something better to do, I think I'll see if I can find Bill Hybels interviewing Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren.

(Tim, w/thanks to Dave) Last week, a friend in Florida wrote to call my attention to an article detailing the results of a political survey of the faculty at Covenant College, the school affiliated with the Presbyterian Church in America. (Students were polled, also.)

Conducted by the school's Director of Institutional Research, Kevin Eames, the survey received responses from 47 faculty members. Here's what Covenant's administration wants prospective students and their parents to know about these faculty members:

Eighty-eight percent of Covenant's faculty have doctorates or terminal degrees, earned from such institutions as Oxford, Stanford, Yale, and the University of Chicago. Our professors regularly involve students in their research activities.  In fact, many students actually help edit books that their professors are writing.

The administration goes on to describe faculty members as "passionate about teaching and sharing their Reformed faith in a setting that sharpens the intellect and encourages increased awe of our sovereign God." Then, by way of reassurance, Oxford and passion are anchored by the declaration that "all faculty members subscribe to the Westminster Confession of Faith."

So, what might doctorates from Yale and Stanford, combined with a passion for the reformed faith and the Westminster Standards, lead these men and women to profess to our children about Christ's dominion in these United States and our own confession of that faith in this election year?

Asked, "Do you believe John McCain is a Christian," 33 of the 47 faculty members responding said either "No" or "Not sure." This seems safe since I read just last night that Senator McCain has never received Christian baptism. Likely not one of those faculty members questioning Senator McCain's Christian faith knew that, though.

Still, my concern is certainly not to prove Senator McCain's Christian faith, to get others to agree that he's sincere in his Christian profession, or leastwise to write this post to the end that even one reader will decide to vote for him or the Republican party. Such concerns have not entered my mind.

But on to Senator Obama. Different candidate, same question: "Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian?" Twenty-one faculty members are definite in their response with five answering "No" and sixteen "Yes."

What ocular disease has led sixteen of our best and brightest to say for the record among students they are paid to lead into a greater knowledge of Christ's Lordship over all the earth that a man who unabashedly promotes baby-slaughter and sodomite marriage is certainly a Christian? If Senator Obama is a Christian, Robert Mugabe is born again and Jean Paul Sartre was a strict subscriptionist Presbyterian pastor.

Or, put another way...

(Tim) It's indisputable. Senator Obama voted against a bill to protect the lives of newborn children. And these men want him for president and are convinced he's a Christian.

(Tim) Over on byFaith's site, Tim Keller gave his rationale recently for Redeemer's practice related to woman deacons. This is the first in a series of posts critiquing Tim Keller's article. (Here are installments one, two, three, four, five, and six.)

What's interesting is not so much what Tim wrote, but what his readers commenting beneath his piece said and didn't say. Or what they considered and what they didn't consider in weighing his claims and arguments.

Tim Keller's article must be interpreted in the larger context of his ministry at Redeemer. Only then will it be understood properly. The operative rule at Redeemer with regard to all things sexual is, "A woman may do anything a non-ordained man may do." So the working out of Redeemer's theology of sexuality is that women at Redeemer are allowed to teach and exercise authority over men everywhere and always except from the pulpit Lord's Day morning and in any way reserved for the elders as they exercise something they call "teaching authority." But whatever this "teaching authority" is, it's not when women teach Scripture to men because that precise thing they explicitly allow.

When Tim Keller claims to hold firmly to Scripture's Creation Order of sexuality, those weighing his claim should know that the actual implementation of that Order in his church would be unrecognizable to any previous generation of Christians...

(Tim) It's hard reading the old guys. Think about Jonathan Edwards preaching any of his sermons to his flock in Northampton--any sermon at all, just pick one. In those days, the church wasn't a thinly sliced part of the town's demographic. Being reformed didn't mean smoking cigars, drinking single malts, keeping one eye on the Dow Jones and the other on the R. C. Sproul video. Rich and poor, young and old alike sat under Edwards' preaching and understood him.

Today, even pastors who spend our lives working with words are challenged just trying to read Edwards. If we'd been there to listen to him, the sermon's length, vocabulary, logic, and the prominence of biblical terrors would have left us stupefied. We would have left the church-house shaking our heads and clucking our disapproval.

The old guys require the reader to be literate and to have a heart knowledge of the Word of God. But who has the patience for such work today? And what congregation would put up with it?

Submergent wolves know this...

(Tim) If you ask Senator Obama's supporters where he stands on an issue, their responses are all over the board. No one actually knows where he stands on anything, so his supporters are free to state his position any way they like, without fear of contradiction.

His position on the Mideast?

"Senator Obama will get our troops out of Iraq, immediately." Or, "Senator Obama will not get our troops out of Iraq at the cost of destabilization in the Mideast." Or, "Senator Obama will do what is necessary to clean up Afganistan's border with Pakistan." Or, "Senator Obama is Irael's firm champion and he will see to it that Iran does not enter the nuclear fraternity."

Who can tell what Senator Obama will do about Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Pakistan, or Israel? All the electorate really knows is that he speaks reassuring words of peace whereas our current president and Senator McCain speak harsh words of firm resolve.

So really, what's there to think about? Obama is handsome. He's an intellectual. He has the audacity of hope. And he's really really committed to family values. That's Submergent pastor Brian McLaren's promise.

Turning aside from the snake oil and smiles, let's speak directly...

(Tim) One of my relatives posted a couple days ago arguing that the best way to oppose the slaughter of babies in America today is to keep abortion legal. To that end, she called us all to vote for Senator Barack Obama for president of these United States, making her case with a litany of facts that showed everything anyone had ever believed about abortion or Obama's position on abortion was woefully wrong. Start with her newly-discovered fact that Obama isn't pro-abortion at all, but pro-life.

It will help you understand my post below if you take a couple minutes to skim the original post she wrote. This dear sister is a graduate of Columbia International University and the Torchbearers, and she really likes Brian McLaren. So now, on to the facts.

* * *

Much of what Mrs. Fischer has written I'll leave alone. But some of the stuff is repeated so often by Submergent types that I thought it worth correcting publicly.

In her plea for votes for Senator Obama, Mrs. Fischer cited Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good. CACG is a political action group working to get Roman Catholics to cast their votes for the Democratic Party, and thus for Senator Barack Obama. Real Roman Catholics are scandalized by such missionaries for Obama cloaking themselves in the name "Catholic." For instance, here's Archbishop Charles Chaput warning against CACG, recently:

And this from Francis Cardinal George...

(Tim, w/thanks to Mark) Well, turns out the Constitution Party wasn't on Indiana's ballot, so that made my decision easy. Meanwhile, did you notice we haven't promoted the Republican Party or John McCain?

Now that it's over, this article will explain the ambivalence/antipathy/antagonism many of us felt as we looked at the Republican Party's candidate this year. Elections are never simply won. They're also lost, and political strategists need to understand the only demographic groups still having children in these United States are biblical Christians and Hispanics. Guess what both groups hold precious?

Children, born and unborn.

So the man who swallows the shame of taking the little ones in his arms and protecting them is the one we will support.

(Tim: This by Mark Chambers, although not the title. Incidentally, yesterday I received an e-mail from a longtime member of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Manhattan who estimated the number of Redeemer's members who voted for Barack Obama was fifty percent.)

There is nothing particularly unusual about the picture above; nothing fantastic or different. It is just the result and remains of the  typical abortion;  a bit of messy refuse to be discarded after the useful cells have been harvested. At least it is not an entire waste, we can be thankful for that after all.

The decapitation is interesting. The heads of fetuses, being too large for the vacuum tube must be pulverized to facilitate removal. Similar to certain seed pods that find their way into my garage that are too large for the shop vac I must take steps to reduce the size of them in order to suck them up. I find that stepping on them works quite well, and it is only a minor annoyance. Not nearly so complicated as finding the obstacle via ultrasound in order to crush it with forceps. But doctors are adept at accomplishing the difficult and we must salute them...

(Tim, w/thanks to Ben)

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

(Tim) At the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King preached a sermon calling our nation to repentance. That sweltering afternoon before a quarter million souls, King cast a vision of what America would be like when white racism finally bled itself to its long-deserved ugly death:

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Many are declaring the election of Barack Obama as the fulfillment of Martin Luther King's dream. In truth, it's the very opposite.

As Martin Luther King defined racism, what we've done has been racist to the core...

(Tim) Filmaker Ken Burns endorsed Senator Obama for president, commending Obama's "moral courage" and comparing him to President Abraham Lincoln. Since Obama's election, many have made this same comparison pointing out the felicitous conjunction of Obama's Inauguration and the 200th anniversary of Lincoln's birthday. Senator Diane Feinstein announced the theme of Senator Obama's Inauguration will be "A New Birth of Freedom" with words courtesy of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

Such comparisons are great theater, but sheer hypocrisy. Barack Obama is the leader of the bloodshed consuming our land and we all pat ourselves on our backs congratulating one another over our nation's great strides against racism? What is the injustice of racism compared to the slaughter of tens of millions of little babies?

Self-congratulatory about the end of racism in America, we point to a black champion of freedom we say bears the stature and moral authority of Abe himself. We look forward to sitting down with our families, having a good cry while we watch his Inauguration. Happily, no bloodshed has been required to reach our vision. Pull the lever for Obama and we all become heroes of truth and justice.

Obama's another Lincoln? Is he willing to do battle to end the slaughter of fifty million of our children by wicked oppressors? Is he preparing an Emancipation Proclamation for those little ones? Will he speak of them in his first Inaugural Address, warning his nation of  God's holy wrath unleashed against those who offend even one of His "little ones?"

What a wonder it would be if, to celebrate Lincoln's 200th birthday, Senator Obama were to model his first after Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:

(Tim, w/thanks to David L.; and if you want to understand the title, watch the cartoon on the second page) Half the professors at the PCA's Covenant College believe our President-elect, Barack Obama, is a Christian.

Yes, he's a Christian in the same way Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are Christians. Or maybe I should say he's a pastor in the same way Rob Bell and Brian McLaren are pastors.

Don't tune me out, here...

(Tim, w/thanks to James) Of the stuff I've come across, this is about the best summary of the significance of our recent coronation of President-elect Barack Hussein Obama. Giving grace for it coming from a Brit who's not got perfect pitch about our country, it's something pretty close. For instance, here's what he says about Jessie Jackson's tears in Grant Park: "No wonder that awful old hack Jesse Jackson sobbed as he watched. How he must wish he, too, could get away with this sort of stuff."

A teaser...

(Tim) A few weeks ago, David and I attended the national assembly of the Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches. The CREC meets every three years so this was a special occasion. Among other things, the denomination multiplied from two to seven presbyteries this year. God is blessing the work and David and I both greatly enjoyed our fellowship with the men and women there.

What did we enjoy? Well, any list is somewhat arbitrary, but for starters, the directness of communication. There were no Emergent ear-tickler types, so declarative statements were very much in order and welcomed. When disagreements surfaced, they were dealt with forthrightly. Men spoke their minds without acrimony or petulance. Passive-aggressiveness didn't show its face.

Scripture was honored by being used to support particular positions. Church fathers, catechisms, and confessions were cited regularly, too, but in a way that demonstrated they were subordinate standards--subordinate to the Word of God, that is. The singing was robust--even loud. The "Amens" were almost shouted.

David and I had several conversations with Federal Vision men...

(Tim, w/thanks to Jake) Yesterday, Richard Cizik resigned as Vice President for Governmental Affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE). In the past (see here, here,  here, and here) Cizik's public statements have led me to suggest that my denomination, the Presbyterian Church in America, resign its membership in the NAE. I'm only more convinced of this now, given Cizik's failure and resignation and the moral failure and resignation of NAE President Ted Haggard two years ago.

The context for the present scandal is that Cizik had this question put to him during a December 2 Fresh Air interview with National Public Radio's Terry Gross:

"A couple of years ago when you were on our show, I asked you if you were changing your mind on that. And two years ago, you said you were still opposed to gay marriage. But now as you identify more with younger voters, would you say you have changed on gay marriage?"

Cizik responded:

(Tim) So everyone's talking about Rick Warren's payoff. He gets to pray in front of millions during Senator Obama's inauguration, calling down God's presence and blessing on a ceremony centered around the national politician most committed to the slaughter of his nation's children taking God's Name in vain as he falsely promises to uphold the Constitution of these United States.

When our nation was founded, our Declaration of Independence declared our commitments this way:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Thus, in the "Preamble" to our Constitution, we state the Constitution's purpose to be to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

Precisely how does a man swear by God's Holy Name to secure the blessings of liberty to our posterity who himself is our nation's political leader most committed to the slaughter of that posterity? The wickedness of Governor Blagojevich pales by comparison.

Selling an appointment to the U.S. Senate is child's play compared to the child slaughter which was a central plank of Senator Obama's campaign. Talk about wickedness in high places!

But no one's watching. We're all transfixed by our nation's little morality play over there on Chicago's South Side.

Also, by the vision of Evangelicalism's own Balaam, the Warrenmeister, thinking gentle thoughts about how his invocation of the Triune God can help heal our nation as we all unify behind our new President. So Rick Warren, prophet of Israel, hoists himself on his donkey...

(Tim, w/thanks to Steve) Rick Warren is a bellwether for middle of the road religious people in these United States. He's scrupulous about sodomite marriage, then equivocates by his casual references to "gays and straights" and his fawning over lesbian gay rights activist, Melissa Ethridge. He's pro-life, but to him this means more concern for the environment, world hunger, and AIDS. The slaughter of unborn children isn't even an afterthought.

He's a master of self-promotion but it's difficult to see how his leadership causes the Kingdom of God to advance even an inch. His books sell in the tens of millions but, after the wave passes, things pretty much proceed as they were before. Idolatry, state-sanctioned murder, materialism, divorce, fornication, feminism, envy, child molestation and abuse, self-satisfaction, pornography, and pride suffer little to no repentance. Yet there in the national limelight, larger than life, stands a Southern Baptist pastor sprinkling holy water on us all.

So what's in it for Evangelicalism's chief priest? Well, for starters, a mountain of mammon. Don't ever forget it.

But it doesn't stop with mammon...

But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your life" (Ezekiel 33:9).

(Tim) Feeling some heat from the wicked because of his tepid opposition to homosexual marriage, Pastor Rick Warren wants to shrug his shoulders, making the blessing into an act of simple pastoral humility: "Prayers are not to be sermons, speeches, position statements nor political posturing. They are humble, personal appeals to God," he says.

We respond, "So what humble request will you make of God the Father with the whole world watching, Pastor Warren?" Or better yet, "What humble request will you not be making of God the Father because such a request might be too easily mistaken for an arrogant 'sermon,' 'speech,' 'position statement,' or 'political posturing?'"

Keep in mind that the man Pastor Warren has agreed to invoke God's Name and blessing for has promised that his first act as president will be to further solidify the support of the laws of our nation for the slaughter of little babies.

With this in mind, here's my pastorally modest proposal. Let Rick Warren take this occasion to pray for a quick end to the slaughter of the babies across our land...

(Tim w/thanks to David W.) For those concerned about the privileging of mainstream evangelical civic religion represented by President-elect Obama's invitation to Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation, the tide's come in and you may rest easy. Bishop Gene Robinson has also been asked to pray. He'll hold forth during the Inaugural weekend at the Lincoln Memorial, and both Obama and Biden will attend.

Readers will recall that the Bad Bishop Robinson is a committed, self-affirming sodomite whose elevation to the bishopric has torn the Anglican communion asunder. Robinson is not blushing over the entire world discussing the nature of the sexual couplings he's been choosing most recently. In fact, he's quite proud to be a spokesman for the latest oppressed minority yearning to be free.

Proud of it?

Thus we get a better understanding of the Apostle Paul's comment when rebuking another ecclesiastical communion that was arrogant...

When I say to the wicked, "O wicked man, you will surely die," and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. (Ezekiel 33:8)

(Tim, w/thanks to Michael) According to the Washington Post, Pastor Rick Warren issued a statement praising President-elect Barack Obama for his selection of Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson to call down God's blessing on our nation and new president during the Inaugural weekend. Robinson, a man infamous internationally due to his promotion of sodomy in the Name of Jesus Christ, is, according to Warren, a good choice because it is one more indication that Senator Obama has a "genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground." Warren concludes concerning Senator Obama's selection of Robinson, "I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen."

It sounds good. I could almost hear myself saying the same. But then you stop to think about it and you realize this is one more step in the silencing of the witness of the Church of Jesus Christ. Such statements are precisely the thing warned against...