October 2005

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...

This profane rant against Christian fertility is worth recommending for two reasons: 1) It demonstrates the level of hatred permissible in liberal culture when aimed against Christians and their God, and; 2) It reveals the increasing insecurity of those who watch Christians embrace God's gift of children. Bravo to this simple Arkansas family for causing such angst in San Francisco. (Thanks to Tim Varner)

Several weeks ago I wrote in defense of responding aggressively to bullying. Of course, the lesson we learn in our youth that we must at times respond in faith to physical attacks continues on into later life. There are times when we must fight to the glory of God in sessions and on boards, in workplaces, governments and families.

When we must fight certain basic principles should be resolutely borne in mind.

Principle No. 1: When fighting, do so to the glory of God.

Think of David not taking advantage of the sleeping Saul. There was honor to his behaviour beyond merely not laying his hand on the Lord's anointed. Joab slays Abner while pretending to embrace him and David laments that Abner died at the cowardly and sneaky hand of Joab rather than honorably in battle.

Fight cleanly. Don't mar the cause you defend by fighting dishonorably. Of course, what is honorable at one time is dishonorable at others: with Gideon, attack at night against a sleeping enemy was entirely honorable. Not so for David with Saul.

Sneaky behaviour, surprise attacks, weaponry incommensurate with the level of hostility are ways of dishonoring God when we fight. We don't ambush on schoolyards or in board rooms. We don't seek to garner others to our cause when the offense with which we deal is personal and private. The one who fights should reserve his greatest blows for those who blaspheme God and lead others into error. When we defend ourselves it should only be because a greater principle is at stake than our own honor or reputation. It is shameful when God-given authority is used for personal benefit. This is true when a master abuses a servant in a fit of temper, when a father rails at children for not meeting his personal expectations, and especially, for church leaders who use their authority to exalt themselves rather than the Word.

Apparently men and women are identical until it really counts, then the ground rules change and "Vive la difference!" So when does it really count?

First, the difference continues to matter to the eye. The advertising industry alone proves everyone loves a pretty woman--and if push comes to shove, even an unpretty woman. Forced to make a choice between a plain Jane and a pretty man, most everyone would choose the plain Jane. Woman is pretty and pretty is woman--that's how most of us see it, hence the generalization "the fairer sex."

Second, apparently the difference still matters with money. Here's an article showing the non-profit world keeps close tabs on the difference between men and women in giving habits. Among other things, we learn women now control more than half the wealth in these United States (and that percentage is only growing).

A friend in the UK just wrote:

I heard on the radio this morning that a recently published report says that women in the UK will own 2/3rds of the country's wealth within 20 years. Women are just under 1/2 now, but with better education more women are now employed than men (is that possible!! I think for sure that was what they said!). Also, women tend to live alone more than men (hence they will own more homes) and since they live longer, they tend to inherit the family's wealth.

The article also tells us women now head more than half of all charitable foundations, that they are motivated to give by different things than motivate men, and that they give more generously than men.

The sex God has blessed to carry, give birth to, and nurse little babies gives more than men--not exactly rocket science, is it?

Vive la difference!

PCA ruling elder, Fred Greco, responded to my prior post, "Baptism: effusion (sprinkling) vs. immersion...," as follows:

I agree with you in the main - you could also have quoted Calvin, who stated that immersion was a legitimate mode of baptism. My experience has been that very few Presbyterians (save Jay Adams and those who follow his booklet) are in principle opposed to immersion as a mode of baptism.

The problem that I have - and I wonder (sincerely) if you would comment to it - is not so much a matter of sacramentology as ecclesiology. If the clear practice of a church, as well as its physical capabilities are in a certain direction, i.e. there is no baptismal immersion tub, is it wise to change the Church to meet the needs of the individual?