Comment (21)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
TechnoratiThe great Saddleback debate
Can we expect megachurch pastor Rick Warren to play hard ball with politicians?
It often makes me
sad that Christian fundamentalists have commandeered the phrase, “What Would
Jesus Do?” It’s disturbing because it could be a useful perspective to consider
how the historical Jesus — a complex mix of prophet, rabbi, leader, rebel, and
feminist — would respond to contemporary situations. Here’s a prime example: Rick
Warren is interviewing
presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain. As a self-described
Christian preacher, Warren is charged with carrying out the mission and
ministry of Jesus. His decision to insert himself into the political fray
really does beg the question, “What Would Jesus Do?” Should Rick Warren engage —
and implicitly endorse — political candidates?
It’s a complicated question. The complication, though, is less about politics and more about Rick Warren. As the head of Saddleback Church in California and the author of the bestselling book, The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren has a significant following. Depending on the source, estimates of his church’s membership varies from 23,000 to 80,000. Surely, this man must possess great theological truths that he shares with his followers.
Ironically, Warren’s theological positions are not what draw thousands to his church. In fact, you’re hard pressed at most mega churches to even find solid theology. From the moment they are built, mega churches are designed to draw in, not spiritually transform, the public. Overwhelmingly, the physical design, art, music, and schedule of programs and services are all constructed to bring in the masses. Generally, a mega church determines its target audience, and then decides which approach it will use to attract and retain members.
Marketing and the megachurch
Why does this approach work? One might think that either church attendance is on the rise (it’s not) or the messages of Warren and other like him must be very special. That’s not it either. Rather, commercial churches deliver the message the listener wants to hear. Some commercial church leaders, like Bill Hybels – the founder of Willow Creek Church in Illinois — have gone out and polled their neighbors about what they wanted in a church and then created a church to meet those expressed needs.
Despite their unique evolution, let us not underestimate the growing importance of commercial churches. In 2005, Peter Drucker stated that the mega church is the most significant sociological phenomenon of the 20th century. These churches and their leaders are clearly a force to be reckoned with. It’s not like Senators McCain and Obama are heading to a mainline Christian church, mosque or synagogue. Instead, they chose the largest non-denominational church they could find.
Commercial churches – and their leaders - understand that their livelihood depends on getting bodies in the seats and their mission and ministry is to bring in those bodies. That pesky guilt and obligation that many of us grew up with in church is nowhere to be found in commercial churches. And, while that may be deserving of a hallelujah, you’re also not likely to find genuine discussions of grace, mercy, love, forgiveness and sacrifice.
In their mission to keep the bodies coming in, commercial churches often attempt to engage every aspect of their congregants’ lives. Day care centers, medical centers, employment agencies, coffee shops, banks, and more are often housed in mega churches. Is it good to bring people together to share fellowship in these areas of their lives? Sure. But, from a commercial perspective, it also makes good business sense. By attending to members’ every need – social, physical, psychological – the church keeps the faithful, well, faithful — at least to the church. Even more, they keep their dollars in-house.
Massaging the message
By now it’s easy to see some parallels between mega church leaders and politicians. Like many mega church leaders, politicians, too, design their campaigns and platforms around what their constituents hope to hear. We’ve seen both Obama and McCain “nuance” their message in response to the reactions of their constituents and the polls. Like church leaders, they certainly know their audience and plan their interactions in ways that are least alienating. Politicians understand that their livelihood depends on getting bodies to the polls and their mission is to bring those bodies forward. How then can we expect Rick Warren to inform the public in a political debate when he and his political mate basically share the same agenda?
You see, there should be one stark similarity between the Rick Warrens of the world and our political leaders. The public has a right to expect to hear a prophetic voice from both religious and political leaders. Not a voice that predicts the future, that’s not really prophecy. A prophetic voice speaks out against injustice, laments the status quo and speaks truth to power. Even more, a prophetic voice provides the energy and encouragement to help others, like us average Janes, to go out and change the world; authentic prophecy incites action towards freedom and justice. When you hear “prophet” think Martin Luther King Jr or Mahatma Ghandi.
Where is the prophetic voice?
Clearly, we should expect or even demand such a prophetic voice from our political leaders. No matter which side of the aisle one sits on we should expect our leaders to stand against injustice and give a voice to the voiceless. We should demand that our commander in chief encourages all of us to take action to improve not only our own lives, but the lives of those around us and around the world. That would be a prophetic political voice. Don’t expect to hear that during the upcoming forum, though. When Harry Smith on the CBS Early Show asked Rick Warren why he’s engaging the candidates, Warren’s response was that they (Obama and McCain) are “both friends of mine” and they trust him to “ask civil questions.” That’s not exactly fertile ground for prophecy to emerge.
And yet we must expect our religious leaders to be prophetic and speak truth to power. They should challenge our political status quo; demand that change be defined and liberating, and that cries for victory at any cost be challenged. For Rick Warren to share a stage with Obama and McCain should necessitate that Warren challenge them: to demand that they let go of what is comfortable and take on the mantle for genuine change. Warren should demand that our political leaders articulate a vision and a plan for bringing about social justice. It’s not enough for Warren to bring each of these men forward and to allow them to simply espouse their beliefs. And yet Warren won’t do any of these things because, like them, Rick Warren is about pacifying the nation, not transforming it. At the end of the day, Rick Warren, Barack Obama and John McCain must do what for them is the impossible: speak out against the very systems of which they are surely a part.
Surely that’s what Jesus would do.
Mary Hinton, PhD, is an assistant professor of religious studies and director of the core curriculum at Misericordia University in Dallas, Pennsylvania. Dr. Hinton received her doctorate degree from Fordham University after completing her dissertation on mega churches in America. She is currently preparing a manuscript titled, “The Commercial Church: The New Face of Religion in America.”
Let’s also put to rest that grating granola phrase, “speak truth to power.” The sooner we’re rid of that nauseating ‘60s generation and its vacuous slogans, the better.
Simple declarations of personal belief neither engage nor explore Prof. Hinton’s central point. The “Saddleback Forum” proved that commercial religion has become a potent special interest group, able to command obedience from those who would govern a Constitutionally secular republic. Thus our candidates groveled to answer such explicitly religious questions as “what does it mean to you to be a follower of Christ?” Most troublesome of all, when Mr. Warren posited a “RIGHT” of “faith-based organizations to access federal funds,” neither candidate informed him that NO organization, religious or secular, enjoys such a “right;” federal dispensations are wholly discretionary and may be granted or withdrawn at any time. These candidates are not running for pastor-in-chief, and shame on them, especially McCain, for granting the legitimacy of Mr. Warren’s out-of-bounds questioning.
My wife and I are not nor ever will be ‘purpose driven’,
instead we are SPIRIT LED . Paul is my Apostle, because Jesus Christ commissioned Paul from Heaven after Israel rejected HIM.
Mary Hinton’s article is such a wonderfully bright piece of analysis. She clearly reads the same Bible as I do—the one in which Jesus is the inheritor of the messages of Elijah, Jeremiah, and Isaiah. And that message is, as it was for MLK and Gandhi, a message of social justice that exposes those who abuse their power and holds them accountable. Bravo! When will that book of hers be ready? I’m dying to read it.
Obama’s comment that determining when human life began was “ above his paygrade” was a revealing piece of obfuscation.
Nevertheless, it tells you much about the man and about the pro-abortion movement in general.
Planned Parenthood are bankrolling Obama big time and they couldn’t care less when human life begins. The issue is simply one of personal autonomy and ‘hang the rest’
A year 7 biology student could tell you when human life begins. Given that Obama endorsed even Partial Birth Abortion and opposed, in the Illinois legislature, legislation that mandated medical assistance for babies surviving an abortion procedure ( yes, some survive! ) its fair to say Obama supports infanticide. After all, if you cant tell when a baby becomes human, what’s the location, in utero or ex utero, matter.
Lets hope that the pro-life movement consigns this Left Liberal to the place in history he belongs.
I don’t believe Warren, and others like him, is a Biblical Christian. Nor is the question, “What would Jesus do?’ but rather, what would Jesus have us do. Jesus is God the Son and there are things which He did that we are unable to do. However, what He would have us do is boiled down to a simple command: “You are My friends, if You keep my commands.”
Interesting but mis-directed piece. Why is the fundamental theme of Jesus Christ’s message continually missed? Christ’s message was about our spiritual life! Though our physical and civic lives should certainly be shaped and conformed to and by the spiritual commitments we’ve made, at no other point do those “lives” converge. That Christ challenged the religious leaders of His day with great passion is (likely) true, but it was their SPIRITUAL lives he was assailing. The foul political/civic lives they were leading were simply the result of their spiritual emptiness and were not at all what He was denouncing. Render unto Caesar… was certainly delivered as a broader statement than one simply meaning the standard Sunday sermon interpretation of pay your taxes and keep money in perspective. Or change the system through politics. The “system” of the world will only be changed through your spiritual lives. Render to the civil authorities their rightful areas of decision-making, but live your personal lives as lives of spiritual love, compassion and mercy. Lives which are to begin and end at the unconditional love to which we are all called. When love, or Love, stood in front of the empty tomb, the “message” was clear: the love of God cannot, nor will not, be defeated. And it doesn’t all end here. “Now go and love others as I have loved you.” It didn’t have anything to do with voting Republican or Democrat. That’s a civil question -perhaps informed by your commitment to a particular religious creed- but it is not a spiritual question. And finding a bible verse or three to make it so...does not supercede the true, overarching “message” of the bible. The unconditional love of God for all.
When Rick Warren interviewed Obama he said that McCain was backstage in a cone of silence. He knew that wasn’t true. McCain was in his limo listening to Warren question Obama. Warren gave McCain the advantage and lied to his congregation. Gee, is that a sin?
The extended account of the Rick Warren interviews with Obama and McCain that is linked above, again drove home to me the need for caution, respect and care in passing judgments on these styles of churches.
Yes, there are deficiencies and problems often encountered in these big churches. But there are also big problems and deficiencies in the practical, on the ground realities of many traditional churches.
Warren has honestly, ethically and intelligently sought to productively engage in the political process. There is so little of this on offer anywhere else. And so often the political arena is far removed from the civility and honesty that our Constitutions really require.
An appropriate response to the current diversity is respect, mutual work and partnering in the secular domain whenever this can be done without our doctrines being compromised.
In addition I believe that effective churches can learn much from each other for our mutual enrichment and for a more faithful response to our calling in the world. yes there are important points of doctrinal difference, and some churches have doctrinal weak spots.
But charity and humility before each other and the Holy Spirit is needed. In these dark times, I am sure that we must work together far more than we have been accustomed to.
Many of these churches have demonstrated a humility in the face of the intellectual and social teaching tradition of more traditional faiths. Some, such as the Catholic Church has recently experienced a marked increase of difficulties in engagement with the political process and also a loss of confidence. But the mega/ pentecostal churches present a fresh angle and lets not forget, very significant votes. The kind of votes that used to mustered from the likes of the Catholicism.
What is most perplexing to me is the way in which we so willingly imprison our own voices--our inner wisdom created of faith--because we are relieved that someone, anyone, will do the unpopular work that is truly assigned to us. Followers (and this label includes all who refuse to act against the small injustices in each of our lives) support and offer nothing but the rhetoric of their own fear. Clearly, Mary will not be silenced.
Put not your faith in rulers, or in the son of man, in whom there is no salvation.
Perhaps the question is how many of us read this book--alone and with reflection and contemplation.
This article disgusts me. Has the author ever attended one of these “mega churches”? How does she know anything about the supposed lack of outpouring of mercy, love and grace anyway? Through one or two visits? The thing with mega churches is that you do need to attend regularly and try (on your own) to get involved. Don’t expect anyone to reach out immediately. That may sound negative but also realize that you won’t get “attacked” the moment you walk in either. Then you can let the appropriate people know you are looking to serve, to join a small group, etc.
What an insightful analysis of two forums, the religious and the political, and of the intersections that link the two.
The attention to the commercial aspects of the mega churches is enlightening.
The most provocative part of the article is the reminder, for all of us, of the true meanings of prophecy and the necessity for justice, mercy, grace, and such. This treatment of the topic is evocative and heartening.
Here’s a report on the forum itself:
http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=28928
It looks like at least one observer not connected with a mega-church thought that Pastor Rick Warren passed the test.
Can I make a plea (a propos the second line of this article)- that we all have a ten-year moratorium on use of the word “fundamentalist”? It means nothing (except “those people I’m antipathetic to"), since any real meaning or connotation has been drained out of it long ago. Likewise the business of crediting people from very different societies, long, long gone, of conforming to purely-modern concepts - sorry, but Jesus as a “feminist” is just anachronistic and misleading, or rather, it displays vividly that concepts of “the Historical Jesus” really mean “Jesus as he is now recreated in order to conform to modern (ie my) values and ideas”. Whatever “Jesus would have done”, I’m sure it would have been nothing along the lines of anything that today’s people might think up for Him; who first spoke of the “God of Surprises”?
An excellent opinion piece! I have always wondered why the minister of George Bush’s Methodist congregation in Washington, D.C. never spoke out about the U.S. invasion of a sovereign nation or the terrible human toll U.S. actions have taken on the Iraqi people. His colleagues did in many of the Methodist churches I have attended since 2003. Dr. Hinton is right on… For a any church to demonstrate real leadership, social justice is indeed what Jesus would model.
Why isn’t Dr. Hinton’s voice appearing on a national level in the U.S.? Perhaps the press in Australia can see what we can’t. Anyway, thanks for giving Dr. Hinton’s voice some much-needed amplification.
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >