This past week a couple of things again demonstrated the need to ask the question as to how the church got to where it is today. The first was the falderal over The Manhattan Declaration. The number of signers is increasing daly and is nearly at 200,000. FOX News is discussing it but as I pointed out in last week’s Crux E-Letter, this is little more than an updated version of the 1984 Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission and subsequent attempts, this being the latest incarnation with many of the same signers. William Webster wrote a fairly well done treatment on the previous attempts titled, “The ECT Accords: A Betrayal of the Gospel in the Name of Unity.” Some of the lay people who have contacted us to defend their signing have tried to suggest that this is not a religious statement but a declaration of conservatism and as such all who agree with its values can sign on. Focus on the Family’s email of November 25, 2009 addresses this head on as Jim Daly, President and CEO writes:

It is important, first off, to note that the The Manhattan Declaration is not a partisan or political statement–I shared the podium last Friday at the National Press Club with Republicans and Democrats alike. Instead, it addresses and elevates four specific areas of universal consensus. Some have referred to these as “threshold issues,” meaning they represent the foundation of our faith and the pivot point from which everything else flows. This is the bedrock. If we can’t agree on these areas of doctrine, everything else will be of reduced value. These four areas are:

The sanctity of human life.
The sanctity of marriage
The protection of religious liberty
The rejection of unjust laws

Notice, he is clear it “is not a partisan or political statement.” It is not political in nature. Instead (more…)

As Don mentioned last week, we are starting an extended project that I have labeled in my mind “The Culture-Driven Church.” The idea is to trace how culture (e.g. scientific, economic, spiritual, and psychological) have influenced the contemporary church and its mission. That’s the big goal. I suggested to Don that we use our meager megaphone (this blog) and our endearing and astute audience (that’s you dear reader) to help us sort out the good, the bad, and the ugly of the Culture Driven Church. Last blog Don painted a picture. This blog I’m going to ask some questions and introduce the project as a whole.

Now some of you might accuse us of pummeling a certain kind of deceased equine–namely “Modern church bad–Emergent Church bad” In fact we might be accused of the opposite of the philosophers in Acts 17 who were enamored with all things new. We might be accused of being curmudgeons (more…)

As I mentioned last week, Jonathan Miles and I will be developing a series in this blog on how the church and culture have gotten to be where they are today. Nothing happens in a vacuum and as the old cliché goes, “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”

I ran into one of our supporters this week and we got to talking about this project. They wanted to know if this would only be a historical treatise or is there another reason that we are working on this? Is this mostly to point out the problems in the church and culture or to also offer solutions? Those are valid questions and concerns. I thought it would be good to try to paint a general picture and set up a framework of understanding and direction. (more…)

Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton recently said ”Never waste a good crisis.”. That seemed to bother many and without getting into the politics of the moment I am thinking there is some merit to her statement. Last week I mentioned the article The Coming Evangelical Crisis which was written by the Internet Monk, Michael Spencer. Others have commented on this article as well. Phil Johnson at Team Pyro responded with Evangelicalism Down the Drain? James White at Alpha-Omega responded with The Coming Evangelical Collapse and even Mark Galli at C.T. got in on the discussion with his piece On the Lasting Evangelical Survival. Although Galli takes a bit of a different view for the most part many of the discernment ministries are in agreement with Spencer’s conclusion although not with his solutions. As I have had time to think (more…)

The August 7, OCRegister headline read, Rick Warren hopes to redefine presidential politics. The issues that will be addressed are of a social nature, curing AIDS, poverty, sickness and will likely avoid such questions as same sex marriage, and abortion. As the article notes:

“It is a lot more sterilized and socially acceptable to be concerned about people who got HIV in Africa – because they acquired it in a heterosexual way – than to discuss the real, core issues of why Americans are getting it, which have to do with sexuality, poverty, lack of education, drug use,” said Rodriguez, president of the AIDS Services Foundation Orange County board. “These are segments of the population that don’t really get people votes.”

Earlier this year we also saw the birth of the Obama Bill: 845 Billion more for global poverty. I am not certain that McCain would be opposed to this since both he and Obama endorse Warren’s P.E.A.C.E. Plan:

Warren noted that McCain and Obama have endorsed Saddleback’s PEACE Plan, a strategy to mobilize churches to fight global problems such as illiteracy, corrupt leadership and disease

Rick Warren seems very comfortable and enamored with the political left. He is dedicated to the idea that contrary to Jesus’ claims that we would always have the poor (Matt. 26:11; Mk. 14:7; Jn. 12:8), we humans can eliminate poverty, hunger and sickness from the face of the earth. He seems so consumed by this that he seems to convey it is the church’s mandate to do so but the church doesn’t have the financial wherewithal to fulfill Warren’s mandate. He seems to be of the view that the Federal Government should steal the money from its citizens in order for the church to fulfill Warren’s dream. Will 845 Billion more for global poverty. be the ticket? Will McCain (more…)

Andrew’s sign said, ‘Stop American Terroism’ – he spelled terrorism wrong. I felt empowered in the sea of people, most of whom were also carrying signs and chanting against corporations who were making slaves of Third World labor; and the Republican Party, who gives those corporations so much power and freedom. I felt so far from my upbringing, from my narrow former self, the me who was taught that the Republicans give a crap about the cause of Christ. (Blue Like Jazz, p. 19)

As I read Don Miller’s book Blue Like Jazz a few weeks ago and reflected on statements like these, I began thinking more about the overall direction of the emerging church and the market driven Evangelical leaders who are climbing on board their train. There seem to be certain themes that continue resurfacing as we witness the rise of the Evangelical left. One theme is that conservative Evangelicals are evil. That is because for the most part they tend to vote Republican, which is the very touchstone of the evil empire. According to Don Miller, conservatives are so evil they think that George Bush is Jesus Christ. If conservatives were Christians who truly loved Christ, the thinking goes; they would take away the wealth and freedom of “greedy corporations” and redistribute the wealth equally across the world. We could eliminate poverty in our lifetime and usher in Jesus’ long-awaited promise of heaven here on earth.

(more…)

This past couple of weeks and particularly this past weekend, coverage of Christianity was wall to wall in the media. We had After Jesus – The First Christians on CNN which we reviewed in the blog article “Merry Christmas from CNN.” CNN followed up with the Anderson Cooper 360 special, which we reviewed “What is a Christian?” I was looking forward to some down time with the family and decided to set the recorder to capture the various programs that were being done on Christmas and Christianity. There is The Birth of Jesus, Who is Jesus?, One Nation Under God. It seemed that a great deal of the available media was about Rick Warren, especially on FOX. There was the special “Can Rick Warren Change the World?” and “The Three Purposes of Christmas.” Rick was a guest on MSNBC’s Meet the Press with Tim Russert. There was also the December 22 article in Christianity Today “Three Purposes of Christmas” by Timothy C. Morgan. In between family gatherings I read the C.T. article and watched “Meet the Press.”

I was a little disheartened by C.T.’s coverage on this. I have enjoyed a fairly good working relationship with them over the years. It is true and even expected that we don’t always agree with one another’s positions on various issues but there has been a general respect between us. C.T. was willing to take a potentially unpopular stand about Bill Gothard as being a false teacher when other organizations and media have turned a blind eye to the destruction he and other false teachers bring in to the church. After MCOI exposed Gwen Shamblin as a false teacher who had infiltrated the church C.T. was one of the first to expose her. However, I am concerned about the handling of Rick Warren in this recent article (it should be noted that I did email Tim Morgan prior to writing this but have not heard back as yet). As I read it I noted that Rick did three things with regard to Tim Morgan’s first question:

“World Net Daily columnist Joseph Farah has been hugely critical of your trip to Syria and your explanations, suggesting that you exhibit behavior ‘bordering on sociopathic.’ What’s your reaction?”

1) Rick Warren began by demonizing Joe Farah with his accusation that: “This is a fellow who’s hooked his star to criticizing somebody. There’s so many over-the-top things about it.”

2) After making his assertion, without naming anything that was “over- the-top” Warren successfully distracted the conversation to how many churches there are in Syria. Although possibly interesting it was irrelevant to the question.

3) He went on to claim “A lot of the criticisms have come from people who politicize the Christian faith. To them, politics is more important than winning people to Christ.”

As to number 1 and 2 I think this is a serious problem for the following reasons. First, either Warren said the things that Joe Farah (and MCOI in our blog) claims he said or he didn’t say them. If he didn’t say them than both Joe Farah and MCOI would be biblically required to publicly repent of the libel to at least the same degree that we published it to begin with. On the other hand if he did say them and then lied about and is attempting to cover it up we have a credibility issue. Rick Warren was allowed to demonize his critics without being called to account to prove his accusations.

Second, according to the article “Megapastor Rick Warren’s Damascus Road experience,” when Farah asked Warren for copies of the video tape his team shot while in Syria the reply was, “He also told me he did not tape anything while in Syria, ‘because it was a courtesy call, like I do in every country.’” I am sure Farah would be more than happy to provide copies of his and Warren’s emails to verify this exchange. As Farah was reading Warren’s email a link was sent to him to a YouTube video recording of Warren saying what had been ascribed to him. The video tape unfortunately for Warren demonstrated that Farah and MCOI had been correct in our handling of the facts. Shortly after this was pointed out to Warren the video mysteriously disappeared from YouTube. However, not before an audio copy had been made of it by a radio station who subsequently made it available on the Internet. Warren was not truthful about his statements and was at best factually challenged (in secular circles this would be called a lie) about the event not being videotaped. Now that I think about it, this is beginning to sound very Clintonesque. Warren didn’t actually say the event wasn’t video taped but that “…he did not tape anything…”

The message of the Christian faith is about repentance and restoration. If Rick had been honest to begin with rather than attempting what looks like a cover up, the pain would have been over fairly quickly. If he is covering this up what else could he be hiding? Perhaps he needs to go to the “warnings file” he talks about in the C.T. article and reread the clippings there. I will refrain here from suggesting which of Rick Warren’s three categories that I believe this falls in to.

Third, while sending an email apology to Farah, Warren also sent an email to his followers attacking “four bloggers” and claiming they had based on their material questionable sources. Warren wrote:

“Recently, four “bloggers” made accusations about my visit to Syria (between speaking in Germany and Rwanda). They based their accusations on a Syrian state press release!”

This is artfully written as it provides Warren with “plausible deniability.” It is pretty well known who the four bloggers are but if he is called on the carpet by any one of them he has left an escape route of “Oh, I wasn’t referring to you. It was four other bloggers.” It should also be noted that Warren’s statement is designed to imply that the Syrian state press release is questionable or inaccurate although he doesn’t actually claim either one. I have to admit this is shrewd for if someone accuses him of saying the Syrian Press twisted his words he could deny having said that as well. For someone who claims to not be a politician Rick Warren has learned to do the Political Two Step very well. In reality the accuracy or inaccuracy of the Syrian state press release is irrelevant. Our claim was based on his own words and not the press release. Although Joe Farah started with the press release he allowed in his article “The purpose-driven lie” that Warren’s words may have been twisted. In fact, Farah went so far as to say that he hoped that was the case. As it turns out it is Warren who is tinkering with verbiage.

In C.T.’s article Warren is quoted as saying, “A lot of the criticisms have come from people who politicize the Christian faith. To them, politics is more important than winning people to Christ.” These are very serious allegations and I would suggest that he needs to demonstrate his case. Simply making assertions about motives and the priorities of one or more individuals is insufficient. His assertions must be proven. If he in unable to do so he has committed libel and character assassination with the aid of C.T. I can state for the record that his claims are untrue for MCOI. I cannot comment for Joe Farah but the bulk of Farah’s material had to do with Warren’s honesty and trustworthiness. After watching Warren on Meet the Press I find it very interesting that he so glibly demonizes others:

“I would say I’d like to see a culture of civility. Our civilization is becoming less civil. It’s just gotten quite rude and you don’t have a right to demonize somebody just because they’re different. Civility means I’m going to treat you with respect even if I totally disagree with you.”

Is pointing out Rick Warren’s seeming inability to tell the truth and providing evidence for our claims “over the top,” uncivilized and rude? Does he mean that he has the right to demonize others with unfounded accusations but others are “uncivilized and rude” for following the biblical teachings on holding leaders accountable? His accusation that those of us who have raised this issue have placed politics above the gospel is also interesting in light of his view that there is no need to do Jewish Evangelism because there are already enough Christians. (See our article Rick Warren – Story Teller). Simply because the secular media has elected Rick Warren to the office of Evangelical Pope and installed him as “America’s Pastor” does not mean that he actually is infallible or unaccountable.

I am not saying that Rick Warren doesn’t have some good things to say nor that many of the things he says aren’t worthy of consideration. I am not saying that he isn’t a nice guy nor that he doesn’t have good motives. He may. But if we look to Scripture on the issue of leadership one of the first qualifications for an Elder is to “be above reproach.” (1 Tim. 3:2) It does strike me that a high profile leader needs to be accountable particularly when he publicly assassinates the character of another or several others for telling the truth. This is our biblical responsibility according to 1 Timothy 5:19-20.