California mega-church Pastor and Author of The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren, an Evangelical Christian who became famous in the recent election by hosting a forum with Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain, and who went on to deliver the Inaugural Invocation for President Obama, has disavowed recently his prior endorsement of California Proposition 8. In turning against an initiative that reinstated into the law such traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, Pastor Warren sadly is reinforcing comments I made recently about the collapse of Evangelical Christianity.
In my recent comments, I articulated how the lack of a Magisterium or Holy Tradition in Evangelical Christianity left too many of its adherents without an intellectually sound and comprehensive response to the anti-Christian ethos of our times. Evangelical Christianity, in many ways, is the unique triumph of a tradition beginning in Saint Paul of maintaining the essence of the Christian faith in the personal consciences and conduct of men. We are moral beings and thus responsible for the life of the Church through our relationship with God, and with our fellow saints in Christ Jesus, as manifested first and foremost in a most existentially real obedience to the calling of Jesus in our lives. It is for this reason that the example of Abraham, in the fact that he is saved in his obedience to the will of God, even unto the near death of his own son, supplants the necessity of circumcision into the Law given unto Moses. For Paul, the Christian life must be lived in and through the Church, but it is in the end an individual struggle, as the conscience of a fallen man takes on the mind and heart of Jesus, by assuming the death to sin in the stripes and persecutions of this world.
In its focus on enrapturing Christ Jesus in an ascending love, the Evangelical Christian is also following in the footsteps of Saint John, whose Gospel has been termed by tradition to be the “Gospel of Love.” Perchance my favorite passage in the Gospel of John is found in the prayer that Christ Jesus offers for his disciples in John 17, where He prays that indeed such fellowship in eternal life that He shares with His Father then may be extended to His disciples, so that with grace “the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them” (John 17:26). Jesus quite literally wants His disciples to ascend in love to such fellowship in eternal life, that they may be perfect as their Father in heaven is perfect, and know that life to which they have been ordained. While such vision of the Church will be very communal, it too serves to focus the Christian life on the experience of an ascending love, one that redeems every baptized brother in Christ in a manner that is most personal, just as the love that the Father and the Son have for one another assumes a most personal intimacy. As we see in the perspective of Saint Paul, John conceives of the redeeming life in Christ Jesus as expressed in individuals, where the brother finds himself within a larger community of saints, but at the same time does not lose his own, unique intimacy with his share in the Crucifixion of Christ (Paul) and then his life in the eternal Father (John).
What we are seeing here is most profound, because God in Christ Jesus then redeems not so much a people but persons; or, as may be stated in another manner, Israel in Christ has been extended to all persons who are reborn in Him, whether of such circumcision or not. This new orientation toward the lives of individual men, whose consciences matter within not only their own willingness to take on Christ, but as well to the sanctifying life of such communion of saints born and yet to be born, explains why Christ Jesus indeed states that “likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance” (Luke 15:7). Each and every life matters, as even the lowliest of slaves may manifest the glory of God in the world as much, if indeed not more so, than the highest of kings. It is in that sense that each Christian participates in the “priesthood of all believers,” since all men baptized into Christ Jesus share personally and communally in His death upon the Cross and Resurrection unto Eternal Life. The life in Christ Jesus becomes the new unity among men, as realized now among the faithful for all times, and as experienced fully in the end of times; as such, it is the unity among men, in the Kingdom of God. Such new unity supplants said old unity among men, which even now prevails still among men outside of the faith, and which all men share in having been created unto a life in sin; as such, this is the unity among men, in the Kingdom of Caesar.
Because every life matters, we each have to decide for ourselves whether we seek eternal life in the Kingdom of God, even as we persist still in the Kingdom of Caesar, or whether the Kingdom of Caesar provides the end for which we ordain our own lives. Do we, each and every one of us, will to live “in but not of this world,” or “in and of this world?”
This is, in the end, a very personal and poignant question. In his emphasis on the personal relationship that a believer has with Christ Jesus, the Evangelical Christian at his best will acknowledge, and live out in his own life, the supreme value that Christ Jesus gives to the personal conscience in conforming to the eternal life that He offers.
The seductions of the world nevertheless run deep, and the Evangelical Christian faces in each of his steps along the way to Christ Jesus a capacity to stumble. Of course, this is the truth that every Christian faces in this lifetime; but, as I mentioned in my prior comments, it is a most telling peril for the Evangelical Christian, who in virtue of his aversion, if not outright denial, of the Magisterium in Romanism or the Holy Tradition in Orthodoxy and Anglicanism cannot but be more susceptible to the vices in modernism. In fairness, there are many who call themselves Catholics, Orthodox, or Anglicans who share essentially a similar orientation towards the world, where in spite of the teachings and ministrations of their Popes, Patriarchs, or Archbishops, they share the affinity for a Christian faith, which removes ones personal conscience from the verities of a deeper, lasting tradition. Thus, in my mind, such term “Evangelical Christian” properly should include more in number and denominational affiliation, than persons attending Evangelical Christian mega-churches.
The Evangelical Christian has his Bible; but how does he interpret it, by what he hears or reads in modern Biblical criticism, which is more likely to give a Biblical “support” for a modernist worldview than to challenge it? Does he understand that the “lost gospels” that were favored among the Gnostics were rejected from the canon precisely because of their inconsistency with the faith given by Christ Jesus and passed on by the Bishops; or rather will he think, as is often suggested by the modern media, that they were “lost” in virtue of being “banned” by a cabal of “Catholics” wanting to hide the truth from the masses?
Even worse, does he abstain from any intellectual curiosity at all with regards to the Bible that is at the center of his faith, thus allowing it to be molded by too many of those, which claim to be “leaders” among Evangelical Christians, into little more than a justification of this or that political platform? In so doing, does he allow said Bible that is meant to point to the Kingdom of God, to be in the service of no more than the Kingdom of Caesar?
Saint Paul proclaims: “For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). As lost sheep, we seek out the call of our Shepherd; it is indeed the most real inclination of the soul. Nevertheless, because we discern only dimly and in part, we mistaken the call of the world for the call of the Shepherd; we seek out the waters from which we shall thirst again, while ignoring the waters from which thirst forever has been quenched; we take care first to wrap up our father’s business, rather than to follow the Way to our Father in heaven. In our confusion, we seek what is most stable in this world, which is only a most faint, if not altogether perverse, similitude of what is most stable in our universe, namely a similitude of the unchanging love of God the Father as revealed through the creative and redemptive life of His Son in and through the Holy Ghost.
What is most stable in this world, besides the certainty of death and taxes? It is that most consistent fact that men who obtain the approval of their peers will be happier, and hence more successful by the measures of this world, than those who do not. Of course, this is a reversal of what we are called to be as Christians “in but not of the world,” since our own Saint Paul reminds us that, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross of our Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world” (Galatians 6:14). Nevertheless, even as it is a reversal from the truth, it is a reversal emerging from a similitude, since seeking the approval of oneself in ones peers is in similitude to seeking the affirmation of oneself in the communion of the saints, where one may find his life by losing it in and for Christ Jesus.
Now, we all succumb to the confusions of this world, in seeing in them a verity that is in fact a perversion, or a rule that is in fact a tangent, or a stability that is in fact a chaos; but how much more susceptible must be said man who has no strong, intellectual foundation, let alone centuries of Church teaching and example, from which to question the faint and perverse similitude, that the Devil offers in this world? How much more susceptible is he, who has no recourse to the grace afforded in said Sacraments of the Church, especially if and when he may stumble from the grace afforded initially in his baptism or “born again” experience? There is a grace in reading the Bible, but is not that grace muted, when there is a wrongful interpretation of the same? Without a tradition in the faith, how will he ever know, when he has erred from the proper and efficacious interpretations; and how will he differentiate the righteous awakening to Holy Scripture, as provided by the Holy Ghost in an abundance of grace, from the false “awakening” as offered by the Devil in the absence of grace? The onlookers accused Christ Jesus of exorcising demons by the power of such Beelzebub; if they were ignorant in their sin, then how may he be certain that he is not?
In turning against Proposition 8, Pastor Rick Warren seeks the approval of men, over the will of God. It is true that we cannot know what is in the mind of a man and that as such judgment is the exclusive prerogative of God. Still, we may know a tree by its fruit, as it is also true that by a fruit we may know its tree; and the fruit to be discerned in his recent disavowing of the struggle for traditional marriage in California is most sour to the taste. I cannot but recall now how Saint Paul states: “for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ” (Galatians 1:10). Perchance as the added publicity, which is likely to emerge from this disavowing of the struggle for traditional marriage, sells more copies of The Purpose Driven Life, Pastor Rick Warren may have the material comforts in home and money to think upon the matter of pleasing men at the expense of God.
Rick Warren Disavows Support for Proposition 8 by Jim Brown (One News Now)
California mega-church pastor and author of The Purpose Driven Life Rick Warren says he apologized to his homosexual friends for making comments in support of California's Proposition 8, and now claims he "never once even gave an endorsement" of the marriage amendment.
"During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never -- never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop. 8 was going," Warren told the CNN audience on Monday. "The week before the -- the vote, somebody in my church said, 'Pastor Rick, what -- what do you think about this?' And I sent a note to my own members that said, I actually believe that marriage is -- really should be defined, that that definition should be -- say between a man and a woman."
However, just two weeks before the November 4 Prop. 8 vote, Pastor Warren issued a clear endorsement of the marriage amendment while speaking to church members. "We support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8," he said.
The following is a complete transcript of Warren's comments just weeks before the Prop. 8 election:
"The election's coming just in a couple of weeks, and I hope you're praying about your vote. One of the propositions, of course, that I want to mention is Proposition 8, which is the proposition that had to be instituted because the courts threw out the will of the people. And a court of four guys actually voted to change a definition of marriage that has been going for 5,000 years.
"Now let me say this really clearly: we support Proposition 8 -- and if you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8. I never support a candidate, but on moral issues I come out very clear.
"This is one thing, friends, that all politicians tend to agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain, I flat-out asked both of them: what is your definition of marriage? And they both said the same thing -- it is the traditional, historic, universal definition of marriage: one man and one woman, for life. And every culture for 5,000 years, and every religion for 5,000 years, has said the definition of marriage is between one man and a woman.
"Now here's an interesting thing. There are about two percent of Americans [who] are homosexual or gay/lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.
"This is not even just a Christian issue -- it's a humanitarian and human issue that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love, and procreation.
"So I urge you to support Proposition 8, and pass that word on. I'm going to be sending out a note to pastors on what I believe about this. But everybody knows what I believe about it. They heard me at the Civil Forum when I asked both Obama and McCain on their views."
During his CNN interview on Monday, Warren expressed regret for backing Prop. 8. "There were a number of things that were put out. I wrote to all my gay friends -- the leaders that I knew -- and actually apologized to them. That never got out," he admitted.
Additionally, Pastor Warren said he did not want to comment on or criticize the Iowa Supreme Court's decision last week to legalize same-sex "marriage" because it was "not his agenda."
Bryan Fischer with the Idaho Values Alliance says Warren is abdicating his biblical role as a pastor. "For Pastor Warren to say that shoring up marriage is not something that's on his agenda is just something that's hard to believe for somebody who believes the Bible is our rule for faith and practice," Fischer notes.
Dr. Jim Garlow, the senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in the San Diego suburb of La Mesa, helped spearhead the Prop. 8 effort in California. Garlow admits he is confused and troubled by Pastor Warren's decision to apologize for supporting Prop. 8.
"Historically when institutions and individuals back away from convictional biblical truth, it is driven primarily by one single factor -- and that is the respectability of other people. In other words, much more caring about what other people think about them than what God thinks about them," he concludes.
Pastor Warren did not respond to a request from OneNewsNow for an interview.
Further Comment by Michael Erickson