A Purpose-Driven Nation? Rick Warren goes to Rwanda

Alan Wolfe writes:

Historians are likely to pinpoint Mr. Warren's trip to Rwanda as the moment when conservative evangelical Protestantism made questions of social justice central to its concerns. Given his huge wealthy Orange County congregation, Rick Warren could have become satisfied with his national success and ignored problems abroad. Instead he has chosen to make issues of global poverty central to his ministry and for that he deserves his identification by Time magazine as one of the most important evangelicals in America.
----
Tackling Africa's problems inevitably means addressing questions of economics and politics. Is there a Christian position on export diversification, energy subsidies, currency convertibility ratios, agricultural overcultivation or civil-service reform? That Rick Warren is serious about overcoming Rwanda's poverty is unquestioned. That he and his volunteers have any expertise or interest in economics and politics is unlikely.
----
My single greatest fear is that Mr. Warren and his followers will draw huge and enthusiastic crowds to their rallies, convert numerous souls to Christ and then leave when they discover that, for all their efforts, a country like Rwanda faces political and social problems beyond the reach of even the most earnest and popular humanitarian efforts. In short, there is a limit to the good that can be done until such countries alter the basic structure of their societies, eliminating corruption, curbing the abuse of power, setting up an independent judiciary and allowing a free press.
I do not believe that Rick Warren has a bad bone in his body. But I do believe that his remarkable enthusiasm is fueled by considerable naïveté. It has taken centuries for Rwandans to descend into the hell in which they exist. Not even becoming a purpose-driven nation is likely to bring them to heaven anytime soon.

Comments

[Revwilly]

Rick Warren is not naieve. In fact it is the last thing he is. He believes that with God anything is possible or nothing is impossible. Is that naieve?

[dlw]

But I don't think he takes seriously the importance of the political and that's going to hurt his ability to minister in Africa where lack of political institutions have made so much suffereing possible.

dlw

[greg]

I don't know what is and isn't possible with God, but I do know white folk have a long history of screwing stuff up in Africa. In Rwanda it was the Dutch and the French. If he feels he must do something, support indigenous ministries.

[dlw]

I agree and support the US supporting human rights so as to provide some political cover for indigenous reformers...

dlw

[greg]

dlw,

Yes. Ministries is too limited a word.

[Revwilly]

Succeed or fail, Rick Warren is trying to do something positive in Rwanda. What are you doing?

[Streak]

No criticism allowed, eh? Unless we are trying to solve global hunger, we can't speak out?

[Revwilly]

Streak,
Did I say no criticism allow? Critize all you want. But let me ask, what value does it serve if it is not accompanied by a constructive suggestion? On my staff I do not allow anyone to critize anyone or anything unless they are ready to make a construtive suggestion and become involved.

Rick Warren is trying to do a great thing that demonstrates love for God and love for people. Will it be done perfectly? Absolutely not. Will lives be touched, blessed and even saved? Absolutely so.

If you want to critize why don't you look at what the United Nations has done in Rwanda.

[Streak]

It sure seems like you are saying that any criticism of Warren is unacceptable. Many of us here are torn on the man. We resent the marketing of the book and some of the ways it has been used, but understand that the man has tried to do some good things. Hey, I like him more than Pat Robertson or even Bruce Wilkinson.

But your response to Greg was inappropriate. You suggested that if he isn't actively doing something in Rwanda, then he can't even speak about Warren.

[dlw]

I personally read the Rwanda Darfur updates every week and plan to organize a prayer for it this coming month.

I don't have the resources to do much besides that. My point is that I fear Warren is repeating the errors of Finney and the Abolitionists by failing to take into account that involvement in the political is inevitable to deal with structural sins.

dlw

[greg]

Rev Willy,

No one can criticize unless they offer constructive alternatives? Wow. What a great way to build a shitty organization. I've heard pastors use that line over and over to justify abuse of power, make unilateral decisions, silence legitimate criticism, etc. Let me paraphrase Yoder, and I trust him a bit more than you, I don't have to have a good alternative to say yours sucks. Sometimes it's obvious what sucks and not so obvious what else to do. But to stop doing the sucky thing is the most important first thing, not to have an alternative plan.

[dlw]

The article does have some suggestions of the key problems that need attention, apart from the immediate advance of the gospel.

When I was in Mexico, I did not overtly evangelize about my beliefs, but a number of my students did have their existing faith renewed in part from their extensive observation of how my faith evinced itself in my life.

I think something similar happens when we support political changes that provide support for human rights and cover for indigenous-led reforms.

dlw

I suppose you are right when you point out that I am at least suggesting you can't criticize Rick without doing anything yourselves. I will give you that. What bothers me is that we seem to overly criticize people who are trying to do great things for God and others.I don't argee with everything Rick says or does. As a United Methodist I don't agree with everything Wesley said or did. But both of them had/have great visions and criticism from people who know little about them or have not walked in their shoes are at the least bothersome to me.

Greg,
We have a great organization here. One of the reasons is precisely because of the way we have decided to handle criticism. In fact, I think more criticism goes on here than most other churches precisely because people know what is expected.

I'm sure that are some who abuse power and try to supress criticsim. We do not. It seems to me Mr. Yoder, who I don't know, does not like to think very much.

[Streak]

Rev Willy (I assume), I will leave the Yoder comment to Greg, but am pretty sure that you shouldn't dismiss this important writer so quickly. Especially since you haven't read him.

I understand your concerns about criticism. My own perspective is that people often hide behind, "well, they are working for the Kingdom, so it must be doing some good." I am not sure that is true at all. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have done so much damage to any of us calling ourselves Christians that I certainly wouldn't extend that.

Is Warren in this category? I don't know. But I know that most of us here at this blog are fed up with consumer-based christianity that markets the latest fad (WWJD bracelets), or Prayer of Jabez calendars, without trying to actually provide any theological depth. Perhaps Warren has received some unwarranted inclusion into this group.

[greg]

RW,

You might want to check out Yoder before you dismiss him. It's not every Anabaptist theologian who is invited to teach at Notre Dame. Being a Methodist you should appreciate that two of the finest voices in your movement, Willimon and Hauerwas (although Stanley has now jumped ship for Anglican waters), were both profoundly shaped by Yoder. One of my frequent complaints is that pastors do not read theology. They think that theology is something to be done in seminary or by others; the problem is, of course, that everyone does theology, some well, some not so well. This dismissal of theologians who have important insights into the Gospel and the intersection of faith and culture has led to a shallow faith, so shallow that someone like Rick Warren has become important.

[Revwilly]

Greg,
Assuming your paraphrase of Yoder is fairly accurate...he may be a great theologian and his comment is pithy , probably gets some laughs and certainly has some truth to it, but it reeks of the abuse of power. Why would you listen to just anyone who critisizes what you do without offer a better alternative?

[dlw]

I think Yoder does believe he offers an alternative that is well inline with anabaptist thought and traditions.

I think his view is based on a misreading of the Bible and have written to that effect here. But I don't fault his character for holding to that view.
dlw

[greg]

dlw,

I'm afraid I don't believe Anabaptists misread the Bible. In fact, it was the Lutherans, Catholics and Reformed Christians who were killing and torturing the Anabaptists in the name of Jesus who misread the Bible. Balthasar Hubmaier opposed Xians being involved in politics at the level of holding office. I'm afraid he's been right far more often than wrong. Yoder sees the kingdom of God as separate from the kingdoms of the world. I fail to see how he got that part wrong, and as such, our requirement to follow the politics and ethics of Jesus supercedes any demands a secular state may claim on us.

[dlw]

Greg, so you're dismissing the possibility that the Lutherans, Catholics, Reformeds and the Anabaptists may have all misread the Bible, because it was the others that wielded the sword of the state to persecute the Anabaptists?

Just because Jesus's kingship of not of this world doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with the kingship/rule of this world.

My simple point is that Jesus rejected the use of violence to capture the state. This very critical precedent doesn't prohibit Christians from capturing in peaceful ways aspects of the state and that includes running or holding office.

Yoder was wrong to identify his understandable Anabaptist prejudice against statecraft with what the Bible did teach the early Christians and what ought to be held for all Christians today.

dlw

[James Atticus Bowden]

DLW: Jesus rejected using violence to overthrow the Roman state. But do you think He did for all time? If so, our Revolution was wrong.

[greg]

JAB,

That has been a point I've tried to make several times, especially to Xians who consistently trot out Romans 13 as justification for doing whatever the current Bushies say we ought.

DLW,

I'm sure the Anabaptists misread it in places as well; I just don't think this was one of the places. The history of Xians using peaceful means to capture aspects of the state is just as mixed as when they used violent means. Ultimately, to become the state means losing the ability to speak prophetically to the state. I can't think of a single example where Xians were in charge that things went well. Interestingly enough, if the history you invoke about the early church is examined, Yoder appears to be even more correct. They did not seek power, nor did they seek positions of influence in government. Participation in the military was forbidden. They saw themselves as a last days community with one lord and one loyalty. Only when the faith is stretched beyond the first generation do things get muddy.

[greg]

JAB,

Yes, he rejected it for all time. The ethics of the kingdom are paramount. If there is to be no violence in the consummated kingdom of God, then we cannot resort to violence now; the kingdom is our model. Yoder is right on this point as well. The world does things of necessity; the kingdom does things differently of loyalty to Christ.

[dlw]

JAB, that is a good question that I will need to think about some.

Off the top of my head, I think it was just as important how so many americans came to judge that England's right to rule(or tax) us without allowing us some representation.

We did use violence and were successful mainly because England had too many irons in the fire and couldn't deal with us properly and we had friends in the gov't who were sympathetic to our desires for autonomy.

But then the success of our "revolution" led to the disaster of the "french revolution" and many revolutions elsewhere which mainly resulted in a conservative thermidorean reaction where things got worse.

And so perhaps it may have not been wise for us to use violence to claim our independence? What if we had pioneered nonviolent ways of continually demanding more local political autonomy? We would still have given our lives for independence.

I am not opposed to Christians serving as police or in the military, with some stipulations about their need to put ethical deliberations as paramount to prevent the use of violence or to constrain its need. But I think the use of violence to capture the state(whether it be our state or someone else's like Venezuela) is something that all Christians must reject as an option as they seek to be Christ-like.

dlw

[dlw]

Greg:The history of Xians using peaceful means to capture aspects of the state is just as mixed as when they used violent means.

I disagree on that account. I agree it is mixed, but that it is not as mixed. And I don't consider the recent history of the religious right as being good account, on account of how it has relied too much on elites with the majority of Christians spending prescious little time and energy in deliberation on what is right conduct.

Ultimately, to become the state means losing the ability to speak prophetically to the state.

I prefer "To acquire some political influence means accepting that others will have influence over you." Yet, inasmuch as I advocate for voluntaristic arrangements among Christians that would act separate from our church institutions, like the NAE(This is quite distinct from the Social Gospellist movement.), and avoid using absolutist language to advocate for reforms; I don't see the extent of our direct influence or the degree we would be influenced as being so great that we would crowd out prophetic influence and be able to shift gears.

I can't think of a single example where Xians were in charge that things went well.

At the end of WWII, the US could have conquered the rest of the world and we did not. The willingness of US Baptists to get political made James Madison champion religious freedom in the US.

If Abe Lincoln had remained in power, he would have been more reconciliatory to the South and the level of regional economic/political disparities between our country would not have been so great.

Interestingly enough, if the history you invoke about the early church is examined, Yoder appears to be even more correct. They did not seek power, nor did they seek positions of influence in government.

The state was a religion that involved regular worship of Caesar. Caesar worship had to be brought down before Xtns could with good conscious serve in the state.

Participation in the military was forbidden. They saw themselves as a last days community with one lord and one loyalty. Only when the faith is stretched beyond the first generation do things get muddy.

I agree that they were living for the return of Jesus and so should we. But if we can pray for politicians, we can also convert them and expect for them to help us change the rules of the game so that noone grips the sword of the state too tightly and the security provided by its order is more evenly distributed across interests.

If you read Thorstein Veblen's "The Nature of War", you'll see that decentralizing influence in the state is pretty essential to ward off imperialistic military excursions. IMHO, Christians can and should participate in such decentralization(this is quite distinct from taking over.) and that is why I wrote my Christian Pragmatic Progressive Party platform.

dlw

[Streak]

At the end of WWII, the US could have conquered the rest of the world and we did not. The willingness of US Baptists to get political made James Madison champion religious freedom in the US.

If Abe Lincoln had remained in power, he would have been more reconciliatory to the South and the level of regional economic/political disparities between our country would not have been so great.

Quite a few leaps there. Is the result at the end of WWII because of Christians being involved in power?

As for Lincoln, again what is the connection. You think Lincoln might have responded better, but one can make a reasonable argument that reconstruction fails--not because we were too harsh, but because we didn't actually give the freedmen viable alternatives and make a committment to protect their civil rights. I don't see evidence that Lincoln would have done that.

BTW, what is your source on Madison and the baptists?