Since her original post generated so many comments, Ms. Chellew-Hodge authored another post elaborating on her reasons for speaking out against Warren. I commented again, and though Candace did not respond, other readers engaged me in fruitful conversation.
Thank you for this post. I now understand your viewpoint and criticism of Warren much more clearly, and I respect and embrace your desire to reform corrupt and oppressive institutions. Your beef with Warren is that he is not radical enough. Further, you argue that all Christians should challenge the established system and tear down oppressive social structures, particularly through political activism. This is certainly a worthy activity and a key component of God's kingdom, but I would argue that it is not the only vocation open to Christians, nor does the kingdom of God consist only in social justice.
Jesus told us that his Father's house has many rooms, and Paul asserts that the body of Christ has many diverse members. Surely there is room in the church for people who help the poor directly, for people who strengthen others' hope by deepening their understanding of God, and for people who use their talents to express the beauty of God through various media, in addition to those who bring about social justice through political activism. Each of these vocations involves challenging some form of status quo or some lie that the world tells, but not all of them are in the political sphere. In short, the church ought to embrace those Christians who are called to political activism and amplify their voice as they speak against the world; however, not every Christian, and not every Christian leader, is particularly called by God to be a political activist.
I want to be clear that I'm not trying to defend Warren here: he may or may not be a good leader, but the absence of political activism does not, by itself, make him a bad leader.
Maybe I'm misrepresenting you? Do you really believe that every Christian must embody the kind of politically-oriented activism that you describe? One thing Jesus and his followers truly valued was the unity of the church. How can we ever be united in love until we learn to respect each other's diverse, God-given callings and support each other in our work?
I think I can accept this criticism of Warren. What you are saying is that Christians in leadership need to be servant-leaders, humbling themselves and bearing their followers' burdens (financial and otherwise), rather than making their followers bear their burdens. Furthermore, Warren did not exercise this type of servant leadership when he called on his followers to finance a deficit that he could have covered himself. I think it is reasonable to question his actions on this basis.
While I totally agree with the servant-leadership model, I admit that it must be very difficult to implement. For instance, in my church there are frequently homeless people in attendance. As a church, we try to help meet their needs, but does the presence of a homeless person in the congregation mean that, in order to follow Jesus's model of servant-leadership, the pastor/elders of my church must give up their homes? Most of them have families; is Christ asking them to put their families on the street? I'm not trying to be rhetorical or sarcastic; I honestly want to know what you think about this challenging question.
(For the record, my pastor and his family do live modestly, and they devote an incredible amount of time and energy to serving the church with their various gifts, but they still have an apartment).
Facing that kind of situation is always a challenge and as I see it there are no "either/or" type answers.
You mention homeless people. Should the pastor give up his apartment in order to house them? What good would that do in the end? You simply exchange one set of people without homes for another. The problem isn't solved.
Yes the church and the leadership should look very carefully at the resources they have. The leaders should be the first to do so but I don't think Christ asks to give what we don't have but we have to look at what we do have and how we can use it.
A few years ago when I lived in a different town the church I attended sold off its prestige building and bought more modest land where it built what we call "social housing" - property let for non profit rents to families on low incomes or on welfare benefits.
Again I'm not sure how Candace sees it and I'm not in the United States so I can only comment on what I read and hear of the situation there but your question does bring us back to Candace's political and social action call.
Why are these people homeless? From what I see of the US mega churches, including Saddleback, they aren't asking the right questions -or any questions - and so they never come up with a lasting solution. Why are some people poor? Jesus implied that it was because some others were rich. Judaism, early Christianity and the beginnings of Islam all held a special place for the poor and all looked with suspicion on those who amassed large personal fortunes - going so far as to describe it as sin. All of them lost this imperative to an extent and became comfortable, regarding riches as God's blessing (instead of a responsibility) and poverty as God's curse. In part, Jesus' message was to upend that.
I think Jesus would want the whole body of his followers to give what they could to help individual poor people but he stood in a tradition that would also call upon them to tackle the root causes of their poverty.
If your pastor has a home for his family I don't think Jesus would expect him to put them on the streets but I think he would expect him to challenge in any way he could a system and a national psyche that says it's acceptable for some individuals to have multiple homes they seldom use while others die of exposure on the streets.
Perhaps your pastor does this - all power to him.
My criticism of Pastor Warren and the others (and I think this is what Candace is getting at) is that this kind of challenge is absent from their action and their rhetoric.
Even if they aren't specifically called to such action they have a responsibility as leaders to preach the whole of Christ's message and not just the part which says you'll go to heaven if you believe.
The Gospel is hard - extremely hard - I'm in no position to criticise individuals for what they do but I think we all have a duty to criticise leaders where they so signally fail to make the attempt.
Well, Jesus didn't have a praise band. But, he did feed a lot of hungry people and generally disrupt the political order whenever he got the chance.
I do believe that every Christian is called to follow Jesus. I enjoy a pretty church service as much as the next one. But I don't think for one minute that anything that goes on in church is following Jesus. Oh, it's pretty. It's a lovely way to spend an hour and to feel all holy and stuff. But, it's not following Jesus.
Jesus is where the poor are, the marginalized, criminals, the insane, and the mildly different. You hardly ever see him with the popular kids, unless he's turning their temple tables over.
Sure, there are lots of different kinds of gifts. But no gift negates the mandate to follow Jesus. So, sing if you must. Even write bestselling books if it's your thing. You still have to fight the culture wars, because Jesus did.
Your description of following Jesus is appealing, but incomplete, and it leads you to some false conclusions.
In order to follow Jesus, you have to first have a pretty thorough and accurate idea of what was Jesus was all about. Most people today focus on one aspect or another of Jesus's ministry. Such focus is necessary for one person; however, when this focus is adopted by entire groups to the exclusion of other facets of Jesus's ministry, it becomes a dangerous idolatry. Conservatives think that Jesus was all about personal salvation and righteousness. Liberals claim he was all about social justice. In reality, his work encompassed and superseded both.
If you look at Jesus through the lens of the Old Testament (which is the only proper way to see him), you will see that everything he did was coupled to his identity as the Messiah, and the Messiah's job was to inaugurate the Kingdom of God. The OT anticipated that the Kingdom of God would transform and renew four key aspects of life. i) The OT prophesied of a new king who would sit on David's throne and give justice to the poor and needy. ii) It proclaimed that God would write a new law on the hearts of his people, causing them to be righteous and show love to one another. iii) The OT hinted that God would establish a new temple that would allow his people to directly experience the presence of God. And iv) it promised that God would renew creation (including both nature and humanity) and restore it to its pristine, pre-fallen state. There are many examples in the Gospels of Jesus's concern for all four of these aspects of God's kingdom.
Following Jesus includes advancing all four aspects of his kingdom. While each person will necessarily focus their life's work on one or two areas, the church as a whole must pursue all four. It is wrong for the church to promote one over the other. The Sunday worship service you talked about is primarily about (iii), so it is wrong for a church to have great music but neglect service to the poor (i). It is also wrong for a church to have a great ministry of social justice (i) but de-emphasize sanctification and righteousness (ii).
Thine is the kingdom (it belongs to You, not us), and the power (it comes by Your hand, not ours), and the glory (it is for Your benefit, not ours), forever. Amen.
I'm not sure how Candace would reply to this but I have my own thoughts.
Political activism isn't the only calling on a Christian and not the only way to upend the power systems that not only maintain the gap between rich and poor but widen it year by year.
The problem with most of the high profile religious leaders of your country is that they do nothing at all to remedy the situation. Many of them seem to actively support it and not a few make a fabulous living for themselves out of it. Giving a few dollars to a charity does not help the poor. It simply makes them more and more dependant on the rich and widens the gap not only in material possessions but also in the ability to make everyday choices in their lives. It takes away the last of their power.
A very few Christians have taken Christ at his word and given their entire lifestyles. I can think of examples of businessmen who have changed the pay structure of their companies so that a worker with a family to support actually earns more than the CEO. That's not political activism but it is sacrificial. And it upends the system.
My reading of Candace's criticism of Warren is that he has built a veneer of Christian charity. His giving doesn't really involve sacrifice since he leads an enviably comfortable lifestyle but he expects his followers to give sacrificially in order to shore up the budget for his church. Nowhere in what I have read of his work does he ever suggest the kind of role reversal that Jesus was preaching. If he did wash anyone's feet it would only be symbolic.
Warren is by no means the worst of the American superchurch leaders - he may even be the best of them, which is why Candace's criticism comes in for so much flak - but if he is then he is merely the best of a bad bunch.