The presidential candidates made their first joint public appearance before an audience of 5000 parishioners at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California on Saturday.
It's remarkable that Obama and McCain agreed to be quizzed about their faith by an evangelical pastor in his mega-church.
The event helped cement Rick Warren's status as one of the preeminent evangelical leaders of his generation.
So, who is Rick Warren and how did he get to be so influential?
I asked five experts on religion in America about the political significance of Warren and the Saddleback Civil Forum. A clear picture emerged from these discussions: Warren is at pains to present himself as an affable moderate who can work with Republicans or Democrats. Both parties want to curry favor with him because he speaks to a subset of moderate evangelicals who could tip the balance of power.
Warren has already built a 22,000-member congregation and a global network of influence by successfully marketing a consumer-centric evangelism to the suburban middle class. Now, Warren is marketing himself to America's political elite as a new breed of evangelical leader--someone who might be a more congenial ambassador to the evangelical base than older hardliners like James Dobson or John Hagee.
However, experts stress that the differences between Warren and the older evangelical leaders may be more stylistic than substantive.
"Warren's different from Dobson in that you're not going to hear him saying all this bitter nasty stuff about secularists or the pro-choice movement," says Sarah Posner, religion columnist at the American Prospect and author of the new book on the prosperity gospel, God's Profits.
Yet, Warren remains a hardliner on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and euthanasia. As Posner points out, immediately after the candidates forum, Warren likened abortion to the holocaust--but, that while holocausts were deal-breakers for him personally, other people might feel differently about voting for a pro-choice candidate.
Warren wasn't always so easygoing.
Author and religion journalist Michelle Goldberg recalls a letter that Warren sent to his congregation before the 2004 election, informing them of their Christian duty to vote according to certain "non-debatable" social issues, notably abortion and gay marriage.
"It could have been written by James Dobson," she says.
"Warren is now putting forward a new image and a new style, but not new ideas or really new politics," Goldberg explains, "He's doing it at a time when it makes a lot of sense for an ambitious preacher with aspirations to power to stop putting all his eggs in the Republican basket
Warren has also set himself apart by taking an interest in issues like AIDS and poverty that have not traditionally been targets of evangelical fervor. Progressives may applaud Warren's concern about AIDS, but they probably won't like his proposed solutions. For example, Warren is a close ally of Ugandan pastor Martin Sempa who advocates sexual abstinence and faith healing as solutions to the AIDS epidemic.
Jeff Sharlet is the author of Killing the Buddha, a study of alternative religious communities in America, and The Family, a history of elite fundamentalism. He describes Warren as "perhaps the most influential public preacher since Billy Graham."
The secret to Warren's success is marketing.
"Warren is a pioneer of 'seeker sensitive' evangelicalism, aka consumer-tested Christianity. Saddleback is designed to seem like what its attendees want it to be," Sharlet says, "It's more mild-mannered than the mean old fundamentalism of the late Jerry Falwell, more 'life-style' oriented, a theology specially-made for its Orange County congregation: every bit as conservative as old Jerry's faith, but much more suburban, much more middle-class."
Warren does take as slightly softer line on the relationship between church and state than many in the evangelical old guard, according to journalist and religion blogger Sara Robinson. Even so, few progressives would regard Warren's position as moderate in any sense.
"He's very aggressively working to Christianize the world; but unlike [James Dobson, John Hagee, and Rod Parlsey], he doesn't seem to think that non-Christians deserve to be punished by their governments for their heresy," Robinson explains.
Ultimately, both campaigns are looking to Warren because he speaks to a subset of moderate evangelical swing voters who could hold the balance of power in 2008.
"[T]he hard-core Religious Right - the Dobsonites, Hagee and Parsley and Robertson's folks - are somewhere between 8-10% of the electorate. Nobody expects them to ever do anything other than vote for Republicans. There's another group, perhaps another 10-15% of the electorate, who are more of a swing vote, even if they do share some or all of the political stances of the Religious Right," explains Pastor Dan Schultz, a United Church of Christ minister who blogs regularly about religion and politics at Street Prophets.
Schultz argues that many religious Democrats are eager to paint Warren centrist among religious voters. Schultz disputes that characterization, noting that most religious voters favor some kind of abortion rights, whereas Warren insists that fertilized ova have full human rights from the moment of conception.
"Like [Billy] Graham, [Warren] knows that liberals mistake his kind-spiritedness for moderation," says Sharlet, "In fact, Warren stands side-by-side with the hardest right-wing of fundamentalism, theological point by point. But he's a much better salesman."
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight


Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Campaign Silo
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
Hey Lindsay!
I’d say that the secret to most all of the Televangelists and such is marketing. Going back to Billy Graham and Oral Roberts through the Jimmy Swaggerts, Jim Bakkers and such on down to Falwell, Pat Robertson, Hagee, or Dobson, it’s always been the marketing in one fashion or another.
But then again, that’s also been the primary mode of the Republican Party for most of the last forty years. No new ideas, just different marketing slogans, some more effective than others.
I’m just not ready to accept that President Bush or Vice President Cheney would consider doing anything wrong.
Excellent background, Lindsay. Provides a helpful context for Saturday’s event.
Lindsay, good to see you at the Lake.
I’ve been a fan of yours for a long time now, and have enjoyed seeing you go from achievement to achievement. Barry would be/is so proud of you; and I am too.
Same old Evangelism in nicer, less offensive packaging, in other words. I’m always amazed by these folks, the Christ I grew up knowing would have treated them like he treated the money changers.
What was it Gandhi said, something about liking Christ but Christians, not so much. I won’t go that far, but some Christians certainly seem to have very little to do with Christ.
I hope that you merely have forgotten the snark tag.
Bingo!! And the Prosperity Gospel? Who thought that one up?
As I have recently said here, Ian, the “boss” (Jesus) had much good in His programme, but too very many lousy workers entrusted to carry it through.
Calvin, I think. I never liked JPII, mostly because of what he did to liberation theology. Because I think that’s a lot closer to what Christ “what you do the least of these is what you do to me” would have wanted.
As for the Elect - they can go take a flying leap of a short pier. They offend me morally and theologically.
Sometimes I feel like I’m more of a Christian than most people who call themselves one.
Warren’s different from Dobson in that you’re not going to hear him saying all this bitter nasty stuff about secularists or the pro-choice movement,” says Sarah Posner, religion columnist at the American Prospect and author of the new book on the prosperity gospel, God’s Profits.
Yet, Warren remains a hardliner on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, and euthanasia.
So Warren is the real heir to Reagen and not McCain who talks reasonable, can get a deal done with Dems who fall for his charms, and talks in code to appear a moderate.
We need another religious debate Cleanth yesterday suggested Sister Joan She has some media experience
In 2007, Sr. Joan appeared at the “First Emory Summit of Religion, Conflict and Peacebuilding” at Emory University as a responder to the Dalai Lama. She also spoke in Spain, Scotland, and was on a two-week lecture tour in New Zealand and Australia. In 2006 she was an invited panelist on Meet the Press with Tim Russert. In 2004, she was a guest on Now with Bill Moyers and during the funeral of Pope John Paul II and in April 2005 she was a commentator for the BBC from Rome for the election of Pope Benedict XVI as John Paul II’s successor.
and she has some Lefty Cred
Critics cite her association with Call to Action and women’s ordination, both in direct conflict with official Catholic teaching.
Chittister has clashed with the Church authorities on several occasions. She attended the first Women’s Ordination Worldwide Conference of June 30, 2000 as one of two nuns instructed by the Holy See not to do so. In another instance, Chittister rejected the Church’s strictures against the 23 nuns who ran an advertisement in the New York Times attacking the Church’s teaching on abortion.
The Benedictine Sisters of Erie, Pennsylvania’s homepage has received a “danger!” rating on fidelity from the website CatholicCulture.org, a private organization not endorsed that rates the web pages of various Catholic organizations for orthodoxy and fidelity to Catholic teaching. Criticisms include its alleged New Age content, and a note on the actions taken by Sister Christine Vladimiroff, Chittister’s prioress, against the Vatican directive related to Chittister’s attendance at the Ordination Conference in 2000.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Chittister
Apparently Warren went on Hannity’s radio show and was asked about Reverend Wright and “black liberation theology,” and proceeded to explain that liberation theology was a marxist scourge in South American that had to be stopped by evangelicals, and that black liberation theology was worse.
LOL Nothing is wrong when the president does it is
Biden remarks on trip to Georgia
Rrrrrghhh.
And how do you feel about self-appointed The Chosen People, Ian?
No wonder, that His own people must needs have rejected this Rabbi Jesus.
I detest all varieties of smug self-assurance.
What we need that quote on Spanish Language TV that and a small reminder that the CIA trained the Death Squads in El Salvador.
Doesn’t Obama have anyone vetting for him ” black liberation theology was worse.” This sounds like a motive to lie about McCain being in the cone of silence when he was not.
Sounds like republic-’lite’ and rumor has it that Congress wants Saakashvili to address them. Biden wants to give Georgia a Billion dollars.
Looks as if the r’s have got the table set and the d’s can’t wait for the dinner bell …
Surging onward towards our greater destiny?
;~(
Ricky Warren,from the profit driven life,how dare you. How dare an interloper skim $3.000,000.00 from our election process. I didn’t see any homeless people in the front row or people of any color other than lily whites. They paid a minimum of $500 to 2,000 for a seat? Please correct me if I heard wrong. At 6,000 people that would work out to $3mil +/-. Nice Haul Ricky
For all his greed-driven views and smarmy pap Saturday nite, I must say I was most offended that Pastor Rick was so presumptuous as to address both United States Senators and candidates for the presidency who accepted his invitation to appear onstage with him at his Saddleback Church/Store by their first names.
wtf?
Dugg!
Hey Cleanth got any more cool debate moderator suggestions? Also the Jews have never tried to force others to convert and believe what they believe Warren’s type would legislate their God for us all and eventually lead us to holy war.
From Rick Warren’s point of view, this forum was less about Obama and McCain and more about Rick Warren taking over the mantle of America’s Pastor® from Billy Graham.
When Warren brought McCain onto the stage with Obama at half-time and stood between the two with his arms around them, Warren knew that this would be the money shot used on television reports and the front page stories of newspapers from the NYT on down the media food chain. When Warren made the last question of the event about him and his church (”and answer in 20 seconds or less, please”), he made sure the last word was about him.
That’s what this whole thing was aimed at. Not creating a civil conversation around the presidential campaign. Not providing a forum for a discussion of religious issues outside of stump speeches and cliches. This was a vehicle for the rollout of Religious Right 2.0, headed by Rick Warren.
Great post, Lindsay!
I heard Obi prattle on about his faith and it was pretty “sickening” to my stomach.
How can we get the religionists out of politics? Can’t they stick to their pews and faithful? Why do we need a religion litmus test?
This IS the 21st century ain’t it?
My BS meter must be broken because I can’t distinguish between the new whacko Christianism and the old whacko Christianism.
I hope that money is all going to the poor homeless in California who thanks to the housing crisis used to live in Orange County some of whom might even had gone to Warren’s church.
new one has more casual shirts….
Dave has a new post up…
I didn’t see this debate but did Warren ask any questions about the Poor, Homeless, Sick (National Healthcare), the people in Prison? That whole Least of my brothers crowd that Jesus said what you do onto them is what you do onto me.
What was the thrust of his questions?
A knew it had to be some subtle point of theology.
In the pre-game coverage of the Saturday evening fiasco Mrs. Alan Greenspan had Doris Kearns Goodwin on. Doris made a statement that put this charade in the proper context, so please allow me to paraphrase it: this is scary in the sense that an Abraham Lincoln will never again be elected president in this country. Lincoln didn’t wear his religion on his sleeve as today’s presidential aspirants do… and kept his thoughts a purely private matter.
I found it scary, too.
if your meter pegs out at max with both i’d say it was calibrated just right.
venerating zygotes, denying marriage, denying stem cells (and ensuring death): the usual fundy Trinity
hi lindsay-welcome…
i’ve been trying to find out how his saddleback church started..where the money came from..a baptist minister said he “built his church quickly”.
most churches can’t just walk into a bank and get that big of a loan.
one tv report said he’s a fourth generation minister, but haven’t seen anything else about it.
and that lincoln didn’t attend church, but one of our most spiritual and ethical presidents.
Author and religion journalist Michelle Goldberg recalls a letter that Warren sent to his congregation before the 2004 election, informing them of their Christian duty to vote according to certain “non-debatable” social issues, notably abortion and gay marriage.
“It could have been written by James Dobson,” she says.
Funny Abortion isn’t a commandment, gay marriage isn’t that in the same list of things like eating only Kosher food which I haven’t heard Warren supporting.
Respecting the Sabbath is a freakin Commandment where was Warren when I was working 2 jobs and Seven days a week including the Sabbath.
God wants me to make enough money so that I don’t have to work one day a week!
Yep anything but what Jesus actually talked about.
Very good angle to look at.
I also particularly object to his appropriation of the word “civil” which is used, in debates about marriage equality, to distinguish between state recognition of a marital union and religious sanctification of same. Civility is fine, and certainly to be expected by customers of the Church/Store. But “civil” means The State.
And, last I checked, the Church/Store was not The State.
And facial hair!
Including starting a new religion? That would be nice.
In the fifth century a.d., St. Augustine expressed the mainstream view that early abortion required penance only for sexual sin. Eight centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas agreed, saying abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was “ensouled,” and ensoulment, he was sure, occurred well after conception. The position that abortion is a serious sin akin to murder and is grounds for excommunication only became established 150 years ago.
http://faculty.cua.edu/Penning.....istory.htm
So Warren thinks he knows better than Saints Thomas Aquinas and Augustine? Well what would I expect from a person who thinks Liberation and Black liberation theology was bad.
Warren sounds like a Pharisee, a false prophet!
They reject His teachigs, but following His grooming….
“Elijah came to all the people, and said, ‘How long will you falter between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.’ But the people answered him not a word.’” (1 Kings 18:21).
Each side made sacrifices to their God without building a fire. The lighting of the fire was to be performed by the strongest god, and would thus reveal Jehovah as the true God.
Baal was silent. Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal and said, “Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is meditating, or he is busy, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is sleeping and must be awakened” (1 Kings 18:27). Elijah poured a large amount of water over his sacrifice and asked Jehovah to reveal Himself by consuming the sacrifice. “Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt sacrifice, and the wood and the stones and the dust, and it licked up the water that was in the trench” (1 Kings 18:38). When the people saw the clear victory of Jehovah, they fell on their faces and said, “The Lord, He is God! The Lord, He is God!”
Elijah then commanded the people to seize the prophets of Baal and to not let one of them escape. The prophets of Baal were then seized and “Elijah brought them down to the Brook Kishon and executed them there” (1 Kings 18:40). God then sent the rain he had promised and the drought ended (1 Kings 18:41-46).
http://www.padfield.com/2000/elijah.html
When Warren claims to speak for the Lord lets ask him to make it rain in Death Valley to show that God does indeed favor him, if the Lord does not well Warren does know what the bible says about that.
I’m struggling with rejection of spelling and grammar….
How can Warren claim the Bible is the Authority when the bible passages about slavery are well WRONG. If one part of the book is wrong does that make it all wrong? Or does that give us humans some leeway to pick and choose what is right?
they killed him because he threatened their power and money, since they had a near religious monopoly and saying things like “you can get forgiveness on your own”, directly cut at the temple monopoly. As best we can determine what Jesus himself said (the historical Jesus, assuming he existed, which I do) the “you can only come to God through me” stuff was mostly or entirely added after his death.
Like I say, not a bad guy overall.
Those passages were pretty enlightened at the time they were written. I’ve never understood either biblical literalism or the assumption that rules are for all time. Some of them very clearly were meant for specific times and places and can’t be generalized.
I had my say on Warren before this past weekend’s disaster — in which Obama made a bad situation worse.
My enthusiasm for his candidacy — never very storng — has now come to halt. We now face a choice between Bad and Worse.
The system is utterly corrupt — a fact I’ve been keenly aware of since 1967.
Change We Can Believe In will only arrive once this system of government is dismantled and corporate power destroyed.
Christ never talked about gay marriage but he did talk about divorce. Given how Cindy McCain’s mom stole a married man and Cindy got everything but $10,000 and then Cindy did the same with McCain.
I wonder if Warren recalls the sins of the Father bit from the bible also in John’s will are his kids from the first marriage taken care of equally or has Cindy won like her Mom won?
In Christian tradition a man marries a woman he gets control of her estate this trust Cindy has while legal under the law is going against Christian tradition.
Where as John as the male head of the house should be master a servant after all cannot serve two masters is John or his wife in charge who has control of the cash.
I don’t think John’s kids from the first marriage will inherit.
I agree but the Rev Warren well he selects what he wants to, no gay marriage for example is a minor rule.
But Warren ignores a big rule, a Commandment like honor the Sabbath. Which means workers must earn enough so that they can honor the Sabbath.
Its funny how only the parts of the Bible that the GOP agrees with no matter how small are given attention while big thing like Commandments are ignored.
Just take a look at THIS!
It’s a complete disgrace. There is no excuse for it. NONE.
I think you are right on target with “Warren wants to appear to be a moderate able to work with Dem or Repub” . He is auditioning as the next Billy Graham to have access to the White House year after year.
It’s a modern American thing, Teddy.
I detest it.
Even worse, IMO, are those people who address one by informal modes of address whilst reserving to themselves the formal. Such as letters to “Dear Charlie”, and signed “Dr. X Y Z Stoopnagel, PhD”.
Where I lived the better part of my career, the formal mode of address was de riguer unless and until invited to do otherwise. Sometimes that permission came quickly; sometimes never.
For many years I was deputy to the precentor of a major cathedral. In all of those years, he addressed me as “Dr [Surname]” and I addressed him as “Professor [surname]”. The title Professor is much more restricted abroad than it is here in this pseudo-egalitarian sinkhole. In major universities, it is not uncommon never to know the informal name of a colleague. This is a good system, IMO.
Cindy’s done her mom one better, actually — she employs her predecessor’s son Andrew (who John McCain adopted) at Hensley as CFO. I guess she didn’t hold that whole not-attending-your-wedding-to-the-trollop-Dad thing against him forever.
I love Sister Joan. Thanks for bringing her up here, I was getting queasy reading about old oily charmer Warren.
Hi there, Undone!
1: I fancy Sister Joan Chittester, as I have said. I do not want to undermine my nomination.
2: I do indeed take your point, that the Jews do not much proselytise. FWIW, many Chassidim do push their view point, perhaps mainly among those they consider lesser Jewish brethren. Indeed, the Chassidim are a scandal for their vicious internecine wars. Have a look at Jiri Weil’s Nine Gates to the Chassidic Mysteries This is also a nice collection of Chassidic tales. And if you like these sorts of often delightful tales, have a look into the anecdota collected for the early desert fathers of early Christendom. They are wonderful.
As example:
If the Gospel accounts are credible, Jesus charged his flock to proselytise; and if the only way to salvation, whatever that entails, is through Jesus C, then it makes perfect sense actively to seek converts, as odious as that is to the rest of us. Then it is what the Jews call a mitzvah [good deed].
My take: Leave me alone.
3: It is a vexing matter: that if one is persuaded beyond peradventure of doubt that ones way is the only way to a salvation, and that this putative salvation is a great good thing and indispensable, then not to assert ones chosen way would be unconscionable. Mind, I do not advocate this, but it is the entirely consistent outcome of much religious thought and politicking.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Gandhi
Ian,
And as I have said, He had, in many respects, a good plan, but too very many lousy workers with which to implement it.
I do object to a people self-appointing themselves the chosen race or the chosen people. Even if they put that into the mouth of their god.
I’ve said as much in these fora, as recently as yesterday.
Hear, hear!
In some ways, a sad thing, and a shame: this country was founded on some very enlightened principles.
Gotcha as long as the Rev Warren is news I think pushing the Sister makes a nice contrast to his faith.
If the Gospel accounts are credible, Jesus charged his flock to proselytise; and if the only way to salvation, whatever that entails, is through Jesus C, then it makes perfect sense actively to seek converts, as odious as that is to the rest of us. Then it is what the Jews call a mitzvah [good deed].
It is the height of arrogance to think that you alone were presented with the real truth and all other truths are false much like the bible being wrong on slavery everybody is wrong about something.
Warren in being selective about what parts of the Bible to enforce like gay marriage over the Sabbath as my previous comments suggest is intentionally trying to manipulate things.
For me that marks him a false prophet.
Oh yeah, Warren seems a jerk alright.
Say, Bub, you forgot to set off what you quoted from me as a quote! Suppose that I needed my tear sheets from FDL to further my income? /s
“Like [Billy] Graham, [Warren] knows that liberals mistake his kind-spiritedness for moderation”
No, not kind-spiritedness. Pleasant manner only. Please, folks, let’s get it straight; a good-mannered hater is still a hater. Ah! And it occurs to me that JC himself said something to this point. Matthew 7:15-20: “15 Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles?” And anyone who doubts the fruits of outlawing abortion or mistreating gays and lesbians need only study these practices with an open heart.
Cleanth, Jesus choose his disciples–will you gainsay him? Enough! Either God chooses where He will, and you have no right to gainsay him, or all are chosen. You may choose your view, but in either case, by your own beliefs it is a sin to speak ill of the Chosen People.
Sorry
Raven, I have never asserted the things you here impute to me!
My reference to chosen people was loaded with irony and snarky disapproval.
How can it be a sin to refer to something which is not? The very concept of one chosen people out of all of the god’s children is odious. And did not Jesus Himself say that many are called, but FEW chosen?
I respect your posts here—they are justly famous—but do not misrepresent me to make your points, please. Actually we seem rather to agree on fundamentals.