What Rick Warren Should Have Asked
Even a cable TV commentator could watch Saturday's Saddleback Church Civil Forum and figure out why John McCain did so well. In a sanctuary filled with conservative evangelicals, McCain decided to preach to the choir while Barack Obama decided to talk to the pastor. Obama had a conversation; McCain's goal was conversion. Fortunately for McCain, Karl Rove could not have designed a better set of questions for him.
In his opening remarks, Rev. Rick Warren, Saddleback's pastor and forum moderator acknowledged that "faith is just a worldview and everybody has some kind of worldview and it's important to know what they are." Intentionally or not, understandably or not, Warren's questions were grounded in the priorities and worldview of American cultural conservatives.
But as pastor of a church in a worldwide Christian community, Warren had an opportunity to go beyond conservative political talking points and ask questions grounded in the church's alternative and countercultural worldview.
Some examples:
1. Warren asked: "Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it.?"
This is a first-grade multiple-choice question. No candidate in his right (or left) mind would say anything other than "Yes, and we defeat it." For the church, the question isn't whether we confront or defeat evil but how.
A better question: Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Christian pastor, said 'The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it.' Do you agree? As Christians, how should we confront violent evil such as terrorism?"
2. Warren asked: "The Civil Rights Act of '64 says that faith-based organizations have the right to hire people that believe like they do. Would you insist that faith-based organizations forfeit that right to access federal funds?"
Like the abortion and gay marriage questions Warren asked, this is a litmus-test question for conservative evangelicals who want the right to hire people whose beliefs fit their missions and worldviews.
A better question: "As Christians, we are called to help orphans, widows, the sick, the poor and others in need. Should we ask or expect the government to pay us to do what God calls us to do?"
3. Warren asked: "America right now ranks 19th in high school graduation. We're first in incarcertaions. Eighty percent of Americans recently polled said they believe in merit pay for teachers. . . Do you think better teachers should be paid better?"
Another no-brainer. Who believes better teachers should be paid less? Or less than other teachers? This was another litmus-test question that plays to the church-supported home-school and church-school crowd, and ignores the complex realities of inner-city public schools, the shortcomings of voucher plan and so on.
A better question: As Christians, we are called to help those in need and children in particular. How can we ensure that each and every child attends an excellent schools, regardless of their geographic location, test scores or family incomes?
A followup: As Christians, how can we create a redemptive rather than a punitive criminal justice system?
4. Warren asked: Define rich. I mean, give me a number. Is it $50,000, $100,000, $200,000? Everybody keeps talking about, 'Well, we're going to tax the rich.' How do you define that?"
Give me a number? An odd question for anyone other than a tax attorney to ask. Are we talking $50,000 in Southern California or Southern Sudan? Rich for people who spend hundreds of millions running for public office or rich for people who work three jobs and can't afford health insurance?
A better question: Jesus never said anything about abortion or homosexuality, but he said plenty about wealth and poverty. As a Christian, define the difference between need and greed. How much is enough?
I still think a church is no place for a campaign event, and a clergy person has no business posing as political moderator. But if the church is going to insert itself into the electoral process, it should do so as the church and not as a political action committee.
Posts
5 comments:
I liked this critique as well. The forum seemed good to me, but after reading this, I agree with the writer.
Pablo,
Interesting set of questions; ones the church needs to engage. At the same time, I think Warren was showing reponsibility to those who trust him. He asked questions evangelicals wanted to hear. He was not representing the entire spectum on Christianity. He does not hide the fact that he is an evangelical. Both Obama and McCain chose this forum because they knew evangelicals would be tuned in. Even though I believe the church needs to address issues of poverty, it is also needs to continue to force society to look at abortion and the sickness that surrounds the argument. Thanks for making me think!
Maybe it would have been nice if he'd sprinkled in a few "social justice" type questions.
As you can probably tell from reading my blog I'm tired of Abortion and Gay Marriage being lifted up as the only issues Evangelicals care about. If that's all it means to be Evangelical, consider me out.
I'm tired of JUST those types of questions being asked, as a sort of litmus test to "prove" one way or the other whether a person is "Godly" enough.
I just think that the issues in life (and in this election) are a lot more complicated and nuanced than Mr. Warren would have us believe.
And as far as your assertion that "He asked questions evangelicals wanted to hear", what about questions that evangelicals NEED to hear?
That's why I liked these questions "better."
Peace brother Reagan.
Poblo,
Enjoy your passion. I believe the Church, evangelical or mainline protestant (if that is fair), does need to address address social justice issues. Since I spend time with those who focus on abortion and gay-marriage, I can tell you that Rick Warren is not to popular. Many think he has sold out. Something to chew on.
With that in mind, I watched the debates carefully for issues of poverty to brough up. It is something, from what I hear, Rick Warren is quite passionate about. As where he did address the abortion issue and gay-marriage, he also touched on the the poverty question. It was not absent at all. Maybe not addressed in detail, but still addressed. The anti-abortionist group could make the same claim as your guy did about depth of questioning in their area. Neither host nor candidate took a lot of time to answer abortion question or social justice issues. But that is a reflection of the process. Most candidates like to stay vague on the big stage.
I also heard that evangicals are quite diverse in priorities. That is good. It probably reflects the mainline churches too. Mailine defined as traditional protestant (Pres., Meth, Anglican, etc...).
As far as politics go, I would like to see someone who reflects a Lincoln type faith. I enjoyed going through his monument a few years ago. There was a guy who knew scripture and made choices that reflected his faith in Jesus Christ; even in the midst of addressint social justice issues and war.
Peace Rev. White
Pablo,
This is my second try- hopefully it works:).
I watched the debates with a curiosity about Rick Warren. Since I hang out with the Anti-abortionsit side quite a lot, I wanted to see if thier negative feelings to Rick Warren were justified. Many seem to think he is all show and does not necessary reflect thier views. The mainstream media seems to classify him and young evangelicals as people who are concerned with poverty issues, not just the gay marriage and abortion issues. Where he might not have emphasized poverty in his interview, I do not believe he dodged it. In short, it come out. But like his abortion questions, he did not go into depth on them. I think this is more a reflection of modern politics than Rick Warren.
On the issue you want discussed and emphasized, I believe that it is. More and more evangelicals are realizing a responsibility to the issue and are examining it scripturally. With their emphasis on Solo Scriptura, I believe they will come to emphasize it and will reflect in their political outlook (the latter may take a few more years).
Cain
Post a Comment