Jerry Falwell has passed away. Now Rick Warren, megachurch pastor and author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” has taken his place.
In an extraordinary feat, he got both presidential candidates to come to his Saddleback church and submit to his questioning. It would have been unthinkable for Rev. Falwell to invite a Democrat and even more unthinkable for a Democrat to show up. I am impressed that Rev. Warren donned a sports coat for the occasion, since he usually preaches in an Aloha shirt. (I wonder why he did that. Did he sense that sometimes a certain level of formality is appropriate? Why have such decorum with politicians but not for church?)
So what is this significance of this shift in leadership and in clout?
44 comments ↓
I was not able to watch this forum and have only seen clips of the event.
With both Falwell and D. James Kennedy now with the Lord, I personally don’t see anyone picking up their mantle. I think that evangelicals have been distancing themselves from these folks for at least the last 10 years. Sure, men like Dobson have a huge following and can marshall a lot of responses in a short time. But the unity that was once there with the Moral Majority is gone. No one person or organization speaks for the majority of evangelicals anymore: a cursory reading of Christianity Today proves that point.
To me Warren comes off like a one-man band: someone making a lot of noise and getting attention. The major media outlets love him and he plays well when given the chance. Perhaps it is his book sales that have propelled him into this role more than anything. He does not have the theological depth of an Dr. Albert Mohler or a Dr. Michael Scott Horton so he really lacks gravitas (in the true sense of the word). I don’t see him as being a spokesman for much beyond himself and those who buy into his philosophy of ministry.
I think it’s just a shift in the major topics of the social gospel. Falwell’s “make the world a better place by following the Law” has been simplified to Warren’s “make the world a better place.” I suppose you could look at it as either taking a broader approach to social issues or as dumbing social issues down so much that we no longer have any idea where to start.
Interesting observation on the sport coat. Humans have a shared basic sense of formality (the concept, not the practical details), but Americans don’t really understand why it’s there anymore. It pops up from time to time, but without much rhyme or reason except tradition or intertia. I would guess Warren sees formality as an obstacle to the mission of his “church” in general and so generally rebukes the tradition, but doesn’t see it as an obstacle in this particular situation.
I thought that “one-man band” was the perfect description–not just for Rick Warren, but for so many televangelists, meta-church pastors, and even ordinary pastors. None of us can do anything without the work and support of the whole crew, seen and unseen, recognized or hidden. And the same comment applies to the President. Beware the claims of any candidate, or the expectations of any electorate, that one person will bring about change or accomplish any other worthy goal. A single person may be the focal point, but without the Congress and the judiciary and the people, chances are slim to none.
I think what will be telling about the future of Warren as a primary leader of the Evangelicals (given his lack of common sense in not mixing religion and politics!) will be which of the candidates he may endorse. Of course,
he may not endorse either. But I think that where he may figure in in the political realm will be related very much to who becomes the next President, whether or not he formally endorses either.
Another thoughtful commentary:
http://www.gopusa.com/theloft/?p=760
I assume that the informal Sunday morning attire helps him relate to his Californian church members, whereas the sport coat brought him in line with a more general standard. Let’s not read into it more than is really there.
I agree with Peter about the sport coat. Politicians probably care more about the sport coat than God and Saddle Back do…
Saddleback, for sure.
God? I wouldn’t be so quick to presume…….
That’s an interesting observation Dr. Veith. I don’t doubt that, in part, it’s because he knew the candidates would be wearing coats and ties.
Likewise, Warren took the role of moderator, and moderators don’t yet moderate in Hawaiian shirts.
Susan @ 8,
“Saddleback, for sure.
God? I wouldn’t be so quick to presume…….”
Are you actually suggesting that God cares whether we (or the pastor) wear a sports coat or a Hawaiian shirt at chruch?
Probably because Warren cares more about deeds than he does about creeds. His mantra is deeds before creeds.
Trey (@10), one wonders what creed you’re thinking of that mentions sports coats.
I am not going to say there is a command re: sport coats but isn’t there a level of respect that one ought to show. Would you go to gramma’s funeral in a Hawaiian shirt? Shouldn’t Christ get at least as much respect as granmma?
Actually, Nemo, God is silent on Hawaiian shirts. I just thought it unsafe to presume that he’s indifferent to them, let alone that he might possibly approve of them as the chosen vestment of His shepherds.
I know for a fact that conduct in His presence is important to Him, and conduct could include manner of dress, no?
Anyways, I imagine that’s Warren’s appeal as a safer venue for candidates than Jerry Falwell, and why his forum garnered more attention from and credibility with media. How can you boast an American flag pin on a Hawaiian shirt?
He’s a secularist’s dream of a pastor who sets world-changing deeds over stuffy old creeds. He’s definitely not your grandfather’s televangelist.
Joe (@12), you asked, “isn’t there a level of respect that one ought to show” at church. Perhaps, and isn’t there a level of money one should give in the offerings? And isn’t there a level of time one should spend reading the Bible and praying? Now, go ahead, define those levels.
The funeral example is an interesting one. When I dress up to go to a funeral, I don’t do it for the dead one — after all, they’re dead. I do it for the living who are there with me. If I was the only one attending Grandma’s funeral, I’m not sure I would care, and I’m certain she wouldn’t.
Similarly, when I think of what to wear to church, I don’t think of what level of respect I need to show to please God. I think of what my clothes say to those in the congregation who will see me. I try not to be too distracting for all involved (since worship is about focusing on God, not me), and I try to strike a balance between looking respectful on the one hand and looking friendly to visitors (who, where I live, can be rather casual) on the other hand.
But I can’t tell you where that line is — though I can say I don’t think there’s a universal answer — and I don’t think appealing to malleable human customs is going to help us figure it out. Time was you might have asked, “Would you get on an airplane in shorts and sandals?” Nowadays, people don’t think much about it. Death is more important to us, yes, but I doubt one could point to death rites in all cultures as signifiers of how one should be in worship.
Is there any evidence that Jesus’ disciples wore nicer clothes when carrying out their ministry? None that I’ve found.
The ways of the media, who can fathom them?
As to dress, what did Adam wear when he was walking with God? The suit is the clothing of the service class. The upper classes wear the tuxedo or tweeds. The American equivalent of tweed is denim. Q.E.D. (with something of a grin, but also dismay at the lack of historical comprehension).
BTW, there is a passage in James about clothing in church. . .
Susan, the only time you are not in God’s presence (and really, even then) is when you are in unrepentant sin. You are coram Deo, before the face of God in the shower, on the toilet, in bed, working in the garden, lounging at the beach. Did you not know?
tODD @ 14,
I think you’re right that there’s no universal answer to where the line is. However, the mistake a lot of people make is in thinking that because there is no universal answer, there’s no individual answer, and consequently that it does not matter what you wear. As you say, clothing speaks to those around us (and I would argue to God as well), and saying that it doesn’t matter what one wears is tantamount to saying that it doesn’t matter what one says.
When it comes down to it, we each have to define the level of respect we ought to show via clothing every time we attend. It’s largely individual, but surely we ought to be able to lay down some reasonable universal criteria. For example, when we go to church, we are doing something fundamentally different than any other activity we can do. It makes sense that our clothing should reflect that. The nature of the difference in the situation also ought to be reflected in the nature of the difference of our clothing.
Additionally, custom may be of minimal help, but I wouldn’t discount it entirely. The meaning of a piece of clothing is largely determined by malleable human culture, just as the meaning of a sound is largely determined by malleable human language. Customs and traditions of churches can also be helpful because our brothers and sisters have had to deal with the same questions over the years and have often settled on reasonable answers. It doesn’t mean they’re infallible or unquestionable, but we shouldn’t be too quick to dismiss them. In many churches, I believe we have been too quick.
The only evidence I can think of regarding Jesus and his disciples’ manner of dress is that Jesus’ clothing was nice enough that the soldiers cast lots for the whole garment instead of tearing it apart for the fabric. A more knowledgable person may be able to point out more.
I musta touched a nerve. Oops.
Well, can I draw the line at a Fudpucker’s t-shirt in church? We in the pews read that on the back of a guy’s shirt as he stood at the communion rail years ago, and we’ve never forgotten the unison double-take we performed.
Anon @ #15,
You asked, “As to dress, what did Adam wear when he was walking with God?”
He wore the perfect and holy body God had clothed him with. Unfortunately, I don’t own one of those so I need to wear something else. Perhaps I can wear something that at least mumbles the dignity and respect which the perfect human form communicated so clearly.
tODD @ 14 wrote “Perhaps, and isn’t there a level of money one should give in the offerings? And isn’t there a level of time one should spend reading the Bible and praying? Now, go ahead, define those levels”
I didn’t define the level of dress and I am not going to attempt to define those either. I even started out by saying that there is no command and that respect was the key point. There is no universal standard and I don’t pretend that there is. I am just saying that it is something we should think about when we get dressed Sunday on morning. Is that really that controversial of a point?
And I guess I better call your pastor and make sure he never gives a sermon on stewardship or he’ll hear tODD yelling out from the pew, “Yeah well what’s the magic number?”
Joe @ 12,
We crucified Christ. I don’t think a Hawaiian shirt matters much.
Susan,
And if he wore a suit, you would object that he didn’t wear a robe for his services, no? Would you be happier if his phylacteries were broad and his fringes long? (Matthew 23:5) Generally speaking, God’s prophets don’t seem to have been known by their fine clothes (Isaiah 20, Matthew 11:8). Note: I can’t speak to Warren’s theology, as I haven’t read his book, but this particular objection doesn’t hold up.
Anon @ 16,
Yes there is.
“Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,” have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (James 2: 2-4)
Wow, this thread has seriously gone off the road and into a ditch. The article is about Rick Warren’s influence and clout: Does he have it? Does he speak for some/most/all evangelicals?
After watching some more clips of this event I think that Warren did a great job modeling how debates ought to be framed. We learned more about both men and their views in this event than in all of the debates leading up to this point in the presidential campaign. Did the large media outlets take note?
While Warren, did an admirable job I still am conflicted about him, as a pastor, officiating this event, all the more, at his church. Seems to be a mixing of the two kingdoms. Of course, through the lens of vocation one could make the case that he is just another citizen doing what all citizens are called to do — think seriously about the issues. But would he have been able to attract the two candidates without his mega-church status? I think not. As a pastor I would have a hard time justifying myself hosting a similar event even for the lowly office of dog-catcher.
Joe, have you never heard of sarcasm or irony? tODD’s entire point in talking about defining levels was that it shouldn’t be done on a blanket level. tODD is stating that people should NOT be yelling out “what’s the magic number” when the pastor preaches on stewardship.
He was responding to your statement of “I am not going to say there is a command re: sport coats but isn’t there a level of respect that one ought to show.”
THAT sounds a lot like “What’s the magic number?” Based on your statement there, it sounds like you would be the one popping up in service asking the “magic number” question. I’m sure you wouldn’t and that you disagree with doing that, but that’s what you sounded like in that line.
tODD said people shouldn’t be asking for a magic number. I think the official term is something like ‘reductio ad absurdum” - take your statement to a logical extreme, and it would suggest jumping up in the sermon asking for the magic number.
Reading comprehension - learn it, use it.
Webmonk - have you? I my last comment to tODD was also jest. I think he’ll understand that; we’ve played nice before.
“Reading comprehension - learn it, use it.” Really, that’s rich. You can read a sentence that begins with
“I am not going to say there is a command” and take that to mean that I think there is a “magic number” (i.e. command).
“I am not going to say there is a command re: sport coats but isn’t there a level of respect that one ought to show.”
So you said that there isn’t a command, but everyone ought to follow one. I’m ever so sorry that I misunderstood your statement. It’s absolutely crystal clear and completely unambiguous.
Nemo, Better look before you leap to such conclusions about what I meant to say.
I repeat, in answer to the original question, that Warren’s respect as debate master is like that given him as a pastor: his appeal is largely to those who don’t care for a religion that’s strong on doctrinal identity. It’s why un-churched people flock to his services, and why media think that, among pastors, he’s the cat’s pajamas (keeping to our wardrobe theme).
He shares disregard for doctrine with them.
“So you said that there isn’t a command, but everyone ought to follow one.”
Do you really not get it? All I have said is that people ought (notice that ought is not a command; it is not shall; it is not must; it is not mandatory; it is my opinion. Surely your keen sense of comprehension should recognize that difference) to dress in a respectful way. I did not even try to discern what the “correct” level is because there is no “correct;” just a concept of respectfulness.
The problem with most pr(e/o)scriptions for clothing in church is that, well, it focuses on the clothing. The problem, of course, is that the real issue is the heart.
If a man truly understands what God has done, then we don’t need to tell him what he should wear — he will want to honor God and his neighbor in what he wears. But if we tell him what he should wear, what benefit is that to him? That I will potentially be less bothered by his attire?
I doubt that anyone here would actually make the claim that if someone’s wearing a suit to church, then that person is right with God. But we seem to have less of a problem judging a man’s heart based on his clothing if it appears casual. I’m bothered by that.
Matt (@18), “when we go to church, we are doing something fundamentally different than any other activity we can do.” Are we? Should it be so? Should our time at church be so different from the rest of our life? Or should our clothing choices always show our love for God and neighbor? What about when my church goes on a campout and worships there? Is that an exception to the rule of dressing up for church, or should flip-flops be looked down upon in that setting as well?
I still find it telling that the New Testament speaks more about dressing ostentatiously than it does about dressing shabbily. And yet I don’t think I’ve heard one word here about ostentation (except the James quote). Yes, Jesus had a nice garment, but as far as I can tell, it was the only one he had. No one ever mentioned, much less complimented the disciples’ clothing. And I doubt people were impressed by John the Baptist’s attire.
Joe, I’ll accept what you’ve explained in subsequent posts, but I (and, I’m guessing, WebMonk) don’t think your comment (@12) reads like you think it does. Statements of the type “I am not going to say there is […] but isn’t there […]” sound an awful lot like “I won’t say explicitly that such-and-such is true, but doesn’t thus-and-so make it seem that such-and-such is true?” Like I said, I think I understand better now what you meant, but that’s where I was coming from.
Now, who wants to have a discussion about contemporary music vs. hymns?
(Kidding.)
tODD - “Like I said, I think I understand better now what you meant, but that’s where I was coming from.”
I am glad becuase I don’t think we were really that far apart on substance - perhaps just different opinions in the ultimate conclsuion.
tODD @ #29,
I’m not receiving the Sacrament on a camping trip or every other moment of my life, nor am I usually hearing the Word preached to me. If there was really no fundamental difference between church and the rest of my life, I would have no reason to go to church at all. When I go to church, I’m coming to God’s table and receiving things I don’t receive every other day. And yes, I think it should be that way.
Obviously our clothing should always reflect love for God and neighbor, but the fact that such love is reflected in different clothing in different situations should be equally obvious. Making too big of a deal about clothing is an error to be sure, but so is making too little of a deal. In our exceptionally individualistic culture, when everyone says “I can wear whatever I want and it shouldn’t matter to anyone else,” I think we need to be more wary of the latter error.
I sang a hymn yesterday. It was sooo not today!
I love my Hawaiian shirt! Its much more comfortable than my clergy shirts. The folks in my congregation seem to get a kick out of it too, but not on Sunday, nor at the hospital bedside.
Anyway, about Warren. I should get his book from the Library and read it. Have to admit that I’ve never been an admirer. But from all this hubbub, I have to agree with Pastor Wilken on Issues etc. who stated that perhaps Warren had missed his true vocation. It sounds like he was able to pull off something no one else has been able to do with either of these candidates lately, which is to get past the sound byte. Thankfully we have super media outlets like Pastor Warren’s church ; )
“In our exceptionally individualistic culture, when everyone says “I can wear whatever I want and it shouldn’t matter to anyone else,” I think we need to be more wary of the latter error.”
Matt, it depends on what circles you run in. In the circles I seem to be around I see a LOT more judgment on people because they aren’t dressed “respectfully enough for church”.
Like has been said numerous times above, it’s not the clothes themselves that matter, but the inner spirit that is choosing the clothes. (God looks on the inner spirit, etc.) There will be those who dress in suits out of pride and selfishness just like there will be those who dress in Hawaiian shirts out of pride and selfishness.
As I said, the circles I’ve been around recently tend toward “truly spiritual people dress in suits for church”. One of the things that was said was “Well, the Bible doesn’t command it, but really you ought to ….”
That may explain why I reacted so strongly to Joe’s statement. I’m sorry if I jumped too hard, Joe.
I jumped into this thread late, because of vacation, but as I read through it I had a response I wanted to share. However, then I got to tODD’s comment @ 29 and he expressed my point very articulately. Let me just add the following: I travel quite often and have occasion to attend churches in various areas of the country. Styles of dress varies quite a bit according to geography, with the west coast being substantially more casual than elsewhere. When dressing for service there are two objectives I keep in mind: 1) respect and honor for God; 2) respect for other attenders and avoiding being a distraction. The latter objective rules out “message” shirts of any type, in my view, and immodest apparel. For me, it also rules out wearing clothing more casual than the vast majority of other attenders will be wearing. The first objective will vary greatly depending upon the individual and the particular congregation. If you believe clothing you are considering will dishonor the Lord, then you cannot wear it. This, of course, does not mean it is wrong for others to wear that clothing.
I disagree with the premise that Jerry Falwell was “the leader” of the evangelical population. To an extent, he was a self-appointed leader, but the concept that evangelicals looked to Jerry Falwell for leadership, politically or spiritually, is a media-driven creation. The media loves to caricaturize evangelicals by going to the same old “spokesmen” (Falwell, Robertson, etc.), but I see it as no different than guys like Jesse Jackson asserting himself as a black leader. Who does he lead? Who elected him as leader?
I live 10 miles from Saddleback Church. I don’t intend to ever attend there, and Rick Warren is not a pastor I want to sit under. However, because I have not heard him preach, and do not know him, I would hesitate to criticize his style of dress,his ministry, or his motives. I know a number who attend his church and have been transformed. They have become active Christians, engaged in Bible study and ministry — making overseas trips and planting churches in Africa and elsewhere. Warren seems to be a man of action — a man who wants to wake up the Christian community, particularly American Christians, to the spiritual and physical needs of the world around them. He leads by example. It’s hard to fault him or his church for that. To the best of my knowledge, his teaching is orthodox, to the extent that it is well within the mainstream of evangelical Christianity, adhering closely to its Southern Baptist affiliation.
I don’t believe he wants to be a “leader” like Falwell at all. He is politically conservative personally, but will not endorse either McCain or Obama. He has stated that definitively. He is not going to endorse one political party over another, or work within any kind of political structure. His desire is to challenge Christians to understand their worldview, as an adjunct to understanding their ministry role in the world.
As for Warren’s style of dress, his hawaian shirts are not a distraction to his congregation, and I do not believe he intends to disrespect the Lord by wearing them. They work, even for pastors, in southern California. I believe he wore a sport coat because he knew that a hawaian shirt would have been a distraction to the audience for the forum, and he did not want it to be about him. He also did not want either candidate or the audience to perceive disrespect toward them by his wearing of such apparel.
Don S, did you realize that the one place in the Bible where immodest apparel is rejected, it is where the immodest apparal was expensive clothing and jewelry - like say a Brooks Brothers suit, or a designer dress? Immodest doesn’t mean skin, it means ostentation.
Webmonk @ 35,
You’re right; it does depend on your circles. I’m sure there are still many circles like what you describe. I’ve just never been in them myself. Even in the congregation I attended where suits were the norm, I never heard anybody come close to mandating them.
In my own experience, there have been a lot of people committing that perennial human error of trying so hard to avoid one mistake that they run headlong into the opposite mistake. They try so hard to escape the errors you describe that they commit the ones I’ve been talking about. I guess part of why I’ve been commenting here is to give advance warning to those of you who are rightly objecting to the first error.
Take it for what it’s worth.
Also, you write:
“One of the things that was said was ‘Well, the Bible doesn’t command it, but really you ought to ….’”
I may be misinterpreting your comment (and going way off topic to boot), but I have to say I don’t think there’s anything intrinsically wrong with generic statements like this. Jesus made exactly this kind of point in the Sermon on the Mount when he said (I’m paraphrasing) “yes, it’s written that it’s wrong to murder, but if you even hate your brother, you’re already a murderer” and made a similar comment about adultery and lust. His audience thought that just because they were strictly obeying the explicit commands of scripture that they weren’t sinning. Jesus was pointing out that the explicit commands of Scripture reflect deeper spiritual realities–he made a distinction between the rules and the Law. The Bible’s purpose isn’t primarily as a rulebook.
There’s a new legalism running rampant in my age-group (18-35) that mangles Sola Scriptura and Christian freedom to come up with “As long as it’s not specifically forbidden in Scripture, I can do whatever I want.” This is usually used to justify fornication or drug use, but (to bring it back on topic) I’ve seen it used to justify some ridiculous clothing as well. They’re “gracious” enough to allow God to trim at the fringes of their behavior, but still see their lives as being all about what they want.
“I’m sorry if I jumped too hard, Joe.” No problem.
Hmm… I was going to let this pass, but… well I’ll try and be brief.
Webmonk, you wrote:
“Like has been said numerous times above, it’s not the clothes themselves that matter, but the inner spirit that is choosing the clothes.”
Try putting on a frilly pink dress with purple and green flowers with an inner spirit of masculine dignity and authority. Clothes themselves matter.
Matt #38, my point was that they were trying to make a commandment while saying there wasn’t one. I have no trouble with saying there isn’t a commandment, but it’s a really good idea ….
The approach of saying there isn’t a commandment and then immediately laying out a commandment without actually using the word always torques me off.
I’ve got to assume the arguments that there is no Law against fornication and drug use is being made in gross ignorance. Wow. If they are arguing there’s no Law against those things, they’ve got some much more foundational issues than how we are or aren’t subject to the Law. It sounds like their Sola Scriptura is more like Ignorancia de Scriptura. (no, I don’t know Latin, only Spanish)
Matt #40 - and what would a guy with a “spirit of masculine dignity” be doing wearing a pink dress? That would be one of those “James” issues - the works are so bizarre, I think that reflects an inner state. Once again, the clothes follow the inner being.
If he has some alternative reason that somehow allows masculine dignity exist while wearing a pink-flowered dress to church (I can’t imagine what it would be!!!) then the dress would still be following the inner spirit.
I was raised in varying cultures (clothes-wise), and I don’t think I have much objection or preference to dressing casually or formally for church. (and of course I see myself perfectly clearly. NOT!) A man in my church was raised in a church that was highly hypocritical in certain respects but definitely dressed up. He’s mentioned to me that he feels like he’s being a hypocrite before God if he comes to church in a suit. He dresses neatly, but casually.
That’s an example of someone who is honoring God with his casual dress. Absolutely we are to honor God, it’s just that the expression of honor will vary. (obviously people will also use casual dress in a self-centered way while claiming to honor God)
WebMonk #40,
That’s exactly my point. Both sides of the equation matter. If they don’t match up (i.e. dress with masculine dignity) then something is wrong. Certain clothes cannot reflect certain states of one’s inner spirit. When people claim that only the spiritual side matters, it strikes me as very gnostic.
A thing can have infinite potential for variation, but still be distinct from something else. There are any number of ways to be respectful with your clothes, but some clothes are still disrespectful.
Bah. That last “40″ should have been “42″. What am I doing talking theology when I can’t even count?
Leave a Comment