On Easter Sunday, ABC's "This Week" featured Jake Tapper's interview with "purpose driven" [sic] pastor Rick Warren -- covering issues of faith, politics and economics. From the transcript posted on the ABC website:
OBAMA: And I believe in God's command to love thy neighbor as thyself. And when I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income or young people with student loans or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills, to shoulder the burden alone."(END VIDEO CLIP)
TAPPER: So, is he -- is he right?
R. WARREN: Well certainly the Bible says we are to care about the poor. There's over 2,000 verses in the Bible about the poor. And God says that those who care about the poor, God will care about them and God will bless them. But there's a fundamental question on the meaning of "fairness." Does fairness mean everybody makes the same amount of money? Or does fairness mean everybody gets the opportunity to make the same amount of money? I do not believe in wealth redistribution, I believe in wealth creation.
In response, here's my Open Letter to Rick Warren:
Dear Rick,
Seriously? Do the Bibles at Saddleback Church not have the 20th chapter of Matthew in them? And if so, then what do you do with the parable of the workers -- the one where those who worked for only an hour were paid the same as those who worked all day... and when the all-day-workers grumbled that it "wasn't fair" (stay with me now) ... Jesus' response " are you envious because I am generous?" ... and then (famously said) "for the first shall be last and the last shall be first."
It seems that the WWJD answer to your "Does fairness mean everybody makes the same amount of money?" would be "Yes." (See also: Isaiah 55:8 "My ways are not your ways, saith the Lord.")
And what about Matthew 25 -- the chapter with what my seminary professor called "The Final Final Exam?" You must know that one -- when Jesus comes to judge on the last day and the answer that gets you into the sheep fold rather than the goat line is not "inasmuch as you were fundamentally fair" -- it was "inasmuch as you fed the hungry, clothed the naked and gave water to the thirsty." And it was most certainly not "inasmuch as you "created wealth" -- it was "inasmuch as you did it unto the least of these."
Finally, Rick -- while I've got you -- can we talk contraception... just for a minute? When you told Jake Tapper "the issue here is not about women's health" you were well -- in a word -- wrong.
It is about women's health. It is totally about women's health and a woman's access to healthcare not being held hostage by the theology of her employer. There is a greater principle at stake here - but it is not the one you named: "the right to decide what your faith practices." That one is already protected by the First Amendment. Rather the principle at stake is the freedom of women to make health choices independent of their employer's faith practice that is on the line here.
And that brings me back to a couple of purpose-driven things. First there's the purpose of God's preferential option for the poor made manifest in the work and witness of Jesus of Nazareth. And then there's the purpose of liberty and justice for all meant to protect not just freedom of religion for those who choose to practice it but freedom from religion for those who just want equal access to health care. The former would be in the Bible and the latter in the Bill of Rights.
If you need to brush up on either we've got them both here at All Saints Church in Pasadena. Drop on by -- the door is always open!
The Reverend Canon Susan Russell
All Saints Church, Pasadena CA
Follow Rev. Susan Russell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/revsusanrussell
There are many passages about the rich oppressing the poor, and how God hates when merchants use unjust weights. The Bible has many passages telling masters (employers) to treat employees fairly and to take care of the poor.
Rick Warren's parroting of GOP lines makes me wonder if his millions from the sale of his book is donated to his own foundation and his so-called reversed tithing is filling that foundation. Sad.
If you haven't seen it, GLAAD just released a study called "Missing Voices" -- http://www.glaad.org/tags/missing-voices -- detailing how progressive religious voices are underrepresented in the mainstream media. I think the responses to this post are a case-in-point of how important it is for us to change that by speaking out lest Rick Warren -- and others -- be presumed to speak for all Christians. Which. They. Do. Not.
You're a 2% percenter.
How about this from Jesus lips..
Matthew 26:11
The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me.
Sounds like poor will always be around and Jesus left them high and dry... talk about compassion.
I have always wondered how many so called Christians trully believe in an Eternity and what accepting Jesus means? We are saved by faith and what is that evidence of Faith? If a person believes that there is an Eternity and chooses Christ He or She will be known by their fruits. Maybe it would be a worthwhile prayer for Wisdom through Holy Spirit as given in Biblical Scripture. There is one certainty, We are not leaving this earth in this body of dust!
Jesus essentially said we cannot put them both 'on the same level.'
we have to choose.
which one will it be?
(this goes for individuals and churches)
Pastor Warren asked two "questions" in answer that would allow the reader to think, hence "fundamental" is the word leading the thought invoking process. I do not see where he states that he is specifically referring to the bible, chapter or verse to make the point of the "questions" he asked. He only stated the 2000 mentions of the poor in the bible, PRIOR to the questions.
Also, wealth creation is necessary if you are help those with less. Wealth redistribution is a failing concept as we have seen in so many communist controlled countries; it does nothing to further out society, economy or support the poor.
Now, remember folks...Pastor Warren was asked to respond to a question specifically about income and redistribution that President Obama stated. Don't take that out of context and start hurling stones and assuming you know this man's ways, as there were not so many words in that response to do so.
Something all of you should know: Pastor Warren has paid Saddleback Church back everything he earned as a pastor and tithes over 93% of his current earnings from his books and other investments. He is a "volunteer" that gives more than many people would even know.
Does that sound like a man that is in this for the money? Get off of it people.
"I believe in God's command to love thy neighbor as thyself. And when I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income or young people with student loans or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills, to shoulder the burden alone."
The President talked about "shared responsibility" ... which Warren reframed as "wealth redistribution" ... and then proceeded to make his argument about God's preferential option for "fundamental fairness" ... which is what inspired me to ask "Seriously?" It was NOT ... as the commenter stated above ..."a question specifically about income and redistribution."
It's about time both pastors and politicians act like it
This is not just semantics and putting it into a generalized "shared responsibility" is not correct. I do not see how Pastor Warren's re-framing of the question is wrong, but only shows his understanding of the President's statement. It is about wealth redistribution ad shared responsibility is vague at best.
"Also, wealth creation is necessary if you are help those with less. Wealth redistribution is a failing concept as we have seen in so many communist controlled countries; it does nothing to further out society, economy or support the poor."
As for the rich man that gives out of his bounty compared to the poor that give out of love see: Mark 12:41-44.
That wasn't what Obama was speaking about. So Warren set up the debate on his terms, and he should be held accountable for that and his answer, which is "don't tax the rich, it's their wealth," which he clearly thinks would be wealth re-distribution. Uhm, okay Rich. Since you don't own the Christian corner, I would say that's a load of crap. Both smelling of American and Christian beliefs.
And I would ask if he believes that the children of the poor have the same opportunities as those of the very wealthy...such as himself? If not, what is he doing about it since he's obviously concerned? And how does a country such as America pay to equal that playing field?
Thanks for taking time to comment!