Is Rick Warren Scared of George Stephanopoulos?

ABC’s “This Week” began Sunday with this announcement from a slightly miffed George Stephanopoulos: “For those of you tuning in this morning expecting to hear from Pastor Rick Warren, we were too. But the pastor’s representatives canceled moments before the scheduled interview, saying that Mr. Warren is sick from exhaustion.”

The interview had promised some fireworks, given Warren’s recent conflicting statements about the extent to which he campaigned for the passage of Proposition 8, the California ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in the state. Now, I don’t want to let the fact that I missed Easter services for the first time in my life to catch and cover the never-was-interview (note to self: buy in-laws DVR) color my opinion about whether Pastor Rick was telling the truth about his exhaustion. But I do think it’s valid to examine why he might not have been completely psyched about going through with an appearance on “This Week.”

For a man who is arguably the most famous religious leader in the world after the Pope, Warren is surprisingly sloppy when it comes to speaking in public. He acknowledged as much during an April 6 appearance on “Larry King Live,” saying that “Everybody should have 10 percent grace when they say public statements.” But Warren needs more like 50 or 60 percent grace.

There are two main reasons Warren tends to get himself in trouble when he talks in front of a microphone. The first is that unlike most public figures, he doesn’t carefully script every utterance. In the now-infamous Saddleback video address in which he offers a full-throated endorsement of Prop 8–a video Warren seems genuinely surprised ever became public, despite the fact that it was distributed via email to 30,000 people and posted on his blog at the church’s website–the pastor appears to be speaking off-the-cuff. “You need to support Proposition 8,” he tells the camera. “This is not just a Christian issue; it’s a humanitarian issue.”

He uses the same winging-it style in the devotions he records on DVD for his new Purpose Driven Connection magazine. Listening to one a few months ago, I was startled to hear Warren recommend that couples whose marriages are on the rocks consider going into heavy credit card debt to pay for therapy. During a time of severe economic collapse. On the one hand, it’s refreshing to hear a public figure speak without any filters. On the other, there’s a reason “Bullworth” was just a movie. Speaking without thinking doesn’t tend to serve people well in real life.  

Warren’s other habit is to do his best to agree with whomever he’s speaking to. I suspect it comes partly from his pastoral experience, but even more from a desire to prove that he’s not one of “those” evangelicals. He wears Hawaiian shirts. He has an easy laugh. He hugs people. A lot. If James Dobson is the Grinch, Rick Warren wants to be Mr. Rogers.

It’s why when he’s talking to Larry King, Warren mentions his gay friends and says he “never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going.” And when he’s talking to Sean Hannity, Warren voices his agreement when the FOX host advocates assassinating the president of Iran. And when he sits down with the Wall St. Journal, he gets downright snarky about Democrats and religious liberals. 

When it comes to gay marriage, Warren dearly wants to be a Southern Baptist who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman–but also a man whose gay friends understand he’s not intolerant. He appears to have missed the fact that the gap between those two impulses is what the debate over gay marriage is all about. That’s not surprising, though, since as I wrote earlier this year, Warren also “wants to be both the universally admired pastor who speaks to the nation and the influential leader who mobilizes religious conservatives for political ends. But those are two inherently conflicting roles, and he cannot be both, no matter how hard he tries.”

Proposition 8 is just the most visible and recent example of Warren trying to have things both ways. Eight days before Election Day, Warren was very clear. In fact, he says so in his video message: “Let me say this really clearly: We support Proposition 8. If you believe what the Bible says about marriage, you need to support Proposition 8.” After the election, Warren spoke to Beliefnet’s Steven Waldman about his support for the initiative and went even further (watch video here): 

 

BELIEFNET: What about partnership benefits, in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?

WARREN: You know, not a problem with me. The issue to me, I’m not opposed to that [some partnership rights] as much as I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

WARREN: Oh I do.

Not surprisingly, those were the comments that were pointed to by critics when Warren was asked to offer the invocation at Obama’s Inauguration. Warren didn’t like being called anti-gay–and understandably so. But he is now trying to insist that he never said the things that he did. To Larry King, he complained: “I was asked a question that made it sound like I equated gay marriage with pedophilia or incest, which I absolutely do not believe.” (As you can see in the transcript, Warren brings up the comparisons himself.)

He also insisted that he is “not an anti-gay or anti-gay marriage activist. I never have been, never will be. During the whole Proposition 8 thing, I never once went to a meeting, never once issued a statement, never — never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going.” Warren made the same case to Christianity Today: “I never said a word about it until the eight days before the election, and then I did make a video for my own people when they asked, ‘How should we vote on this?’ It was a pastor talking to his own people.”

That’s kind of like saying that when Obama sends a message to Congress, it’s just a guy talking to his colleagues. Warren has a congregation with 25,000-plus members and a worldwide readership numbering in the tens of millions. If him speaking out on the most controversial issue of the election eight days before people head to the polls, saying “You need to vote for Proposition 8″ does not constitute campaigning or an endorsement, then words have lost their meaning. 

It’s a pretty easy bet that George Stephanopoulos had clips of all these comments cued up and ready to go Sunday morning. Rick Warren is a talented communicator and has inspired millions of people. But in trying to explain or reconcile those contradictory statements, he wasn’t going to be able to wing it. Maybe the mere thought of trying exhausted him. 

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Gary Cameron / Reuters

    The Foreclosure Deal: Obama and the Banks Win Big While Homeowners See Modest Reward

    Those of you who have read our previous coverage of the back and forth between the state attorneys general and five major mortgage servicers know that the settlement announced on Thursday is a massive, complicated, multi-year deal negotiated by the country’s most ambitious public prosecutors, its most powerful financial institutions and some of the highest-paid lawyers in New York City. There are several levels to judge it on: the help it gives homeowners; its benefit for various political players; and what it may do for the economy. But overall, it’s a clear win for Obama and Democrats, a qualified win for the banks, and a minor, belated victory for homeowners.

    Romney: 'I Misspoke'HuffPost Politics

    Mitt Romney’s Sweet Spot: Just Conservative Enough

    Why is Mitt Romney having trouble winning over the conservative Republican base? One reason is his lack of political finesse, an air of dorky rich-guy aloofness that reminds some people of John Kerry. More important, however, is his ideological profile. In almost every important way, Romney’s policy platform is more moderate than those of Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. Gingrich  offers a much more conservative tax plan, along with crowd-pleasing ideas like his plan to sic federal marshals on “radical” liberal judges. Santorum carries a blazing social-conservative torch, championing ideas like a constitutional ban on abortion. Both Gingrich and Santorum talk quite openly about the virtues of bombing Iran. Romney’s temperature runs cooler in all these areas. Not to mention his past record of pro-choice, pro-gay rights positions. As Jon Chait notes today, the GOP establishment is defending Romney but also working hard to push him to the right.

  • lienadrijov

    Rick Warren is DEFINITELY scared of George Stephanopoulos. But the reasons why are a bit more complex than just a lack of good, polished (and sane) rhetoric.

    For example: Stephanopoulos might question Warren’s involvement in Rwanda and Uganda in regards to criminalization of homosexuality. He’s named both countries “Purpose Driven Nations.” He’s very close to both countries’ presidents. He’s poured $millions into AIDS programs. He’s also opposed needle exchange and AIDS prevention programs unless they preached “abstinence only.”

    The U.N. recently adopted a non-binding agreement (which Obama signed) to oppose discrimination against homosexuals. Both African countries (like 36 others in Africa) criminalize homosexuality. Rwanda has, in the past, meted out penalties of LIFE IMPRISONMENT. It is now considering a law making it a capital offense for just BEING gay!

    Imagine this question from Stephanopoulos to Warren:

    “Pastor Warren, given your influence in Africa, especially in the two countries, Rwanda and Uganda, influence as a result of your efforts towards AIDS relief, and given the fact that you’ve stated that you are not anti-gay, have you ever tried to have those countries change their anti-gay policies?”

    Stephanopoulos is professional. He would know about discriminatory policies in Africa.

    Warren would not be able to answer the question. At least, not well enough to anyone’s satisfaction.

  • lienadrijov

    P.S.:

    Amy, thanks for the insightful post. It sheds more light on a man who just might be, well…a bit sinister.

  • serveothers

    Perhaps when lienadrijov starts pouring “$millions into AIDS programs” he can start putting his own requirements on the associated programs.

    Also, some of Amy Sullivan’s own “words have lost their meaning.” In my interpretation, being anti-gay does not mean being anti-homosexual, rather it means being anti-homosexuality. In the same vein, being anti-adultery is not the same as being anti-adulterer. I don’t personally know Rick Warren, nor have I attended his church, but I have read one of his books. I’m pretty sure that he is both anti-adultery and anti-homosexuality, and that he would turn neither a homosexual nor an adulter away from his church if that person was searching for an understanding of God.

  • Friar Tuck

    Rick Warren is as irrelevant as . . . well, as you are, Amy Sullivan. He sold a lot of books once, but the caravan has moved on.

  • Deggjr

    Very informative article Ms. Sullivan. I hope Pastor Warren drops “the influential leader who mobilizes religious conservatives for political ends”. As the comments already show, it just muddies his primary message.

  • zielwolf1

    servetheothers: You can’t be anti-gay without being anti-homosexual – it just doesn’t make sense. Homosexuality is not a more or less morally measureable existential act, eg like an act of adultery; nor (unless you accept the world’s medical establishment is totally wrong) is it a sexual perversion like pedophilia; it is an identity. Saying you’re anti-homosexuality but not anti-homosexual makes about as much sense as saying you’re anti-heterosexuality but not anti-heterosexual. If that statement seems like nonsense, it’s because it is, just like being ok with gay people but not with gayness is. Think about being against blue-eyedness but not against people with blue eyes, or against Dutchness but not against Dutch people per se – it’s just crazy. I don’t believe people who say they’re ok with gays but not with homosexuality, or they hate the sin but love the sinner, because no matter how hard you try, sooner or later your anti-homosexuality will mean you have to unfairly discriminate against and morally judge the homosexual individuals who comprise the social set “homosexuality”.

  • Matt

    This ia a complete bailout from Warren. This could get ugly, too. You don’t mess with Stephanopoulos…

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Warren’s other habit is to do his best to agree with whomever he’s speaking to.
    .
    Good thing Jesus didn’t have that problem……
    .
    Long before I knew who Rick Warren was, I visited the Saddleback Church as a tourist. All I can say is that the celebration of wealth that the entire enterprise represents would have appalled Jesus to no end. To then learn that Rick Warren is an unprincipled hypocrite adds no new information whatsoever.

  • gysgt213

    “For a man who is arguably the most famous religious leader in the world after the Pope”
    .
    He is?

  • akd124

    serveothers: There’s no such thing as being anti-homosexuality but not anti-gay. Being gay is not about behavior; it is some people’s God-given constitutional orientation, their identity. Committing adultery is an act–a behavior–that breaks a promise to a spouse and presumably hurts him or her. One is not constitutionally an adulterer; “adulterer” is not an identity. Being gay hurts no one; being gay is a morally neutral state, as is being heterosexual. Gay people are part of God’s diverse creation. This will be the revealed truth of our time that Christians must come to understand and embrace. Anything less unjustly excludes some of God’s people from the community of faith.

  • nhautamaki

    Right wing religious leaders still persist in believing homosexuality is a simple choice. If it’s so simple, why have so many high ranking right wing church leaders and politicians been caught in homosexual encounters?

  • larry278

    This cancellation of an appearance on Short Geo’s Sun AM whatever could mean that Pastor Rick is seriouly ill. Easter Sunday is the big day for all Christians. Pastor Rick missed preaching at his church too. Pastors are given to preaching a really big sermon on Easter. If Jesus had not risen from the grave-there would be no Christianity. To go on a Sun AM talk show on Easter morning shows that Pastor Rick has poor judgmen. Neither he nor his flock would have a church if Jesus Christ hadn’t risen from the grave.
    Short Geo may be important but he isn’t Jesus. Somebody needs to talk to Pastor Rick about his duty to God & his flock. As I understand it- Pastor Rick’s 1st obligation to God, then to his flock. Pastor Rick made a decision to short change Jesus & his (Jesus’s & Pastor Rick’s people) when he chose to appear on an Easter Sun AM, live, talk show. Pastor Rick might want to pray about his duty as a minister of the Gospel.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    serveothers
    .
    You would be wrong. Saddleback Church specifically bars homosexuals from becoming members of their church. And no, I am not joking nor exaggerating.

  • Dee in Columbia MD

    Thanks for the post Amy, if only so that I could find out about Warren’s roll in criminalizing homosexuality in Africa. Now lien didn’t include any links so that I could verify this info but I will definitely try to find out for myself, any help you could offer would be helpful.
    .
    Man if true, we ought to have a proposition 9 that makes it criminal for Americans to export our worse characteristics abroad. Words have consequences and its about time that right wing zealots, regardless of whether they have learned to disguise their wingnuttiness in public, should have to pay for the pain they cause other people.

  • gysgt213

    “It’s why when he’s talking to Larry King, Warren mentions his gay friends and says he “never once even gave an endorsement in the two years Prop 8 was going.”
    .
    Was that not a lie? That wasn’t agreeing or not agreeing. It was a lie.

  • sirdaav

    I am pleased to say that you are completely wrong… he is not the second biggest religious figure after the pope.
    I live in Canada and the UK and nobody here has heard of him. Sounds like that’s a good thing!

    So he’s not very big if it’s America only, is it?

  • nhautamaki

    sidaav your criticism only works if you can name somebody bigger. I guess Ayatollah Khomeini is a lot bigger if you count people outside of Christianity though.

  • rustyreturns

    “Man if true, we ought to have a proposition 9 that makes it criminal for Americans to export our worse characteristics abroad”.
    .
    Why not just ban everything you far left liberal extremists don’t like Dee. That way you can be really happy and “diverse”.
    .
    It is left wing extremism that is ruining our country before our very eyes. It is the move to Socialism that is destroying the contstitution. It is so-called progressive liberals who want a world that is filled with the wackiest ideals seen in America to date.
    .
    It is people like you Dee that are zealots.
    .
    I happen to defend choice. If you choose to be gay, so be it. If Rick Warren and Saddleback church chooses to ban gays in their church, so be it. It is their right to do so. Just because you do not agree with their stand on certain issues doesn’t make your opinion right.
    .
    F@ck off Dee and the rest of the bigots on this blog.
    .
    And in case you do not know what the word BIGOT means, enjoy.
    .
    “noun . a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion”

  • yoshiattack

    When it comes to gay marriage, Warren dearly wants to be a Southern Baptist who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman–but also a man whose gay friends understand he’s not intolerant. He appears to have missed the fact that the gap between those two impulses is what the debate over gay marriage is all about.
    -
    Wait, Amy, I have a qualification. One can still believe in the biblical definition of marriage within his own church while refusing to press it upon a secular society by such measures as Prop 8.
    -
    Now, if churches would be forced to grant weddings to gay couples and/or recognize the marriages of those couples in a religious context, that’s a whole different ball game – but it is also unconstitutional, as far as I can tell. Perhaps some of the gay marriage advocates here could reassure me?
    -
    SG:

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    yoshi
    .
    There is no way for the federal government to make churches grant or officiate weddings to gay couples UNLESS the Church uses its facilities in for profit endeavors like allowing it to be rented out to private citizens for other kinds of events. In that situation federal discrimination laws would come into play and the gay couple’s right to rent out the property would be upheld but the church still couldn’t be compelled to officiate the ceremony.

  • yoshiattack

    When it comes to gay marriage, Warren dearly wants to be a Southern Baptist who believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman–but also a man whose gay friends understand he’s not intolerant. He appears to have missed the fact that the gap between those two impulses is what the debate over gay marriage is all about.
    -
    Wait, Amy, I have a qualification. One can still believe in the biblical definition of marriage within his own church while refusing to press it upon a secular society by such measures as Prop 8.
    -
    Now, if churches would be forced to grant weddings to gay couples and/or recognize the marriages of those couples in a religious context, that’s a whole different ball game – but it is also unconstitutional, as far as I can tell. Perhaps some of the gay marriage advocates here could reassure me?
    -
    SG:
    serveothers
    .
    You would be wrong. Saddleback Church specifically bars homosexuals from becoming members of their church. And no, I am not joking nor exaggerating.

    -
    Serveothers is still correct. Rick Warren will not turn away a homosexual or adulterous individual from attending his church. He will, however, politely refuse to admit them to membership because if his church is run anything like most Christian denominations, members have to be baptized after acknowledging a code of beliefs (adherence to the Bible being one of them, which speaks against homosexuality). Letting either of those two groups in without evidence of an effort to reform their ways according to the teachings of the church would be an implicit legitimization of their beliefs.
    -
    Keep in mind, according to the beliefs of Saddleback, homosexuality endangers individuals by keeping them from heaven. They wouldn’t want to give the false impression of salvation to somebody who can’t get it because they refuse to change their lifestyle – that would be rather cruel. Saddleback is open to these people, though, so they can hear the message of salvation in the first place.

  • yoshiattack

    Oops, double post.
    -
    SG, thanks for clearing that up.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    yoshi
    .
    Thats a reach what you are saying there to say that serveothers is unequivocally correct. I know plenty of churches that don’t require baptism in order to join. And there is no specific dictum against adulterers being able to join the church but there is one for gays so the analogy of serveothers simply doesn’t work. Honestly Rick Warren can run his church however he wants to, thats what most pastors do. I am just talking about having an honest discussion about how he runs it.

  • penalcolony

    Being of Warren’s generation, I can understand that the enormous success of his book tempted him to believe he could become the Billy Graham of his generation, a conservative Protestant icon respected by all.

    Trouble is, the job’s not available any more. In Graham’s heyday . . .

    . . . “everyone” (90+%) was Christian: now it’s just 75%;

    . . . the vast majority (70%) was Protestant: now it’s 55%;

    . . . conservative Protestantism had not been politicized into a largely one-party faith;

    . . . and the relatively primitive state of media technology made it easy for public figures to please divergent groups by taking contradictory positions — without getting caught.

    That Warren continues to behave as though none of this has happened makes me suspect he’s just not very bright.

  • yoshiattack

    SG:
    Practicing adulterers, i.e. those who still openly engage in adultery, would most likely not be able to receive membership in Saddleback. Neither would those who believe adultery, or for that matter, murder, is okay. Those who have committed those sins in the past, however, would still be accepted, since every human being on earth is sinful. In the same way, gays who are still openly gay (a sin) would not be accepted, but gays working on reforming their lives or former gays would be accepted.
    -
    Whether Saddleback requires baptism or not is tangential if, like most other churches, membership means that an individual has committed to believing that certain aspects of human behavior are wrong. It doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll STOP right away, but it means that they recognize those behaviors are a sin and they must be stopped. A person who insists the gay lifestyle is okay by Saddleback’s religion, therefore, would not be admitted into the membership rolls.
    -
    The exact quote from serveothers was “‘m pretty sure that he is both anti-adultery and anti-homosexuality, and that he would turn neither a homosexual nor an adulter away from his church if that person was searching for an understanding of God.” That still holds correct. Whether the person decides to sit down in Saddleback is a decision totally in their court.
    -
    Since I am not personally a member of Saddleback, I realize I can’t speak with complete accuracy on their policies, but if Rick Warren was to admit a practicing adulterer into his membership rolls, that would be very strange indeed.

  • yoshiattack

    *gays who are still openly gay (a sin) and believe that’s okay religiously

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    yoshi
    .
    The question is then why isn’t there a specific dictum against ALL percieved sins of the flesh? Do you think they ask the members if they are currently in a adulterous relationship? I don’t. But evidently they DO ask prospective members if they are gay. Now if you can find any information on them asking prospective members if they are adulterers, thieves, liars, or engage in blasphemy then I will be more than happy to see it. I always thought that churches accepted members in as they were because you don’t become a Christian when you finally reach perfection. You become a Christian when you are trying to get there. At least thats what I was always taught. Thats why Jesus himself hung around with all manner of sinners to preach his gospel. He didn’t have any litmus tests so why should the church of today? Again Rick Warren has the right to run his church as he sees fit, but specifically prohibiting gays and not just all sinners for membership is counter to the belief that he would also turn away adulterers. No sin is greater than another, again from at least what I was taught.

  • tonybrown74

    I would gather that Desmond Tutu, the Archbishop of Cantebury, and the Dalai Lama are probably more popular religious leaders than Rick Warren. Pastor Warren might be somewhat popular in the United States, but I doubt people know who he is outside our borders.

    You really shouldn’t use hyperbole in your articles. It kind of detracts from your main point.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    adherence to the Bible being one of them, which speaks against homosexuality
    .
    For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God.
    .
    Reliance on Leviticus for your menu of behavior that is considered sinful is a pretty poor recipe for relevance to anyone, God included.
    .
    The fact that the Bible is cherry-picked by everyone who refers to it at all is conveniently ignored by the faithful and faithless alike. The idea that homosexuals are particularly sinful compared to the rest of humanity is quite unsupported by Scripture let alone common sense. It just happens to be fashionable to continue to discriminate agains them in this current epoch. This too shall pass.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    Rick Warren for all of his faults IS known globally. Some of that is because of his outreach in Africa. Some of it is because of his World AIDS forum. I don’t know that he is second only to the Pope but he is up there.

  • yoshiattack

    SG:
    Perhaps you could source this dictum for me so I can see it for myself.
    -
    Other than that, Saddleback believes in the 10 Commandments. It pretty much goes as a given that anybody who thinks that breaking one of those is okay is not on the Christian path just yet.
    -
    If they really do just ask members “are you gay?” and leave it at that, Saddleback’s policy would indeed be a farce. A better worded question would be “do you believe that homosexuality is wrong according to the Bible?” Obviously, somebody can’t just reform themselves overnight. However, I would like to see their specific questions if you can find them.
    -
    In regards to membership, of course newly minted members can’t fix all their problems right away. But, as I posted before, they have to accept they have problems to begin fixing them. Somebody who doesn’t accept that their homosexuality runs counter to the Bible would therefore not be a candidate for membership. Do you honestly see anything wrong with that?

  • yoshiattack

    PD, again, Christians must RECOGNIZE CERTAIN PRACTICES ARE WRONG. It doesn’t mean that they’re going to stop them right away – often, that’s impossible – but that they should make every effort to stop them. There is no “sin meter” that declares gayness has a higher “sin magnitude” than adultery or for that matter anything else. But gays must recognize that their behavior is wrong and work to reform it in many churches that believe that way.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    yoshi
    .
    It was up before the inaugration and then Rick Warren caught so much hell for it that he took it down but I will see if google cache has it.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla
  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    But gays must recognize that their behavior is wrong
    .
    So certain people are born condemned to a life of celibacy through no choice of their own, and we’re supposed to beleive that this is the will of a Loving God? And we’re supposed to accept the judgement of a very wealthy man who willfully ignores Jesus’s admonitions about attaining earthly wealth and passing judgement on others to represent that God to Orange County, California?
    .
    I can call such situations many things but Holy is not among them.

  • illiniemags

    Just as an aside… I think the Warren Beatty/Halle Berry movie “Bulworth” only has one L. It is spelled “Bullworth” in the post.

  • FlownOver

    nhautamaki:
    .
    Two words – Dalai Lama.
    .
    Could we seriously consider excluding “people outside of Christianity” when identifying someone as “arguably the most famous religious leader in the world after the Pope?”

    I’m guessing snark.

  • yoshiattack

    Being a non-member of Saddleback, I can safely say that I’m not comfortable with Rick Warren’s lifestyle. As for your other objection, every human being is born with a tendency to sin and everybody has their struggles. Gays are no different.
    -
    SG, thanks for the source. The screen references “someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle.” The act of repenting is confessing your wrong and asking God for forgiveness, something that would be counter to a hypothetical person who insists that homosexuality is religiously OK. Again, Saddleback doesn’t say that the gay person must never incur another homosexual sin or else they will be dropped. Christians commit sins, just like other human beings. The difference is that Christians are supposed to recognize and fight to quench those sins in their lives through God’s power. So bottom line, from that snippet, I don’t think Saddleback’s policy is unfair.
    -
    Implementing their policy, of course, can be done in a right or wrong way.

  • mikewall

    Gosh its amazing how many of these people have absolutely no idea what this country stands for. Yes its a free country – that means that bigots like Warren DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE against Gays, African Americans, Women or any other group! The Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law – that means that if you don’t like gays and lesbians marrying – TOO BAD – they have that right in our country!! I’ve never seen so much hatred masquerading as religion in my life! Jesus Christ would smight all of you for the hatred that you spout while professing to be his followers!

  • nhautamaki

    FlownOver yeah of course I thought of the Dalai Lama about 1 minute AFTER hitting the submit button… =[

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    mikewall
    .
    I don’t know whose comments you are referring to. In fact I kinda bet you didn’t even read the thread before you started typing. However I should point something out to you. Separation of church and state cuts both ways. The government is precluded from controlling or infringing on most religions to carry out their religion as they see fit. Thats in the constitution. Its why some indian religions can smoke hallucinogins. Its also why some churches can bar gays or whomever else they want to from becoming a member. We can feel free to protest but that is their protection under the law in exchange for them not being able to push their beliefs on others outside of the church nor have any state sponsored religion. THATS what our country stands for, whether you are happy about it or not.

  • Friar Tuck

    Umm, mikewall . . . Here’s a suggestion: (re-)read the gospels. Jesus wasn’t into the smiting thing. Maybe you missed Good Friday?

  • http://www.below-the-fold.com/2009/04/wanker-of-the-day/ Wanker of the Day | Below The Fold

    [...] Rick Warren [...]

  • sagevoice

    So many opinions, but so few facts. First and foremost, Rick Warren is the senior pastor of a Southern California congregation, and that is his primary calling. Here are just a few concerns:

    1) The show airs at 6:00 am pacific time. The first Easter Sunday service at Pastor Warren’s church is 9:00 am. There would have been time to do both, so he didn’t bypass his responsibility to his congregation by agreeing to remote in to a talk show.

    2) Pastor Rick presents that message 13 times over several days, and each time is about 75 minutes. Isn’t it possible that he was actually not feeling well, and needed to conserve his strength for the remainder of the Easter Sunday services ? Yes, he was there, in the pulpit. Did anyone here actually view the message ?

    3) Much is made about the comments on Larry King, and the previous comments on belief net, and in the email to members. Rather then just accept the blogger interpretations of those statements, try reading the exact text, in context, and see if they got it right. You may find they twisted the interpretation.

    4) Its nice someone visited Saddleback Church, but to call it a wealthy showplace is a real stretch ! It is practical, and it fits the community in which it is located, but its not some iconic temple. In fact, the main worship center is pretty much an oversized gymnasium with bleachers and stackable chairs … and a very simple wood pulpit. Yes, its a large facility, but that is necessary with over 20,000 people a week in attendance for worship services alone.

    5) Finally, for the person who is concerned about abstinence only programs, can you please define any other methodology that will work 100 % of the time ? Do you believe those infected with aids are really being fair to others when they continue to have sexual relations ? Do you really think condoms and other methods can provide 100 % effectiveness in stopping aids ? Set all the political philosohies aside, and the only fact that exists is that abstinence is the most effective method for stopping the spread of aids.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Jesus wasn’t into the smiting thing…
    .
    Though he did rather take strong exception to that commercialization thing…

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    sagevoice
    .
    I could debate every single point with you but rather than that lets focus on good old number three. Please explain from your point of view how they “twisted the interpretation” of what Rick Warren said in context. If you can’t I would have to wonder why that is.

  • juniusredivivus

    Friar Tuck Says:
    Monday, April 13, 2009 at 11:18 am
    Umm, mikewall . . . Here’s a suggestion: (re-)read the gospels. Jesus wasn’t into the smiting thing.
    .
    .
    .
    Moneylenders and temples do rather come to mind….

  • juniusredivivus

    And yes, Rick Warren is scared. He’s got away with soft bigotry delivered to people with low expectations for years. Now the spotlight is focussing on what his “Christian” message realy is, and he doesn’t like it one little bit.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Speaking of moneylenders and temples, I seem to recall that the Saddleback Church features a souvenier shop……hmmm……

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    http://www.saddlebackresources.com/en-US/SmallGroups/LifeManagement/ManagingOurFinances.htm
    .
    Let me guess. Sell all that you have, give it to the poor and follow me……
    .
    No?
    .
    Managing Our Finances God’s Way is a Focus on Purpose series.

  • dubblefelix

    “SG:
    Practicing adulterers, i.e. those who still openly engage in adultery, would most likely not be able to receive membership in Saddleback. Neither would those who believe adultery, or for that matter, murder, is okay. Those who have committed those sins in the past, however, would still be accepted, since every human being on earth is sinful. In the same way, gays who are still openly gay (a sin) would not be accepted, but gays working on reforming their lives or former gays would be accepted.”

    Look up Matthew 19. Anyone who gets a no-fault divorce and then remarries is a practicing adulterer. John and Cindy McCain are both unrepentant adulterers. Would Rick Warren turn them away if they tried to join his church? Probably not. The Saddleback web site explicitly stated that gays couldn’t join, but made no mention of people who were working on their second or third or fourth marriages. Rick Warren is a hypocrite.

  • yoshiattack

    You make a good point, and if the Saddleback Church did indeed do that it would be hypocritical.

  • Friar Tuck

    Re: Moneychangers in the Temple.
    .
    Long story short, Jesus smote the furniture and drove the moneychangers out. It was the only time he did anything like that during his ministry, and he did it to make a point, not to single particular people out for punishment.
    .
    Folks who use this passage to justify violence and other messin’ around in the name of the church are . . . all too typical. But misled.

  • uoducks2009

    Ignoring for the moment the cherry-picked biblical “prohibitions” against homosexuality, as far as marriage is concerned, here in the US, marriage is a legal, SECULAR, partnership.
    Despite the fact that most of the weddings are performed in some sort of religious location (Church, Temple, etc.), the underlying legal basis of the wedding is from the government. If you doubt this, then why do people who wish to perform weddings have to go the government to become licensed to perform weddings and have those marriages recognized as being legal? The Southern Baptist Convention doesn’t issue marriage licenses, the Vatican doesn’t, The high muckity-mucks of the Mormon Church don’t, etc., etc., etc….
    It is also perfectly legal for 2 people to go down to the local courthouse and have a fully legal and recognized wedding performed by the Justice of the Peace. Having been to one, I can assure you that there was absolutely no mention whatsoever of anything religious during that ceremony and the couple was just as “married” as one that had one performed at the most anti-gay church around.
    Also, I defy anyone to show where the government has forced ANY church to perform ANY wedding! Show us what church or church leader was forced by the government to marry two atheists, for example.

    You can’t. So this red herring about the government “forcing churches” to marry gays is just that, a red herring.

    It’s just institutional homophobia that drives this issue. That and the fact that, for a lot of people, “hating the sin” is soooooo much fun!

  • jesusloveslgbts

    Maybe some of your readers will be interested in viewing this Facebook group titled “Jesus Loves LGBTs”:

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=73239845714&ref=ts

  • sacredh

    Short version of the thread: Rick lies. He’s full of sh!t. He’ll say anything to anyone. He’s surprised people notice his flip flopping.

  • profoundtoo

    Homosexuality is a sin, which makes same sex marriage a product of sin. Adultery is a sin which makes sex w/anyone outside the marriage between a man and a woman a sin.
    Sin is a condition suffered by every child born into this world. No matter how many intelligent and wealthy people scream and articulate that homosexuality is normal, it will always be a sin. The same way that adultery, fornication, murder, stealing, etc are all sins (seperate us from relation with God).
    God doesen’t hate people who practice homosexuality, he hates the act because it is not what he intended for his most precisous creation. He did not intend for us to be liars, thieves, murders, or homosexuals. He expects us to be changed into his image (protrayed to the world by Jesus).
    I know this is nothing new to any of you, but it is the truth and the truth will make you free.
    God is real and he is Holy. No matter what I do with the life he has given me, he will always be real and Holy. His son died on the cross that I may be able to receive his spirit. His Spirit brings the new birth experience required by all mankind to escape the punishment of sin that God will bring on everyone that habitually practices sin.
    No matter how loud or often you say homosexuality is normal, it will always be sin.

    Love

    profoundtoo

  • secretsofsurvivaldotcom

    I’d like to respond to the poster that wrote: “Gay people are part of God’s diverse creation.”

    If Gay people are part of God’s diverse creation, so are murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and crooked politicians, and corrupt churches…

    Let that serve as as very clear point that although gay people are in the world, God does not condone gay people. He calls all people to repentance, and he is going to destroy a lot of gay people (and murders, and liars, and thieves, and adulterers, and followers of false religions in the end times of earth). What god do you follow? According to the Bible, that tells us the story of Sodom and Gommorah’s destruction, following any other god breaks the First Commandment: Thou shalt not have any other gods before me. If you promote gay behavior, and believe that God condones it, you’re deceived by Satan and you have turned away from the full teachings of the Bible.

    What’s it going to take for modern day people to accept Biblical truth? God’s Word tells us not to corrupt it. Christ warned that in the end times many would be “deceived”. Wake up and realize that this is occuring. This article shows just one more example of corruption in the churches, and corruption in the world’s values.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    it is not what he intended for his most precisous creation..
    .
    He also didn’t intend for our heads to outgrow our mothers birth canal making childbitrh excruciating. But there it is….

  • souzapeixoto

    As a former atheist who had a personal encounter with God this is an experience that shapes my (rather incomplete) understanding:

    When I was voting at home with respect proposition 8, I understood that homosexuality is banned in the Bible, however a wave of emotion overcame me and I thought and felt ‘I cannot in good conscience vote to deny somebody a chance at happiness’. And I can’t explain it, but I felt God support my decision..

    I think its not about the issue itself, but about how ‘pure’ your motivations are when you make that decision (and trust me, I’m definitely not a ‘pure’ guy, but in this instance I did feel I voted correctly). Homosexuality is still an ‘error’, but by demonizing the people and polarizing the issue so intensely, its no wonder they dig their heels in the sand and rebel.

    I’m reading the Bible right now, and in my current understanding, Pharisees are alive and well in our current spiritual leadership.

  • sacredh

    People do not practice homosexuality. People are homosexual. It’s a genetic condition like blue eyes or big feet. People no more choose to be homosexual than they choose to have big feet. Placing homosexuality into a category with adulterers or murderers is ridiculous. I won’t apologize if that offends anyone because if they believe that, they deserve to be insulted.

  • bladesong1

    Let me be very clear here: No one CHOOSES to be gay.

    You’d have to be insane to willingly choose to be a member of one of the most universally hated minorities in history. One that it is still considered “acceptable” in many circles to discriminate against to this very day.

    I have known many people who wish they weren’t gay, who wish they could just get married and have a family, and never have to worry about getting their heads bashed in one night for their “sin”.

    Many of the men are, frankly, physically incapable of having intercourse with a woman, and both the gays and lesbians who are capable that I know are simply disgusted by the thought.

    I have had many who have had sex with members of the opposite sex tell me how afterwards they were left with the sick feeling that they’d done something done something horribly unnatural.

    There is no choice in being a true homosexual… but there IS choice in discrimination.

  • Art Pepper

    But according to the same book, if the people of the city want to rape the strangers, it’s OK to offer your daughters in their place.
    .
    Amy: Thanks for an interesting post. I don’t agree with the first half (I think you are letting Warren off the hook a bit), but you nailed Warren’s fundamental hypocrisy. He can’t have it both ways.
    .
    And may I add, I’m really sick of people I’ve never met trying to “protect” my marriage from “the gays”. Worry about your own damn marriage. (NOM, I’m looking at you.)

  • yoshiattack

    Art, there is nothing in the Bible that judges Lot’s words as “okay.” It simply records the history of the encounter. To insinuate otherwise is disingenuous. Remember, the angels he was trying to guard saved the whole family from the mob.

  • http://www.agnostic-library.com/ma/2009/04/13/the-purpose-driven-coward/ Miscellanea Agnostica » The Purpose-Driven Coward

    [...] to have appeared on George Stephanopoulos’s show yesterday (Sunday, April 11, 2009), but he canceled at the last minute, as George disclosed to [...]

  • Art Pepper

    But wasn’t Lot a righteous man? Was this a momentary lapse of righteousness? Or did Lot know the angels would protect them, so it was a bluff? Honestly I don’t know. Most of the stories in Genesis are actually quite strange. Possibly it’s a mistake to read Genesis as a straight-forward moral handbook for the 21st century.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Here’s an interesting compilation:
    .
    http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html
    .
    Fortunately as humanity grows, our conception of God grow with us. Otherwise it would be necessary to worship a tyrant.

  • http://thecommonloon.blogspot.com commonloon

    It’s understandable that Amy can’t mask her frustration with Warren’s late scratch from “This Week” since it was supposed to be her weekend scoop. However, I’m not sure if this automatically means the mega-pastor is “scared” of a host as mild as Mr. Stephanopoulos.

    Love him or hate him, Warren is deft communicator who loves doing media interviews in front of big audiences. Conversely, Amy and George were looking forward to some sparks flying but got shafted at the last minute, not unlike long-faced kids after discovering the ice cream is sold out just when they got to the front of the line.

  • http://thecommonloon.blogspot.com commonloon

    It’s understandable that Amy can’t mask her frustration with Warren’s late scratch from “This Week” since it was supposed to be her weekend scoop. However, I’m not sure this automatically means the mega-pastor is “scared” of a host as mild as Mr. Stephanopoulos.

    Love him or hate him, Warren is deft communicator who loves doing media interviews in front of big audiences. Conversely, Amy and George were looking forward to some sparks flying but got shafted at the last minute, not unlike long-faced kids after discovering the ice cream is sold out just when they got to the front of the line.

  • yoshiattack

    Art, actually, Lot had a habit of screwing up. Living in Sodom was the first mistake; then, later on, he got drunk and was essentially date-raped by his daughters to create incestuous children.
    -
    You probably won’t abandon your irresponsible snark, but know that you’re unfair and uninformed.

  • Friar Tuck

    Love him or hate him, Warren is deft communicator who loves doing media interviews in front of big audiences.
    .
    This may no longer be true. It certainly hasn’t been working out so well for him lately, as the 68 comments on this thread bear witness. Public self-contradiction with recording devices present will do that to you.

  • fhmadvocat

    The problem is that Pastor Warren took a position on Proposition 8 and now he’s trying to say otherwise. Be a man and stand by your convictions! Pastor Warren did not have to take a position on Proposition 8. He could have simply said homosexuality is incompatible with the Bible, but Proposition 8 is a political issue of which he did not have an opinion. After all, he didn’t tell his parishioners whom to vote for (I hope).
    As far as the comments regarding homosexuality, I think many on both sides have missed the boat. Homosexuality is both an orientation and an act. One can be a homosexual and never act on one’s impulses. One can not be homosexual and engage in a homosexual act. While I believe one’s orientation is not a choice, one’s actions are. That’s why when it comes to having pastors who are gay or not, the Catholic Church offers the “perfect” solution-be celibate.
    Some have argued that homosexuality is an identity. I think that short changes people. I am a heterosexual, but I don’t feel that it is my identity. Now, I know it is different if I were gay, and I can take my heterosexuality for granted. I don’t have to worry about being stared at if I hold my wife’s hand. While not gay, I can appreciate I am privileged as a straight guy. When younger some of my male friends used to pretend to be gay, just to see how people would treat us.
    Unfortunately, discrimination against Gays is considered acceptable because bigots rely on the Bible. My parents were adulters (mom was divorced when she married dad), but I doubt anyone would claim their union was a sin. Yet they were sinners (and I a bastard), whom should have not been allowed to be members of a Christian church. Yet I don’t remember anyone asking them to repent from their “sin”, and from a totally personal perspective, I am glad.

  • http://thecommonloon.blogspot.com commonloon

    Friar Tuck,

    I’m no fan of Rick Warren, but it’s premature to proclaim his demise on the basis of his bungled attempt at moderate conservatism on the gay marriage issue. For better or worse, most evangelical pastors of churches large and small do not support gay marriage so there’s no big surprise there.

    The irony in all of this is that Warren’s meandering indecision is an indication that unlike many on both extremes of right and left, he’s not trying to make gay marriage a single-issue litmus test as many on both the left and right are doing. The blogosphere would be shocked to discover that Warren spends most of his time talking about things other than homosexuality.

    Perhaps the central question is this: Is there such a thing as a moderate position on gay marriage (i.e. civil unions) that will not get you villified by either extreme? Or is this a cut and dried issue in the culture wars where we must take up arms against anyone who even flirts with the enemy?

  • saddlebackmember

    Here are the facts. I attend Saddleback, I am a Christian with an open mind and heart, and here is how I see it. Rick speaks his mind and is not perfect. He stands on what the Bible says about choices we make. Most of what I read here are from those who have not heard Rick’s context. He had about one minute to answer a 10 minute quaestion, because Larry King’s audience is large, and largely secular, with different world views. If you are of an understanding nature, listen and see how this unfolds. You may actually have to look at things from the Christian perspective, because, like it or not, it is a freedom of choice you have. Then you can honestly say you saw it from both sides. Al the “prop activists” who were gathering and looking somewhat foolish on the corners of my church, well, I felt kinda sorry for them, because they were welcome to sit in our church with the rest of us and hear first hand what Rick says, but instead, they caused police and county monies to be spent on watching them, because of the distraction they felt was presented. I saw water being delivered to them from the church.

    Example: If someone gathered out side, for example, “Mr Jones’” house, protesting Mr Jones without even knowing him, would Mr Jones have him hauled off or bring him water?

    Agree or disagree, our church is peaceful and forces itself on noone. Unlike other agendii. “Whether they like it or not…” Give Rick a break, and spread some love. Or just be quiet. He’s a good guy…

  • http://thecommonloon.blogspot.com commonloon

    Friar Tuck,
    .
    My point was not that Warren never contradicts himself or that he is somehow beloved in the blogosphere. It’s clear neither is the case.
    .
    I’m no fan of this mega-pastor, but my point was that it’s pure conjecture to suggest that a “fear” of George Stephanopoulos is somehow to blame for his no show on This Week over a busy Easter weekend.
    .
    If anything, Warren’s absence shows that he’s more committed to his day job, being a pastor, than untangling his bungled attempt at political punditry on the gay marriage hot button. This may be a single-issue litmus test for many on both sides of the culture war skirmishes, but not for Warren who has been reluctant to take a firm stand either way.
    .
    Like many religious figures whose name is an easy way to grab headlines and generate web traffic, Warren does not always think before he speaks, but he’s certainly not afraid of tough questions. Read his debate with Sam Harris on the existence of God. Plenty of tough questions there.
    .
    Here’s my question: Is it possible hold a moderate position on gay marriage (i.e. support for civil unions) without being vilified by both extremes for sleeping with the enemy? Or is this a cut-and-dried culture war issue of good vs. evil where the only option is to take up arms with one side or the other in an all-or-nothing fight to the death lest we compromise with the enemy?

  • saddlebackmember

    Hey Commonloon, I agree with you on taking one side or the other positions on multi-faceted Propositions. If I tell my family something that does not mean i am talking to the other world views. I love them but dont want to offend them because how can i show them love and truth unless they are actually receptive, in an intelligent, respectful manner. Like Jesus. Appreciate your perspective, and I guarantee, we would not agree 100 percent. On enything. except that we need air. :)

  • Friar Tuck

    I’m no fan of Rick Warren, but it’s premature to proclaim his demise on the basis of his bungled attempt at moderate conservatism on the gay marriage issue.
    .
    commonloon, note my use of the subjunctive – Warren may no longer feel as deft at communicating and may be thinking twice about large public forums.
    .
    To answer the immediate question, no, I don’t think it’s possible to hold any position on civil unions that doesn’t make a lot of people very unhappy. I absolutely support civil unions for GLBT couples. I absolutely support the blessing of such unions by the church, where they involve two committed partners in a lifetime monogamous relationship.
    .
    It so happens that by holding these opinions, I am at odds with the government of my state and with the traditions of my denomination. Them’s the breaks. Do I vilify folks who don’t agree with me? Nope. Do they vilify me? Maybe – won’t help them much! Do I expect things to change “because I’m right and they aren’t”? Nope.

  • saddlebackmember

    Hey Tuck, you sound a LOT like Rick Warren, on the way you examine things, he’s a thinker too, and takes action…. But… You pay way too much attn to the media angle. Hope to see you on our turf where you are welcome and can get your info first hand bro, NOT thru the Larry King Media Filter. Peace to ya. (ps ‘the church” can’t bless ANYTHING, but you are not responsible to know that because you just dont know…) No offense man. Really. Peace Out. Front Lines OC: i see it happening live.

  • saddlebackmember

    …ps Pastor Rick was talking about Bigots this weekend, it kind of snuffs out your previous comment bro… but, you wouldnt know, you weren’t there, but you can watch it on line for yourself, and I think it would only help you see things a little clearer. and we all want clarity, wouldn’t you agree? Signing out…
    Lord: Help me to learn this trinity of values..
    FIRST, first let me live Christ,
    Them, let me hear Him with a “fast” ear,
    THEN, let me speak with a steady tongue… guard my tongue lestit should bring You shame… May every word I speak exalt Your name… Amen (from a devotional, author unknown)

    Unconditional Peace In Christ

  • Friar Tuck

    Ah, but I do know, saddlebackmember!
    .
    I was guilty of loose grammar. The church does not bless anything as an organization, but mediates/confers/transmits (if you’re a mainliner like me, anyway) the blessing of God through the Holy Spirit through the grace of the crucified and and risen Lord Jesus Christ.
    .
    Peace to you also!

  • Friar Tuck

    Oops – used “through” twice. But you get my drift.

  • saddlebackmember

    Great forum, and great thoughts here t’day… OK Key is, every Pastor is a person, and flawed at that, so with a megapghone, and lots of piranhas with ears, who ALL hate what they see as Injustice… if we focus on Christ and the logs in our eyes, we can help remove ‘em, so we can all see clearly from Christ’s perspective, at least that’s my goal. Like Jesus narrowed it down to two when they wanted one law… funny, love your neighbor AND love God with all your heart, one is hinged upon the other. Thats the key i think. Love to all, mut get back towork, hopefully in a way that will glorify God.. :)

  • Art Pepper

    Yoshi: I’ll admit to snark. But the angels did condemn everyone in the city except Lot and his wife and daughters. So whatever his screwups, apparently they didn’t rise to level of the Soddomites.
    .
    Anyhow, my real point was that one can’t simply say, “It’s obvious God condemns homosexuality; it’s right there in Genesis” — the stories in Genesis are often not obvious at all.

  • profoundtoo

    Paul Dirk says:
    “He also didn’t intend for our heads to outgrow our mothers birth canal making childbitrh excruciating. But there it is….”

    You’re correct, but remember this happened after man’s fall from innocence.

    Sacredh Says:
    “People do not practice homosexuality. People are homosexual. It’s a genetic condition like blue eyes or big feet. People no more choose to be homosexual than they choose to have big feet. Placing homosexuality into a category with adulterers or murderers is ridiculous.”

    Sacredh please read below (Romans 7:14-25) NLT:
    14 So the trouble is not with the law, for it is spiritual and good. The trouble is with me, for I am all too human, a slave to sin. 15 I don’t really understand myself, for I want to do what is right, but I don’t do it. Instead, I do what I hate. 16 But if I know that what I am doing is wrong, this shows that I agree that the law is good. 17 So I am not the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.
    18 And I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[d] I want to do what is right, but I can’t. 19 I want to do what is good, but I don’t. I don’t want to do what is wrong, but I do it anyway. 20 But if I do what I don’t want to do, I am not really the one doing wrong; it is sin living in me that does it.
    21 I have discovered this principle of life—that when I want to do what is right, I inevitably do what is wrong. 22 I love God’s law with all my heart. 23 But there is another power[e] within me that is at war with my mind. This power makes me a slave to the sin that is still within me. 24 Oh, what a miserable person I am! Who will free me from this life that is dominated by sin and death? 25 Thank God! The answer is in Jesus Christ our Lord. So you see how it is: In my mind I really want to obey God’s law, but because of my sinful nature I am a slave to sin.

    I understand homosexuality may be difficult to overcome, but we all have our own cross to bare. Have you ever watched the predator program on MSNBC? These men are driven to seek out children (boys and girls) even though they are risking their reputation, marriages, jobs, and even their very freedom! Did you know that there are pedophiles that believe that their desires are normal and should not be illegal? I’m not comparing one with the other (both are sin) because one preys on children, but they can’t stop either. God is greater than our deepest desires (lusts). Homosexuality was nailed to the cross along with every sin known to man. But we have to believe and obey in order to access the power to overcome these desires. Sin is sin, and stealing will separate you from God just as homosexuality does. One thing about the sin of homosexuality is that people are beginning to say it is normal and some say a gift from God. God can only help those who understand and admit that they are in error and need his help. As long as anyone in sin accepts his desires/behavior as acceptable to God, God can’t help him.

  • apollyon07

    I would say Billy Graham is the most famous after the pope (lifetime audience of 2.2 billion)

  • juniusredivivus

    saddlebackmember Says:
    Monday, April 13, 2009 at 6:24 pm
    Here are the facts. I attend Saddleback, I am a Christian with an open mind and heart..

    Give Rick a break, and spread some love. Or just be quiet. He’s a good guy…
    .
    .
    If you really have an open heart, the last thing you would demand is uncritical adulation of Warren, or silence. There are specific injunctions against falsehood in the Bible, and Warren has clearly lied on a number of occasions. Nor should you pretend otherwise. And no, I don’t see that homophobia, dishonesty and soft bigotry make Warren a good guy. Rather, he’s an unpleasant guy, playing to a crowd and perverting the core message of Jesus:

    “Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord, 30and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’[s] 31The second is this: ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”

    Where in Warren’s anti-gay rhetoric do you find love?

  • yutsano

    First off, thank you Amy for substance after your loaded post below. I wish you weren’t so hit or miss!
    -
    Secondly, as a gay man, I have a quite different perspective on this issue. It is simply this: marriage is a legal contract in the United States. Two humans coming to this condition of their own free will should have the right to decide if they want to enter this contract. Unless society decides (and so far four states have decided it is permissible) to have a strong legal justification for barring that contract, it should be legal for all those choosing to enter it. Notice that precludes animals (not persons under law), child marriages (chilren under the age of 18 cannot be bound to a contract) or polygamists (the contract by its very nature is between two individuals only), but two willing humans who choose for whatever reason (not all marriages are based on love, some are exclusively for the legal benefits) to engage in this contract.
    -
    Why Rick Warren chose to cancel is beyond me, and honestly I don’t care. Maybe he knew George was going to come after him. Rick Warren must recognize, however, that he can only control marriage in his own church. Outside of it, he is a single citizen who can make his opinion known but otherwise should have no more say over policy than Joe Schmoe down the street.

  • berkeleyfarm

    Amy: Rick Warren at the least was colossally stupid to go on national air on Easter Sunday, even with the time difference (e.g. 3 hours before his own start time). I am not sure if it was ego overreaching or he is scared of GS. Maybe we should embrace the power of “and” ;) .

    Exhaustion during Holy Week is not uncommon among ministers all along the spectrum. Warren, however, has been doing this long enough that he should know better than to add to the burdens.

    I am genuinely sorry that his no-show caused you to miss services!

  • berkeleyfarm

    sgwhiteinfla (#10, first page):

    I seriously doubt that a religious organization would be compelled to rent out its facility to a group/activity it opposes. That is not the way it happens now.

    The congregation is, after all, free to refuse the booking and suffer the loss of (potential) rental income.

    So no gay marriages in churches that oppose them, whether or not the pastoral staff is involved.

    It works both ways. A friend of mine works at a beautiful UCC church in SoCal that is a highly desirable wedding venue. She is the wedding coordinator and is frequently asked to remove the GLBTQ literature in the narthex by non-members who don’t want to get married at their own ugly churches ;) . Her policy document says it stays.

  • Art Pepper

    berkeley: Yep, we hear a lot about churches being “forced” to conduct same-sex marriages. We don’t hear as much about churches whose same-sex marriage ceremonies are invalid under current law. Why are some religions more equal than others?

  • berkeleyfarm

    Sagevoice (first page):
    .
    (this time I remembered the spacers, sorry)
    .
    Its nice someone visited Saddleback Church, but to call it a wealthy showplace is a real stretch !
    .
    Maybe it is not a “wealthy showplace” by southern Orange County standards. But the standards Behind the Orange Curtain in “The O.C.” are a leeeeetle elevated. ;)
    .
    Especially when there seems to be more than a whiff of the Prosperity Gospel around the place.
    .
    (I haven’t visited myself, but my parents were duly impressed by the setup.)

  • berkeleyfarm

    Art Pepper:
    .
    My understanding is that Warren was instrumental in spreading the falsehood that churches would be “forced” to perform gay marriages if Prop 8 was not passed. Please correct me if I am wrong.
    .
    You also make an excellent point about other parishes who would be happy to host gay marriages for their members.
    .
    This, of course, blows “saddlebackmember”‘s contention that “our church is peaceful and forces itself on noone” right out of the water.
    .
    I don’t like the duplicity and double-dealing. As a committed Christian, I am constantly on the lookout for false prophets, as instructed in the New Testament. Unfortunately what I am hearing from Warren doesn’t pass the smell test which was given to me in the Bible.

  • berkeleyfarm

    Saddlebackmember:
    .
    I do NOT expect Rick Warren to be perfect.
    .
    I DO expect him to tell the truth.
    .
    I also expect him to own his own behavior.
    .
    He is, as Amy and others have noted, trying to have it both ways.
    .
    I suspect that with the loose structure of the SBC and the “cult of personality” common in these loose-structured organizations – combined with the Southern California celebrity culture – that Rick has not often had to account for his inconsistencies. He is, after all, “the star”.
    .
    These unloving/untruthful actions do not pass the tests for discernment of false prophets given to us by Jesus and Paul, either “The Spirit is Truth” or the fruits of the Spirit.
    .
    This does not build the Body.
    .
    This does not glorify Christ, and does not serve to bring all to Christ.
    .
    It is a really lousy witness and drives people away from God.
    .
    Rick’s done a lot of good, but this is sure as anything not among it. He also needs to “own” his behavior.

  • saddlebackmember

    After checking in, amazing how widespread this debate has become. I wish you all well, let’s just hope for the best, pray for our leaders (Obama, Warren, whomever si in a leadership role) instead of throwing fiery darts, because that destroys. The fingers have replaced the toungue in this debate en masse, and, well, in a conversation where you can remain anonymous and have “10 tongues” on your keyboard wit which to vent, well, better off typing something encouraging and leave it up to God and Rick to make this clear. Anything but that builds up noone, or nothing. Just another pointless protest, instead of prayer. Is your house as open as Saddleback is? Think about it. Peace Out.

  • sajoc

    Amy,

    You could no more be called the “Bible girl,” than I could the “three headed man.”

    You seem to have the “spirit of religion” without the heart. I don’t know what turned you to the left so far, but attacking Rick Warren like a hungry pit bull, won’t accomplish anything except meeting your deadline for another article.

    I think Rick’s main problem is that he’s placing his head on the “media guillotine” way too often. And this gives the sea of critics another opportunity to reach for the drop chord.

    I’m waiting for the character assassination you’ll be doing on Billy Graham. Will that be coming forthwith or do you have a “cut off” age of 80?

    Well, on the positive side… you’re not unemployed! Or living in a tent city.

    I do love you though Amy.

    http://kingdomchild.podbean.com/

  • saddlebackmember

    cool beans sajoc
    nice blog
    http://living-the-word-today.blogspot.com

  • bladesong1

    The biggest problem I see when it come to defending the anti-marriage legislation is: Why are Christians so determined to FORCE their Religious views on people through legislation? Why is it so important to compel people to conform to beliefs they do not share?
    .
    There are beliefs that do not discriminate against gays, or view homosexuality as a sin, and believe that they should be able to share their lives in marriage. Those religions should no more be forced to live under Christan religious restrictions than Christans should be forced to live under Muslim Shiara law.
    .
    Allowing same sex marriage would not impinge, in any way, upon the beliefs of Christians. They would not be expected to perform, sanction or even support such unions. They would just be expected to afford the same basic courtesy as they themselves are given. Think of it as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

  • saddlebackmember

    Bladesong, I respect your position but do not agree with you, because you are redefining something that already exists. Why do same sex couples feel compelled to be “married” anyway? Marriage is between a man and a woman. It is more than a civil union. If you wish to unite, civilly, who am I to oppose that. But for someone to decide to redefine the meaning of something that is so precious (where families start!) is, calmly put, selfish.
    Are we to redefine the meanings of words? Or the values of numbers? Putting my faith aside, I am a married man, and the definition of my life as such is so far from the purposes of that of a same-gender union causes it to be a totally different relationship. Love who you will, but please, do not infringe upon what already is, because that is “forcing something down our throats”, something I have never seen anyone of any faith do to me, unless you mean sharing an opinion. Thanks for your platform, the truth will prevail, regardless of feeble laws. God’s law stands, regardless, and it is called truth.

  • bladesong1

    That’s an interesting point saddlebackmember. However you should remember, that the “defintion” of marriage has been changed several times of the course of human history.
    .
    The Bible clearly shows multiple marriages that are currently illegal, and there seems to have been no outcry over the fact that it was changed then.
    .
    It was previously only possible to be married under the auspicies of the Church. Marriage was only valid if performed by a Priest. That definition was changed.
    .
    Marriage was once only valid if the Families agreed upon it, and doweries were paid… regardless if the two who were to be wed were willing or not. In fact, arranged (and unwilling) marriages still go on to this day, but they are not the only valid marriages.
    .
    It was changed again when formal ceremonies were determined to be no longer nessesary, such as marriages performed by secular authorities, or the acknowledgement of common law marriages.
    .
    Another change to the definition was in inter-racial marriage. Once those weren’t considered “real”, nor were they legal. In fact, Marriages between slaves were not valid either… yet another change.
    .
    I agree, Marriages is a universially acknowledged root of the family. Should gays be denied families because they do not follow the dicates of your faith? Should they not be allowed to form their families in accordance with their beliefs?
    .
    Marriage is not a Christan instition. If it were, would marriages be allowed for Atheists, or Muslims, or Jews… or any others not of the Christian faith?
    .
    Some contend that it’s only for procreation. That’s obviously not true, otherwise why would those who are incapable, or unwilling to have children allowed to be married?
    .
    Marriage is a Civil institution. It has always, traditionally, been one based in economics and social gain. Economic and social benefits currently denied based upon no logical, defensible reason other than Religious doctrine.
    .
    This is the United States of America… not Iran. The doctrines of Religion are not the basis of law, it is the acknowledgement of basic human rights and equality. We do not, and should not, allow ourselves do devolve into a theocratic state, by defending laws based soley on relgious bias.

  • saddlebackmember

    Apprec your time but we dont need a history lesson, but since you evidently rely much on historical and passed-down written word(you weren’t actually there to see it) then history biblical history must be included, wheter you claim it as your faith or not. And it starts with a man and a woman, between them and God. laws, priests, whatever. It’s all about the money and pride fro same sex marriages. The laws of God’s love supercede man’s laws, so regardless of this law passing (like alcohol vs. marijuana vs. prescriptions), we must do what is right, and put manmade legalities aside my fellow human. God made us, therefore, like it or not, His rules stand. And we have the freedom of choice wit repercussion. It’s pretty simple, loving, and fair. Take care now…

  • bladesong1

    Well, if we are going to keep to religion: Should I take it to mean that you don’t eat pork? Or shellfish? Do you believe in slavery, and that you can sell your daughter to settle a debt? You must support multiple marriages, since those were blessed by God. Let’s not forget divinely blessed genocide.
    .
    All clearly written in the Bible as being acceptable at one point or another.
    .
    If those things aren’t so good anymore, then I guess God can change his mind about what’s right and wrong, what’s acceptable and sinful. How do you know he hasn’t changed his mind on this? After all, it seems he changed his mind about Gentiles getting into paradise.
    .
    Do you presume to know the mind of God? Perhaps he has chosen to speak his will through those who seek to gain marriage equality.
    .
    Since I don’t pretend to be all knowing, I just have to go with this: Believe as you believe, so long as you do so honestly, and follow that belief in truth. But likewise allow others to believe as they believe without forcing your beliefs onto them.

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/14/does-fox-news-have-it-in-for-rick-warren/ Does FOX News Have It In For Rick Warren? :: Swampland – TIME.com

    [...] up on Rick Warren’s cancellation of an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Dan Gilgoff learns that while the pastor was indeed exhausted from the [...]

  • saddlebackmember

    Hi Bladesong, I don’t know all that much, but here is what I do know and understand (where belief comes from…): We were made in God’s image, and He loves us, whether He agrees with either of us or not. Religion has nothing to do with faith in Christ. We have freedom of choice, as a part of God’s plan Should you choose to see this from the Christ-centered perspective (“Christian if you will, quite a broad label) you should be in church. I know the non-”Christian” perspective, because I used to be of it. Good as it may seem, nothing compares to life in Christ. I hate noone. And I trust this whole issue to God, but my main concern is the ill thought anger displayed on these pages, all at a man who has done so much good. Take care, no offense intended, but disagreements make us all wiser in time… Peace to you.

  • http://time.postdown.com/2009/04/15/does-fox-news-have-it-in-for-rick-warren/ Time » Blog Archive » Does FOX News Have It In For Rick Warren?

    [...] up on Rick Warren’s cancellation of an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Dan Gilgoff learns that while the pastor was indeed exhausted from the [...]

  • bladesong1

    I take no offense. I have no problem with people who have different beliefs. I only have a problem with people who think they can force their beliefs onto others. Believe me, if people were trying to force churches to bless or sanction same sex marriage, I’d be one of those people standing firmly against such an unfair and intrusive act. By the same token though, I will stand up for civil SECULAR same sex marriage. Again, I cannot stand aside in the face of an equally unfair and intrusive restriction.
    .
    The hardest part about freedom is acknowledging that beliefs you don’t like have a right to the same protections as yours do. But, as you say, such disagreements, if entered with an open mind, do indeed make us wiser. :)

  • ruby19789

    I’m just confused as to why people are so upset about this guy. Listen if god really hates gays like some people on here are arguing about, then he or she will take care of them! Is it really your job to do his or her dirty work and spread hate? Just live your life and leave punishment up to god. I don’t believe it him or her, but I’m pretty sure if this is real, he or she is not a bigot!

  • saddlebackmember

    Bladesong, I like your style. You are honest. Doesn’t matter if I agree with you. That’s why I like everything I have read and understand about Christ, he never forced Himself on anyone, and befriended all, was honest about what he saw, and paid the price for honesty. Anyone is welcome to come to Saddleback anytime to see for themselves, online or in person. I know some folks who have been going there for years who admittedly cannot become members but are welcome just the same, and frankly, if one doesn’t agree with the Bible, well, why would they want to be members? It’s not exclusion, and it’s not a “club”, we are a communiity of believers, well, we as members agree on very basic tenets, hence, membership (maybe there should be a better word).. but… fact is they like what they hear and like the people and may at one point come to make a lifestyle change, like I did. God’s love and church “membership” are two separate things, but like Jesus said, “Love your neighbor AND love your God with all your heart…” one is hinged upon the other, accepting God is a matter of accepting sin as a separator on a personal level, between you and God, and that leads to loving your neighbors in a church setting as a member. Have a great day (all), peace and love to you.

  • broiler

    These discussions are great for discussing the hurts and bias. In the end, it is a matter of our beliefs and what our beliefs are based on. The below excerpt is from Saddleback to explain Rick Warren’s comments on the subject.

    Throughout his pastoral ministry spanning nearly 30 years, Dr. Warren has remained committed to the biblical definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, for life — a position held by most fellow Evangelical pastors. He has further stressed that for 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion has maintained this worldview.

    When Dr. Warren told Larry King that he never campaigned for California’s Proposition 8, he was referring to not participating in the official two-year organized advocacy effort specific to the ballot initiative in that state, based on his focus and leadership on other compassion issues. Because he’s a pastor, not an activist, in response to inquiries from church members, he issued an email and video message to his congregation days before the election confirming where he and Saddleback Church stood on this issue.

    During the King interview, Dr. Warren also referenced a letter of apology that he sent to gay leaders whom he knew personally. However, that mea culpa was not with respect to his statements or position on Proposition 8 nor the biblical worldview on marriage. Rather, he apologized for his comments in an earlier Beliefnet interview expressing his concern about expanding or redefining the definition of marriage beyond a husband-wife relationship, during which he unintentionally and regrettably gave the impression that consensual adult same sex relationships were equivalent to incest or pedophilia.

  • diverdeep7

    Rick Warren’s not the only one trying to remake his image — his associate Mark Carver, and a Saddleback employee who goes by the username Manutdglory, were banned by Wikipedia after being caught whitewashing Warren’s biography on Wikipedia. Have a look at: http://bonusroundblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/rick-warrens-employee-involved-in.html or if that URL is too long try this link: http://tinyurl.com/c43gaw.

  • http://www.thebiblechristian.com/?p=3428 A little of this and a little of that

    [...] Is Rick Warren Scared of George Stephanopoulos? [...]

  • freespeech91

    Okay lets start with one thing the Bible was written 2000+ years ago everyone remember that. AND its its not supposed to be taken literally and frankly parts of it are relatively unimportant. In the book of Leviticus it calls homosexuality an abomination NOT A SIN, so people who call this lifestyle ‘sinning’ its not. Also, if you were to continue reading the book of Leviticus you would also see Shell-Fish referred to as an abomination, a statement considered relatively pointless in today’s society. Therefore Since the Bible was NOT written by God or Jesus one can not claim it to be perfect and all knowing…it was written by humans, with all of our imperfections. I just thought I would put my 2 cents in because anyone who is truly religious in any form would not discriminate against others for any reason because everyone is welcome to celebrate the glory of religious beliefs.

  • http://connectionsnews.wordpress.com/2009/04/20/connections-041909/ Connections 04/19/09 « CONNECTIONS

    [...] For a man who is arguably the most famous religious leader in the world after the Pope, Warren is surprisingly sloppy when it comes to speaking in public. He acknowledged as much during an April 6 appearance on “Larry King Live,” saying that “Everybody should have 10 percent grace when they say public statements.” But Warren needs more like 50 or 60 percent grace…. Read this in full at http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/04/13/is-rick-warren-scared-of-george-stephanopoulos/ [...]

  • http://thecommonloon.blogspot.com commonloon

    Ironically, the vicious cycle of backlash and nastiness will continue even longer if we continue to allow the gay marriage issue to be framed by all-or-nothing activists and protesters who dig their trenches deeper each year. This much is clear to me: gays cannot be expected to reverse their orientation any more easily than conservatives can be expected to sit idly while the historic understanding of marriage is redefined.
    .
    Calling for a culture war ceasefire would be noble, but also unrealistic without a forum for respectful disagreement and dialogue. As I see it, the only way out of this briar patch is through the thorns. Our best option might be to actually sit down and have a sober conversation about the touchy stuff: sex, religion, fear and anger. Slogans and sound bites won’t work in a thicket this tangled.

  • oldmaninva

    I would like to make three comments:

    1) In earlier comments, the Pope of Rome (Roman Catholic Church) was referred to several times as “THE” Pope. As a Coptic Orthodox believer, I would like to inform that there are TWO POPES and THREE PATRIARCHS (who have equal status/standing in their respective branches of Orthodox Christianity as the Pope of Rome, as far as they are concerned.)

    It is TRUE that the Roman Catholic Church has taken it upon itself to claim, (and has tried to convince the other branches of Orthodoxy)for several hundred years, that their Pope has standing above the other “equal” leaders (Pope and Patriarchs) of the other four “Sees” of Orthodoxy Christianity, but that belief is not accepted by any of the other branches (Greek, Syrian, Jerusalem, or Coptic and their respective subdivisions – Russian, Ethopian, etc.) Pope = Patriarch = Pontiff

    Perhaps in the Roman Catholic Church (“See”) Catholics are taught that their “Pope” holds standing above the other Roman ordained Bishops, but that is strictly a Roman Catholic concept. It is not shared by nor practiced in the other branches of Orthodoxy. There are several other concepts, beliefs, dogmas that are strictly only Roman in nature. Their Pope being the “supreme head” of all Orthodox/”True” Christians is only one of them.

    2) “Homosexal”/”gay” love and relationships and “same sex” sexual acts are two distinct things. The Bible certainly finds “same sex” “sexual acts” as unacceptable, just as it does sexual acts of “adultry”, “incest”, etc.

    No where does the Bible condemn “same sex” “love” ( a father’s love of his son(s) or a mother’s love of her daughters is definitely not condemned or even the love of “same sex” friends and comrades. What is condemned is when “same sex” people “lie down together, as a man and a woman”; in other words, have a “sexual” relationship with each other. In fact, Saint John, at the end of his Gospel, referrs to “himself” as the disciple that Jesus “LOVED” and in whom Jesus trusted the care and protection of his mother when HE was being crucified.

    Can people enter into “same sex” relationships of “love” and “companionship” that do NOT involve performing sexual acts with each other. Of course, “straights” do it all the time and those relationships are not considered abhorrent by any Christians. Since those relationships are between “same sex” persons, they are “technically” “gay” relationships. Any other attempt to call them otherwise is just playing silly games with words.

    Therefore any “gay”/”homosexual” who enters into a “same sex” relationship with another person of his same sex, but abstains from any and all “homosexual” sexual acts with that person, is no worse than the “straights”/”heterosexuals” that do so all the time.

    I wish to remind heterosexuals that sex outside of marriage in ANY form is technically against the Bible.

    3) I also would like to draw attention to some “allowed and accepted” “same sex acts” in the heterosexual/straight community, that, though considered “wrong/sinful/unacceptable” by some heterosexuals is by no means condemned by all heterosexuals and often practiced by many without fear, shame, or guilt. I refer to sexual self-gratification. There is certainly no act of sex that can be defined as more “homosexual”/”gay” than “self-masturbation”.

    When heterosexual men or women, (many of whom are in a marriage relationship where there is no longer any sex between each other), take that form of “homosexual sex” to “releive” their sexual tensions. Some who do feel guilty, some who would like to, abstain, but, I dare say, MOST certainly do NOT abstain or feel guilty in the least when they practice it. But No ONE asks them to LEAVE a “family value” church because they take part in that most private (and homosexual)sex act.

    It should be noted that Homosexuality and Heterosexuality is a continuum. There are an extremely RARE FEW that are TOTALLY at either extreme. Most of us lie somewhere in between.

    “Heterosexuals/straights” are not asked to give up their “same sex/gay”, non-sexual, relationships and “homosexuals/gays” should likewise not be asked to give up theirs, nor their opposite sex, non-sexual, relationships as well.

    I’m amazed at all the people that view sexuality as either “gay” or “straight” and seemingly ignore all the “bisexuals” who choose to “live” an “apparent” “straight” lifestyle, but who, in their heart of hearts “swing both ways”. Or the “gays”, so ridden with guilty and shame at being something they truely wish they were not, that they enter into “straight” relationships, they really don’t want and sometimes even have childern in an effort to conceal their true feelings and desires from the condemning people around them.

    There is something that is far worse then being homosexual, its being “self-righteous”, “holier than thou”, and “better than you” in the name of some religion.

    Jesus is not recorded as teaching one single word about “homosexuality” (pro or con; that is not saying he condoned it), but he certainly spent many recorded words condemning the above referred to traits. HE taught LOVE, PATIENCE and COMPASSION towards ALL people without exception. Saint Paul and the unknown writer of “Hebrews” are the ones that are recorded as condemning homosexuality. Whether they did so with the “Blessing of the Holy Spirit” is unknown, it may be believed that they did, but it definitely is unknown.

    Its time professing Christians try harder to be real Christian” and stop throwing “rocks” at others. Let God sort out what HE does and does not like. Concentrate on the “beam in your own eye”. If you do, you will have more than enough to keep you too busy to condemn others.

blog comments powered by Disqus