I'm sitting here, trying to process my numerous reactions to the Saddleback thing, all of it somewhat complicated by the fact that I'm on the other side of the world and hearing different angles on things (in part b/c all of my angles come from the blogosphere). If you didn't see it, you can view the video here. So, first of all, on Rick Warren.
In the end, this did little to recommend Warren to me. Not so much b/c of what he said or did during the forum (although the questions were slanted pretty far to the right) but because of what he said surrounding it all. First of all, this:
That's why to say that evangelicals are a monolith is a myth, but the other thing is that you've been hearing a lot of the press talk about 'Well, evangelicals are changing, they're now interested in poverty and disease and illiteracy, and all the stuff I've been talking about for five years now. And I have been seeding that into the evangelical movement and it's getting picked up and a lot of people are talking about doing humanitarian efforts. But I really think it's wishful thinking on a lot of people who think they're going to drop the other issues. They're not leaving pro-life, I'm just trying to expand the agenda....
Yeah, Rick. You and just a few other people. And some of them have been working on expanding that agenda for more than 5 years. And judging by the cheers at Saddleback, it didn't sound as though Warren has been as successful as he's giving himself credit for.
This all felt a little to me like Warren is trying to become the new voice of conservative Christianity. Thanks, I'll be my own voice. I've had enough of Robertson and Falwell and co. and think we could do just fine without a spokesperson for awhile.
My other big gripe is his response to the "cone of silence" business. He's running around on Larry King claiming that accusations that McCain had heard the questions beforehand are outrageous and outright lies, etc. The source of his trust (knowing that McCain wasn't there when the program started and that he wasn't there for 30 minutes into it)? "The Secret Service would have told me". Are you freaking kidding me? Are you daft? Because the Secret Service, yeah, their job is to rat out the people they're protecting. As though the Secret Service would EVER provide Warren with that kind of information. Absolutely unbelievable. And to the assurances that the monitor in the green room had been disconnected, well, there are these two little things called The Internet and Cell Phones. Just claim that you take McCain's word for it and promise to do a better job next time around and leave it at that. (and what the heck is a "cone" of silence anyway???)
Re: cone of silence.
ReplyDeleteRick Warren has obviously recently been out to see the "Get Smart" movie.
And Talinn may be young enough to have grown up without "Get Smart" reruns.
The irony is perhaps that the cone of silence in that show did not work very well either. And it's primary function was to frustrate desired communication between Max and The Chief. Oh, and get a few laughs.
Warren should indeed have chosen a better name.
I will leave others to comment on the actually important stuff in Talinn's post. But having wasted several hours of my youth watching "Get Smart" re-runs I could not let this one go.
Sad Daniel. Very sad. Several hours of a life, waisted. (He says after a 7-episode marathon of "Arrested Development" last night.
ReplyDeleteWarren came off a lot more conservative last night. I'm impressed that he got the candidates to do this, but I'm not sure it was wise for them to do it - esp since there were several other "issue groups" who tried as well. What does this say that the first forum was in a church? If I was not a believer, I would be upset. (Not sure I'm not questioning it even as a believer).
There is no doubt the Warren is becoming a "next voice." I'm not sure of who...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteIf the blogosphere is any indication, there are a lot of secularists who are VERY upset that Christians had this opportunity at all--let alone that it was the first such event. I appreciated the opportunity to hear more substantial answers on faith (from one candidate, anyway), but I don't think this forum did anything to change how mainstream American sees conservative Christians and that, frankly, has me pretty irritated.
ReplyDeleteWarren was pretty presumptuous to propose such a thing and he definitely made himself representative of us all by doing this. Although it could have been much worse, I'm not really happy with how we were represented.
And I maintain that Warren is way behind the curve with his "civil forum" idea. Central has been there, done that:)
I am still trying to decide what I thought of this and will probably watch it a second time. While Warren might be preferable to Dobson as far as representing evangelicals, I was super annoyed with his questions on stem cell research and abortion.
ReplyDeleteSigh.