HOME | CONTRIBUTE A STORY! | ABOUT MMI | CATEGORIES OF INTEREST | CONTACT ME

image

Rick Warren in Controversy Again:  This Time over Assassinations and Home Break-ins

Orginally published on Monday, December 15, 2008 at 8:25 AM
by Todd Rhoades


Should you shoot and kill a person who invades your house? And should the United States government 'take out' Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Well, Rick Warren is drawing fire (again) for his answers to these questions on last week's Hannity and Colmes.

Warren's comments has people talking... a writer at the Huffington Post says, "Seems to me that Rick Warren, one of the most popular Christian evangelical pastors in the nation, has some splainin’ (sic) to do to the Muslim bruthas (sic) when he speaks at the Muslim Public Affairs Council national convention in two weeks." Meanwhile, Religion News Service editor Kevin Eckstrom says, "Strikes me that Warren (who's generally an all-around pretty good guy) needs to be careful here that he doesn't slip into Pat Robertson territory (he knows better), who advocated the assassination of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez."

So… what’s your take?

1.  Would you shoot and kill an intruder in your home?
2.  Should the government ‘take out’ the Iranian president

Does Rick help or hurt the cause when asked about questions like this?  Should he do more or less interviews like this?

Just curious on your opinion on this one…

More here at The Christian Post.

If you liked this story, send it to a friend or post it to Twitter!  http://tr.im/2apw


This post has been viewed 1352 times so far.


  There are 35 Comments:

  • Posted by
    Monday, December 15, 2008 at 3:53 PM

    First off, Warren never said he supported assassination of the Iranian President.  He said that evil needed to be stopped...and after probe, he said “by force IF NECESSARY.”

    See the goal of Duss was to get people thinking Warren had advocated assassination so he could discredit Christians in any way he could.  Some like to jump on board and agree with him and also allow disunity among Christians.

    Hannity is called a ultranationalist hater. Thats some very nice peacemaking talk.  Why can liberals get away with name calling, fear mongering, and guilt by association so easily and no one even comments on it?

  • Posted by Brianmpei
    Monday, December 15, 2008 at 4:06 PM

    Tweed, better re-listen to the interview.  Warren responds to a specific question from Hannity (who I’ve never watched before) about the Iranian president.  He asks, “am I proposing something dark...” Warren says, “no”.

    He then eludes to Romans 13 but the point of Romans 13 is that God establishes governments to which we as citizens are supposed to submit, for good OR bad (ie taxes) as they do the work God has set out for these systems to do.  For goodness sake, Rome was as bad as it gets and you don’t have one note from Paul, Peter or John saying, “take out the Caesar” but you do have John writing to the Church saying that the martyrs blood will be avenged and GOD will do the avenging.

    Getting Warren to say anything doesn’t discredit Christianity, it just shows that all of us open mouth and insert foot on a regular basis.  Me.  Peter.  Rick.  I think pretty much everyone but my wife.

  • Posted by
    Monday, December 15, 2008 at 5:19 PM

    Brianmpei:

    “LOVE the Ehud story.  I agree that God has led people to assasinate individuals - Jael and Cisera, but one on one with an aggressor who is occupying or trying to take over your country and establish their own gods wouldn’t be a real parallel to Warren telling Hannity that God would be in favour of “taking out” a world leader who, as far as I am aware, is not occupying our country.  Neither has God left us in the time of the Judges but instead in the time of the Saviour.”

    You’re absolutely right.  We cannot take things out of context and apply them in modern-day situations when many of those promises were for that time, for that nation, for that people.  Thank you for applying good hermeneutics, because that makes my day.  =)

    I was only bringing it up because your statement was in the indefinite, saying that assassination is not compatible with defense of a nation.  I thought that this might have indicated that at least on one occasion, it did have that effect, and was even sanctioned by God, and might give us something to think about.

    But, like I said earlier, my focus in commenting on this thread was more for saying that Warren seems to be digging a lot of holes for himself recently.  I just hopped onto this tangent for a quick moment.  =)

    --
    CS

  • Posted by
    Monday, December 15, 2008 at 5:46 PM

    Derek,
    You get no award from me from being ignorant enough to “talk down” an intruder...furthermore, I question how smart your intruder is since he did not do something other than talk to you...You do not mess with that, call the police or shoot the dude.  I have a gun and if you come into my home you gave up your right to see another day!  Do unto others as they would do to you!  Oh yes, if you come into my home uninvited I have loved you by putting you out of your misery to feel like you should have to do this again!  All tounge and cheek folks...don’t get too upset…

  • Posted by Connie Coyne
    Monday, December 15, 2008 at 6:19 PM

    You should never kill anyone. Christ taught that. To make that choice can be hard. More of our so called Christian leaders need to learn to turn the other cheak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sLkioKFLEE

  • Posted by Rick White
    Monday, December 15, 2008 at 7:19 PM

    brianmpei

    You obviously misunderstand my question.  I was not implying nor should you infer that I believe Ahmadinejad has built death camps.  My point was to push back on your absolute statement, regardless of who it’s directed toward.  I would be curious at what point you believe it’s appropriate to oppose evil unto death?

    Further, you keep bringing up Romans 13 like everyone is misusing it and you’re applying it correctly.  Your argument amounts to (and I paraphrase) “governments are not given explicit permission to commit murder on the heads of nations”.  Bravo!  You are correct.

    Romans 13 (and the rest of the Bible) also does not give governments permission or exhortation to study cow emissions.  What’s your point?  Your using the arguments that conservatives get beat up for all the time...taking the Bible so literally that “if the Bible don’t say it, we shouldn’t do it”.  It’s called an argument from silence and is and example of POOR hermeneutics. 

    The truth is, Romans 13 is a wonderful “proof text” for the wide latitude given to governments under the authority of God to wield it’s power in whatever way it sees fit to be a “servant for our good”.  In that sense, Warren is correct...it is NOT too “dark” to contemplate assassination as an option in some cases because it is perfectly in line with the wide latitude given to governments. 

    You are free to disagree with government policy and work for candidates that hold your views, but to say that governments do not have the right to assassinate (where is that in the Bible?) is arrogant presumption.

  • Posted by Ariel
    Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 1:00 AM

    Maybe it’s the Texan in me but I wouldn’t think twice about defending my home and family, even if I had to use deadly force.

    About Iran ...I don’t know. The American in me says yes, the Christian in me is not so quick to decide.

    I’m just glad I don’t have to make that decision, and I pray for wisdom for those who do.

  • Posted by Brad Raby
    Tuesday, December 16, 2008 at 12:39 PM

    I’m convinced that Rick could answer a question about what sneaker he preferred, and it would be controversial in some way.

    This is a ‘bunch to do about nothing’

  • Posted by Daniel
    Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 11:30 AM

    Romans 13 is probably the most misunderstood passage of Scripture within so-called ‘just war’ evangelicalism. A helpful corrective would be to start with Romans 12. Or better yet, start with the sermon on the mount!

    Sadly, many Christians think they can leverage (a misinterpreted) Paul against (an eminently clear) Jesus. Jesus called his disciples to nonviolence (do good to your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, turn the other cheek), but of course that doesn’t apply to anyone who works for the government, right? I mean, after all, Paul says… Oh and it doesn’t apply to self-defense either right? I can just blast those intruders away, right? ...

    Did Jesus maybe have a certain picture in mind for the what the community of his disciples would look like? I think so. I’m saddened that we miss the point so often.

    God help us to be loving, to be creative, to be nonviolent, and, above all, to be faithful--to obey your commandments.

    Peace,
    -Daniel-

  • Posted by
    Thursday, December 18, 2008 at 1:47 PM

    daniel, if someone was going to kill your family and you had a chance to stop them with a gun, would you?

    • Page 2 of 2 pages

     <  1 2
Post Your Comments:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Live Comment Preview:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: