As a navel-gazer, I was depressed by Saddleback. It seemed the butt end of Christianity: stripped of history and iconÂography, wholly immersed in its secular surroundings, constructed according to a business model and promoted by motivational speakers ”“ bland, cheerful, dull.
We drove away, past immaculate housing estates and strip malls iterating chain restaurants and shops, replicated in every suburb from coast to coast. I wondered why anyone would want to live in that charmless place, much less to get more of the same at church.
As per the author’s critique – just perhaps you aren’t the congregation’s target. The arrogance of some Christians never ceases to amaze me.
Why would anyone want to live there? LOL!!! That’s where I spent more than half my childhood. It’s hard to believe that she wasn’t seduced by the weather and the beaches just a little bit.
Ralinda, she does live there. San Diego, no less. Click on the url by her name in the article.
By there I meant Southern California, of course.
[blockquote]It is directed to secular ends which, arguably, should be promoted by secular means. Saddleback is religion for people who don’t like religion: transcendence is not on the menu.[/blockquote]
Harriet Baber is spot on with this! Places like Saddleback have endless “self-help” groups that, yes, offer something of Jesus but not the FULL Jesus, lest they offend. It’s PC Jesus, Buddy Jesus — the commodity that gives His all and asks nothing in return, not repentance, life-changing dedication, not even love. And, most strikingly, not a spiritual environment in which one gazes upon the Cross, an altar of sacrifice, or anything that might make one feel moved, challenged, or disconcerted.
I agree with her suggestion that this false attempt to “church” people through what amounts to support groups isn’t far removed from secular social work and really should be left to the secularists. In fact, in many parts of the country, social workers who ARE committed people of faith probably minister more meaningfully and authentically than these Saddleback people.
“Saddleback is religion for people who don’t like religion: transcendence is not on the menu.”
I think these are outrageously uninformed, superficial comments with no other aim than mockery. Of course, this church offers the Christian religion with its transcendence–the transcendence of Christ’s triumph over sin and death, the transcendence of redemption. What more should one ask? And who is Baber to decide they’re not enough?
I’ve never been to Saddleback. I met Rick Warren at a meeting of pastors (97% baptist, and a couple of stray Episcopalians, myself and maybe one other as I recall) a few days after Katrina. And then I heard RWarren speak at the big network conference in Pittsburgh a while back. I’ve read his books. And I’ve watched him pilloried by his critics, including lots who have little direct knowledge of him.
Where is the foundation for the criticism that he teaches Buddy Jesus who expects nothing from anyone? A quick visit to the Saddleback Website (where an offering for Haiti was in the feature popup before anything else), I found this quotation in their “what we believe” section:
[blockquote]ABOUT SALVATION
Salvation is a gift from God to man. Man can never make up for his sin by self-improvement or good works – only by trusting in Jesus Christ as God’s offer of forgiveness can man be saved from sin’s penalty. Eternal life begins the moment one receives Jesus Christ into his life by faith.[/blockquote]
I wonder how many TEC clergy (from the PB on down) are so clear in their teaching as is Saddleback in its statement of belief.
Please, Brien. Websites can be very clear about posting their “statements of belief.” Worshiping with them in person is an ENTIRELY different story and a more authentic gauge of practice and belief, IMO.
I LIVE in mega-church country and I’ve been to a fair share of them for a variety of reasons. They’re slick and non-challenging. They make you “feel good.” MANY of them preach the “prosperity gospel” and strongly imply a direct correlation between God’s favor and personnel wealth and success. Often there isn’t even a simple cross, let alone a crucifix, in their worship space.
There’s also a sense of busyness about them — a plethora of groups and activities to meet every need. It’s something like an overscheduled family who arranges play dates, a plethora of sports and different types of lessons, leaving little time or value for contemplation and quiet.
I realize that, among conservatives, there seems to be a desire to promote whatever is called “evangelical” but I think that more discernment is needed than that. Quite a few non-denom, evangelical “worship centers” have lost their way and are leading their people down a yellow brick road.
I haven’t attended Saddleback, either, but I have read some of Rev. Warren. I think it is now popular with the secular press to bash him for his Christian morals, and I consider this article to be part of that movement–or at least motivated by secular concerns entirely. It’s hard to believe all he’s been called as a result of his supporting ACNA, speaking for Prop 8, and upholding Biblical morals in Uganda (though not recommending the death penalty for homosexual crimes, as he is charged with doing). I’m sure you all remember from the news the kind of impact that Warren’s book _The Purpose-Driven Live_ has had (even according to the secular press). Do you remember the 2005 Atlanta case of Brian Nichols (as I recall), who murdered several people in the courthouse and then held Ashley Smith hostage until she read to him from Warren? Apparently the book persuaded Nichols to give himself up. Smith was reading it because it was a great help to her in battling drug addiction (as I remember it). I would not be quick to judge Warren as does the shallow, opportunistic writer of this article. It seems to me that we should be especially loath to do so.
All that Rick Warren and Saddleback offers is works righteousness and Law. Check what Chris Rosebrough of Extreme Theology, http://www.extremetheology.com/, has to say about Rick Warren.
Good link, Lutheran-MS! I especially like the article in which Warren and Osteen ask Jesus to step down, heh.
I notice they use the word “Market-Driven churches” a lot. I read an in-depth article on church growth several years ago called “The Market-Driven Church” but I can’t seem to find it now. (At the time, our parish was sending representatives to Willow Creek for ideas, sigh.) Anyone familiar with this article?
Preach it, Harr! Yes, I MUCH prefer the youth, vitality, prayerfulness, evangelistic zeal and biblical orthodoxy of, er, um…. Californian Episcopalians?
I have a different take from most here . . .
RE: “The model of a modern megachurch, Saddleback boasts over 112,000 “unchurched occasional attenders” as well as 22,800 active members . . . .
I’d be fascinated to learn from Baber what she recommends be done with the 112,000 unchurched who are now attending occasionally his church. Is it that they should only have two choices — her kind of contemplative “transcendent” church or no church at all? Those are their choices, according to Baber? And by jingo it’d be best if they just went nowhere if they won’t accept her kind of sophisticated, nuanced church [which obviously they haven’t]?
I’d love for everyone to read Tess of the D’urbervilles rather than the Twilight series, and the Confessions rather than the Da Vinci Code. But that’s not the America we have. They’re not interested in the kinds of things I like.
If I lived in the area, it’s highly highly doubtful that I’d attend Warren’s church. I would find it tediously boring and deadly dull . . . I’d probably attend an EPC church or wander around looking for the one traditional Episcopal parish within a 100 mile radius. . . . But then . . . there is no question in my mind that the vast vast majority of Americans find my taste in worship and church tediously dull as well — poor ignorant souls that they are! ; > )
The one book that I managed to get my unchurched friend to read and understand was Purpose Driven Life. It was *immensely* helpful to her — and she was far far too uninformed to be able to struggle through something as simple as Mere Christianity or something else similar. It was not at all the prosperity gospel either, as is Joel Osteen’s stuff. It was solid — though very very very simple and basic and with short chapters.
But . . . I think that’s where we are in our culture. And I do think that there need to be churches for folks whose reading consists of the Da Vinci Code and who don’t know what the word “font” or “verse” means.
Sarah,
Much of what you write makes sense. But the larger problem in my past experience, is that those churches rarely challenge those people about whom you speak. They don’t teach them what “font” or “verse” mean. IMO those “unchurched occassional attenders” aren’t taught the importance of regular, communal worship – a conviction that would transition them from “occassional” to “regular” attenders. Once attending regularly, and hearing solid preaching and receiving the sacraments, they might actually grow in their love of God and mature in their faith.
Again, in my experience, that scenario is more the exception than the rule.
I agree with you, therecusant. But what if we looked at churches like Saddleback as “starter churches.”
You’re talking about having a “multi-tasking” church — that is, a church that can start off people slow and then slowly build them into discipled, informed, catholic Christians aware of reason, tradition, and Holy Scripture, schooled in the sacraments, and familiar with the Patristics.
I just don’t see that a church is all that good, though, at appealing to *both* the populists who grow less and less educated by the decade, and the intellects [and those words are not chosen with the notion of implying that “populists” don’t have minds — it’s about cultural acceptance and attraction].
The niche contemplative churches just aren’t all that appealing to people raised on the Twilight series and the Da Vinci Code.
What I have noticed — over and over — is that seekers will often come into the Saddlebacks, spend some years there, get converted, get a bit of discipling, work some of the kinks out . . . and suddenly realize “there is more.” Then they start exploring.
In a sense this goes along with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Get “survival” taken care of and eventually one works one way up towards interest in . . . other things . . .
Anyway, none of what I’m saying above is something that I’m going to start a new religion over. I’m just musing and analyzing . . . based on many years of working with Gen-Xers . . . and Gen-Yers . . . and some Millennials . . .
Teatime: I am still looking for the proof of Buddy Jesus. I offered the quotation from the website because it doesn’t look like Buddy Jesus to me. What have you got to refute what they publish? A satirical blog from a Warren critic doesn’t really support your assertion. I don’t need to defend Warren and am not in a position to do so; I’d just like to know the evidence for your criticism from his words, preached or written, or his actions.
Sarah: You are right about the idea of starter churches. The steady stream of evangelicals from churches like Saddleback (and other more traditional evangelical churches too) into Anglicanism is evidence that people start in one place and grow. I have for a long time considered that the liturgical churches can’t do evangelism very well (and evangelical churches can’t do liturgy well either). Liturgical churches provide the best foundation for growth in discipleship (what used to be called sanctification). But conversion often eludes the liturgical churches.
Do people here really believe that Robert Duncan invited this man to speak at the opening of ACNA because he was a money-grubbing sub-Christian with no appreciation for good doctrine or liturgy? What kind of elitism judges a minister’s doctrine by the building style surrounding his church?
The Recusant says, “Once attending regularly, and hearing solid preaching and receiving the sacraments, they might actually grow in their love of God and mature in their faith.” Yes, this is what happened to a relative of mine at just such a church, making a miraculous difference in his life and his family’s life. He would not think it was just a “beginner” experience but all the difference between the fallen state and redemption.
16. Brien,
ATTEND one of these mega-churches a few times and you’ll have all of the proof you need. These preachers promise all sorts of tangible riches for those who “accept Jesus.” And who WOULDN’T, the way they present Him? Nothing is asked of them because “Jesus paid the price.” Personally speaking, I was told by one of these that I have a serious illness because I don’t completely accept that Jesus paid the price for my sins — if I DID believe and accept that completely, Jesus would cure me. These people do serious damage on a daily basis. I’m not a fan, and for good reason. Jesus is my Savior, not my buddy or some sort of Santa God.
As for Rick Warren himself, the man is a political animal who schmoozes with whichever politicians’ stars are rising. You can’t serve two masters.
Teatime. Thanks for writing back. I really don’t need instruction about the pitfalls of megachurches. I grew up in Texas. I’ve been there and done that.
You have some serious pain caused by the type of church you are talking about (I am sorry that happened to you; I once had to clean up the pastoral mess caused by an Episcopal priest who preceded me in one parish after he told a woman “you didn’t have enough faith and that is why your mother died”), and you have an attitude about Rick Warren (your closing tag line above) that isn’t going to lead to any useful talk back and forth between us.
Talking about “these people” and “these mega-churches” still doesn’t get back to my original question about Warren and “Buddy Jesus”. But, I give up, and I’m moving on.
Teatime at #5 wrote:
“Harriet Baber is spot on with this! Places like Saddleback have endless “self-help†groups that, yes, offer something of Jesus but not the FULL Jesus, lest they offend. It’s PC Jesus, Buddy Jesus …”
The trouble is, teatime, this is not what Harriet Baber wrote. There is nothing in her article about Saddleback’s failure to offer “the FULL Jesus”, indeed nothing about Jesus at all, really. You try to read a spiritual aspect into Ms Baber’s article which just isn’t there.
You may well have grounds to criticise Saddleback Church, but I am still at a loss as to what they are, except that they are large. Sweeping statements about “these preachers” (which apparently refer to anyone who is a pastor of a large church) don’t really help.
[blockquote] I’d be fascinated to learn from Baber what she recommends be done with the 112,000 unchurched who are now attending occasionally his church. Is it that they should only have two choices—her kind of contemplative “transcendent†church or no church at all? Those are their choices, according to Baber? And by jingo it’d be best if they just went nowhere if they won’t accept her kind of sophisticated, nuanced church [which obviously they haven’t]?[blockquote]
Alas I missed this one so it’s probably too late to comment. I’m not suggesting that there be only two choices but that the Episcopal Church frankly and boldly offer “transcendence”–which has, since liturgical revision, been increasingly scarce. It’s become even even more scarce since, desperate for growth, churches have looked to these evangelical mega-churches as models.
I believe that quite a few of those 112,000 who occasionally attend Saddleback and many more “seekers” who are currently experimenting with eco-religiousity and New Age crap, would be attracted by the Episcopal Church if it pulled out all the stops, went gung-ho for high-church and mysticism, and aggressively showed its wares. People simply don’t know that churches offer the beauty, mysticism and metaphysical frissons they’re looking for. This style of religiousity has simply become invisible as generic evangelicalism has become the public face of religion.
Saddleback is not a “starter church.” It appeals to people who have some church experience, have a vague notion that they should be going to church for the sake of the children or whatever. It beats what they remember of church as children–dull Sunday School, dull services, deadness. There’s activity and a buzz.
The Episcopal Church at its best is the starter church because it’s immediately and intensely appealing. Walk into a high church service with all the stops pulled out–smells and bells, fancy clothes and silverware, elaborate ceremonial, gorgeous music–and you will be bowled over. This is a triple banana split with whipped cream, nuts, gooey chocolate sauce and a cherry on top: an intensely pleasurable, sensual experience. Who wouldn’t fall for it hook, line and sinker if they just saw (heard and smelled) it? Show this glorious stuff to people, and make it clear that the Church doesn’t make windows into men’s souls, and people will come. If the Episcopal Church unabashedly did it’s high liturgical thing and advertised as aggressively as evangelical megachurches people would stampede to get in. Why would anyone want the pablum Saddleback offers, at a significant cost, if they can get that triple banana split for free?