Newswise — It often makes me sad that Christian fundamentalists have commandeered the phrase, "What Would Jesus Do?" It's disturbing because it could be a useful perspective to consider how the historical Jesus — a complex mix of prophet, rabbi, leader, rebel, feminist — would respond to contemporary situations. Here's a prime example: Rick Warren is interviewing presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain. As a self-described Christian preacher, Warren is charged with carrying out the mission and ministry of Jesus. His decision to insert himself into the political fray really does beg the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" Should Rick Warren engage — and implicitly endorse — political candidates?
It's a complicated question. The complication, though, is less about politics and more about Rick Warren. As the head of Saddleback Church in California (http://saddleback.com/flash/#) and the author of the bestselling book, "The Purpose Driven Life," Rick Warren has a significant following. Depending on the source, estimates of his church's membership varies from 23,000 to 80,000. Surely, this man must possess great theological truths that he shares with his followers.
Ironically, Warren's theological positions are not what draw thousands to his church. In fact, you're hard pressed at most mega churches to even find solid theology. From the moment they are built, mega churches are designed to draw in, not spiritually transform, the public. Overwhelmingly, the physical design, art, music, and schedule of programs and services are all constructed to bring in the masses. Generally, a mega church determines its target audience, and then decides which approach it will use to attract and retain members.
Why does this approach work? One might think that either church attendance is on the rise (it's not) or the messages of Warren and other like him must be very special. That's not it either. Rather, commercial churches deliver the message the listener wants to hear. Some commercial church leaders, like Bill Hybels " the founder of Willow Creek Church in Illinois (http://willowcreek.org/MiniSite/default.asp) — have gone out and polled their neighbors about what they wanted in a church and then created a church to meet those expressed needs.
Despite their unique evolution, let us not underestimate the growing importance of commercial churches. In 2005, Peter Drucker stated that the mega church is the most significant sociological phenomenon of the 20th century (http://pewforum.org/events/index.php?EventID=80). These churches and their leaders are clearly a force to be reckoned with. It's not like Senators McCain and Obama are heading to a mainline Christian church, mosque or synagogue. Instead, they chose the largest non-denominational church they could find.
Commercial churches " and their leaders - understand that their livelihood depends on getting bodies in the seats and their mission and ministry is to bring in those bodies. That pesky guilt and obligation that many of us grew up with in church is nowhere to be found in commercial churches. And, while that may be deserving of a hallelujah, you're also not likely to find genuine discussions of grace, mercy, love, forgiveness and sacrifice.
In their mission to keep the bodies coming in, commercial churches often attempt to engage every aspect of their congregants' lives. Day care centers, medical centers, employment agencies, coffee shops, banks, and more are often housed in mega churches. Is it good to bring people together to share fellowship in these areas of their lives? Sure. But, from a commercial perspective, it also makes good business sense. By attending to members' every need " social, physical, psychological " the church keeps the faithful, well, faithful — at least to the church. Even more, they keep their dollars in-house.
By now it's easy to see some parallels between mega church leaders and politicians. Like many mega church leaders, politicians, too, design their campaigns and platforms around what their constituents hope to hear. We've seen both Obama and McCain "nuance" their message in response to the reactions of their constituents and the polls. Like church leaders, they certainly know their audience and plan their interactions in ways that are least alienating. Politicians understand that their livelihood depends on getting bodies to the polls and their mission is to bring those bodies forward. How then can we expect Rick Warren to inform the public in a political debate when he and his political mate basically share the same agenda?
You see, there should be one stark similarity between the Rick Warrens of the world and our political leaders. The public has a right to expect to hear a prophetic voice from both religious and political leaders. Not a voice that predicts the future, that's not really prophecy. A prophetic voice speaks out against injustice, laments the status quo and speaks truth to power. Even more, a prophetic voice provides the energy and encouragement to help others, like us average Janes, to go out and change the world; authentic prophecy incites action towards freedom and justice. When you hear "prophet" think Martin Luther King Jr. or Mahatma Ghandi.
Clearly, we should expect or even demand such a prophetic voice from our political leaders. No matter which side of the aisle one sits on we should expect our leaders to stand against injustice and give a voice to the voiceless. We should demand that our commander in chief encourages all of us to take action to improve not only our own lives, but the lives of those around us and around the world. That would be a prophetic political voice. Don't expect to hear that during the upcoming forum, though. When Harry Smith on the CBS Early Show asked Rick Warren why he's engaging the candidates, Warren's response was that they (Obama and McCain) are "both friends of mine" and they trust him to "ask civil questions." That's not exactly fertile ground for prophecy to emerge.
And yet we must expect our religious leaders to be prophetic and speak truth to power. They should challenge our political status quo; demand that change be defined and liberating, and that cries for victory at any cost be challenged. For Rick Warren to share a stage with Obama and McCain should necessitate that Warren challenge them: to demand that they let go of what is comfortable and take on the mantle for genuine change. Warren should demand that our political leaders articulate a vision and a plan for bringing about social justice. It's not enough for Warren to bring each of these men forward and to allow them to simply espouse their beliefs. And yet Warren won't do any of these things because, like them, Rick Warren is about pacifying the nation, not transforming it. At the end of the day, Rick Warren, Barack Obama and John McCain must do what for them is the impossible: speak out against the very systems of which they are surely a part.
Surely that's what Jesus would do.
Mary Hinton, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of religious studies and director of the core curriculum at Misericordia University in Dallas, Pa. Dr. Hinton received her doctorate degree from Fordham University after completing her dissertation on mega churches in America. She is currently preparing a manuscript titled, "The Commercial Church: The New Face of Religion in America."
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/the_great_saddleback_debate/
RSS