LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA - I was sad to hear of the death of a beloved scholar Dr. Michael S. Heiser who died on February 20, 2023. To me, he was an intellectual mentor even though I never met him face to face and only caught on to his ideas last year.
He quickly became a hero of mine because of his total commitment to telling the truth. For example, he had a fresh take on how to interpret the Bible that explained the meaning of
various passages that were so confusing to me in the past that I would just
skip over them. (As would just about everyone else.)
For example, there are passages in the Bible where God
refers to the others in his midst, the Elohim which is a grammatically plural
noun for "gods" or "deities" or various other words in
Biblical Hebrew.
Heiser pointed out that the God of the Old Testament had an
assembly of divine beings that he presided over to help do his work, just as
the Pharaoh in Egypt had a household of officials.
The idea that God has a team of other Gods hanging out with
him is controversial because it seems to undermine the monotheism of
Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
Heiser was a practicing, believing Christian who thought
that it was best for the faith that followers understand this supernatural
feature of the Bible. In his view, Christianity would be improved and the Bible would be easier to understand if theologians and other faith leaders accepted his view of the unseen realm of the Bible.
He explained questions like
How did descendants of the Nephilim survive the flood?
Who are the assembly of divine beings that God presides
over?
In what way do those beings participate in God's decisions?
Why do Peter and Jude promote belief in imprisoned spirits?
Why does Paul describe evil spirits in terms of geographical
rulership?
For me, his views also explained odd features in the Bible
including the role of giants, the famous Nephilim who are mysterious beings, or people who are large
and strong. Personally, I don't see how you really understand the Bible if you
forget about, or ignore the way, it sets up a role for giants, particularly the
giants who are believed to have died in the Great Flood.
How else do you make sense of the idea that it was okay for the followers of Joshua to slaughter the giants they encountered when they first found land for themselves in Israel?
How do you make sense of the David and Goliath story without understanding the back story about the role of the Nephilim?
Ultimately, I admired Heiser because he was honest, brave,
and fearless about being absolutely real about the Bible.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist who has taught at many of our nation's formerly prestigious schools including Williams College in MA.
LAGUNA NIGUEL, CA - I just learned about who will be replacing Rick Warren, 67, the senior pastor at Saddleback Church. The new senior pastor will be Andy Wood, 40, of Echo Church which has a three-campus and online program up in the Sunnyvale, San Jose, and Fremont, CA area.
As far as I can tell, one of Andy's chief virtues as a candidate for the lead pastor position was his wife, Stacie Wood. Stacie is a teaching pastor at Echo Church and would have the same role at Saddleback Church. She is more telegenic than her husband and is perhaps well suited to such a role. This approach would represent a further movement in the direction of ordaining female pastors which the church initiated in 2021 to the chagrin of those who hold to the tenents of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). Apparently, Echo Church has similarly been in the crosshairs of SBC complementarians because of allowing women to preach.
Warren, as you may know, is leaving due to health problems. According to Christianity Today, he told the church last year that he has spinal myoclonus, which causes tremors and blurred vision, and that it has worsened in recent years.
Rick Warren was a pioneer in creating a “seeker” church that is designed to not turn off the newest visitors. In fact, the essence of the seeker concept is that the Sunday service is purely focused on attracting new people. The actual religious services of the church take place mid-week instead. This makes the Sunday services an all-hands-on-deck performance piece for the newest visitors. As such, he was part of a larger movement to take the word “Baptist” out of church names to make them more seeker-friendly.
I first got the news when one of our small group members from Saddleback Church forwarded me a copy of a video of Andy breaking the news to his existing Echo Church followers. He and his wife Stacie were quite emotional, and tearful, in delivering the news to their flock.
Ever since I moved to Laguna Niguel, I have been interested in following the story of who would succeed the charismatic mega-church pastor who built a small church into an international monolith based on the ideas in his book Purpose Driven Church (1995). This was a book that was later vastly over shined by his exceptionally successful The Purpose Driven Life (2002) book. More news about this appointment is available on the Saddleback website.
In this video, Andy mentions he was an early convert to the book in 2001 and that it inspired his own church-building, and church planting efforts. Moreover, Andy earned a master’s degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, as did Rick Warren.
All in all, I have to say I found them to be charming, and easy to look at the couple. His wife, Stacie, looks like she could be a Christian broadcaster. Stacie reports she was inspired by Kay Warren's book, Yes to God: A Call to Courageous Surrender (2010).
What do I make of the choice based on my understanding of charismatic leadership? First, it is almost impossible to follow another charismatic leader. No matter what, there will never be another Rick Warren, not for a century or more. Consequently, whoever follows in his footsteps will be forever labeled as less than no matter what they accomplish. Among charismatic leaders, the sustainability of their efforts is almost always shaky at best. A ministry based on a charismatic leader like Rick Warren can easily unravel in their absence due to a scandal, a schism, or a poorly implemented plan.
As George W. Bush often joked about his father George W.H. Bush, "I inherited half my father's friends and all of his enemies."
So, I start, pessimistically, by observing that Andy has a difficult task. Listening to Warren's over-the-top self-confidence and assurance is always a bracing experience. Nevertheless, it is a tough, even impossible act to follow. Even for someone like Andy who appears to be a sincere student of his approach.
Personally, my advice to him would be to bring with him as many of his current staff as he can so that he has a strong, personally loyal team around him. This too would be an homage to Rick Warren, who employed his sister's husband, Tom Holladay, as his somewhat awkward, even goofy, right-hand man since 1991. What Andy may not fully realize is that his success at Echo Church was a team effort and that it is not always so easy to retain one's charisma in a new environment with a different leadership team in place.
What else? There are a lot of ways the church, by which I mean Rick Warren himself, might have gone in picking a successor.
First, it looks like Saddleback was conservative racially. They picked a white guy with a white wife. In a sense, the Warrens have replaced themselves with a younger version of themselves.
This meant that Rick Warren probably considered and turned down the opportunity to hire an extraordinary black, Latino, or Asian pastor. Doing so would have symbolized the movement of the church into a perhaps more contemporary minority-majority direction and placed greater emphasis on its growth internationally.
For me, I was assuming that Saddleback would end up with an Asian or Hispanic lead pastor. After all, I tend to see Rick Warren as perhaps too left-wing for the good of his local church, but left-wing enough to the advantage of his international church. I remember Trish and I were particularly disillusioned when he made an early exit during a veterans day service and left the job of thanking U.S. veterans to the always cheerful Holladay instead.
Likewise, I thought Warren was wrong to go along with the recent mask mandates, lend support to the Black Lives Matter cause (thereby offending law enforcement), and - most recently - violate the tenents of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in 2021 by ordaining three women pastors.
This, as you may know, is contrary to the Convention's confession of faith which asserts pastoral ministry is reserved for men. According to Christianity Today, Saddleback was reported to the Credentials Committee, which is charged with deciding whether or not a church is in “friendly cooperation” with the denomination. Significantly, though some churches have left the SBC after naming women as pastors, the denomination has never officially removed any church for having a female pastor.
Previously, Warren distanced himself from conservatives by focusing too much on people with AIDS, opposing the use of waterboarding, and contributing to global warming hysteria.
Second, it looks like they made a decision to go with a relative unknown rather than an existing, Christian celebrity figure. I am particularly thankful Warren did not hand over his ministry to Edward John Stetzer, 56, who would have probably brought both stature and an unpleasant aura of wokeness to a church that has already gone too far to the left for my tastes. Stetzer, as you may know, is the Billy Graham Distinguished Chair of Church, Mission, and Evangelism at Wheaton College and Executive Director of the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College.
Finally, it is clear that Rick Warren decided it was best to bring in an outsider as well. The most normal approach would have been to promote the next senior pastor from among the ranks of the existing pastors. Here, technically, I think Rick Warren made the right decision. Charismatic leaders typically surround themselves with less powerful people, in large measure, to prevent anyone from outshining them. Accordingly, I am guessing that an insider would have been someone with less boldness and less business/entrepreneurial experience. Bringing in a talented outsider may have been the only way to actually bring in new talent at all.
From the videotape above, it looks like Kay and Rick Warren believe they have found younger versions of themselves. Kay, in particular, is blown away by the things the two couples have in common and the coincidences they share.
Given Stacie's confidence in front of the camera, it looks like the Warrens wanted to leave in their wake not just a strong individual leader, but a strong couple.
After all, at Echo, Stacie is regarded as a teaching pastor. She will apparently have the same role at Saddleback.
Will that be enough of a difference, that is a useful edge, to keep Saddleback Church thriving for the next decade or so? At least it gives Andy of fighting chance of differentiating his approach from Warren's approach. Then again, it may be that the Warrens have set him up for failure already.
Is Warren betting that having Stacie serve as both a female teaching pastor and the senior pastor's wife is the wave of the future? I am completely sure that this is the case. Frankly, I think it is a mistake. To the extent that Kay influenced Warren's ministry, I think she influenced it in a negative direction. Caving into the feminist approach to mega-church leadership cannot possibly end well.
Is this part of a larger effort to bring men into the church by first bringing in their wives and children? Potentially, that is the case. Unfortunately, by feminizing the church, Warren's successor may very likely take away the conservative approach which made the church so attractive to its local followers in the first place.
Again, what is my take? I think Rick Warren has always believed the Southern Baptist Convention's prohibition on female pastors is old-fashioned and a hindrance to the growth of the mega-church movement. Nevertheless, he knows this is an unpopular stance. He was ready to implement it only after it was clear he and Kay would be handing off the church to someone else. In a sense, he made his decision and then decided to get out of Dodge.
Andy will take over full responsibilities on September 12, 2022. He will be an instant national leader in a larger experiment to see how well you can sustain a church with a strong role for female pastors. On the bright side, Echo Church in San Jose was roundly criticized for not taking masking so seriously last year. Perhaps this is a sign that Andy is not as feminist or as woke as the Warrens hope? If so, that would be good for Saddleback Church and good for all of its stakeholders too.
I do not think you will ever see a mega-church successfully led by women. I doubt Saddleback will be the first.
I don't have the time or energy to do a new article on this topic. I will add, however, that the Southern Baptist Convention reacted to the appointment of Stacie as a teaching pastor with a bold and decisive effort to kick out Saddleback Church. This was an effort that completely succeeded on June 13, 2023. I left this post as a comment on a blog site. I thought it made sense to leave it here too.
I attend Saddleback. I thought it was a mistake to ordain
female pastors. I think they tend to be more liberal than male pastors and the
last thing we need is a more woke Christian church.
I think where Rick went wrong is that he campaigned on
attacking the leadership of the SBC instead of making a Biblical case. To be
sure, his case was weak. He tossed out three Bible stories that really had
nothing to do with women serving as pastors. And that was it. He never had a
good rebuttal to all the straightforward evidence that the Bible opposes the
ordination of women.
The SBC rightfully called a stop to this and voted against
him by 88%.
What's really going on?
I suspect Rick is betting that large
female-led churches (he keeps mentioning one in Asia) are the secret sauce that
will save Christianity for the future.
I think the supposed superpower of a female-led Church is what attracts him to suggest that the Christian Church of today should model the egalitarian, out-of-control, miracle-popping house churches which developed in the immediate wake of Christ himself.
As a political scientist, it looks to me like Rick has gotten himself caught up in some sort of bizarre fantasy world where a pre-Paulinian matriarchy becomes the model for the worldwide resurgence of Christianity.
If that is the case, I just don't think that makes any sense
at all. Ultimately, I don't see how you create a larger church by ignoring its foundational
document. Or, to put it more bluntly, reconceptualize conservative Christian leadership by wrapping it around a vague feminist-friendly Great Commission
instead of the straightforward words of Paul. See,
1 Corinthians 14:33–35 (NIV) states:
"As in all the congregations of the Lord’s people. Women should remain silent in the churches, They are not allowed to speak but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."
or, the equally straightforward,
1 Timothy 2: 9-15 (NASB) says:
"Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper
clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or
costly garments, but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women
making a claim to godliness. A woman must quietly receive instruction with
entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise
authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first
created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman
being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through
the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with
self-restraint."
Even worse, I suspect female-led churches will turn into
Canaanite fertility temples...staffed with the hottest priestesses on the
planet.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist who has taught at many of our nation's formerly prestigious schools including Williams College in MA.
WASHINGTON, DC - Hillary Rodham’s well-disguised family weapon — Clinton
Foundation — enjoys strategically investing and manipulating cutting edge
technology to plant powerful resources in fertile soils of medical health-science,
artificial intelligence and highly malleable neurological software.
Clinton Foundation — marred often by Hillary weak or in
defeat — suffers blistering criticism from observant critics across the globe.
Some call Clinton Foundation a slush fund or demonstrate its unscrupulous
tactics and dealmaking. Others focus on range of suspicious activity and
possibility of criminal conflict. Note also two notable challenges to integrity
of the foundation:
1) The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 2016 public
corruption probe of Clinton Foundation financial expediture; access and
donation intermingling.
2) Boston Globe’s editorial board urged the foundation to
stop accepting donations of any kind for remainder of her beaten 2016 campaign
and shut down entirely if Hillary Clinton had won a presidential election.
What is worse? Bill Clinton’s sleaze and sewage pride, but
necessarily that evisceration calls for a vivid book proposal I might explore
next year.
For time being, I will comment on Ms. Clinton’s behavior and
openly encourage writers and journalists to thoroughly interrogate Hillary
Clinton’s use and intent in using state-of-the-art technology.
Hillary is the most maligned presidential loser in American
history.
Distilling my own impression: She’s a grating woman
incapable of discovering sexual interest in her husband; this woman who, for
some reason, married a philandering man who feels nauseous at the thought of
their intercourse.
What else? Briefly, Hillary is stiff on the stump, curtly
arrogant, clueless on social cues; more obviously fake in her every attempt to
relate to people. Rodham frustrates because she feigns political adequacy and
her deficits breed self-delusion: It’s like Hillary expects applause from all
of her Black rapper friends.
I don’t know. I’ve been reading about new technology lately,
talking to family, and researching personal experience. My careful review
should aim at Hillary Clinton. Novel invisible technology can be designed and
used to control cognitive function, trigger cerebrovascular and cardiovascular
obstruction — and inflict penile and testicular pain by castration.
I want to know what Hillary Clinton thinks about these
excruciating tech capabilities. I want to know if she has access to or has
acquired these technologies.
Does she use them?
I want to know if Hillary Clinton embodies so many physical
properties of pig manure that she might ever rationalize castrating, say, a
former Clinton supporter who grew tired of her abuse and tried to expose her
ruthless cruelty.
My hope is that thoughtful scholars and journalists may
consider looking into Hillary Clinton’s history of exacting revenge on her
political enemies, and people they care about.
Finally — I will think of a woman I care about who knows
Hillary Clinton. I do consider close study of every legal means by which I and
other American citizens can pressure Ms. Rodham.
Zachary R. Wood is an assistant curator at TED, as well as a former columnist and assistant opinion editor at The Guardian, a former Robert L. Bartley Fellow at The Wall Street Journal, and a class of 2018 graduate of Williams College. He is the author of Uncensored (Random House, 2019).
WASHINGTON, DC - Two weeks ago, I decided to commence research for a large writing project on ex-president Bill Clinton. My first task: Review some thirty or so articles in popular press about Bill Clinton’s flaws and mistakes. After that, I talked to three political scientists at my
alma mater, Williams College, about his administrative hallmarks and leadership
failures. Then I interviewed Juanita Broaddrick over the phone for roughly
twenty minutes. Her testimony was detailed, thoughtful, and sounded credible.
The information she gave me about Mr. Clinton was violent, severe, vivid, even
startling.
In Ms. Broaddrick’s words, Clinton inveighed after raping
her: “Don’t worry I’m sterile. I had mumps when I was a boy. You better get some
ice on that (her bleeding upper lip).” Bill, she explained to me, is a man
callous with no conscience.
I paused before responding.
Since my conversation with Ms. Broaddrick, I have read
another dozen articles about Bill Clinton’s shame and infidelity in The
Washington Post, New York Times, The Atlantic, and Boston Globe. Tomorrow I
should revisit books by David Maraniss and John D. Gartner that explore Bill
Clinton’s difficult upbringing in Hope, Arkansas. I might also peruse some
books that parse his muck and sexual repulse for Hillary Clinton. For example,
The Case Against Hillary Clinton by Peggy Noonan.
My writing on Mr. Clinton may take as its starting place an
interesting story I heard from a former colleague at a dinner party about how
Bill Clinton found himself emailing Hillary’s campaign staff with concerns —
because Mrs. Clinton did not want to hear from Bill herself. As my friend
explained, he emailed Robby Mook about Hillary’s deficits and received no
response.
This article for ABC leads me to believe that Bill Clinton
was heavily blamed for defeating his wife in 2008, so Hillary tended to ignore pudge of his ego.
Bill’s ego is gaseous and gooey. Imagine a rich spinach dip
with jalapeño, cheese, cream, onion, tomato, and green chilies. A blob of fatty
acid screaming excess and high cholesterol. Mr. Clinton, as one political
scientist told me, was a soft populist with talent who never matured as mama’s
boy.
I look forward to more.
Zachary R. Wood is an assistant curator at TED, as well as a former columnist and assistant opinion editor
at The Guardian, a former Robert L. Bartley Fellow at The Wall Street Journal,
and a class of 2018 graduate of Williams College. He is the author of Uncensored (Random House, 2019).
I'm a political scientist, not a theologian. I've been a Democrat and a Republican. When I was a Democrat, I remember I was hostile to Christians. Accordingly, I understand the thinking of Democrats who want to make Christianity less important in our culture. I understand why the Democrats booed the very mention of God at their convention a few years ago.
When I was a Democrat I did conflate Christianity, white supremacy, and capitalism. I saw them all as expressions of the same thing. I thought that the Christian emphasis on God's presence in daily life was a superstitious idea that held back social progress and progressive public policies. If you believe there is no God, then it makes sense that government should take on the responsibilities we would assign to him. The countries that embrace atheism are also among the leaders in creating highly taxed economies that provide massive levels of public services. That makes sense to me too.
Today, I'm a follower of Christ and a Republican. Due to my previous experience as a highly active Democrat - I used to pal around with Barack Obama - it makes sense to me that as I became more spiritual I found a welcoming home in the Republican party.
As of today, I am pro-life, fearful of powerful public employee unions, and vehemently opposed to affirmative action. I see affirmative action as the equivalent of racial discrimination. I do not think it is helpful at all. It leaves its victims enraged and permanently filled with bitterness and resentment.
I am especially concerned about the increased influence and military might of the Communist Party in China. As a former academic, I am concerned about freedom of speech and cancel culture.
In my view, I just do not see how Jesus would be a member of a political party where it is okay to boo God.
I do not see how Jesus would ever vote for someone who promoted abortion.
Everything I read about him tells me he would be hostile to public officials who took advantage of their positions to get rich. He would bristle at restrictions on thought and free speech.
I do not see how Jesus would approve of racial discrimination, especially against young white and Asian boys and girls who have done nothing wrong. I don't think Jesus would be pro-China either given China has a totalitarian bent, strong anti-Christian, anti-religious policies.
As far as I am concerned, an atheistic perspective naturally leads to policies that are favored by liberals and Democrats. Following Christ, however, leads to policies that are favored by the Republican party. As I said earlier, I do not see Jesus being a member of a party that booed God at its convention. If Jesus witnessed that, I suspect he would be tearing down the state flags and flinging around the delegate's hats.
For a good book that helps explain the correlation between religious belief and conservative political orientation, I recommend Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions. His book is particularly helpful in understanding the origins of politically motivated violence and why it was tolerated by liberals and leftists and thoroughly condemned by Republicans throughout most of 2020. John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
For an excellent book that lays out the political beliefs consistent with the teachings of the Bible, check out Jim Garlow's excellent book, Well Versed.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist who has taught at many of our nation's formerly prestigious schools including Williams College in MA.
