An astonishing exchange was aired on the Fox News Channel’s Hannity and Colmes show on December 3, during an interview with the Reverend Rick Warren, founder of the Saddleback Church in California. Though it may have begun as a publicity tour for Warren's new book on Christmas, it ended as a surreal biblical sojourn into fictional foreign policy.
Watch it here, courtesy of Think Progress:
And here’s a transcript of the crucial moment in question (my emphases in bold):
HANNITY: Can you talk to rogue dictators? Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons.
WARREN: Yes.
HANNITY: I think we need to take him out.
WARREN: Yes.
HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil, or something righteous?
WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe…
HANNITY: By force?
WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers. Not good-doers. Evildoers.
HANNITY: I’m just gotten, thanks to my wife, who you know, you know, been reading the Old Testament. Because as a good Catholic growing up, I studied more the New Testament.
WARREN: Just ignored that part.
HANNITY: I ignored the Old Testament. But what about King David? What about the—all the battles, all the conflict, you know, going back—you know, Abraham—Adam and Eve and their children, going forward?
WARREN: The point is, there are some things worth dying for. There’s no doubt about that. And I would die for my family. I would die for my freedom. I would die for this country.
HANNITY: If somebody broke into your house, you would be justified to kill them?
WARREN: I would be justified to protect my family. Absolutely.
HANNITY: And if it took killing them?
WARREN: Absolutely.
HANNITY: But it’s not murder at that point?
WARREN: No. Murder is not self-defense.
Oh my. Where to begin? Let me express my worries in reverse, moving through the interview from the strange conclusion to its even stranger beginning.
Note in the final exchanges how swiftly Warren’s passionate conviction that there are some things worth dying for morphs into what is really at issue: some things being worth killing for. Like someone breaking into your home. Or “evil.” I’ll come back to that word.
Next, notice the curious confusion about the relationship between the two Christian “testaments” or, more accurately, the two “covenants.” As a Catholic, Hannity says that he wasn’t very well versed in the Hebrew Bible, and the Protestant pastor gently chides him for “just ignor[ing] that part.”
This is significant because in the last 24-hour news cycle, much of the discussion has hinged on which part of the Bible Warren had in mind when he invoked “the [central] role of government” as “the punishment of evildoers” (again, I’ll come back to that pesky but powerful word). There has been a general consensus, one that Warren’s PR office seems to have confirmed, that the Reverend had Paul’s famous comment in Romans 13 in mind, the one where the Apostle to the Gentiles counsels Christians to “submit” to secular authorities in their policing and judicial functions. But that is not at all what Warren’s most astonishing claim (in bold above) actually calls to mind.
Rather, it is utterly and thoroughly of the Old Testament; and it reads those scriptures completely backward. Let me explain why.
One of the great mysteries for any careful reader of the Bible is the book of Joshua, with its staggering depiction of what appears to be a God-ordained genocide of Canaanites, including even their livestock and their architecture. The first half of the book of Joshua depicts this awful conduct of holy war (the Hebrew word is cherem, and it is described in disturbing detail in the book of Deuteronomy, chapter 20).
But the real mystery in the book of Joshua is not ultimately why God would order such a thing, but rather why, in the second half of the book, the children of Israel seem unable to complete the task. The first half of the book depicts the forces of Israel as unstoppable, steamrolling over the land of promise. This is when the simple trumpeting of rams’ horns brings down the storied walls of Jericho. The massacres inevitably follow.
But in the second half of the book of Joshua (the change comes quite suddenly, in chapter 13), we discover that the twelve tribes were unable to complete the conquest, and were unable to eliminate the indigenous peoples from the land. Some places, like Jerusalem itself, were not taken until much later, during the first unified campaigns under King David, who renamed the city after he took it, as “David’s City.” Why, then, were the children of Israel incapable of completing a God-ordained genocide?
Not for moral reasons, oddly enough. No, the real reason is revealed in the next book, the book of Judges. The book of Judges tells a harrowing tale of what happens after the children of Israel are successfully established in the land. They turn, almost immediately, to fighting with one another and ignoring God’s sacred covenant. They “go after” the gods of the indigenous peoples, the Baals and Ashtaroth mostly, and each time they do, the relentlessly punitive logic of the book of Deuteronomy kicks immediately into action.
If you keep the covenant, you will prosper. If you break the covenant, God will punish the entire nation. And for that, God requires those other tribes that were never completely eliminated from the land of Canaan (Joshua 2: 21-23). These tribes were not vanquished entirely, precisely so that they might later serve as instruments of God’s vengeance.
Vengeance against whom? Against Israel. Not once do we hear that Israel was “put on earth” by God to provide the shock troops of divine justice. Just the opposite, in fact. Prophets like Isaiah knew this all too well. There is no cause for bragging, nor even for joy, in being “chosen” by God, he warns. All this means is that God has God’s eye on the people of Israel. In short, God uses other nations, like the Assyrians and Babylonians, to chastise Israel; God does not use Israel to chastise other nations with whom God is not in covenantal relation, at least not yet (the book of Jonah explores this issue in elegant detail).
Warren’s idea that “God put government on earth to punish evildoers” has strong biblical support—in the early historical chronicles of the Hebrew Bible. But notice what the selectively-reading Reverend fails to say. If the United States of America is imagined to be the new city on a hill, then it presumably occupies the same scriptural position once occupied by the children of Israel. Their job, as it were, is to stand continually under divine judgment, not to serve as the rod of that judgment. So, do governments serve a function in expressing and exacting God’s judgment? In the early portions of the Hebrew Bible, they clearly do. (In Jesus’ day, this was far less clear—the Kingdom of Israel was no more, and the Romans were “the government God had put on earth,” by then, and the government Paul told his followers to obey).
Consistently in the Hebrew Bible, the judgment is directed against Israel, not against the Canaanites and Philistines and Perizzites and Hivites and Jebusites (Joshua 3: 5-6). And by troubling implication, the judgment is now to be directed against the United States, not against the Iranians.
The bizarre implication of the way Warren reads his scriptures places the United States in the surreal position of being like the Amorites, the Amalekites, or worset—which is precisely what the so-called Enemies of Freedom are claiming that we have become.
Behind all of these scriptural and theological confusions lies a still deeper issue, I’m afraid, and that is the way the language of “evil” has been deployed by a certain kind of conservative, whether religious or political, over the past thirty years.
More on that confusion in another article.
Tags: bible, biblical interpretation, catholic, evil, hannity, justice, louis a. ruprecht jr., religious right, revenge, rick warren, saddleback church, theology
Rick Warren was engaged in a fast-paced interview, where words are at a premium, short answers are necessary and if you start trying to explain anything at great length, the interviewer cuts you off or moves on to another topic leaving your thoughts high and dry. How convenient for Mr. Ruprecht that he had the luxury of using 1,035 words to comment on the 15 words that Rick Warren used in referring to the Biblical role of government.
The fact is, Warren was right in stating that the role assigned to governments by the Bible is that they are to restrain evil and evildoers. The judicious use of this authority is what governments will be held accountable for. It's not up to Warren to spell out all the implications of this principle in a short interview. Maybe next time in an interview, in order to keep from being misconstrued, Warren should take to reading lengthy portions out of the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology.
If you think that's bad, wait 'til you hear what happened to Barack Obama. He made an offhand comment--nothing more than a quick, shorthand way of summarizing a position-- to an ordinary citizen about "spreading the wealth a little bit". Next thing you knew, there was a torrent of not 1035, but 1035 x 1035 x 1035 words berating him as a "socialist". It was unbelievable!
To be sure, in our fast-paced and increasingly media-driven world, one worries about unfair caricatures based on a throwaway remark that had the misfortune of being taped. Bush and Cheney’s reference to an unpopular left-leaning reporter as an “asshole” was such a moment. I’m uncertain whether President-elect Obama’s remark about redistribution was or not; while he is hardly a “socialist,” he has made similar-sounding statements about tax policy elsewhere. What I emphatically reject is the notion that Rick Warren’s recent words can be so characterized.
It may seem unfair that I got 1035 words to Warren’s 15 (though I must admit that I have not counted the words in either statement). But it is not the number of words used that matters; it is what those words say.
One can say a great deal with only three words. For instance, “I love you,” or “God is love.” Three short words, but long books have been written in the attempt to grapple with their meaning. The Bible is a rich collection of such books.
Here are the three words that were so troubling in the Fox exchanges: “take him out”; and “the Bible says.” That these two phrases were linked by a minister of the Christian gospel is what prompted my essay.
Let’s be very clear. Rick Warren advises an astonishing shift in US foreign policy, recommending that we should use assassination as a foreign policy tool, something that defies international law, as well as the settled principles of the US military, which prides itself appropriately on its code of honor. Still more astonishing, Warren clothes this troubling call to unlawful violence in “the Bible.”
Without thoughtful engagement, the phrase “the Bible says” can do enormous damage--and not only to foreign policy positions. It does real damage to the faith. The Bible is a rich and layered and complex collection of texts, texts which are in dialogue with, and even contentious disagreement with, one another (“you have heard it said... but I say unto you...”). Discerning the contemporary implications of such texts is seldom simple.
What has simplified it in too many quarters these days is to invoke “the Bible” and then leave it at that. When they do so, Christians run the very real risk of eviscerating the transformative power of their sacred scriptures. Christianity is reduced to, and made identical with, the most hawkish forms of our contemporary politics. The Bible has little do with the call to assassinate a duly elected foreign official, and the Bible’s ability to speak a prophetic word to the current political situation worldwide is thereby rendered impossible. It is appalling that evangelicals are not saying this loudly and clearly, *in defense* of their Bible. If Rick Warren chose to use only fifteen words for a matter of such gravity, that is a problem of his own making, one I attempted to correct at something more like the length it deserves.
Louis A. Ruprecht Jr. Georgia State University
I still maintain my position. Hannity said "take him out". Warren said "the Bible says". Two different comments by two different people. It is you who is tying them together as one. When you listen to what someone says, you can either give him the benefit of the doubt, or not. Knowing something about interviewers, I know that they say incendiary things to get a response and then glory in the reaction that it causes on forums such as this. In this event, Hannity has accomplished what he set out to do.
Though I am not a socialist or liberal, I would give Obama the benefit of the doubt in his "spread the wealth" comment. In a free-market society like the U.S., it would be political suicide for him to implement socialist policies. Even if he did try to spread the wealth in a socialist manner, the market and the voters would soon bring him to heel. However, I agree with him that one of the roles of government in our society is to spread wealth as evenly as possible throughout society. This is accomplished through tax laws and social welfare programs.
In giving Warren the benefit of the doubt, I would say he was not allowed to properly and fully develop his position on the matter. I place very little stock in fast-paced, sensationalistic interviews such as this and what I object to is essays such as yours that extrapolate an individual's position on complicated matters from a short, almost off-hand comment.
I reiterate that the Apostle Paul clearly states in Romans 13 that the God-ordained role of government is to punish evildoers. Warren, as a preacher and student of the Bible will state what the Bible says. In this he is not incorrect. What is open to question is how that Biblical principle can be applied to foreign affairs, and I am sorry that he was not given time to address that.
By the way, I would like to advise the poster Rillon that in quoting Romans, Warren was quoting from the New Testament, not the Old. Also, in case he/she is unaware, Jerry Falwell is no longer with us, having gone to his reward some months ago.
What, you mean another theocratic fundamentalist pastor has announced that there is evil in the world both inside and outside the United States, which it is the American government's responsibility to punish? Sorry, but what on earth is "astonishing" about that? Ted Haggard probably agrees with this. Jerry Falwell probably agrees with this. Sarah Palin and John McCain probably agree with this. No doubt George Bush agrees with it. We've been living with foreign policy based on this very idea for seven years, so it's not as if it is surprising. The fact of the matter is, however, that politicians should not be using the Old Testament of all things as the foundation for policy no matter what it says. That any non-theocrat should concede that theology has a place in policy debate in the first place is what "astonishes" me.
Yes, you're right on both counts. I would amend my statement to saying that Falwell would have agreed with this, and that basing policy on the Old or New Testaments is a very bad idea.
Even when taking into account Reinhold Niebuhr’s so-called “political realism” – based on a complex view of human nature that faces our worst as well as our better angels – I find it hard to imagine Jesus of Nazareth wanting people to talk in his name using “take him out” language.
I find that especially baffling when viewed in light of the picture of Jesus that we see in the parables and his most distinctive teachings such as love your enemies and the Sermon on the Mount.
Warren’s “take him out” language – and, what is more, the sort of world view and moral outlook it indicates – does not fit with my understanding of the moral meanings of the Christian tradition.
It reflects, rather, precisely the kind of jingoistic patriotism that fuses nation and deity and echoes the harsh, Roman-like U.S. imperialism of the Vietnam war and the invasion of Iraq all too hauntingly. In this case, such a God-is-on-our-side, jingoistic identity of church and nation comes not from a Robert McNamara, Dick Nixon, Dick Cheney or Karl Rove. Instead, it comes from a purpose-driven churchman apparently all too enthralled with a right-wing media hack.
As an aspiring Christian and a U.S. citizen, I find Warren’s remark baffling, dispiriting and revolting.
Right on Ruprecht!
Sam Porter, Eugene, Oregon
In my previous post, I attributed the term “take him out” to Warren. My mistake. It's Sean Hannity’s term. I apologize. Still, I find Warren's position unconvincing. And that he didn’t challenge Hannity's "take him out" language is not highest example of the Christian tradition at its best.
Sam Porter, Eugene, Oregon
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.