Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church has ended its year in the black, thanks to some last minute begging by the head pastor. Just as the 2009 drew to a close, Warren sent out an urgent message to his “Saddleback Family,” informing them that the church budget was some $900,000 shy of its goal.
“I have thrilling news to share with you below but first some seriously bad news: With 10% of our church family out of work due to the recession, our expenses in caring for our community in 2009 rose dramatically while our income stagnated. Still, with wise management, we’ve stayed close to our budget all year. Then… this last weekend the bottom dropped out.“On the last weekend of 2009, our total offerings were less than half of what we normally receive - leaving us $900,000 in the red for the year, unless you help make up the difference today and tomorrow.”
Lo and behold, a miracle occurred not too long after that message was broadcast – Saddleback received a more than $2.4 million cash infusion from its members:
”This is pretty amazing,” said Warren, who made the announcement by bringing out 24 volunteers each holding a sign for $100,000. “I don’t think any church has gotten a cash offering like that off a letter.”The pastor said he planned to talk about what he called his church’s “radical generosity” in the rest of the weekend’s sermons. He said the total came from members, and the donations were all under $100.
“We’re starting the new decade with a surplus,” he said. “It came from thousands of ordinary people. This was not one big fat cat.”
So, while Warren starts his year in the black, many more in his church continue their year in the red. Some may have even given beyond their means just to make sure Warren, already wealthy off of his series of “Purpose Driven Life” books, will not have to forgo anything in the New Year. I suspect, however, that the donations came from those who can afford to give – true believers who were simply unaware of the shortfall and reached a little bit deeper when Papa Warren asked.
Warren’s church is certainly not immune to the money troubles that have plagued other churches around the country as the recession has left many congregants without jobs - leaving nothing to put in the plate each Sunday. Most churches, I dare say, don’t have budgets anywhere near what Warren’s church considers a shortfall, however. Warren’s church does not share its total budget publicly, but the shortfall must not have been too glaring if $2.4 million puts it well into the black, as Warren alludes.
It may well be that Warren’s shortfall, however, was due to a drop in giving simply because of economic hardships on members, but I wonder if something else is at play in the drop in giving. Let me, if I may, indulge in a bit of unfounded speculation about Warren’s recent, though now resolved, financial woes.
Warren started 2009 on a high note, delivering the opening prayer for Barack Obama’s inauguration as president. It appeared that this would be the year of Rick Warren - success could not elude him. Then, Uganda happened. The legislature there is considering an “Anti-Homosexuality” bill that would sentence men and women to death for the simple crime of being gay or lesbian. Some reports say that the law may be blunted - eliminating the death penalty - but all the same, the law is draconian, inhumane, and simply unChristian. Warren’s involvement in Uganda has been well known as he launched his PEACE plan with the goal of “Promoting reconciliation, Equipping ethical leaders, Assisting the poor, Caring for the sick, and Educating the next generation, which includes the protection of children.” Yet, when asked initially about this law - Warren demurred, insisting he didn’t get involved in the politics of foreign countries. It took weeks of cajoling and pressuring from many camps before Warren caved and released a statement condemning the pending law.
It makes me wonder if some of the Saddleback faithful began to have second thoughts about their shepherd. While it’s true that most of the church members may believe that being gay or lesbian is a sin, I would hate to think that Warren’s followers would be the sort to support this kind of inhumane law. I would hope that they would see it for what it is and condemn it. Perhaps they saw their leader dragging his feet on the subject and maybe some have decided that Saddleback isn’t the place they want to support with their tithes and offerings anymore.
Again, what I’m saying is complete conjecture. I have no basis in fact to make such a claim and I freely admit that. However, if I saw the man I looked up to as a spiritual leader have to be pressured from all sides to condemn a law that anyone with a shred of human decency would condemn outright without prompting, I think I’d be reconsidering my membership in said shepherd’s flock.
While I’m on a wild conjecture tangent, however, let me go just one step further. Perhaps the money isn’t flowing as quickly into Warren’s coffers this year because the recession has put a big dent in his theology of God as Santa Claus. Warren and other prosperity preacher types have reassured their followers all along that if they’re faithful to their church, faithful to the teachings they proffer, and find that purpose for their lives, that God will reward them with many material goodies.
As Sarah Posner astutely points out in a piece in the Guardian, the religious right is quickly becoming the feel-good arm of Christianity. They’ve renounced their fire and brimstone messages and replaced them with messages of personal prosperity, happiness, fulfillment and “purpose.”
The new evangelicals write books not about how God will smite you, but how God loves you and wants nothing more than your greatest personal, spiritual, and material fulfillment. The middle of the decade saw the publication of televangelist Joel Osteen’s Your Best Life Now: 7 Steps to Living at Your Full Potential (2004) and TD Jakes’ Reposition Yourself: Living Life Without Limits (2007). Joyce Meyer’s Seven Things That Steal Your Joy: Overcoming the Obstacles to Your Happiness (2004) and Approval Addiction: Overcoming Your Need to Please Everyone (2005) are equally at home at Bible study and coffee klatch, in the church bookstore and at Wal-Mart.
But, personal fulfillment, even through Jesus Christ, is a luxury for the comfortable. For those facing foreclosure, unemployment, mounting bills, a bleak employment forecast, and perhaps mounting medical bills, living life without limits can seem a bit trite. When you’re packing up your house, or abandoning it in the night to avoid foreclosure, you need more than seven steps to live to your full potential - you need a job. You need a government that recognizes the needs of all its citizens, not just the wealthy. You need a Congress that understands that health care is a right - not a privilege and that revamping health insurance does nothing to improve a broken healthcare system.
Above all, you need a God that is more than Santa Claus or a vending machine where prayer goes in and things come out. Warren and his ilk have nothing to offer in that category. Their god is too small to handle the randomness and messiness of life. Their god melts when hardship and despair enter the picture. Their god disappears in the face of hunger and homelessness.
Perhaps, just maybe, some of Warren’s loyal followers have realized that his god is far too small for the realities they face. Warren may be thanking God for closing his $900,000 budget gap and then some, but his followers are still deeply in debt and suffering - and they deserve a far better shepherd.
Tags: money, rick warren
Miss Candace has hit the nail on the head. I still believe in Jesus but I can no longer take the "Christianity" around us.I have personally,after 25 years as a believer, witnessed more "Christian" behavior from those who hold no belief in Christ whatsoever.
I believe Rick Warren could PERSONALLY fund not only the entire church budget of Saddleback, but the household budgets of the individuals in that "family" who are suffering. "I'll pray for you"is nice but it doesn't feed their children or allow them to keep their homes. Yet, not only doesn't he save their homes, he takes the little they have left to pad his coffers while they wait for God to show up with the rewards he has convinced them he'll provide. God doesn't have to PAY US for our belief! Who is he kidding? He should be ashamed.
I am disgusted by Pastor Warren. How could he possibly do what he's done to those people and then publicize it as some half ***** praise report????
First of all I'm not sure Candace has ever read or actually listened to Rick Warren. I would agree it is a sad state of affairs in the Church in America today. But I would never lump Warren in with the likes of TV preachers like Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, T.D. Jakes, or Creflo Dollar or any other Televangelist that regularly espouses a Prosperity Gospel.
Candace & others should look up Rick Warren's TED talk. He details his personal Giving and how ever since the success of his books he has NOT taken a salary from the Church, and he and his wife live off of the 10% that he makes, and they give 90% of their income back to the Church. He has also Re-paid everything Saddleback has ever paid him. So I think it's safe to say that Warren's motivation is not personal success and making money. His motivation is helping people realize that being a follower of Christ means more than just going to church every Sunday. It means living out your faith thru sacrificial Love.
It takes some nerve for a multi-millionaire like Warren to actually beg for cash for a church he runs himself.
I know he claims he puts his own wealth, accrued from his purpose-driven publishing empire, back into his church. But since he runs said church, its coffers are his coffers, and vice versa. There is no difference! The claim that he is not personally profiting from his purpose-driven drivel, is simply not credible. At least, I'm not stupid enough to buy it.
It's amazing that people comment so openly and hatefully talk about someone they probably know little about and have likely not met. First off Rick drives an old truck and lives in a tract home. How much money does he have? I dont know probably alot. He does wear some very cool Hawaiian shirts and his jeans don't have holes in them. I'm sure you would respect him more if he was reformed homeless, ex-drug abuser/sex addict with a private jet right? Or you would just have something else to bash. Oh By the way... being rich is not a sin. But living an openly sinful lifestyle is.
Also, I hear that all the time that Saddleback Church is "so big", its for people with shallow faith or "new believers". Give us a break! I know more people in this church than I have ever met in other of the two churches I attended. Saddleback members get involved helping in their community more than you can imagine, with a kick in the pants from the pastors sometimes. Why don't you pray for him to continue good works rather than professing your scorn. I find it sad religious commentators, pastors and other congregations get jealous over a churches growth and recognition. It seems that our Christian brothers and sisters would be happy about Saddleback's growth. I cant comment on his Uganda stance, but my understanding Rick has ties to the Rawanda gov, not Uganda. (FYI they are two different conttries). Gays are welcome to the church, Jesus came for sinners not saints!
Come do some volunter work with the people in the church. Help paint a home in Compton, deliver a meal to a sick memeber, help someone find a job, or mentor a person in Celebrate Recovery. I have seen lives changed for good there, just like your church too.
Think before you write. Are you motivations for good... or are you just bitter.
While it may be true that Warren drives a beat up truck and takes no salary, it's equally true that he lacks for nothing, while I'm sure some in his congregation do. Making up the budget shortfall and then some guarantees his continued comfort for the coming year.
Warren gives to charity, and that's great. His people work for charity and that's great. I'm not saying Warren hasn't done good things - he has, in spite of himself I'm sure.
I'm also sure gays and lesbians are welcome in his church, if they stop being who they are. Some "welcome." This is the sort of welcome that gays and lesbians are accustomed to - the smile to the face and the knife in the back. And we wonder why gays and lesbians avoid the church like the plague.
What galls me about Warren is his utter indifference to how his actions and his words affect others. His hateful message against gays and lesbians is leading to other countries passing laws to kill gays and lesbians or oppress them in other ways. Warren and his ilk may do good by accident, but they do damage deliberately and heartlessly by encouraging others to hate.
Warren has ties all over Africa, including Uganda. I certainly understand they are two different countries, and I even know Africa is a continent, but thanks for the condescending tone. I also understand that Warren is deeply involved in Uganda and the anti-gay law pending there. Perhaps someone else needs to do some homework, too.
"Jesus came for sinners not saints!"
Being homosexual is not a sin. No where does it say in the New Testament that homosexuality is a sin. When Paul talks about sexuality he is talking in terms of lust and his admonitions apply equally for Homo and Heterosexuals. Jesus does not even mention Homosexuality.
Homosexuals are not just by their existence sin.
Re: "Oh By the way... being rich is not a sin."
That's true, at least in the most-literal sense, but gathering wealth is, nevertheless, the opposite of virtue and godliness, and Jesus came down against it several times in the gospels. Here's chapter and verse of some of those references:
"You cannot serve God and wealth." (Mt 6:24b, Lk 16:13b).
"Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, 'One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.'" (Mk 10:21)
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." (Mt 19:24, Mk 10:25, Lk 18:25)
I can cite more verses, if it helps.
"Gays are welcome to the church, Jesus came for sinners not saints!"
Are you suggesting that it is somehow "worse" or "more sinful" to be gay, than to be wealthy? In spite of the fact that Jesus condemned the amassing of wealth several times, and very explicitly, during his ministry -- yet had not one single word to say about homosexuality? I'd say that churches should be MORE likely to welcome the gay, than the wealthy, given the emphasis Jesus himself placed on both those matters.
What amazed me is that ONE weekend's low offerings put them nearly $1 million in the red. What kind of budget do these guys work with!?
His budget equal to that of the country of Latvia...... or somewhere that sounds like Latvia. Just Google it!!
Candace, I read a lot of your RD posts and try to always extend you the benefit of the doubt. With this post however, you are way off base almost to the point of irresponsibility.
Once you state something in a public forum (like RD) "conjecture" must be backed up with some sort of fact. Additionally, you illustrate that you actually don't understand the nuanced nature of American Evangelicalism with your lumping of Warren with people like Meyer, Jakes, and Osteen.
If you want to make a point I'd advise you to do so based on original reporting rather than linking a prominent person to your theories. This post was rather irresponsible.
You wrote: "Once you state something in a public forum (like RD) "conjecture" must be backed up with some sort of fact."
Um, not according to the definition of "conjecture":
1. the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2. an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
I had given fair warning that I was employing "conjecture" - meaning an opinion without sufficient proof. If I backed up my "conjecture" with "fact" it would then, by definition, no longer be conjecture.
You can disagree with my conjecture, but you can't demand facts from it. That's the whole point of conjecture!
As for the "nuance" of Warren v. Meyer, Jakes, and Osteen - I fail to see much difference between any of them. They all sell the gospel for personal gain. What kind of nuance does that demand?
Candace, you need to do more research. While I am no fan of Warren he clearly does not "sell the gospel for personal gain." This is where you simply do not know what you are talking about.
Rick Warren, while being fairly unsophisticated in his theology, very much sees the gospel as personal sacrifice. He would be best lumped with someone like Bill Hybels (Willow Creek Community Church - Chicago). Guess what the most famous sermon of Hybels is: "Downward Mobility!" A sermon in which he exhorted his upper middle-class congregation to resist the temptation to climb the capitalism ladder and instead give their wealth away and volunteer their time and expertise to causes they see as consonant with the gospel. Furthermore, if Warren was so interested in "personal gain" why would he refuse a salary from Saddleback? You can't fault the guy for having a best selling book and you don't know what portion of his wealth he gives away to causes he believes in. Like I said, you really need to know more about American Evangelicalism if you are going to write about it in a forum like RD.
Secondly, if you can't take critique don't post on a public forum such as RD. My point with your "conjecture" was not to provide a semantic treatise, but rather to say it is irresponsible to write something that is not connected to some form of qualified fact. National Inquirer can do that, RD cannot.
I understand Warren just fine, wordav, as well as the Evangelical movement in America.
I wrote what I wrote and you took issue with it - that's what RD is for, discussion and give and take. I'm a big girl and can withstand your "critique" - so please don't concern troll me. I love critique, but only tend to heed those that seem constructive.
It is clear from your responses that I have offended you, which hasn't been my intention and I apologize. That said, I noticed you didn't answer my question:
"If Warren was so interested in "personal gain" why would he refuse a salary from Saddleback?"
How would you square that with your assertion that he is about the "gospel of personal gain?"
Apology accepted. I apologize for being so thin skinned. Must have just been a mood that day.
As to your question - I think it's great that Warren doesn't take a salary. He's compensated in other ways. I don't take a salary from the magazine that I run because I am paid by other jobs that I do. His books have kept him in high cotton and he sees no need to get greedy. I admire that and will give him props for that. It's refreshing to see a pastor not be greedy. But, let's be clear, he isn't poor and he's not likely to be in the future, so while I'm glad he's not greedy - he's not needy either.
But, his candy-coated, purpose driven drivel has been his "gospel of personal gain." He's got all the money he needs and wants, and we who bought his books have given it to him. People are hungry for a simple message about God and Warren is all too happy to feed them the high fructose corn syrup version of the gospel.
Candace, so I pretty much agree with you here. I don't like the American Evangelical gospel (even Warren's) either. That said, I still think there is a distinction, at least in terms of "personal gain," between someone like Warren and Meyer/Osteen.
I see that Miss Candace's comments have been very respectful toward Pastor Warren.
Her "conjecture" was self identified as such and was in no way represented as fact, although my own "conjecture" goes beyond hers.
Miss Candace is too kind in referencing, even in a questioning manner, Pastor Warren's "generosity". I just don't see the "sacrificial" in giving to charity when you not only RUN the charity but in effect ARE the charity.
Chutzpah??? YOU BET!!!!
I've thought all along that Rick Warren made a gross miscalculation by delivering the invocation at Obama's inaugural. It didn't cut any ice with us godless atheistic fascistic communist-loving liberals, and it probably confused or actively turned off a lot of his base supporters, which may have negatively impacted his fundraising. Why did he do it, do you think? Really reaching out? Or just unable to resist the spotlight? I admit I know next to nothing of the man.
It is convenient to cast someone's entire life in an evil light when that person disagrees with you on an important issue.
But Candace, if Warren hadn't done or said anything about homosexuality, would you care about his income or his church's finances? Would you claim to know the motives behind his giving and charity work, declaring that he does good "accidentally" and "in spite of himself"?
Let's compare Warren to Bishop John Spong. Spong, like Warren, will probably live in material comfort this coming year, perhaps more so than some of his former parishioners. If he didn't happen to take a certain stance on a certain doctrine, would you be actively criticizing his finances too? Would you be equally suspicious of his motives for charitable giving and service?
Or has the issue of one's opinion on sexuality risen to become the only relevant criterion in deciding whether someone is good or evil? Do you have the ability to genuinely look for the good in someone who disagrees with you on this issue? Or has the issue of sexuality become your god - the lens through which you see and judge the world?
I used to admire the way you responded to people like whodat?, and I rejoiced at the patience and love you showed to your enemies. I would love for you to convince me that I didn't get the wrong impression.
No, my disgust with Warren has nothing to do with his stand on homosexuality. Comparing him to Bishop Spong is a bit like comparing apples and oranges, in my opinion. Bishop Spong isn't sending out emails letting us know that his budget is short this year and asking his supporters to dig deeper so he'll be comfortable this coming year.
Warren, on the other hand, is a businessman, running a business that just happens to be a mega church. He doesn't take a salary and lives in a modest house, drives a beat up truck, all lovely and admirable, but he and others like him purvey a cheap grace where God is reduced to a vending machine - or a business transaction where our prayers and good works go in and God's good blessings come out.
I don't have to agree with Warren on homosexuality but he's said some fairly disgusting stuff about gays and lesbians, comparing us to pedophiles and incestuous relationships. He has no understanding of gays and lesbians and worse yet, wants no understanding of us.
I just get the feeling that Warren is a con-man. Again, complete conjecture (which apparently everyone missed), but I sense that he's not everything he puts himself forward to be. I could be wrong, but I have a right to voice my opinion, even if it's pure speculation.
And another thing, I never called Warren evil. I don't think he's evil.
Fair enough. I don't know enough about Warren's ministry to say whether you're right or not (I haven't read any of his books or heard him preach). I too loathe the prosperity gospel, and if that's what he preaches, then I neither support nor defend his message. But we're not just talking about Warren's message, we're also talking about Warren the Christian.
I understand that you have clearly acknowledged your words to be conjecture - nothing more - and I don't dispute your right to post them. However, the question we, as Christians, need to ask is not "do I have a right to say/do this?", but rather "is it good for me to say/do this?". Is it good to post negative conjecture about a brother in Christ (wayward or not), in the absence of knowledge about his motives, addressed not to him directly but to the general public? Is that loving? Does it honor Christ?
Have you tried writing a letter to Warren directly and asking him, in a non-accusatory tone, about his motives, actions, theology, etc.? Even if he is unlikely to respond, at least you could say that you followed biblical protocol by confronting him individually before taking the matter to a wider audience. I mean, isn't there a right way and a wrong way for Christians to confront each other, with love?
I'm sorry for carelessly insinuating that you said/thought Warren was evil. I'm glad you don't think that, and it was wrong of me to imply that you did.
Thanks for your reply. Funny thing this morning, my daily horoscope echoes what you said:
"However strongly you may feel, some opinions are best kept to yourself."
I suppose that's wise counsel, and should have been my horoscope days ago! :)
I have tried to correspond with Warren in the past but had gotten nowhere. He's even blocked me from following him on Twitter. (!) So, my entreaties (hopefully they were not accusatory) have gone unanswered. I would love to hear from him one way or the other.
Haha, that's interesting about the horoscope. If only the stars could keep up with what the Holy Spirit has to say... :)
Wow, he he blocked you on twitter? What a strange thing to do. Well, I commend you for trying to start a conversation with him. Let us know, in the unlikely event that he ever responds (unless it's in confidence, of course).
Romans 1:29-31: Remember, these are sins just as bad as homosexuality!
I have read most of Mr Warren's writings and heard him preach (albeit in recorded form as I live in the UK) and what strikes me about his message and the scholarship behind it is that they are both unbelievably shallow for the shepherd of so many souls.
I don't think the Saddleback message is comparable to the excesses of Dollar and Meyer et al but Candace is right in describing it as cheap grace. Warren's notion of prosperity is a little more sophisticated than mere bank accounts and quite in keeping with his modest lifestyle. He's not selling the key to riches but the key to self fulfilment and he's offering a key that's oh-so-easy to use - the simple steps of the "Purpose Driven Life" backed by hundreds of out-of-context Bible verses cherry picked from a dozen different versions to ensure that they most closely match Warren's interpretation. But it's a false key that breaks as soon as you try and turn it in the lock. It's only use is as a talisman and a badge of recognition within the Warren family.
That's my problem with Warren and others in the Fundamentalist and Prosperity camps.
They have hidden shallows.
Warren boasts of his corporation's "radical generosity." But they were $900,000 in the hole and got $2.4million in increments of
Comments closed
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.