Rick Warren calls dissenting Christians fake

by Don Hank

Help grow my megachurch or leave!

I was recently surprised to read that Rick Warren is calling other Christians fake and calling for phony Christians to leave his church. He is targeting in particular those who fail to help his multimillion dollar Saddleback megachurch grow. Is the narrow way passé for the finger-pointing pastor?

A country preacher at a church I once attended used to say “when you point the finger of blame you have three fingers pointing right back at you.”

How about a pastor helping a Marxist get elected?

How about a pastor being unequally yoked with non-believers who deny Christ? Wouldn’t that be fake Christianity? Rick has been yoked with the Left and Islam for some time now despite Paul’s explicit command: 

“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).

Rick seems to have his own personal definition of “Christianity” and it doesn’t look quite the same as the Apostle Paul’s.

So who’s a fake? 

Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye. (Matt. 7:5).

The “Christian” Left, hordes of sheep-like socialist heretics led by charismatic fanatics, almost completely took over Europe at various times in the 13th and 14th centuries. Even after they were largely subdued, they clung to their utopian fantasies and the last one of their line, Wilhelm Weitling, met and influenced Karl Marx. Charismatic leaders like Dolcino in Italy and Thomas Müntzer in Germany, condemned other Christians as fakes, preaching that all property must be held in common and strictly forbidding all private ownership of anything. They plundered, killed, maimed, destroyed and looted churches and waged war against all who stood in their way, conquering vast territories and forcing concessions from powerful princes and popes before finally being overthrown. They were convinced that they were right, based on a cursory knowledge of certain verses of the Bible, and that they were Christ’s avengers, based on nocturnal dreams.

Yet nowhere do we read that Jesus or the early Christians had urged Christ’s followers to force others to live by their rules.

Jesus flatly rejected the socialists of his day, in so many words telling them to get lost when they dunned Him to initiate a free lunch program.

The socialist heretics had their way in Europe sporadically for about 2 centuries, and then faded away. Their modern day counterparts will do likewise.

But not before causing untold hardship and leading hordes of foolish, gullible souls to perdition.

Further reading:



The visual generation — the death of discernment


The Visual Generation – The Death of Discernment


When Chairman Mao of China wanted to reach an entire generation, many who were illiterate, he produced his communist message in “comic book” style. It resulted in an entire generation of youth jumping onboard Mao’s red wagon and subsequently tearing down the culture and traditions and the very structures of one of the oldest societies in the world.


In America it is mindless, Godless and feckless TV programming, You Tube and Hollywood’s latest offering of films that pour images on an entire generation. The result is exactly the same as it was in China but on a much larger scale and with so much more to lose.


If you asked anyone who is considering voting for Barack Obama or any liberal why they chose that candidate, the answer you will most likely hear is, “I like him.” or “he looks good to me.”


If he, she or it looks good that’s good enough for the “media generation.” No discernment needed, wisdom is too hard to acquire and who has more than a few seconds of time in this world of screen shots, blips and spot messages to look any deeper. A new language and a new media has developed that thrives on abbreviated communications; OMG could I be talking about texting?


People who read entire books and articles to learn something or to see an authors point are becoming rare. Just getting to this sentence means you probably are one of those people. You may have read some Hemingway, Joyce, even Shakespeare or at the very least the morning paper. You may be one of the rare breed of people that actually forms opinions and conclusions based on a careful weighing of all the facts.


In the Bible (1 Cor 12:10) there is mention of a “spiritual gift” known as “discerning of spirits.” Unfortunately that gift is often placed in a list of charismatic type gifts that end up being thought of as something only practiced by a few Pentecostal people. In fact the language of 1:Cor 12:10 connotes the idea of a “judging through” of any and all matters not a fleeting spiritual thought dropping out of the ether.


Discerning of spirits is a God given enterprise that does not work unless God is brought into the equation. He unveils, reveals or shows the deepest meaning of things to the deepest people. They are a peculiar people who weigh everything and refuse to make prejudiced and extraneous judgments based only on what they see or have heard from the grape vine, the media or God knows where!

It is the rarity of such people that serves as only one of a few reasons that can be found for the wholesale blindness that seems to be accompanying the decisions made by the American public about their presidential candidates.


The biblically based reason is far more obvious and it reads like this, “In whom the god of this world (Satan) hath blinded the minds of them which believe not” (2 Cor 4:4a) It is what allows people to assent to what late night talk show hosts say about candidates instead of listening to the candidates themselves and comparing that to all that has gone before. It is almost perverse, because it is a “spirit” that drives the average person to use no “spiritual” discernment at all.


It is what causes thousands to think Rick Warren is actually helping the American public to choose a better candidate by bringing John McCain and Barack Obama to “Saddleback” so they can smooth out their differences.  The program or show (side show) is partly sponsored by Meg Riley who formerly headed up her denomination’s homosexual advocacy office.  It raises the serious question of whose purpose is the author of “The Purpose Driven Life” fulfilling? It’s a show, a visual, and a media attraction with or without knowing exactly what is really driving Rick Warren’s purpose. What Evangelist Bill Keller told his over two million subscribers on his daily devotional July 26, 2008, was that Warrens sideshow is a “load of garbage.”


Has Keller crossed the sacred PC line and sinned against society? No, what he has really done is used God given discernment based on sound scriptural teachings and mustered the guts to say it out loud to a You Tube generation that would rather watch hours of delightful nonsense and tripe  rather than discern anything that matters. Kudos to Bill Keller, shame on Rick Warren!


Sadly, what is really happening is what the Apostle James and other biblical authors predicted would become commonplace as we approach the second coming of Christ. James said,”Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts?” (James 2:4) King James Version or not this is exactly the meaning of “choosing between the lesser of two evils.” Not much discernment needed to know what that means. This is America today.


The greatest loss from the abandoning of discernment is that America has lost the connection. We are no longer able to discern the “connection” between our morality and all the other issues. The truth is that the economy, our security, and all the other matters of our national life depend on and are inextricably linked to our morality. We have mistakenly allocated morality to an aspect of our religious life and have thereby disconnected it from our own larger national welfare and security.


Political candidates, the news media and pundits rant about the economy, the war, taxes, crime and all the so called “critical issues” while ignoring the gross immorality of homosexuality, abortion, media filth, evolutionary dogma that passes itself of as academic freedom and general sensory driven visual tripe from Hollywood and similar sources. Morality is relegated to the churches and a few PC deficient fundamentalist Bible thumping diehards who just won’t seem to go away.


The result of all this distraction derived from the lack of discernment is in a word: judgment. But is it inevitable? Does the sun Rise? Does the sun set? It is God’s judgment that follows the refusal to use our own better judgment.


Using judgment is not a luxury that is reserved for a few and can be ignored by all others. In fact it is a biblical imperative that if ignored will have an immediate and devastating effect on everyone in our nation “The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.”(Isa 59:8)


The simplest rule for using good judgment turns out to be just the opposite of what is being done in America’s visual generation. Here it is; “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” Jesus, John 7:24.


If you have any discernment left and you must if you’ve gotten this far into this article then let me suggest that you pray for America to once again make decisions based on sound wisdom and spiritual discernment.


Rev Bresciani is an author and columnist for several online and print publications. With over two million readers worldwide and growing you will enjoy the articles, movie reviews, commentary and much more visit www.americanprophet.org





Judgment,bill keller,rick warren,meg riley,john McCain,Barack Obama,Jesus,Satan,Mao,Saddleback,America,politics,You Tube,morality,issues,taxes,pundits,purpose driven,Pentecostal,church,Hollywood,films,texting,



Olavo de Carvalho on the revolutionary mind

Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture: The structure of the revolutionary mind


By Donald Hank

Even the best of observers have trouble figuring out what the Left is, or what the difference between left and right is, or what these concepts even mean any more.

Great strides have been made recently, however, with the recognition, among the most astute observers, that Hitler’s Third Reich is by no means an example of rightwing ideology and policies in action, contrary to current political doctrine.

Many conservative writers have already concluded that Hitler was not a rightwinger, based mostly on his National Socialism.

Indeed Mr. de Carvalho’s (as yet unpublished) lecture “The structure of the revolutionary mind,” cites the recent book “The Dictators: Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Russia” by Richard Overy, which demonstrates the parallels between Hitler and Stalin.

I had noticed that the compatibility of Hitler’s ideology with today’s European relativism was brilliantly highlighted in Ben Stein’s movie Expelled, and most poignantly in the scene in a former Third Reich mental “hospital” where patients deemed to be of no value to society were gassed (I couldn’t help but think of Terri Schiavo). When Stein asked the tour guide at the museum what she would say if she could talk to the perpetrators of that horror, she simply said that was another era and they had their reasons for doing what they did. Thus she clearly would not feel justified in judging these criminals by her standards (assuming she had any). Here was a woman who had certainly been educated in Germany, either the communist East Germany or the socialistic West Germany. Neither system prepared her to condemn Hitler’s actions because these actions were based on the same world view that Germany embraces today, atheistic humanism based on a tenacious belief in Darwinist principles of natural selection, and the correlative notion that man has a moral right and even obligation to support natural selection with his laws under which a race can be culled of inferior elements. Neither socialism nor “national” socialism reject this out of hand. Only Christianity does, and that religion is fading fast in Europe (while here Christianity is being absorbed by the Left. See here, here and here).

All this helps clarify the compatibility between two world views that our education system and mainstream press insist are opposites.

But surprisingly, despite a lot of keen observation, before Olavo de Carvalho’s lecture, no one had yet managed to credibly characterize the Left in all of its main facets.

I have personally grappled with this for many years and had all but despaired of finding an adequate definition. And yet, how can a good American be a good American if he can’t identify the enemy of his way of life? How can he stand athwart history and shout stop if he doesn’t know what it is he must stop?

At the top of the first page of each issue of Izvestia was the slogan “Workers of the world unite!” Thus to people of my era, the Left portrayed itself as a system of social justice that aimed at creating a level playing field between workers and their bosses and attempted to share the wealth equally with a view to building a world free of poverty.

Yet today, we see the Left working hard to make fuel more expensive for the poor, not in any attempt at social justice but rather to “save the planet.” The main area where social “justice” is sought is between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and the current thrust is toward legalizing same-sex “marriage” which, if it triumphs, will trivialize traditional marriage, ultimately prompting fewer to marry and bear children, since part of the attractiveness of marriage has been a sacred religious ceremony affirming one’s faith, encouraging people to wait until marriage to enjoy sex, and therefore fostering heterosexual purity based on a biblical world view. None of this is apparent in the “gay” community with its emphasis on promiscuity (broad daylight naked orgies) and its rejection of the biblical view of homosexuality. This focus on discouraging child birth is mightily supported by Planned Parenthood. Thus, ultimately, the leftist vision seems to be a world with more poverty and fewer children born to shoulder the burden of caring for the elderly, for example, by paying into the social services system. The once-proud vision of a world of strong healthy workers receiving equal pay for a better, more prosperous life, is quickly giving way to a vision of a world impoverished for the sake of an impersonal planet to whose riches mankind must increasingly forfeit its claims. We are taught that to consider humanity’s needs is to be selfish, that we must sacrifice our children’s future for the sake of a planet. And yet we are being asked to sever ties to that planet as if our destiny were separate from its.

Thus, obviously, the old left and the new left are different ideologically and many ordinary people are confused (particularly since an astounding percentage of Republican politicians embrace the Left’s policies). Some are confused into thinking that the new Left is more benign. These are the ones who believe the myth that communism is dead.

In fact, communism never died, it merely metamorphosed.

How to explain that the Left can completely substitute its original ideology and still be the Left?

Olavo de Carvalho had wondered the same thing. But he was born into a South American environment where leftism was the air they breathed. It was the worldview in academe and on the street and there was no other box to think outside of. Therefore, as a philosophy student, he was steeped in the literature of the Left, not just Marx and Hegel but the entire pantheon of leftist gods writing the blueprints for society. Thus he had read an enormous amount of this literature and is today one of the few living conservatives-having had his epiphany-who now truly understands the Left, something like David Horowitz, except that de Carvalho had the additional benefit of seeing a much more virulent leftism in action and up close.

Even so, Mr. Carvalho had to read and reread the old (and new) revolutionary literature to find a common thread, and what he found is surprising:

The Left (which he calls the “revolution”) is not a unified ideology or agenda at all, but rather a way of seeing the world, and specifically it is an inversion of what normal people call common sense. And this inversion is the sole unifying factor, the one common thread running through the revolution since the 13th and 14th centuries

According to de Carvalho, revolutionary thought as we know it did not exist before about the 13th century; nor is it a function of chronological age. The myth that the young tend to be revolutionaries arises from the Left itself and serves the purpose of making the Revolution appear to be a natural phenomenon.

Instead, this revolutionary inversion has its origins in an early Christian heresy (arrogating to itself the role of Christ the avenger) and has at least three aspects:

1-Inversion of the perception of time.

Normal individuals, based on common sense, see the past as something immutable and the future as something that can be changed (it is contingent, as de Carvalho puts it).

Not so the leftist revolutionary, who sees the utopian future as a goal that eventually will be reached no matter what and the past as something that can be changed, through reinterpretation (what we call “rewriting history”), to accommodate it.

One example the author gives of this is how Soviet propagandists reinterpreted Dostoevsky, an anti-revolutionary of the first order. In his novel “Crime and Punishment,” young revolutionary Raskolnikov kills his wealthy elderly landlady as an act of solidarity with the poor class, in keeping with his world view that ownership of private property is immoral and that the revolutionary is entitled to take possession of it by any means at his disposal. But Raskolnikov is caught and goes to jail where the only book available to the prisoners is a Bible, which he reads, and is converted to Christianity, abandoning his revolutionary ideology, which he now understands as immoral.

While fully aware of Dostoevsky’s anti-revolutionary mindset, the early communists liked his novels and considered them too thoroughly Russian to ban, so they simply reinterpreted him posthumously and declared that his novels were written to highlight  the need for more social justice. Thus the Left reached back into time and manipulated the thoughts of a man who would have been their adversary, making him posthumously a fellow communist.

2-The inversion of morality

De Carvalho points out that because the revolutionary (leftist) believes implicitly in a future utopia where there will be no evil, this same revolutionary believes that no holds should be barred in achieving that utopia. Thus, his own criminal activities in achieving that goal are above reproach.

The author cites Che Guevara, who said that the revolutionary is the “highest rank of mankind.” Thus, armed with such moral superiority, Che was able to cold-bloodedly murder his political enemies wholesale.

Another example cited in the lecture is Karl Marx, who had an illicit liaison with his maid and then, to keep bourgeois appearances, made his son, the offspring of that liaison, live in the basement of his home, never even introducing the boy to his brothers in wedlock. The boy was never mentioned in the family and went into historical oblivion.

De Carvalho compares this despicable behavior with the more noble conduct of Brazilian landowners who had illegitimate children but made them heirs, yet made no claims of moral superiority!

To the revolutionary mind, it is normal that the revolutionary should pay no mind to the bourgeois morality, because after all, nothing he does can be construed as immoral, since the sum total of his actions hasten the revolution when justice will prevail. This is why conservatives frequently refer to the Left’s hypocrisy (for example, environmental champion Al Gore’s 20-fold electricity consumption compared to yours and mine).

By contrast, the author shows that by the Left’s own definition of “revolution,” the American revolution is not a revolution at all because our founders were men who held themselves (not just others) to high moral standards, and in no way tried to usher in a novel experimental utopian system, basing their actions and policies on older English traditions and common law, and modeling our Republic on these tried and true common-sense precepts. 

3-Inversion of subject and object

When revolutionaries like Che, and Hitler’s operatives, for example, killed innocent people, they would blame the people they killed for “making” them do it by refusing to go along with their revolutionary notions. This is one example the author gives of the inversion of subject and object.

De Carvalho also points out a number of other inversions and makes many fascinating points, but my purpose here is simply to clarify what the Left really is, to stimulate thought and to predispose the reader to buy his book when it comes out.

You will be a better American for having read the writings of – a great American.


Olavo de Carvalho is a well-known Brazilian philosopher and writer, many of whose articles have graced the pages of Laigle’s Forum.


Another Rick Warren defender persecutes godly preacher / author

Another Rick Warren defender persecutes godly preacher / author

There is something sinister going on here. James Sundquist (see below) had read my article “Did Rev. Rob Schenk really owe that apology to Rick Warren” (in which I demonstrate that he did not), but nowhere in that article did I disclose the email address of the person who sent me the slanderous email suggesting that I had somehow sullied a “man of God.”

Yet, as God is my witness, the email address Sundquist gives for this “Hunt” character (saee below), Drrsbm@hotmail.com, is indeed the address of the Randy J. I mentioned in that article.

And the subject line “ready to eat crow?” is identical as well. Now, let’s try not to get paranoid and ask whether the name “Hunt” is itself a veiled threat (as in “hunt and kill”?), although Sundquist, one of the most thorough investigators out there, has uncovered sinister means used to destroy numerous God-fearing people who have dared to criticize “America’s pastor.” In point of fact, just after my article exposing the attack on Ken Silva ran at Laigle’s Forum, Rick’s team put up a press release at Christian Newswire showing the cover of Time Magazine featuring a photo of Rick and calling him the most powerful religious leader of our time.

Why the emphasis on power? I don’t mean by Time but rather by Rick’s PR team. Why at that time, just after the Silva scandal broke, when you’d expect Rick to be laying low, would he suddenly focus on how powerful he is?  Part of the alleged abuse was abuse of …what?… power! So the PR team decides to highlight it? The old-fashioned evangelists and pastors I remember from my youth focused on the power of God, not their own power. Had they done so, they would have immediately gone into that great dustbin in the sky. But the “revolutionary inversion” (=post-modernism) as defined by Olavo de Carvalho, is upon us.

Of course, perhaps this attack on Brother Sundquist cannot be laid directly at the feet of Rick Warren. However, Warren acolytes have already forced one godly blogger (Brother Silva, see above) off the internet and, according to Sundquist, threatened others. And I received a similar attack from the exact same source, so someone has begun to see themselves as defenders not of the faith but of Rick the person. That smacks of cult behavior, and if Risk is smart, he will distance himself from these zealots before a major scandal breaks. In fact, it is probably only by the grace of Big Media that it hasn’t already happened.

One lady who does a radio show told me that she was threatened with legal action after merely cautioning her listeners to see what the Bible says and compare it to what Warren says in his book. Sounds like good advice to me, and if I had been Rick, I’d have said “amen”, but the person who contacted her in Warren’s defense scared her enough that she put a lawyer on the case.

Think about it: Have you ever heard of Billy Graham followers going after his detractors like that?

I think we are supposed to pray for those who revile us, not threaten to sue them!

But even if you want to depart from the Word of God, at least practice what you preach: civility.

 Donald Hank


PROOF OF SLANDER BY “HUNT” WHOSE EMAIL ADDRESS IS: Drrsbm@hotmail.com (see copy of email below)

Dear “Hunt”

Are you aware that it was Rick Warren himself that said he would not ask the difficult questions about sin in the Aug 25 Time Magazine article about him?  So is it the fault of those ministries for simply repeating what Rick Warren himself stated were his intentions regarding questions he would and would not pose at this forum?
A shift away from “sin issues” – like abortion and gay marriage – is reflected in Warren’s approach to his coming sit-downs with the candidates. He says he is more interested in questions that he feels are “uniting,” such as “poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights,” and still more in civics-class topics like the candidates’ understanding of the role of the Constitution. There will be no “Christian religion test,” Warren insists. “I want what’s good for everybody, not just what’s good for me. Who’s the best for the nation right now?”

So it was reasonable to presume that Warren would not ask questions on sin (abortion) at the forum.

Someone sent this to me…can’t tell if they want me to eat crow?

But there still remains NOTHING I ever said about Rick Warren that is still not true.  I saw the entire forum last night and it only confirmed my convictions about Rick Warren, if for no other reason than the following question posed to both candidates by Rick Warren:

“What should the U.S. do to end religious persecution?”

Warren could be one of the world’s greatest hypocrites for asking that question.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Here is my question for Mr. Warren:

What can the church do to end the persecution of churches by Purpose Driven hostile takeovers that purpose-drive true Christians from their churches, as I document in my “Spiritual Euthanasia” article?

I also address Warren’s question about evil in my second book on Rick Warren which describes how Rick Warren answered that question.

Dear “Hunt”

Are you aware that it was Rick Warren himself that said he would not as the difficult questions about sin in the Aug 25 Time Magazine article about him?  So is it the fault of those ministries for simply repeating what Rick Warren himself stated were his intentions regarding questions he would and would not pose at this forum?
A shift away from “sin issues” – like abortion and gay marriage – is reflected in Warren’s approach to his coming sit-downs with the candidates. He says he is more interested in questions that he feels are “uniting,” such as “poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights,” and still more in civics-class topics like the candidates’ understanding of the role of the Constitution. There will be no “Christian religion test,” Warren insists. “I want what’s good for everybody, not just what’s good for me. Who’s the best for the nation right now?”

So it was reasonable to presume that Warren would not ask questions on sin (abortion) at the forum.




Begin forwarded message:

From: “Hunt” <Drrsbm@hotmail.com>

Date: August 17, 2008 7:39:50 AM EDT

To: <rock.salt@verizon.net>

Subject: Ready to eat crow?


The entire nation will know you are a fool sir, if you do not do the same. You have misjudged a godly man and the entire world knows it now. Are you man enough to admit it or will your sinful pride (or lust for book sales) keep you in denial?


Rick Warren Critic Admits he Was Wrong to Jump to Conclusions – Praises Warren Civil Forum on the Presidency


Last update: 10:28 p.m. EDT Aug. 16, 2008

WASHINGTON, Aug 16, 2008 – The Reverend Rob Schenck, who was recently quoted in the Los Angeles Times and on National Public Radio criticizing Pastor Rick Warren for announcing he would not pose questions on hot-button issues to presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain during tonight’s Civil Forum on the Presidency, reversed his negative opinion before the event had even ended.

“I was wrong to jump to negative conclusions,” said Schenck, president of the National Clergy Council and a minister to elected and appointed officials in Washington, DC. “I made the wrong assumptions. As a result of his Saddleback Forum, Rick Warren helped us to get a clearer picture of the candidates, their moral and spiritual principles and their philosophy of government. It was better than I had prayed it would be.”

Schenck praised the contribution the forum has made to the election process. “While it is not the final word on which candidate is best, Christians and all Americans should find this forum very helpful as they consider who they will pick to occupy the White House in 2009. Rick Warren didn’t cover it all,  but he did accomplish more than anyone else has so far in unpacking who the two candidates really are. I applaud him.”

SOURCE National Clergy Council

Will Rick play softball with Barry and John tonight?

Will Rick play softball with Barry and John tonight?


By Donald Hank


An article that appeared in One News Now today entitled “Skepticism mounts over Warren’s presidential forum,” says that Christians are doubtful that Rick Warren will ask either of the candidates about their views on abortion in the 2-hour interview scheduled at the Saddleback church tonight (8:00 p.m. EST on Fox News). There has been a lot of pressure on Warren from various groups to ask this question, so he might actually grow a spine and do it.

But isn’t it sad that a man who has been called “America’s Pastor” would need to be prodded into raising the issue that is probably of greatest importance to Christians today?

If Warren does ignore this issue tonight, then he is covering for Obama, because while John McCain has been, for the most part, pro-life in his Senate career, Obama has garnered a 100% rating from NARAL for his pro-abortion votes. Barry has never seen a child killing he didn’t like.

What is Rick Warren, a pastor of the Southern Baptist denomination – once reputed to be one of the most conservative in America – up to?

For one thing, Rick has a long history of allowing “experts,” like Peter Drucker and Bob Buford, for example, to show him how to do God’s work.

What’s wrong with that?

Here is what the Bible says about how to prepare for preaching to reach souls for Christ:

In his letter to the Galations (1:15-16), he says:


But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately, I conferred not with flesh and blood:

Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were disciples before me.


In other words, Paul got his preaching skills from God Almighty in person. By contrast, Rick clearly confers with flesh and blood.

Which is why he is often accused by Christian observers of straying from the Word of God.

And it is why his PEACE plan and other agendas for solving the world’s problems are vanity. Worse, there is absolutely no biblical basis for churches partnering with government and business, as Rick recommends. This system is a throwback to the ruling church in Europe, where Protestants were supreme in one region and Catholics in another and anyone who did not conform, like my Anabaptist ancestors, were persecuted, imprisoned, forced to recant or banished.

Another example:

The effete feminist myth that males are inherently bad while females are their perennial victims has repeatedly been debunked, most recently by Phyllis Schlafly, the woman who single-handedly stopped the ERA.

Yet Kay Warren and husband Rick, the “most powerful pastor in America” (according to a recent Time article) apparently want to “partner with governments” based on the threadbare feminist notion that domestic violence is typically violence against women.

Flying in the face of this claptrap, a recent article from the UK highlights a startling rise in violence among females there in the last 3 years. This violence can be laid at the feet of radical feminism (of the kind inadvertently supported by Kay) and its encroachment in the courts, which makes females all but exempt from prosecution in England, tempting some to go further and further to test their limits of immunity. Here in the US we have, of course, the famous case of Mary Winkler, who was able to shoot her husband in cold blood and get a slap on the wrist by the court, then on to victory in a custody case. She now has custody of the couple’s girls, who have registered no interest in being returned to her.

Virtually all studies on domestic violence (like the best-known and most extensive ones by Murray Strauss at the University of NH) show that males and females initiate DV at equal rates. Further, the highest DV rate by far is among lesbian women!

Yet Rick’s purpose-driven juggernaut continues to march inexorably forward with its leftist-liberal program, crushing truth as it goes.

Another example is the way Rick Warren gets rid of resistors, as reported, for example, by Dwayna Litz.

Getting rid of heretics would be biblically correct. But to Rick, anyone who opposes his man-made plan to grow the church is a heretic. In fact, some are beginning to see Rick as the heretic.


I have no advice for Rick. I have been told by a greater Authority not to cast my pearls before swine.

I have heard pastors say that one must pray for leaders who have gone astray rather than admonishing them or pointing out their errors.

Again, Paul has the answer to that:


If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

If Obama becomes our next president, America can thank Rick for playing softball with the candidates tonight.

Further reading on Rick Warren at Laigle’s Forum:



Three strikes for Rick Warren

Previously, my column The purpose-driven left turn had appeared at Laigle’s Forum, showing how Rick Warren – whether inadvertently or on purpose – was helping the Democrats elect their candidate this year. If you read the comments section of that issue, you will see that Rick himself showed up with comments that were at best disingenuous and was then gently set straight by yours truly.

Today, no less than three items came in from three separate sources regarding Rick Warren, the first being an article showing how a Rick Warren acolyte closed down the web site of a Christian site manager who opposes Rick’s plan to take over the world:


Then Loren Davis from Africa sent this pdf file, which, starting on page 5, tells about Rick Warren’s enormous influence on the government of Rwanda and other African nations, which Rick hopes to remake according to his own utopian ideas:


And finally, we received this article below from Johan Malan of South Africa, which we reprint with the author’s permission.

All in all it is clear from these articles how Rick Warren has been propped up by the kind of bullying tactics we normally see used by the Left, and how he has been grabbing power not only in America but also elsewhere, and using that power to implement a utopian “Christian” worldview.

I will keep you informed as to any shenanigans that might occur regarding Laigle’s Forum as a result of our reports on Rick Warren. So far we have not been threatened directly, although a purpose-driven acolyte did try, in an email to me, to reprove me for writing that previous article. He obviously had not read my article, because his rebuttal did not tally with what I had actually said. Once I showed him that, he slinked away. Shortly thereafter Rick came to the site with his comments, which looked strangely similar to the acolyte’s and were, of course, based on a similar erroneous reading of my column. Was there collusion? You decide.

To any religious bully who has designs on wreaking mischief against Laigle’s Forum, let me remind you that the following article is a religious viewpoint and opinion only and is protected by the First Amendment. If this site is shut down in an attempt at censorship, I will make sure the world soon finds out (Be sure your sins will find you out).

You know what? I kind of hope they try!

Donald Hank, Fundamentalist Christian


Consequences of Rick’s Reform Program

Prof. Johan Malan, Middelburg, South Africa (July 2008)

Rick Warren’s ideological approach and religious dogma have the potential of causing substantial political, economic and religious turmoil in countries where his proposed reforms are instituted. He advances a religiously-based social order (or new world order, in a wider context) which is aimed at the establishment of unitary structures with the vision, capacity and means to drive reforms toward greater unity, prosperity, and harmony in society.

Church leaders are specifically challenged to join hands and promote the emerging social order which promises a better life to all. In the process, non-compromising evangelical churches are purposely invaded and changed – or else, if they stubbornly refuse to cooperate – discounted as obsolete forms of “vintage Christianity.” In this way conservative, biblical Christianity is discredited and undermined.

The following facts about Warren’s training, his associates, religious convictions and ideological approach should be considered to better understand his objectives and strategies:

Positive thinking. The ideology of positive thinking was passed on from Norman Vincent Peale, to Robert Schuller, to Rick Warren (http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Peaceplan.htm). This way of thinking focuses on the positive aspects of good but ignores the antithesis of evil, sin, judgment, etc. In a Christian context, positive thinking leads to a non-offensive gospel in which nobody is called a hell-deserving sinner. All people are regarded to be inherently good. Positive thinking also distorts the gospel message since the cross and the shed blood of Christ, which are manifestations of God’s judgment upon sin, are avoided in preaching. For more info on this soulless gospel, see http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/RickWarren.htm

Promoting the emerging church. Warren made a very big impact in favor of the emerging church. A staggering 400,000 preachers in 163 countries have been trained through his purpose driven network. For his skills in leadership training, Warren gives most of teh credit to Peter Drucker and Bob Buford. He collaborated with both of them. In an interview he said that stability in any nation is dependent upon a strong and healthy government, a strong and healthy business sector, and strong and healthy churches. He likened it to a three-legged stool. With a view to promoting this view he travels to various countries to address government leaders, business leaders and church leaders to make them aware of their responsibility to work together in realizing the objectives of stable, prosperous, and purpose driven nations. Rick Warren addresses church leaders of all denominations on the subject of social transformation – including Mormons and Catholics – and often emphasizes that doctrine is not as important as remaining focused on service to the community. Read more on his commitment to the emerging church: http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Emerging.htm

A vision for Africa. Both Rick Warren and the like-minded Bruce Wilkinson have a vision for Africa (http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Africanvision.htm). Wilkinson focused on South Africa and Swaziland, but underestimated the nature of African politics and ethnicity, and his plans soon ended in disaster (http://www.bibleguidance.co.za/Engarticles/Dream.htm). Rick concentrated on Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya, but there are no indications of the feasibility of his program. The dividing factors in multi-ethnic African countries are simply too deeply-rooted to be instantly replaced with unifying mega-structures.

Dominionism. Warren is totally committed to promoting a man-made kingdom on earth before the second coming of the Lord Jesus. This vision clashes with biblical eschatology, which warns of a deteriorating world that is heading for the great tribulation under the rule of the Antichrist. Not only is Rick’s non-offensive gospel at variance with the evangelical doctrine of salvation, but Rick also discourages his supporters from studying biblical prophecies. The inevitable result is that they end up with a form of godliness which denies the cross and the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit (2 Tim. 3:5). This humanistic dream offers no spiritual advantages, much less a social utopia that stands any chance of uplifting the sick, the poor, the unemployed, the illiterate, and the politically deprived millions of Africa.