Rick Warren Soft-Shoes Between the Softballs on Nightline

Rick Warren was on Nightline tonight. Not enough substance to discuss his interview at length. Neither of the interviewers pressed him on any point (didn't Nightline used to be a journalism show?). They allowed him to toss out cliches and pithy sayings, to minimize the issues in Rwanda and North Korea, and allowed him to use the interview as a platform for Purpose Driven Life. Yeesh. Here are some highlights.

It is pretty well known that I am a friend of President Bush. I'm also a friend of John Kerry.

People ask me, "Are you right wing or left wing?" I'm for the whole bird.

We simulcast to 400 locations in Africa, some 80,000 pastors. (Editorial comment: this is frightening news for those of us who believe white evangelicals and fundamentalists have already done enough damage in Africa.)

The purpose of influence is to help those who have no influence, to speak up for those who have no influence.

Added up all the church paid me in 25 years and gave it all back.

Most people set their goals too small and they try to achieve them too quickly. Set your goals high and spend the rest of your life trying to achieve them.

Religious leaders decided to have a reconciliation rally in Rwanda...we were going to kick off the peace plan...there is a verse in the Bible that says there is neither Jew nor Greek...so I quoted the verse out of Galatians...you are neither Hutu nor Tutsi, you are Rwandan, and the place exploded. We were looking at the future. (Editorial comment: Rick, do you understand that Rwanda did not exist until the Belgians created it by seizing a certain amount of African land and then insisting that three warring tribes were actually of the same nationality? It's not the U.S. Hutu and Tutsi aren't comparable to Californian and Arizonan.)

Nobody wants to be stuck in the pain of the past. Compared to the Middle East...decades, generations of enmity, they put up a wall and then do a tit for tat...revenge perpetuates the cycle. (Editorial comment: he never made a good point here. He was trying to say that Rwanda is different than the Middle East because they don't have generations of enmity. Really?)

Four words on my tombstone: at least he tried.

On his trip to North Korea: I called advisors...I prayed about it...anyone who goes into a country that has tended to be closed to Christianity or other religions it can't help but help provide openness.

The question was posed about whether or not he was being used by the regime? The issue is, is it worth it? Is it worth it to help people find meaning and hope, eternal salvation, is that worth being criticized and used? I say, Absolutely.

They closed the show by saying that Warren said if his speech is limited or if his visit will make things worse, he will pull the plug.

Comments

[M.Corley]

What's he supposed to do in North Korea? Does Bush know about this, or is this another
Carter/Clinton type of affair?

[Keith]

Would it have been okay if he'd said "You are not Hutus or Tutsis, but Christians"? Because it seems to me that that was really Paul's point in Galatians 3:28.

[Char]

Bitter?

[greg]

Char,

Is that a question about coffee or chocolate? I don't know why I'm writing this. I'm betting you're a drive-by snarker.

[greg]

Keith,

Sorry to be so slow to answer. Yeah, that probably would have been better, but maybe not true. How to know if all the folks in an arena are Christian. Rwanda was the most "Christianized" African nation in '94, and they still killed 800,000 people in 90 days. What does Christian mean when they are capable of that?

[Tom Hinkle]

Ummm, "Jew and Greek" are not comparable to "Californian and Arizonan" either.

[greg]

Tom

I understand that. My example was to tribal rivalries in Rwanda, not to the Biblical text.

[michael]

Greg, I am curious about your historical review of the Hutus/Tutsis.

My understanding of this was that the Belgians (not Dutch?) arrived and couldn't tell the difference between the Hutu's and Tutsis, and so made an arbitrary distinction based on facial features (length of nose) and wealth. So, the Belgian leaders actually created multiple ethnicities, rather than unified into a new single ethnicity. This is not an issue of tribalism. The Tutsis and Hutu's are the same "tribe" (if that word can be used), but had/have a ruling wealth class and a labor class.

The Belgians used the Tutsis to control the Hutu's, which later led to the Hutu hatred of the Tutsis. But the distinction between the two was, as I've said, basically arbitrary.

To comment on Rick's use of Paul, then, this should be "there are now no rich or poor," in the Rwandan context.

[greg]

Michael,

Belgians. You're right. There were two tribes, three if you include the one whose name I can't remember, and the Belgians did make an arbitrary distinction based on physical features. Those features had nothing to do with tribal ethnicity. My point was they fomented the racism and tribal hatred between the two that led to "cutting down the tall trees," an obvious reference to the physical differences. Rich or poor probably would be a better analogy, as we're talking about those in power and those without power in this context.

[michael]

Not to belabor this point, because I know the relevant issue is Rick Warren's inability to see larger issues, but I still take issue with the idea that there are basically three "tribes" in Rwanda. The other group is the Twa, and are the original inhabitants of the land. The Hutu and Tutsi (actually abatutsi and probably the same group) were invaders, but we're talking hundreds of years ago here. In the meantime the languages have united, and when the Europeans arrived everyone was speaking the same language, practicing the same religion (with differences but not along "tribal" lines), and with the same "cultural" patterns.

The Tutsi were wealthy, and in general a Hutu could become a Tutsi by gaining more land/cattle, and a Tutsi could become Hutu by losing these things. Its possible there was an ethnic difference centuries ago, but by the time the Europeans arrived even the Hutus and Tutsis couldn't tell the difference. This is a case of bad anthropology; Europeans assumed that Africans divide based on ethnicity, so when they heard words that separated groups, they assumed these words referred to these. Apparently Marxist thought wasn't vogue with German and Belgian anthropologists in the late 19th century...

The reference to cutting down the tall trees refers to a stereotype that Tutsis are taller, but in reality this isn't true. There is no evidence that Tutsis are any taller. This would be like a stereotype that "rich people are taller" or "rich people are fatter."

Back to Rick: what I find troubling is not that he said there are no Hutu or Tutsi but only "Rwandan." Really? You would think he would have said Christian here. Has US Christian-Nationalism so pervaded his mindset that he subconsciously imports it to Africa?

[greg]

Michael,

I'm not sure what the argument is here. There were originally three tribes: Hutu, Tutsi and Twa, with the Twa probably being the original settlers. However, once upon a time, a long time ago, there were two tribes, Hutu and Tutsi, who arrived in Rwanda from somewhere else. By the time the Kaiser's men arrive, there is one language and a very effective local government based on age, wisdom, property, etc. Most of the historians I've read agree that even before the Europeans arrived, the Tutsis dominated this local government but not in any oppressive way. There were also no physical differences between the tribes: those were fictions invented by the Belgians. By the time '94 rolls around, it appears the Hutus had to a large extent come to accept the differences of lighter skin, taller, smaller noses, etc., as differentiating factors (thus the "tall trees" reference used by Hutus). These had not been differentiating factors historically, but that wasn't really the point in '94.

[michael]

Greg, for our purposes here, there is no argument. In a larger sense, I'm arguing that there never existed a "tribe" called Hutu and a "tribe" called Tutsi. There was one group that displaced the Twa. This new group came to have a wealth/power class and a labor class.

Africa is not homogoneous. Not all Africans divide themselves in the same way, and not all Africans belong to "tribes."

[greg]

I understand, but according to Rwandan history, according to Rwandans, there were two tribes sometime in the distant past. Most of the history is really legend, like the Hutu came from the Bantu people, but there was a time when there were two tribes.