Revealing?

The banter between New Life Church and Jeff Sharlet — author of the controversial Harper’s article "Soldiers of Christ: Inside America's Most Powerful Megachurch" — has thus far been pointed, yet limited to a few isolated stiletto thrusts. Michael Roberts, Westword’s media critic, cited a conversation with Rob Brendle, associate Pastor at New Life Church, in which he states: "He's less complimentary about the Harper's article, which he feels had an unfortunate tone, as well as numerous errors." Jeff Sharlet has also taken a few swings online at Pastor Ted Haggard, for making what he feels is a false characterization of his article and an attempt at discrediting Sharlet's understanding of evangelicals. (Soon after the Harper’s article appeared, Haggard told the Colorado Springs Gazette, "It is a wonderful, entertaining article that communicates what it's like for a totally secular person to come and visit our church.")

Sharlet and Brendle also recently made contact in an exchange on Sharlet's blog at the TheRevealer.org, but Brendle's comments were little more than a hit and run.

I asked Rob to explain exactly what he thought was less than factual in the Harpers article and he was happy to do so. This post is intended to bring those criticisms out into the open so they can be understood.

What follows are the answers to questions that I posed to both Rob and to Jeff Sharlet about the perceived errors.

(Please Note: Sharlet asked that if I posted his responses that I point out the fact that he didn't have his research material at his disposal to personally verify some of New Life’s specific allegations because it was all still in the hands of the fact checkers at Harper’s. Jeff further explained the process he had to go through to defend his article to Harper’s, and how extensive their fact checking process is. They independently confirm every quote, even recorded ones. Before the story went to print, Sharlet even had defend his article point by point to a fact checking panel. He said he’s not interested in defending his article a second time, but if a serious error does indeed exist that it will be addressed.)

Brendle:

- The burglary rate of Colorado Springs is stated as being higher than that of New York and L.A. This is true, but it is only one of many stats that could indicate crime, for example Colorado Springs is higher in burglaries, but lower than robberies in both New York and L.A. It is also unclear whether the statistics are within specific city limits, or whether they include the "greater Los Angeles area," for example.

Sharlet:

Rob is correct. My point, of course, was not that Colorado Springs was the most dangerous city in the nation, but rather that it is a CITY, with all the attendant problems. Time and time again I spoke to people at New Life who said vile things about the places they'd come from -- L.A., NYC, Boston -- contrasting Co Springs as this idyllic place. So I meant to suggest, with this whole section, that the realities of the world are present in Co Springs as they are elsewhere. I'm sorry if Co Springs took it as an attack on their city; it wasn't. As I wrote to Bill Vogrin at the Gazette, who seemed extremely angry with me, there's quite a bit I admire about Co Springs. It's true that the architecture ain't grand, but the people are lively. The architecture of Troy, NY, is lovely; if only that city had 1/2 the energy off Co Springs. While I was there I enjoyed meeting with friends at Shuga's and a restaurant with good, live jazz downtown; I shopped at the book store; I had some great meals in Manitou Springs; I listened to great public radio; etc., etc. But that wasn't the subject of my story.

Brendle:

- He speaks of "Colorado Springs" as a whole when only 25% of the population attend church, and a smaller percentage of those attend Evangelical churches. Those in the city who believe the way New Life believes is no where near a large enough group to speak on behalf of the entire city.

Sharlet:

And yet they do, time and again. Nonetheless, my point here -- made, pretty clearly, I thought by the phrase "city of fables" -- was that I was talking about ideas about Co Springs, not the city itself.

Brendle:

- He stated that a reason for choosing the property where New Life's campus is now was for it to be "visible from the Air Force Academy." That is simply not true. The decision was made for economic and practical location considerations, not its being seen from the Academy.

Sharlet:

[No response from Jeff on this.]

Brendle:

- The "pyramid of authority into which it orders its 11,000 members" concept is completely misguided. Our small groups system is completely based on free market principles. Anyone is free to choose the group which suits him or her best. The leaders of those groups are arranged in a hierarchy for the simplicity of communication and the logical arrangement of similar groups, but the hierarchy does not control its members any more than the Dewey Decimal System controls its books.

Sharlet:

This characterization is based on conversations with Ted, his sermons and books, and an interview with -- I'm at home, I'll have to dig it up, Mike something -- an assistant to a small groups pastor who drew for me a pyramid and then explained the "lines of authority."

Brendle:

- He describes Colorado Springs as the indisputable "Evangelical Hub," however Christianity Today says it is Dallas. If Evangelicals own magazine has pegged another city as the hub, it is hardly indisputable.

Sharlet:

Kyle Fisk, Ted's assistant and a grand poobah in the NAE, described it as such. As does Peter Wagner in his introduction to Ted's 1995 book, Primary Purpose. Certainly, the New Lifers I spoke to thought as much. With the NAE, Focus, Young Life, the Navs, and so many other groups headquartered there, it's hard to see how this could be any more than a quibble -- Co Springs is very important to evangelical life. But if he wants to say Dallas is more important, fine by me.

Brendle:

- He said that Pastor Ted intentionally didn't mention James Dobson's (not) being at the signing of the partial birth abortion ban, and "left it to the press" to note that. In fact, Dobson was present at the signing, and met with the President and a small private group, just as Pastor Ted did. There simply isn't the animosity nor the power play between the two that is implied.

Sharlet:

I did not mean to imply animosity. If I'm wrong about Dobson being present, I'll gladly correct it. I believe -- I'll have to check -- that I based that on your local weekly, the Independent. I'd be surprised if Naomi hadn't fact checked that with Dobson's people. But if a mistake was made, we'll gladly admit it. It doesn't hurt my argument to say that Bush is meeting with Dobson.

Brendle:

- Missionary Danny Ost allegedly "Crouched down as if sniffing the ground" when he prophesied about the land New Life would ultimately purchase. It didn't happen that way; that is pure imagination.

Sharlet:

I believe Naomi checked my whole characterization with them. In this instance, I'll gladly say that, based on Ted's written work and a video presented at the big event, I tried to recreate what the scene might have been like, with absolutely no ill will toward Ted or Ost. I'm pretty sure, sitting here at home, that Ted mentions Ost inspecting the ground. I'll take responsibility for any errors of knee positioning.

Brendle:

- New Life did not specifically send teams to pray in front of the homes of witches. We have never had lists of supposed witches, and never instructed our people to find witches. We pray for all the homes in neighborhoods around Colorado Springs, regardless of who may be living in them.

[Jeff never finished his response on this question, but Michael Roberts from Westword had contact with Harpers when asked the same thing by Rob Brendle. ]

Roberts:

A Harper's rep points out that this anecdote is from 1995's Primary Purpose, which Haggard wrote -- but although the reference strongly implies approval, it doesn't expressly state that the pastor ordered the action.

Brendle:

- The cheap attacks on the physical appearance of Evangelicals in the article (Jack Hayford's nose, Ross Parsley's chin, etc.) seem to be juvenile at best. There is nothing to be accomplished or added to the article by using derogatory comments on such things.

Sharlet:

This is a persecution complex at its worst. So, unless I note Parsley's strong chin and Hayford's petite nose, I'm anti-evangelical? I'm a writer. I try to describe the appearence of those whom I write about. This has nothing to do with the faith of those men. Were I to describe myself, I'd be sure to note that I'm a guy who looks like he's put on chub too fast to know how to carry it. That'd be the salient detail, I think. Hayford's got a nose. As a half-Jew, I sure don't have anything against noses. Parsley doesn't have much of a chin. Neither do I. That, to me, gives you a picture of a kind of face.

Brendle:

Pastor Ted did not promise that New Life would be the new Jerusalem

Sharlet:

Harper's has my copy of Primary Purpose, from which this phrase, I think, is taken.

[UPDATE: Related pieces are HERE and HERE and HERE.]

Comments

[Jeff Sharlet]

I'm sorry Pastor Rob feels so maligned. It's interesting to me, though, that he doesn't take on any of the heavier stuff, however. Apparently, he doesn't mind his boss, Pastor Ted, being quoted as suggesting that Catholics and Mexicans are somehow "backward." And he's cool with his boss describing faith as akin to picking a new toothpaste brand. He's also ok, apparently, with the member of his church who thought a funny joke about New York City -- which he described as demon-filled -- as "ka-boom"; and with Pastor Ted himself, who noted that the tsunami hit a center of radical Islam and described it as an "opportunity."

These, to me, are the upsetting aspects of the story I wrote. They were the parts I thought New Life would want to respond to, to say that I didn't understand, or that they took responsibility for poorly phrased ideas. No such luck. Rather, they attack me as anti-Christian because I think Jack Hayford has a Roman nose. And they quibble over other facts, such as the crime rate. In fact, I just came across a site listing crime rates for 2002, at which point Co Springs' violent rape rate was something like 77 per 100 k, as opposed to a national average of 33 per 100 k. Now, I don't think that suggests any thing unusually wrong with Co Springs; rather, it suggests its a big and growing city, with a lot of transience, and a lot of unsettled people, some of whom commit crimes. That's a fact of life, but it doesn't mesh with New Life's city of fables, so rather than say, Yeah, we have some crime here, and we're going to work on it, they prefer to see no evil.

One other important detail: Michael Roberts of Westword is correct. According to Pastor Ted's 1995 book, Primary Purpose, he signed off on the witch hunting teams, but he did not expressly send out the teams that "persuaded" 10 out of 15 targets to give up their homes and leave town in one month. He simply approved. I'll take responsibility for my poor phrasing. I'd argue, though, that the it's just that, poor phrasing -- the meaning of that sentencec remains the same.

What's most puzzling to me is Pastor Rob's suggestion that I exaggerated New Life's importance. New Life and Pastor Ted have built an impressive community. Whether one would want to live in it or not is beside the point -- it's in the grand traditions of American revivalism, and American utopianism. Reading the memoirs of Charles Grandison Finney, the greatest revivalist of the 19th century, I was struck often by the exuberant tone, familiar to me from Pastor Ted's own celebration of a "free market" approach to God and mammon. This is not to suggest that Ted plagiarized, but rather that there are moments of American history that, for better or worse, belong to a certain style, a certain mood; Pastor Ted, I believe, has captured that mood.

As do more esteemed figures than me, as readers of Non-Prophet know. Not long after my article, Pastor Ted sent an email to his congregation boasting of his meetings with Ariel Sharon and Netanyahu of Israel, and telling them to prepare for upcoming visits from Barbara Walters (who'd be interviewing him on "Heaven"); Tom Brokaw; and Dateline. When I was there, I talked to Pastor Ted with a reporter who'd flown from Australia to meet the man. Pastor Ted regaled us, on and off record, with stories of his dealings with senators, congressmen, and foreign leaders, some of which he said, he suggested, he had to keep secret.

Business as usual? Certainly. But I'm of the mind that journalists ought to spend more time looking at "business as usual" and less time fluttering like moths to a flame around the bonfire of sensation. I think on this that Pastor Ted and I would agree.

[John-Paul Pagano]

Interesting that Harper's is so rigorous about factual integrity. I wouldn't have expected that from an elite opinion/reporting mag. I have some peripheral but real experience with this in the commercial sphere -- about which I won't get specific online -- and these organizations definitely do what Sharlet describes. For instance, lawyers offer even recorded sources a chance to retract their statements before the story goes to print. But I figured those wacky protocols were in place because of the considerable lucre involved. Harper's is different. It's good they seem to care that much simply on principle.

[John-Paul Pagano]

Mr. Sharlet,

I'm new to the issues you and Non-Prophet are investigating. I'm personally more involved in investigating the excesses of the far Left. So I have a lot to learn here, which I'm excited about, because extremism, whether of the Right, Left or Martian variety, is revelatory about the human condition.

I spend a lot of time examining Left-wing rhetoric about Israel. A common trope is shuddery denunciation of the collaboration between Jewish and Christian evangelical Zionists. As someone who has spent a lot of time among the latter, can you speak to how they actually feel about Israel? Is the common formulation correct -- that glassy-eyed evangelicals support Israel out of convenience to hasten the Rapture, at which time their true anti-Semitic nature will emerge and they'll demand a mass conversion of Jews? Or are their motives a mix of religious and secular reponses to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Thanks.

[Anderson]

Harper's is different. It's good they seem to care that much simply on principle.

As they may, but I suspect that motive # 1 is to avoid getting sued for their net worth.

The case of Jeffrey M. Masson's suing the New Yorker over a Janet Malcolm article, and winning, doubtless has not been forgotten in the world of magazine editing.

[John-Paul Pagano]

I remember Masson and his crusade against Freud, which I came across in passing many years ago and haven't thought or heard about since. What were the circumstances of the Malcolm kerfuffle?

[Rob Brendle]

Jeff,

I agree with you that a free press is indispensible for a good society. I recently posted on my own blog on this subject:

http://roblog.saturdaynight.org/the_roblog/2005/05/freedom_must_be.html

The jist is the church needs the secular media to do its job well. The press holds us accountable. In turn, the people of a free society hold the free press accountable to presenting facts. I'm pleased for you to report on New Life, and to tell the story as you see it. My interest is that the facts of your story be accurate.

[Jeff Sharlet]

Sounds like we're getting closer to agreement, Rob. I'm also all for accuracy, which is why I'm fine with conceding my error with regard to Dobson's presence in the White House: I was wrong, he WAS there. Likewise with the position of Danny Ost's knees, which I misunderstood from Ted's description. I'll stand by the positioning of the church vis-a-vis the Air Force Academy, since New Life personnel told me that. I'll gladly admit that I phrased the witch section poorly -- according to Primary Purpose, Ted approved of this project (and saw fit to celebrate it in his book), but he did not, in fact, send out the particular team that drove 10 out of 15 witches from their homes.

And I'll toss in another error you didn't catch, called to my attention by a colleague here in NYU religious studies: my definition of "jihad" is inadequate at best.

In return, I hope you and Ted will concede a factual error Ted made in speaking about me to the Colorado Springs Gazette. Ted characterized me as "totally secular." This struck me as odd, since the first time I spoke to Ted we discussed a mutual acquaintance, an evangelical writer, whom I had published in a religious webzine I'd co-founded. Various New Life personnel asked me about my own faith -- including Ted -- and I answered honestly that I had grown up going to a variety of churches with my mother and the occasional shul with my father, that I continue in both practices, and that I like to think of writing about religion as a kind of religious practice. I mentioned to Ted that I'd been pursuing that practice of studying and writing about faith for ten years, and that I've spent quite a lot of time in charismatic churches, experiences I've found both enjoyable and profound. I believe I also told Ted, in response to a question, that I'm a regular scripture reader. With various New Life personnel, I discussed Jonathan Edwards and Charles Grandison Finney, both great interests of mine; I've been somewhat immersed in American Christian history for the last several years, and before that edited a magazine of Jewish history and literature, another fact I mentioned to Ted. I assume Ted does not believe that Judaism is "totally secular." Had Ted done some research before casting aspersions, he would have seen that my first book, Killing the Buddha, won praise from some distinctly unsecular sources, including several prominent conservative evangelical writers, Jewish papers, and Buddhist magazines. Which doesn't mean squat as to its actual religious (or literary) value, of course, but it does suggest that I'm not coming from a secular perspective. Indeed, I've written at some length in the past about secularism as a kind of self-satisfied myth; for better or worse, I don't believe it exists.

I wouldn't say I'm a Christian in any sense that you or Ted could agree with, but "totally secular" seems like quite a stretch. Actually, it seems like an attempt to discredit my observations, but I'll gladly give Ted the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure you and he will want to correct the error.

[Jeff Sharlet]

John-Paul -- Actually, I've never much discussed the issue of Christian Zionism with Christian Zionists, or anyone, really. I do remember speaking to a friend, a politically conservative Jewish speaker on the synagogue circuit, and asking him what he thought of Israel supporters who also believe in the Rapture, as described by Tim LaHaye (Jewish tongues exploding, etc.). "That's what a lot of Christian Zionists think is going to happen when Jesus returns," I told my friend.

"That's fine," my friend, a staunch evangelical ally said. "Because I know something they don't."

"What's that?"

"He isn't coming."

Make of that what you will. It's about the depth of my knowledge on the matter. A fine journalist on the subject, though -- from a leftist perspective -- is Jason Vest, a man who breathes investigative reporting.

[Nate]

I don't know why I wasted my time going over to read Rob's blog entry, he doesn't answer *any* of Jeff's points at all. He carefully used the phrase "I agree with you that a free press.." knowing that folks will probably not read the whole story here (it's long) and will instead zip over to his blog and forget all about the real issues in Jeff's post. Scroll up and tell me where Jeff said anything about a free press in his comment, please Rob. I'll admit that I have not been following the rise of his cult as closely as I probably should have - but Rob really needs to go take some debating classes if he really wants to win the media war. Lets try to stay on topic, and not evade, redirect and deny.

The only thing I did like about Rob's blog post is how he characterized you NP: "quirky Springs blog king Non-Prophet"

[John-Paul Pagano]

Jeff,

Thanks. I'll look into Vest's writing. One question: the phrase "Jewish tongues exploding" is definitely new to me. This is a LaHaye concept? What does it refer to?

I like your friend's retort. Sadly, it doesn't really provide insurance against the Jewish/Christian Zionist alliance turning sour. I'm also not sure that this bugbear is really of practical concern to Jews. It could come to be, of course, but right now left-liberal entities throughout Europe and the Third World pose much more of a threat, in my view.

[Non-Prophet]

I read the whole thing and I missed it entirely. Rob's comment -- while I do agree with his point -- has absolutely nothing to do with what Jeff said and seems to be part of some other conversation. Perhaps this is effective debating, or perhaps Rob was responding to something discussed elsewhere. Way to pay attention Nate. ;)

[Rob Brendle]

Nonprophet:

"Business as usual? Certainly. But I'm of the mind that journalists ought to spend more time looking at 'business as usual' and less time fluttering like moths to a flame around the bonfire of sensation. I think on this that Pastor Ted and I would agree."

I understood Jeff to be summarizing his comments with the idea that it ought to be the business of journalists to look into things and call 'em like they see 'em. It seemed to me that he was uncertain whether I/we thought he was out of line or were otherwise offended by his doing so. I responded by agreeing with his assertion--what he undertook is indeed a journalist's business--and adding that any pause taken on my end was over the accuracy of the facts, and not his investigating New Life and writing his story.

Jeff:

I'll try and respond to some of your specific points.

1. Ted does seem to have misunderstood your spirituality. I'm sincerely sorry for that.

2. "I'm a writer. I try to describe the appearence of those whom I write about. This has nothing to do with the faith of those men."

Good point. I think it was a wrong reaction by me, rooted not in persecution-complex but in respect for those men. Incidentally, I don't feel persecuted as an evangelical; I feel the opposite, actually. I feel super-empowered. Never in my lifetime have the media, government, and business communities expressed so much interest in our viewpoint.

3. Let me address some of the "heavier stuff" to which you refer:

"Apparently, he doesn't mind his boss, Pastor Ted, being quoted as suggesting that Catholics and Mexicans are somehow 'backward.'"

You'll have to give me a little more context here. Not familiar with these comments, but I am familiar with the character of Ted. He respects and defends people of every creed and ethnicity.

"And he's cool with his boss describing faith as akin to picking a new toothpaste brand."

Yes, I am, becuase I am very familiar with the context of this idea. I think you would do well to become more so, and you would be a more effective journalist if you gave your readers the same opportunity. The core of the "free market" idea of which you seem so dubious is that people ought to be free to choose whom and how they worship--not unlike the way they are free to choose how and with what they brush their teeth. The government, in our view, should not mandate or restrict religious practice. I would imagine you'd agree, being that it is a pillar of the First Amendment.

"He's also ok, apparently, with the member of his church who thought a funny joke about New York City -- which he described as demon-filled -- as 'ka-boom...'"

I think you're suggesting that someone in the church felt 9/11 was either justified or God-ordained because New York City is evil. Is that correct? Presuming it is: No, I'm not okay with that. This idea bespeaks poor thinking and poor theology, and is counterproductive in every imaginable way. Incidentally, I do not know one person who believes this.

"...and with Pastor Ted himself, who noted that the tsunami hit a center of radical Islam and described it as an 'opportunity.'"

Yes, I'm okay with this. I was standing three feet from Ted when he gave those remarks to a local news team the night the disaster struck. I've discussed the tragedy with him at length. The opportunity he was describing was to serve people in a country where Christian relief work had previously been spurned in the name of a stringent brand of Islam. Disaster of such proportion, he hoped, would motivate the Indonesian government to loosen restrictions and allow private western help. In the wake of the tsunami, we sent hundreds of thousands of dollars to southern Asia to buy food, clothing, new fishing boats, and sanitation supplies. Additionally, we sent three different teams (one of which I led) to the region to serve the people there in the most basic, practical ways. We held orphaned babies, helped repair damaged homes, and brought food to displaced families. It was a joy and a privilege to serve those people in the name of Jesus Christ. That is the opportunity to which he referred, and yes, I am okay with it.

Thanks for taking the time for this discussion, Jeff. I'd be happy to respond to more of your points if you'd like.

[Jeff Sharlet]

Rob -- I read Ted's book on free markets, and I disagreed with. Free speech and freedom of religion are terrific, of course. And perhaps "free" markets would be, too, if they were free. But there's no such thing as long as immigration restrictions are in place; as long as courts routinely deny workers the right to represent their interests as they see fit (as happened to my wife recently, denied the right to unionize); and as long as money trumps everything else. What good is the right to take your business elsewhere if there's nowhere else to go? Clear Channel, about which I've written, is a case in point. In many towns, Clear Channel has bought up every concert venue. If they don't like your politics, they can shut you out. If they don't like your mouth, they can -- and have -- shut people out. And as the biggest game in town, they usually get their way with local politicians, who suddenly discover previously unnoticed fire hazards in the venues of any Clear Channel opposition, no matter how small.

That's the problem with "free" markets. They're not free.

As for Pastor Ted's comments on Mexicans and Catholics: they're in the article which you've taken great pains to criticize:

Globalization, he believes, is merely a vehicle for the spread of Christianity. He means Protestantism in particular; Catholics, he said, “constantly look back.” He went on: “And the nations dominated by Catholicism look back. They don’t tend to create our greatest entrepreneurs, inventors, research and development. Typically, Catholic nations aren’t shooting people into space. Protestantism, though, always looks to the future. A typical kid raised in Protestantism dreams about the future. A typical kid raised in Catholicism values and relishes the past, the saints, the history. That is one of the changes that is happening in America. In America the descendants of the Protestants, the Puritan descendants, we want to create a better future, and our speakers say that sort of thing. But with the influx of people from Mexico, they don’t tend to be the ones that go to universities and become our research-and-development people. And so in that way I see a little clash of civilizations.”

[RedWolf]

I'm confused, Jeff, as to how the Clear Channel issue relates to free market small groups in a church. If I understand the concept that Haggard is describing in his book, the idea of free market small groups is that of people being able to create small groups based on common interests. So, flyfishers meet with other flyfishers. Scarpbookers meet with other scrapbookers. Young couples join together to meet with other young couples. And so on. The issue you pointed out with the Clear Channel analogy was that people can be excluded from groups or that money somehow can play a part in influencing small groups. I'm not seeing how that would apply to a small group situation in a church. Can you clarify your point?

[David Warren]

Rob Brendle's comments about the free America he so values completely contradict the monolythic culture of New Life Church.
He personally bashes United Methodists as dead churches because they don't dance and jump up and down during worship. Then his mentor Ted issues the "Don't look wierd" memo. He blasts Muslims and the people of India as "dark demon filled spirit battlegrounds" in his sermons and then enters into dialogue on this blog as some kind of open freedom loving patriot. As a former Army officer he violates the very freedom he took an oath to protect when he sends prayer warrior teams into the military which subvert good order and morale in their units and he has the gall to posture here that he and Ted respect American pluralism? Deluded at best Rob and a disgrace to Christianity. I've been to Brendle's Saturday services
and heard each of these comments and attitudes expressed when the media wasn't looking. The only equivalent is the cleaning up of ideological national socialism to make it more politically appealing. Entering into this dialogue is great but clearly only if all the record is on the table and slowly the press will expose New Life and their odd ties with the Bush administration. The Harper's piece correctly ups the pressure point on Brendle in just the right spot. Thanks Nprophet!
D
D

[Maugham]

Fascinating discussion. I am new to NP, but I'll definitely be a regular reader!

Jeff, I think you did a great job and your honest corrections show your integrity as a journalist. Nice job.

[Jaybird]

David W., who gave you that Biblical name? Comparing a protestant Bible-believing church - with whatever individual traits, shortcomings, or ties there may be - with a cover-up scheme to introduce national socialism, is an outrageous insult to the Bible, its Maker, and His people, you really score high. Let a religious journalist do his job, let a evangelical pastor do his. God will deal his final judgment on good journalists, on democratic politicians, less democratic national socialists, law-abiding lawyers and socially responsible CEOs; but more severely on spiritual pastors, even more than

[Jen V]

Mr. Warren,
I'm sorry, but being a Christian in the military is not against ANY law set forth on ANY law books. As a citizen in this great country, I want good Christian men and women leading my sons and daughters into combat. I will come out and let you know that I am a Christian and I am a member of New Life Church, and specifically, Pastor Rob's Saturdaynight service -- whom I would lay my life on the line for any time because he is such an awesome leader of men and women in this generation.

Moving on...you said "As a former Army officer he violates the very freedom he took an oath to protect when he sends prayer warrior teams into the military which subvert good order and morale in their units and he has the gall to posture here that he and Ted respect American pluralism?"

Sending prayer warrior teams into the local military units in no subverts good order and morale, as you say. In no way, shape, form or fashion does being a Christian interfere with being a soldier. In fact, my husband's faith encourages him to be a better soldier in every single way. Most of the time, the ones doing the subverting of good order and morale are soldiers with no sense of direction or belonging, which I can assure you, Christian soldiers do not have.

Please stop trying to use a totally invalid point to back up the fact that you simply do not like my Pastor for whatever reason, and I'm venturing to guess that it's because you know he's right about many of the issues that you wish to debate. And definitely don't discredit about 1/3 of our Armed Forces because you don't agree with our choices as to whom we will worship!

[Sansabelt Savior]

Jen, forgive me, but it would seem to me that the people who can speak most meaningfully on whether prayer warrior teams subvert morale are those people who disagree with the philosophy and faith of those teams. I would also suggest that, "Most of the time, the ones doing the subverting of good order and morale are soldiers with no sense of direction or belonging, which I can assure you, Christian soldiers do not have," suggests precisely the kind of divisiveness that is a concern in military operations.

I would hope that no one would deny you your faith, but I would equally hope that unit cohesion would trump evangelism in a nation that recognizes separation between church and state. Put another way, denying evangelism is not tantamount to denying religious freedom.