This quote was posted at CRN from Kay Warren

By her own admission, Kay Warren says, five years ago she didn’t know anything about AIDS. Then she saw a magazine article about how the disease had left 12 million orphans in Africa.

‘I didn’t care about AIDS in Africa. I thought it was a gay man’s disease, so in the theology I had at the time, I didn’t have to care. I didn’t know anyone who had AIDS. I had a heart that was very hard, apathetic and very wrong,’ said Warren

CRN responds with this one line

Well, she must have learned that rotten and unscriptural “theology” from her her husband because they sure didn’t get it from the BIble.

Very revealing of their theology at CRN. It is considered “rotten and unscriptural” to actually care about those who have AIDS. I mean, isn’t that all Kay mentions here? Before she used to think AIDS was a “gay man’s disease” and so she didn’t have to care about these people. But, now that she actually cares for the broken, the widowed, the sick, the hungry and the naked, her theology is rotten. These people have obviously become more enamored with their fights against Warren than understanding biblical truths. Simply amazing.


Upon re-reading the article, I realized that I probably did get the message mixed up.  I apologize for any harm done.  I am still confused though.  Rick Warren has not changed his theology in the last 5 years.  Why would he then be responsible for his wife’s theology 5 years ago, but not be now?  You can’t say he was responsible for the bad, but is not now responsible for the good.

So, I guess the editor is implying that Rick Warren’s theology has now changed for the better?  I’ll take that.

  • Share/Bookmark
This entry was posted on Saturday, March 8th, 2008 at 10:44 am and is filed under Christian Living, Church and Society, Editor, Ken Silva, Linked Articles, ODM Responses, ODM Writers, PD/SS, Theology, What Can You Say?. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
+/- Collapse/Expand All

27 Comments(+Add)

1   Scotty
March 8th, 2008 at 11:23 am

“But, now that she actually cares for the broken, the widowed, the sick, the hungry and the naked, her theology is rotten.”

Just guessing but I think that was meant the other way around….not caring was the rotten theolgy.

2   Henry (Rick) Frueh
March 8th, 2008 at 11:31 am

Mrs. Warren also said:

‘How many times can you pursue the American dream before you find it’s hollow? Ladies, how many pairs of shoes can you own? Gentlemen, how many gidgety gadgety things can you own before you reach a point where it just doesn’t satisfy your soul? Why not choose to be ruined for something of eternal value?’

The mean and self righteous tone of CRN again surfaces here. Many of us have issues with Rick Warren, but when someone lays down a challenge to our Christian compassion concerning one of the scurge of AIDS in Africa we all should be broken. These words were spoken by someone whose actions substantiate her words far beyond blogger belther, and when people use every inappropriate moment to attack and amke snide remarks, it reveals their hearts of stone which are carved in an image of themselves.

Just to imagine the suffering of African children should devastate us. In a previous post on FJL I indicted everyone who espouses certain emrgent leader’s docrtrine, and I now publicly say that all who stand behind people like Ken and Ingrid are partakers in their heretical tone and heartless self righteousness. In some ways they have indeed redefined Christianity in the same way as the ones they attack.

To use the AIDS epidemic as another springboard to snipe at Rick Warren is profoundly unchristian.

3   Henry (Rick) Frueh
March 8th, 2008 at 11:34 am

Sorry for all the spelling mistakes, I get very emotional about people who do what CRN does as it pertains to African children. It is a disgrace before Almighty God!

4   deborah
March 8th, 2008 at 12:41 pm

I really don’t like taking the other side in these discussion but a charitable reading of the article at doesn’t support the article above by Nathan.

The bolded sentence is what the “editor” seems to be refering to as rotten and unscriptural – the sentence about not caring. Reading it that way, the article is saying that the view that Kay Warren had 5 years ago was wrong by standards.


5   Henry (Rick) Frueh
March 8th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

we’re treated to the same old postevangelical straw man song and dance from Mrs. Rick Warren

I am trying to figure out a “charitable” reading of this article. Mrs. Warren didn’t attack anyone but herself, so is CRN’s tone the same? Are we to assume that the “editors” at CRN have an unassailable compassion for the African AIDS sufferers? Can any of us say the same? This was just used to attack Warren while ignoring completely the issue that Mrs. Warren was addressing and confessing.

6   Christian P
March 8th, 2008 at 1:05 pm

Nathan, I have to agree that the attack seems to stem from the bad theology of yesteryear.

That being said, the attack is still wrong. Clearly Kay was not talking about a developed studied theology but how she actually lived her life. (If we truly believe in something, we will live accordingly.) And to use something that somebody has recognized as wrong in their life and repented of to attack them is just rediculous and in and of itself sinful. How terrible for any church leader to ever have been wrong. They should be ashamed of themselves for not always being right.

Deborah, you are correct in the phrases being commented on, but there is no way to read that article chartiably so as to say it’s okay. The article and the attack is sinful.

7   deborah
March 8th, 2008 at 1:16 pm

I agree that given’s history, it is fair to say that the whole thing is an attack on Kay using any means possible – blaming her husband. However, in that attack, the “editor” is actually agreeing with what Nathan says about caring about those with AIDS. That should have been the focus of this article.

That is why I really didn’t want to take a dissenting voice. At the same time I believe that those who write here are trying to be “above” doing the same thing, which in this article, Nathen seems to be doing.

If he had chosen to point out the irony of agreeing with Warren in order to attack him, I wouldn’t have said a word.

8   Neil    
March 8th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

I’ve reread the post at CRN a couple times and it’s hard to tell what the issue is – was her former theology “rotten and unscriptural”? – if so, why bash her for changing?

Even so, since the post starts with “…we’re treated to the same old postevangelical straw man song and dance ” it’s obviously an attack.

But like so many ODM rants – it’s vitriolic with no substance.


9   Evan Hurst    
March 8th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

What a bleeding heart she must be.

Like Jesus.

10   deborah
March 8th, 2008 at 1:41 pm

The clue for me is the fact that bolded the specific portion about what her theology was 5 years ago. The strawman they are trying to combat would be that prior to “postevangelical” theology, Christians didn’t care about AIDS.

11   Neil    
March 8th, 2008 at 1:52 pm

I didn’t know a mia culpa could be a straw-man…


12   andy    
March 8th, 2008 at 1:55 pm

“in the theology I had at the time, I didn’t have to care”.

Surely they mean, what theology would ever equal not caring just because you see something as a gay disease..

She does seem to be saying now i know its not just a gay mans disease i now care..But i’m only reading a snippet of her comments and i’m sure shes not

13   Evan Hurst    
March 8th, 2008 at 1:58 pm

well the hard-right blowhards like Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the late Jerry Falwell, peace be upon him, *grin*, tend/ed to view AIDS as God’s wrathful punishment on gays for their disco ways.

so there’s the theological influence, and there’s the justification.

14   andy    
March 8th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

“so there’s the theological influence”

On Her? Thats a presumtion which suits you

15   Henry (Rick) Frueh
March 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

I feel very strongly about using other people’s suffering as foundation for scoring theological points couched in sarcasm.

I mean every word of this:

16   Evan Hurst    
March 8th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

on the entire Christian right for a couple of decades.

17   andy    
March 8th, 2008 at 2:14 pm

Maybe we should all be saying Praise God Crn are saying you should care what ever the reason for a disease???

18   andy    
March 8th, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Henry i just read your piece and my above post is flippant..Your right its not fair to try and score points, when someones trying to do something positive for the AIDS situation.
As someone who as a personal reason’s for being concerned about AIDS, i feel humbled by your article

19   Tim Reed, Owosso MI
March 8th, 2008 at 2:34 pm

are saying you should care what ever the reason for a disease???

Um… yeah.

It doesn’t matter the reason for any disease, pain, hurt , or anything else, we’re still required to serve that person no matter what.

20   andy    
March 8th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

You read that entirely wrong Tim!!! I was saying maybe Crn were saying to her It doesn’t matter what the reason for a disease was, we should always care…

Maybe i was being optimistic

21   Tim Reed, Owosso MI
March 8th, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Rick hits an even stronger point, that ought to be repeated in every American church until the end of prosperity.

22   Henry (Rick) Frueh
March 8th, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I never read the CRN article as they shouldn’t care, I read correctly as “We have always cared!”, how dare Mrs. Warren attack our theology. In reality, she attacked her own lethargy and not anyone else. A powerful speech of compassion and accountability and some move typically toward self defense and counter punch.

As I have often said, Rick Warren could invent a cure for AIDS and some would accuse him of grandstanding! But if MacArthur coughs many want the cd!

23   andy    
March 8th, 2008 at 3:06 pm

Henry i agree, i read it (naively maybe) as they were perplexed that anyones theology could allow a person not to care..

But the more i read it, the more a no story it is by them..She states very clearly she was wrong in her past,and is now addressing the issues morally and scripturally & in love..

24   iggy
March 9th, 2008 at 7:41 pm

I am not surprised as CRN is infamous for putting a “story” up that the “reader” is supposed to understand as “whatever” the “editor” intended… yet, there seems to be not one cohesive thought to grasp…

Is it good? Is it bad? All one can do is assume and with those guys, that is just too dangerous as they seem to always pull the “that is not what we meant” trick out of their bag…

True biblical discernment leaves not “question” and if you read it there at CRN and had ‘questions’ as i often do IF I go and read anything there… it is proof there is very little “true discernment” if any.

Most often I “know” what they are saying, but often they seem to sit the fence on the weirdest thngs.


25   Richard Abanes
March 13th, 2008 at 9:50 pm

Here you can see how the “discerners” work — i.e., find some obscure, unclear, vague remark and twist it and turn it like a pretzel until you can get something bad from it to justify a fairly nasty comeback.

Let’s be honest, whatever Kay Warren is saying here is unclear. She’s talking in an interview using touchy-feely language, is being emotional, and not very clear about EXACTLY what she is saying. I think the general point is obvious — at one time, somewhere in her thinking, she erroneously.sinfully thought that since AIDS was a total product of sin, that she didn’t need to worry that much about it or be concerned. In time, she saw that such an attitude was not only wring, but factually skewed since many innocent people get AIDS, too. She saw she was wring, repented, felt bad about it, and has now tried to turn things around and make a difference. Okay, so what is the problem.

Only the “discerners” could discern something negative out of this remark by Kay, whip it backwards, and use it as another excuse to level yet another accusation against Rick Warren. Really, really sad and odd.

R. Abanes

26   iggy
March 13th, 2008 at 9:53 pm


It is the tactic of the “religious” and was the way the Pharisees approached Jesus to His Face… why would they change their tactic on mere humans.

Be Blessed,

27   Ken Silva
March 14th, 2008 at 11:06 am

And with Abanes here you can see how the “defenders” work — i.e., find something that’s been quoted from a primary source, which is clear, and a specific remark and then he twists it and turns it like a pretzel until he can get something bad from it to justify a fairly condescending comeback.