Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
The Münchhausen martyrdom of Rick Warren, Chuck Colson and Fr. Jonathan Morris

The Münchhausen martyrdom of Rick Warren, Chuck Colson and Fr. Jonathan Morris

Last updated on: June 30, 2015 at 6:08 pm by Fred Clark

The Münchhausen martyrdom of Rick Warren, Chuck Colson and Fr. Jonathan Morris 2015-06-30T18:08:07-04:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

These folks aren’t driven by religion. They’re not really even driven by politics.

It’s just a big fantasy role-playing game.

Rick Warren, Charles Colson, Richard Land and Father Jonathan Morris all might as well be playing World of Warcraft.

Let me show you what I mean. Here’s Rick Warren, boasting of his own courage in a tweet allegedly responding to the news that health insurance for women must include health coverage for women:

I’d go to jail rather than cave in to a government mandate that violates what God commands us to do. Would you?

Ooh, so bold! What a profile in courage! What a valiant stand against oppression and persecution!

That’s what Rick Warren thinks of himself, obviously, but it’s not clear why anyone here in reality would share that view.

You can’t take a valiant stand against oppression and persecution when no one is oppressing or persecuting you. Standing up against threats that exist only in your own imagination does not constitute bravery or courage.

“I’d ride a cannonball rather than cave in to a government mandate.”

Rick Warren is a fantasist. That fantasy allows him to stroke his own ego, but it also makes him appear ridiculous to anyone not caught up in the fantasy with him. He claims to be a martyr but reveals himself to be Baron Münchhausen.

Even more embarrassing for Warren is that his hypothetical courageous stand has, for the past 13 years, been a case of actual cowardice. Warren boldly proclaims that he would “go to jail” rather than to submit to such an allegedly outrageous “government mandate,” but he’s been submitting to exactly the same law since 1999.

You see, Warren’s ministry is located in Lake Forest, California (Orange County). And a birth control mandate has been law in California for a long time. Since 1999, actually.

Cal. Insurance Code § 10123.196 and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1367.25 (1999) require certain health insurance policies that already cover prescription drugs to provide coverage for prescription contraceptive methods approved by the FDA. Religious employers can request health insurance plans without coverage of approved contraceptive methods that are contrary to the employer’s religious tenants. (AB 39)

Now, California allows churches to opt out, but so does the federal one. In fact, the federal law was modeled after the exemption offered by California and other states.

So either Warren has somehow been persecuted for 13 years without noticing it or else he’s transparently puffing himself up over something he knows is completely fabricated.

Markos Moulitsas is having some fun with Warren’s pompous pratfall. Kos has started an online petition: “Rick Warren, please report to jail.”

Rick Warren, you claim that you would rather go to jail than comply with a law requiring health insurance policies to cover contraception without co-pays.

However, the state where your ministry is based, California, has had such a law since 1999.

So we’re just wondering why you haven’t you turned yourself in to the authorities yet. You have only had 13 years to do so.

The problem, though, is that even if Warren believed his own scam, he still couldn’t “report to jail” because no one is trying to send him there. The law that upsets him does not in any way threaten him. There is no “government mandate” that would force him to violate what he thinks God commands him to do.

Warren is just fantasy role-playing.

Just as grandiose and just as foolishly self-congratulatory are the ministerial Malvolios tripping over themselves to declare that health care for women is cause for “civil disobedience.”

Charles “homos and queers” Colson sounded the call in solidarity with his Manhattan Declaration buddies:

We have come to the point — I say this very soberly — when if there isn’t a dramatic change is circumstances, we as Christians may well be called upon to stand in civil disobedience against the actions of our own government. … I’ve made up my mind — sober as that decision would have to be — that I will stand for the Lord regardless of what my state tells me.

Colson is singing their favorite tune, so the usual suspects have to get up and dance. Folks like Southern Baptist ethics czar Richard Land rushed to join in the self-congratulatory role-play of Colson’s fantasy.

In their imagination, they are being heroic and brave. See how bravely they stand up to the oppression they’ve concocted in their imaginations? See how courageously they vow to withstand this non-existent oppression?

Part of the problem here is that none of these preening posers seems to understand what civil disobedience means.* They’re upset about a mandate from which their ministries are exempt. I don’t understand how they intend to disobey a law that does not apply to them. It would be like me trying to use civil disobedience to protest the designated hitter rule.

I suppose they might decide to broaden their scope to include the whole of the Affordable Care Act, courageously standing up for the right of insurance companies to deny coverage to sick children. They might be able to disobey that law by refusing to provide any health care coverage for their employees.

Technically, that might be a form of civil disobedience, but it would introduce a possibility that Thoreau, Gandhi and King never imagined: an act of civil disobedience that constituted a graver injustice than the supposedly unjust law it was meant to protest.

Plus, I seem to recall the Bible having something to say about employers who deny their laborers the wages they have earned. It starts with “weep and wail for the miseries that are coming to you” and then it gets really harsh.

So they might want to keep that in mind.

But as fatuous and ridiculous as the fantasies of Colson, Land and Warren are, they’re exceeded by the new champion of pomposity: Catholic priest Jonathan Morris.

Morris seized the throne of King Laughingstock by declaring that he was “willing to die” to defend his right not to live in a country where women have access to preventive health care.

Morris has apparently failed to notice that no one is threatening to kill him. Or to harm him. Or even to make him pay the taxes that the rest of us pay.

Morris seems to think that defying a non-existent threat makes him appear brave rather than appearing divorced from reality. He has forgotten that in order to be martyred, someone has to be trying to kill you. And the government simply refuses to oblige his great desire to be horribly oppressed.

I’m pretty sure Catholic doctrine forbids self-immolation, so even that path to martyrdom also doesn’t seem available for to Morris. But even that wouldn’t make him a martyr — it would just make him “that messed-up priest who offed himself because Blue Cross stopped charging co-pays.”

Morris desperately wants our admiration. He certainly admires himself — so much that he assumes the rest of us will join him.

But while this sad, ridiculous man doesn’t merit anyone else’s admiration, he has earned my attention. I can’t wait to see how he intends to nail his second hand to the cross-beam all by himself.

– – – – – – – – – – – – –

* This is what civil disobedience looks like:

On December 1, 1955 in Montgomery, Alabama, [Rosa] Parks refused to obey bus driver James F. Blake’s order that she give up her seat to make room for a white passenger. … Parks’ civil disobedience had the effect of sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

… By refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus to a white man, Parks was more clearly in violation of custom than of law. Nonetheless, her refusal amounted to an act of civil disobedience, resulted in her arrest and conviction by a local court, and proved to be the spark for the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

… Blake … said, “Why don’t you stand up?” Parks responded, “I don’t think I should have to stand up.” Blake called the police to arrest Parks. When recalling the incident for Eyes on the Prize, a 1987 public television series on the Civil Rights Movement, Parks said, “When he saw me still sitting, he asked if I was going to stand up, and I said, ‘No, I’m not.’ And he said, ‘Well, if you don’t stand up, I’m going to have to call the police and have you arrested.’ I said, ‘You may do that.'”

The law was unjust. The law directly applied to Rosa Parks. Parks broke the unjust law, was arrested and convicted.

We have many laws that I believe are unjust. The Citizens United ruling, for example, which effectively legislated into existence the corrupting and un-democratic Super Pacs, giving corporations and billionaires undue influence in our elections, is unjust. The policy of indefinite detention without charge or trial for those held at Guantanamo Bay is an atrocity against the Constitution. But I am not engaged in civil disobedience against those laws because they do not apply to me in a way that requires me to obey them or enables me to disobey them. Since I cannot disobey those laws, civil disobedience is not an option for me to oppose them.

I could announce that I planned to demonstrate my opposition to such laws by trespassing on corporate or military property. My arrest might serve to bring attention to my concern, but it would be political theater, not civil disobedience. The law I would be disobeying would not be related to the law I was protesting. I would be, in effect, violating a just law in an attempt to draw attention to an unrelated unjust law.

And but so, the point being that Rick Warren and Chuck Colson are pretending they’re Rosa Parks. They’re not. Not even close.

These men are pretending their the heirs to Martin Luther King Jr., penning their own “Letter from a Birmingham Jail.” But they’ve forgotten the salient point about that inspired epistle — it was a letter from jail. King was really being persecuted. They are not. They imagine themselves to be the heirs to his legacy, but in actual fact they are the heirs — precisely — of the white clergymen who were standing in the way of human rights.

they are coming for your birth control

Previous Post

February 19, 2012

Smart people saying smart things

Next Post

February 20, 2012 Jubilee: Proclaim the year of the Lord's favor

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I am a coat of many colors that sparked jealousy among brothers. What am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

A royal garment Joseph's coat Jacob's robe The priests robe