“I'm always happy
to be a back channel for peace.” Rick Warren,
CNN, 12/15/06
[emphasis added]
“I will go anywhere in the world if I'm allowed to preach the gospel
without hindrance. I'd go to Iran; I'd go to Syria; I'd go to North
Korea. A lot of the criticisms have come from people who politicize
the Christian faith. To them, politics is more important than
winning people to Christ. In fact, I think one of the greatest
damages to the church in the last 20 years has been the
politicization of the church. I'm also tired of the church being
known simply as a political tool and being co-opted by
politicians.” Rick Warren interview in
Christianity Today, 12/27/06 [emphasis
added]
This is curious. This
terminology “back channel” isn’t something that people use in their
everyday conversation. What does it mean when Rick Warren says he is a
“back channel for peace”?
To answer this question start out at
Wikipedia and look
up the term
back-channel. This term has specialized meanings in
telecommunications, linguistics, diplomacy and business. The latter two
meanings seem to be most relevant to Rick Warren’s usage of the term:
“In Diplomacy: A
back channel in the language of
diplomacy is an
unofficial channel of
communication
between states or other political entities, used to supplement
official channels, often for the purposes of discussing highly
sensitive policy issues. See also
Track II
diplomacy.”
“In Business: In business, back-channeling is an
inappropriate organizational practice that involves bypassing
recognized or official communication processes, usually by sharing
information anonymously up the reporting structure at least two
levels, in order to create vulnerability at the level(s) skipped. It
is a means by which lower-level members can manipulate perceived
power differentials with a superior through a more senior
accommodating manager in the organization. It is generally
considered unethical and unhealthy for relationships within the
organization.”
Why would Warren be
seemingly working in secret when Jesus calls Christians to openly
declare His Gospel?
Another definition comes from
www.thefreedictionary.com:
“Back channel -
an alternative to the regular channels of communication that is
used when agreements must be made secretly (especially in
diplomacy or government); ‘they negotiated via a back channel.’”
This term “back
channel” – most often associated with international diplomatic missions
– raises some perplexing questions about precisely what Rick Warren was
recently doing in
Syria, what he was supposed to do in
North Korea, and, of course, what he is currently doing in
Africa with his
Global P.E.A.C.E. Plan. Whatever does this "back-channeling" have to
do with the spread of the Gospel message of salvation in Jesus Christ?
It is notable that Rick Warren characteristically
refrains from presenting the Gospel message of salvation in his
public appearances, other than perhaps a brief passing nod to it.
Perhaps relevant to this inquiry, note the transformation of the letter
“P” in the acronym for P.E.A.C.E. Originally the term meant “Plant
churches” – a solidly evangelistic idea that traditionally has to do
with the spread of the Gospel message. But that letter soon began to
have the additional meaning of “Partner
with congregations.” Then it was expanded to the idea of
partnering
with other entities. Finally, a new meaning of the "P" in P.E.A.C.E.
came out on the Fox channel’s
Saddleback Christmas Eve service: “Provide hope.” This change may
also reflect Rick Warren's emerging new role as an international
ambassador for "peace."
Track II Diplomacy for P.E.A.C.E.?
To answer the questions about back-channeling requires following the
links. Back channeling is connected to the idea of Track II
diplomacy. According to
Wikipedia:
“Track II diplomacy is a
specific kind of informal
diplomacy, in
which non-officials (academic
scholars, retired
civil and
military officials, public figures, and
social
activists) engage in
dialogue, with the aim of
conflict
resolution, or confidence-building.[1] This sort of diplomacy is
especially useful after events which can be interpreted in a number
of different ways, both parties recognize this fact, and neither
side wants to escalate or involve third parties for fear of the
situation spiraling out of control. For example, a
Chinese general
recently commented that
atomic bombs
are not out of the question if the PRC and the United States should
engage in low-level conflict over the Taiwan question. If the US
immediately responded with heavy press coverage and speeches by
major officials, the PRC
would then be forced to take either of two stances: (1) admission
that the general was incorrect, which would inflame the Chinese
population and cause grassroots ire and anti-American feeling, or
(2) claim that the general was correct, which would be detrimental
to world peace and diplomatic relations. Instead, the US would
engage in Track II diplomacy to try to understand whether the
initial threat was as serious as it seemed to be. Dialogue would be
deliberately invited in order to determine the stance of the PRC
without creating a confrontational atmosphere.
“Although Track II diplomacy may seem less important than Track I
(the work of actual diplomats at their embassies), it is many times
far more important. Indeed its informal nature often reflects the
fact that the issues in question are of deadly seriousness. In the
above situation, the United States would at least ask that the other
side clearly demonstrate their understanding that they were the ones
to make the initial threat, even if no apology was eventually deemed
necessary by either side.”
This definition raises many
questions about the emerging new role of Rick Warren as a “back channel
for peace” in world affairs. To do further research on Track II
diplomacy follow the links. Follow the link at the bottom of the Track
II diplomacy Wikipedia definition to: "Track
II (Citizen) Diplomacy" posted at The Beyond Intractability
Knowledge Base Project. There one can learn the answers to the
question: “Who are Track Two Intermediaries and Diplomats?" This
article should be read in its entirety, including its many interesting
links. Below are a few key excerpts:
“The term ‘intermediary’
refers to people who become involved ‘in the middle’ of a conflict.
They are not
disputants, but rather people who try to work with the
disputants to resolve the conflict or transform it to make it less
destructive.…
“At the inter-group or international level, the term encompasses a
number of different terms: ‘track two diplomacy,’ citizen diplomacy,
‘multi-track
diplomacy’" supplemental diplomacy, pre-negotiation,
consultation, interactive conflict resolution, back-channel
diplomacy,
facilitated joint brainstorming,
coexistence work. While differing in emphasis, agenda, and
theoretical approach, these initiatives share many common goals.
They attempt to provide an environment that is low-key,
non-judgmental, non-coercive, and safe, and to create a process in
which participants feel free to share perceptions,
fears
and
needs, and to explore ideas for resolution, free of the
constraints of government positions. The process is designed to
encourage the development of mutual understanding of differing
perceptions and needs, the creation of new ideas, and strong
problem-solving relationships.
“Normally, informal intermediaries are non-governmental actors, such
as religious institutions, academics, former government
officials,
non-governmental organizations, humanitarian organizations, and
think tanks, among others.…”
[emphasis added]
This article further goes on
to describe the functions of these “Informal Intermediaries” in the role
of global peace. Note the graphic diagram in this article. It is fairly
easy to place Rick
Warren’s recent trip to Syria in this Track II diplomacy context.
Particularly note the references to the international “peace” process.
The focus here is on building relationships between two warring parties.
This goal may seem commendable on the surface, but dig deeper into the
articles on this website and one begins to learn some disturbing
information about how this “peace” process is conducted. These
descriptions place Track II diplomacy solidly in the arena of conflict
resolution, common ground and the
dialectic process.
Note the emphasis below on the assessment process to ensure that
attitudes and relationships have been changed.
“Contributions of
Unofficial Interventions
“Assessing the
impact of unofficial intermediation in intractable conflicts is
difficult. These initiatives are generally not designed to
achieve the goals of traditional diplomacy; they are not
designed to produce agreements, nor to affect major shifts in policy
in the short term. Rather, they seek to affect more intangible
factors of intractability, such as attitudes and
relationships that are more difficult to measure, and
whose contribution to change in the broader conflict environment is
difficult to assess. Even when the impact of the
interventions on participants' attitudes and relationships
can be measured, the significance of these ‘micro’ level
achievements for the larger conflict resolution process is often not
clear.”…
“Changed Perceptions of the Conflict
“Unofficial intermediation also addresses the psychological and
social dimensions of the conflict. Participants identify
underlying needs, values, and interests that are compatible
and that can form the basis for a new definition of a common
problem that the two sides share an interest in solving. As a
result of deeper understanding of the other side's needs, they also
develop a greater openness to abandoning previous non-negotiable
positions.” [emphasis
under subheadings added]
This “peace” process entails
strengthening the voices of moderates” and, at the same time, building
“social networks” as an “infrastructure for peace.” In this context, it
becomes necessary to ameliorate the extremes. And, according to some
definitions, fundamentalist Christians could be considered to be
extremists. There is a link to an article “Dealing
With Extremists” which raises some deeply disturbing issues. It
should also be read in its entirety. Again, notice the emphasis on
beliefs and attitudes:
“Defining Extremism
“Extremism is a complex phenomenon, although its complexity is often
hard to see. Most simply, it can be defined as activities (beliefs,
attitudes, feelings, actions, strategies) of a person or group
far removed from the ordinary.”
[emphasis added]
Particularly note that those
who hold end-time eschatological views are considered to be
“extremists.” Note also that “extremists” are considered to be mentally
ill:
“Extremism emerges
from apocalyptic, eschatological (end-of-life) ideologies.
Extremist activities are often committed and valued because they are
consistent with broader myths or systems of meaning.…
“Extremism is a pathological illness. This perspective views
extremism as a disease and a way of life where people look to
violence to provide a feeling of aliveness. Greun (2003)
writes, ‘The lack of identity associated with extremists is the
result of self-destructive self-hatred that leads to feelings
of revenge toward life itself, and a compulsion to kill one's own
humanness.’[2] Thus extremism is seen as not a tactic, nor an
ideology, but as a pathological illness, which feeds on the
destruction of life.”
[emphasis under subheadings added]
Notice also that those
holding “extreme” beliefs are characterized as potentially violent.
There is no provision for Christians who hold to fundamental beliefs,
who non-violently (i.e., with non-resistance) peaceably live out their
faith in conscience and conviction (“non-negotiables”).
Of relevance to this discussion is the section of this article that
describes how to deal with extremists. These are strategies that many
will recognize in the microcosm of problems they experienced while in
purpose-driven churches. These strategies include: elimination,
divide and conquer, isolation, intergroup cooperation against extremism,
expanding the middle, covert negotiation chains, contradictory
strategies, intragroup work, overt engagement, and
Peace
building.
That last link to
Peace-building is also an interesting article. Perhaps readers will
draw some further parallels. In these contexts, Rick Warren’s Global
P.E.A.C.E. Plan begins to plug it into the notches of “back-channeling”
and “Track II diplomacy” to the point where there are some exact fits.
Perhaps all of this clarifies the new role of the churches as a “distribution
network” across the globe. It may also provide a few answers to the
many questions raised about what he was doing in Syria. This is not what
evangelical Christianity has been about -- that is up until now. Despite
Rick Warren's protestations in the second opening quotation about how
the church shouldn't be a "political tool," this activity is
"politicization" on a global scale.
This isn't about evangelism.
The Truth:
"Fear them not
therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed;
and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that
speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon
the housetops. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not
able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy
both soul and body in hell." (Matthew 10:26-28)
Email this page