Street Prophets

Obama and Warren

by pastordan

Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:42:22 AM PDT

Almost two weeks ago, a couple of people happened to send me on the same day links to criticisms of Rick Warren from World Net Daily, a.k.a. "WingNut Daily" for its ultra-conservative news and opinion. I'm no scholar of the religious right, but it seems fairly obvious what's going on. Warren is trying to adjust to the new situation in Washington, which doesn't sit very well with some of his conservative friends.

The harsher of the two critiques concerned Warren's invitation to Barack Obama to speak on HIV/AIDS from his pulpit this coming Friday. Mostly, this piece concerns itself with Obama's position on abortion and same-sex marriage. But it does eventually get around to talking about the issue at hand:

Sen. Obama does not share with evangelicals a belief in moral absolutes. Right and wrong are terms of humor to Obama. All issues are shades of gray.

So how does Rick Warren believe their efforts can legitimately be joined? And what does he have to give up to do so?

By scriptural standards, Rick Warren is to be bound by the biblical text and its teaching on morality. Obama would pursue and has pursued mass distribution of condoms.

...

Barack Obama is likely to run for president in 2008, and speaking from the pulpit of one of America's most well-known evangelical churches is likely to be footage that could be used over and over in trying to dissuade Christians from thinking about moral issues that real Christians truly value.

Really, read the whole thing for its nutty goodness. Meanwhile, the attack on Obama and Warren's partnership continues:

November 29, 2006

MILWAUKEE, Wisconsin, Nov. 28 Christian Newswire -- As those who have worked to defend preborn children from the horrors of abortion in America and who have stood uncompromisingly against the legalized slaughter of an estimated 50 million Americans in the womb since 1973, we join with one voice in expressing our indignation and opposition to Rick Warren's welcoming of Senator Barack Obama to his church on December 1, 2006. Rick Warren is bringing Senator Obama to his church to speak for his Global Summit on AIDS and the church and to take an AIDS test in front of the cameras at a noon press conference.

Senator Obama comes to Rick Warren's church believing that abortion should be kept, "safe and legal". When Barack Obama campaigned for the U.S. Senate in 2004, his wife wrote a fundraising letter for him that revealed his support of partial-birth abortion. She said Obama's position is that the "partial-birth abortion ban . . . is clearly unconstitutional and must be overturned." Support of partial-birth abortion goes a lot farther than the politicians who want abortion to be "safe and legal." Senator Obama actually supports the barbaric practice of allowing abortionists to kill babies by allowing them to be partially, born, their skulls punctured and their brains sucked out. Further, he repeatedly opposed an anti-infanticide bill in the state of Illinois that only passed after he left. Killing a child at any stage of life is a violation of God's clear command, "Thou Shall Do No Murder". In addition,Obama's solution to the growing AIDS crisis has been and continues to be the widespread distribution of condoms, not chaste behavior as directed by the Bible.

In the strongest possible terms, we oppose Rick Warren's decision to ignore Senator Obama's clear pro-death stance and invite him to Saddleback Church anyway. If Senator Obama cannot defend the most helpless citizens in our country, he has nothing to say to the AIDS crisis. You cannot fight one evil while justifying another. The evangelical church can provide no genuine help for those who suffer from AIDS if those involved do not first have their ethic of life firmly rooted in the Word of God. Accordingly, we call on Pastor Rick Warren to rescind his invitation to Senator Obama immediately. The millions of silent victims who have died because of the policies of leaders like Senator Obama demand a response from those who believe that life is a gift from God. The name of the seminar at which Senator Obama will be appearing is entitled, " We Must Work Together." No, Mr. Warren, Mr. Obama, we will never work with those can support the murder of babies in the womb.

Phyllis Schlafly, President and Founder, Eagle Forum
Judie Brown, President, American Life League
Tim Wildmon, President American Family Association and American Family Radio
Joe Scheidler, President, Pro-Life Action League
Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue
Matt Trewhella, Missionaries to the Preborn
Brannon Howse, President, Worldview Weekend, Christian Worldview Network
Janet Folger, President, Faith2Action
Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans for Truth
Greg Cunningham, President, Center for Bioethical Reform, Lake Forest, California
Peggy Hamill, Director, Pro-Life Wisconsin
Cal Zastrow, Christian Action for the Preborn
Dr. Vic Eliason, President, VCY America Radio Network
Ingrid Schlueter, Host, Crosstalk Radio Talk Show
Kevin McCullough, Host, Musclehead Revolution, WMCA Radio
Chris Rosebrough, Capo Valley Church, San Juan Capistrano, California
Rev. Ken Silva, Apprising Ministries
Linda Harvey, President, Mission America

That list of signatories includes some of the hardest of the hardcore right-wing Christian activists. Whatever else you want to say about Phyllis Schlafly and Tim Wildmon, the word "mainstream" does not come to mind. And anyone who partners with Operation Rescue - even after Randall Terry's departure - deserves to be tagged as an extremist. I suspect some of those signers would take that as a compliment.

The idea that the Bible "directs chaste behavior" is a stretch. The Good Book does appreciate fidelity, that's true. But it's also shot through with scandalous sexual behavior, from sleeping with one's father to seducing one's way into marriage to stealing another man's wife. It's hardly the paragon of virtue that some literalists would like to make it out to be. More seriously, as Jesus tells the Pharisees: "the Sabbath was made for man." The rules that God sets are for the benefit of humanity, and if they cause more harm than good, they can be set aside. In this case, it's very hard to argue that the greater good is to be found in keeping African families sick, mourning, and impoverished. Yes, the customary promiscuity of men drives AIDS in many African nations, and that should be changed. But abstinence is part of the program, and until the difficult cultural change can be accomplished, why would you consign generations to misery? One wonders what Phyllis Schlafly, et. al., would think of economic development programs designed to empower women and make them less dependent on sleeping with men for financial support. That's probably "un-Biblical" too.

The other thing that should be said here is that Obama is an evangelical Christian. He might not describe himself that way, but those are the roots of the black church, and it would be hard to argue that the congregation of which he is a member is anything but evangelical in its mindset. The trouble is, it's a black evangelical church that is also rooted in social justice. Which means that it's more interested in helping poor Africans than in living out the social norms of white middle-class Americans.

The same can be said of Rick Warren, apparently, at least on this issue. His ideological cohort apparently feels that's something of a betrayal. I think they'll just have to get over it. Some Christians - even some evangelicals - disagree with them on this. Too bad.

I suspect the real fear here is that Obama, by virtue of his public admissions of faith and rock-star charisma, makes a formidable opponent for conservative evangelicals. Put him up against Mike Huckabee or Mitt Romney, the two major banner-carriers for the movement, and he'll crush them. Especially if he's given the opportunity to widen the moral playing field beyond the litmus tests of abortion and homosexuality. With Obama chatting with Iowans and going to visit New Hampshire, it's no wonder these folks are upset. They've already lost a Congress that pretended to care about their agenda. Now it looks like they might be losing the pulpits they depended upon, and perhaps - just perhaps - the White House in 2008.

I'd be ticked, too.

  • ::


Tags: (all tags)

Permalink | 16 comments

  • Warren has been catching flak (0 / 0)

    from evangelicals both theologically (Purpose Driven Life) and on AIDS for 2 years.

    This really has nothing to do with the election.

    SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

    by JCHFleetguy on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 11:42:49 AM PDT

  • I'd been hesitant (0 / 0)

    about taking a look at Warren's writings, but I'm a bit more encouraged now. At least he doesn't seem to believe that folks that disagree with him have "the spirit of the Antichrist".

    BTW, is anyone else creeped out by the phrase "preborn children" in the second letter? Something about it just makes my skin crawl...

    "3000 Munchkins and a Troll." -- Harry Chapin

    by Cali Scribe on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:30:47 PM PDT

    • :::shudder::: (0 / 0)

      I had to stop there and skip down to PD's commentary.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." -- Hunter S. Thompson

      by rune on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:08:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    • Pre-owned Children (0 / 0)

      That struck me as well.  For whatever reason, rather than dwelling upon that term, my mind jumped back to 1998 and my encounter with the neologism developed to help move used cars: pre-owned cars.  My complaint at the time was that new cars are also pre-owned; what distinguishes used cars is that they are also post-owned.  A good marketing campaign for used cars today might be "Post-Consumer Content: 100%".

      Anyway, what strikes me today is that perhaps "pre-owned children" is a great neologism for the feti for some segments of our society.  Yes, pre-born is a creepy term.

      Daddy's little sociopath :-)

      by Betty Black on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 02:08:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • asdf (0 / 0)

    My Bible is missing the passage condemning the mass distribution of condoms.  Guess I'd better get myself a "real Christian" Bible and see what else I've been missing.

    But seriously, I like your take on Obama's "evangelical Christianity" insofar as that descriptor can be used in reference to the black churches.  There is a similar use of scripture in both churches, a similar esteem for some kind of congregational autonomy, a similar emphasis on education and outreach, and a similar leadership "style."  The difference, as you put it, is in the focus of their morality.  And therein lies all the difference.

    I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. - Galileo

    by Mahanoy on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:43:05 PM PDT

  • Black community (0 / 0)

    Considering that HIV/AIDS is a growing problem, the whole "morality" of letting people die because some guy doesn't want to talk about it is offensive to my morality.

    by bruh on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 12:52:35 PM PDT

  • IF black male THEN horny bastard (0 / 0)

    the customary promiscuity of men drives AIDS in many African nations

    That comment is racist, according to former child prodigy Emily Oster.  What drives AIDS in many African nations is malnutrition.

    by Pyesetz the Jewdog on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:03:47 PM PDT

    • Reductionist racism ... (0 / 0)

      (Considering that Brothels where men serve women have been notoriously bad business investments.)

      "the customary promiscuity of men drives AIDS" is more or less true EVERYWHERE --

      singling out 'Africa' as the site of the problem is, as you observe ... 'Racist' -- and, in my opinion, 'Vicious.'

      So, now what??

      Preaching and/or legislating against 'venery' has a 3000 year record of 'not working.'

      Based on the experience of the European syphilis pandemic (c. 1510 - 1935) neither is the fear of death, disfigurement and disgrace.  And ... it's beginning to look like
      1) there is not going to be an anti-HIV vaccine any time soon
      and
      2) if there WERE the same people who object to the HPV - Cervical Cancer vaccine would also object to the HIV-preventer ...

      So, now what?

      Well, someone like O'Bama CAN probably muster support for free condom distribution,  if he ALSO promotes the sale of 'Life Saving Drugs' --  that ought to help at least a little.  He MAY be able to move people like South Africa's President Mbeke off some of THEIR more whimsicle beliefs about Traditional Medicine, Women in Society, and Western Science --  THAT ought to help a bit.

      But the fact is there are two organizations with track records of actually doing a great deal of good in arresting the HIV/AIDS epidemic:  The Gates Foundation ... and even more wildly successful: the Gay Men's Health Crisis.  What the two groups have in common is the committment to take 'at risk' people exactly as they find them ...  not to encorporate other, more popular agendas with the anti-AIDS program -- and not to allow "Perfection" to become the enemy of "Success." They also start from the assumption that prevention through 'harm reduction' behavioral choices produces a better outcome at a lower cost than 'treatment.'

      With Gates and India, the target is "Truckdrivers and Prostitutes" the goal is "use condoms."  It is an 'Outside, In' strategy ... that is: people from "Outside" come "In" and teach.  But, being accessible,  non-judgmental, and at least Hindi-speaking the Gates Foundation is making more headway than the State Department approved ABC program in Uganda and Keyna.

      In it's heyday**  (1983-1992) the GMHC pioneered and absolutely NAILED the techniques for stopping a venerial disease epidemic.  By 1987, while infection rates continued to climb in other demographics, the 'Turn Around" point had been achieved for the urban Gay Male population -- in very large part because there was no "SeroNegative Elite" patronizing a  "Morally Inferior At-Risk" clientele.  True or not, the position of GMHC's counselors, propagandists and activists was "We're all in this together" and "THIS is the most important task we have TODAY."

      In other words ... not all of GMHC's technques, nor their extraordinary degree of success can be carbon-copied by other communities.  However, without something heterosexually equivalent to "Hot and Healthy SAFEer SEX" programs ... heavily 'Churched' communities ... particularly those 'of Color'  -- may expect to suffer disproportionately until they develop a more gay-tolerant, sex positive, female enabling frame of reference for their own efforts.

      ** Since the mid-90s, the GMHC has 'professionalized' and 'institutionalized' quite a bit. This means it depends as much on insitutional and government grants to carry on its work as it does private contributions and grass roots volunteerism. As a result, the organization has been compelled to back away from most of its overtly 'Sex Posititive' teaching tools.

      It has also  chosen to become involved in the "AIDS/Drugs" agenda, focussing on crystal meth as nearly a co-equal 'cause' of The Epidemic as the Virus Itself.  This creates a no-win situation for the 'Brother who Suffers' ... in order to 'Be Safe,' it is FIRST neccessary to GET SOBER and STAY CLEAN.  In practice the drugging becomes the excuse for unsafe sex, the unsafe sex becomes an excuse for drugging, so that each lapse leads to another risk experience leading to another and another and another.  (Yet the grant money keeps flowing in.)

      by AdamSelene on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:21:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • Interesting (0 / 0)

    This phrase struck me as rather interesting:

    You cannot fight one evil while justifying another.

    Where are these people in Iraq? Where are these people on torture? Where are these people on the hunger crisis? Aren't these things evil according to their Bible?

    Are these people, who claim to be saved, living lives that are anywhere near Christlike?

    I don't think they understand just how thoroughly they have been deceived and corrupted, or the peril that they face as a result.

    Thelema Coast To Coast -- Occultism without Apologies

    by maxomai on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:08:13 PM PDT

  • We are, of course, (0 / 0)

    back to who is "in" and who is "out."  This time the battle ground is "the social norms of white middle-class Americans."  Well, some of them, anyway.

    Perhaps this is about politcal power, as PD says at the end; but I don't think that's the be-all and end-all of it.  This is more simply about power.  As JCH points out (and his comment is obscured from me at the moment, but I mean to refer to him accurately), Warren has already stirred the pot by not conforming to the norms of evangelical theology.  Which is what theological arguments boil down to, of course:  whose definitions do we have to use, and whose boundaries are we abiding by?

    Evangelicals like the Deuteronimists approach:  they think they live in a fallen, i.e., post-Exiic, society, i.e., "Babylon," so purity must be maintained at all costs in order to bring about the millenium.

    Don't care much for Warren's theology, myself.  Much too focused on "what's in it for me," but that's my theological bias.  Mostly, I'm just content to sit back and watch the circular firing squad in action.  For once, it's not people on my side.  

    Pass the popcorn.

    by Rmj on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 01:23:35 PM PDT

  • Well, (0 / 0)

    When "Killing a child at any stage of life is a violation of God's clear command, "Thou Shall Do No Murder"." means that these conservatives will no longer support warfare under "any pretense whatsoever", I will begin to take them seriously.  Until then, not so much.  Everyone is a child at some stage of life.

    Anything short of this is mere posturing for political purposes.

    by Quakerbill on Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 05:21:01 PM PDT

  • One side note.. (0 / 0)

    From their "statement"

    "The evangelical church can provide no genuine help for those who suffer from AIDS if those involved do not first have their ethic of life firmly rooted in the Word of God,"

    This is where a huge portion of the mistrust against evangelical charity comes from. It might be valid, it might be some radicals spouting nonsense.

    But that's where it comes from.

    The future doesn't scare me at all..'cos nothing's like before.

    by Karmakin on Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 08:59:52 AM PDT

Permalink | 16 comments