I recently wrote a blog-post called How To Express Your Faith Without Losing Your Friend in which I tried to find the edges in various ways people (“Red” and “Blue” people) can legitimately express the Gospel in different ways without compromising the message. I’m a big fan of realizing that being different does not necessarily mean being wrong. In this blog, I use Rick Warren and a speech he gave to Muslims as an example. Although I didn’t endorse his comments and thought he needed to be very careful in his trajectory; I did think maybe he is still on solid ground just trying to create a dialogue that I don’t realize since the reference point I have is seen through an editors lens.
However, now I read that the Pastor Warren issued a statement yesterday praising president-elect Obama for selecting V. Gene Robinson – the homosexual Episcopal bishop who is also scheduled to give the invocation at the inaugural opening ceremony at the Sunday afternoon concert on the Mall. Pastor Warren said, (regarding the choice of Robinson),
[President-elect Obama] “has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground. I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen.” (emphasis mine)
So, I ask, is Mr. Warren playing the political game by undercutting the Homosexual venom by making this statement? Maybe he is just playing word-games by citing “his desire to be president of every citizen.” Maybe this is a strategic move to become more inclusive in order to reach more people with the Gospel. I’m curious as to what you think could possible be the reason for the posture of Pastor Warren in issuing this statement?
BTW. This cycle of political blogs grew out of a observation that Obama was now in the second stage of his campaign cycle; a place where he is now forced to be as inclusive as possible if he was going to start his presidency with any allegiance to his campaign promise of “Change.” However, always remember that leadership without a particular vision that is, by its very definition, exclusive is not true leadership at all. If leadership does not hold this tension (some decisions will create deep and sharp conflict) then, at some point, it is doomed to never accomplish anything of real substance. I wonder how long everyone can be equally right and championed by our new President.
Just look back at the homosexual reaction when Warren was invited to participate. Are we to respond the same way?
I think Warren is addressing this as a national event and not a platform for the Gospel. It’s as if we are expecting him to give an invitation at the inauguration or something. How would you feel about Robinson using the Presidential inauguration to state the case that homosexuality is compatible with Scripture?
If Warren starts to say things like, “there is no reason for us to disagree” then I will be worried, but right now the point is though we disagree over somethings, we can still come together as Americans.
Guiroo, so you need to hear a direct and clear denial of the Judeo-Christian ethic before you will question Pastor Warren?
Is there no inherent danger to Mr. Warren’s position given his title as Pastor? I think that dynamic forces the problem. If Mr. Warren was a religious person who had simply grew to prominence for writing a book about having purpose, that related to God in ones life, then I could see the case you are making. However, the people under his care (and those who look to him as a spiritual mentor) could see this as a official position or accommodating homosexuality as a legitimate behavior within Christianity. Am I totally nuts to think this?
Also, is this not a great example of how politics and religion don’t mix? To really lead on the issues in one area is to force oneself to be marginalized in the other?
“Am I totally nuts to think this?”
Yes. 😉
He’s already stated his position. The phrase “finding common ground” implies a difference of opinion.
“Also, is this not a great example of how politics and religion don’t mix?”
I think this has more to do with Obama than Warren. Eventually a policy will be established.
“Also, is this not a great example of how politics and religion don’t mix?”
I didn’t hear any statements like this from evangelicals back in 2000 and 2004 — or does it just depend on the beliefs/actions of the person in office.
If you don’t think politics and religion mix then maybe you agree with Michael Newdow more than you think.
“…is Mr. Warren playing the political game”
Yes and its par for the course for him. I think he confuses the two kingdoms to borrow a phrase from the White Horse Inn guys and has a fundamental misunderstanding of his calling as a pastor.
On the Gene Robinson thing, Robinson standing up in front of a national crowd as a church official with the soon-to-be President’s blessing does state his case that homosexuality is compatible with scripture, loudly and clearly, he doesn’t have to actually say the words.
It is not Rev. Warren’s responsibility to foster dialogue. Regardless of method, I believe his pattern should be that of Paul, who endeavored to do one thing – preach Christ crucified. If homosexuals (and not only homosexuals, but mankind) are not challenged that they are in sin, they will never conclude that they need a Savior. This is, however unintentional, a tacit endorsement of their lifestyle. Keep in mind that Jesus came into the world for a variety of reasons, not least of which was to destroy the works of the evil one. One of those works is to lie and deceive, such as the worship of the creation through the practice of homosexuality. God loves everyone, but he loves everyone with the goal of reconciliation to the Father on His terms, not ours. God bless everyone today and I hope you all have a great day in Christ!
Larry, does the same not apply? Fresh off the heals of:
Warren standing up in front of a national crowd as an evangelical church official with the soon-to-be President’s blessing does state his case that homosexuality is wrong and the forgiveness of sin is only found in Christ, loudly and clearly, he doesn’t have to actually say the words.
Look at it from the other side. Are the gays that are boycotting the event because of Warren’s presence acting appropriately? Or is Robinson endorsing the anti-gay agenda?
Doug, Warren has done plenty to challenge the gay community, but is the Presidential inauguration really the time and place? Have you “preached Christ crucified” at the office during the big presentation? Have you defined “saved by grace alone” while participating in a Roman Catholic friend’s wedding? Last time you were on jury duty did you use that platform to “preach” the Gospel?
Warren is being asked to help unify the country over the common ground of being an American. We can differ on many things but we are still Americans and that is what the occassion is about.
I think I can bring a unique perspective. I was saved in Rick Warren’s church when I was 26. At the time it was fairly small (1100 people, I think) and I was active in service and had the opportunity to interact with Rick on a fairly regular basis. One of our conversations stands out in my mind as I think of the situation that he finds himself in today. We were talking of the tension between a close family member and myself….the same week I told my family I had become a Christian, he came out and told our family he was gay. It put us suddenly and unexpectedly on opposite sides of the fence from each other, which really confused and disturbed me. As I talked about this with Rick, he urged me to “love the sinner, but hate the sin” and to be humble in approaching him, as God doesn’t “rank” sin the way we do, and I was certainly guilty as well. However, he gave me some solid scripture to present to him to show him that it WAS sin in God’s eyes, and urged me to step out of my comfort zone in talking to my family member about his lifestyle, while showing love and humility. I think Rick has lived this advice out pretty well, with the work he has encouraged the christian community to do to relieve the suffering of people with AIDS, and on the other side of the coin, the stance he took on the marriage initiative. I think his position on the inaugeration is consistent with his advice to me. His statement does not demean the other individual speaking, but indicates that they do not agree on some issues UNRELATED to the ceremony at hand.
I think that Rick has a great gift in moving his church to actually work at change in the community. He is not perfect, and I do not agree with every position that he takes, or agree that churches of Saddleback’s size should be the norm, but it always makes me sad to hear other pastors attacking him. The things I hear are almost always completely inconsistent with what I witnessed first hand. I wish I had the time or the courage to tell you where I would be right now, had I not walked into that tent that was Saddleback Church so many years ago.
“Last time you were on jury duty did you use that platform to “preach” the Gospel?”
Rick Warren is a pastor, a preacher of the Gospel, who has been asked to deliver a prayer which is a form of worship. That is not the same thing as me being asked to serve on a jury.
Any prayer that leaves the audience unsure of who is being addressed or that allows them to fill in the blank with the god of their choosing takes the Lord’s name in vain and is therefore sinful.
The world wants us to look at the two points of view as morally equivalent, not wrong, just different. As Christians we cannot buy into that way of thinking. If Warren’s presence does in fact promote the Biblical view on homosexuality then that is a good thing, even if some are offended by it. Robinson promotes evil and we cannot say it’s OK to promote evil just because some are offended by the promotion of good.
Larry – I agree with you in theory, but are we dealing with believers, or unbelievers? This situation with the other pastor is a little dicey, because he claims to be a Christian, but is clearly discounting some significant portions of scripture that are inconvenient to his point of view.
A pastor in this position has two choices. Decline the opportunity to deliver the prayer, or deliver the prayer. If we have to share the stage with non-believers are we going to decline? Are we going to stop putting up Nativity scenes because there is a Wiccan display on the opposite street corner? It seems to me that the correct response would be to keep praying to the one true God, despite who is on the stage next to me.
I think we have to take into consideration that we are dealing with people who do not think they are doing anything wrong. They are blinded to their own sin, a condition we all found ourselves in at one point. I think there are very few of us who could claim to have come to Christ as a result of other Christians refusing to be in our presence, but most of us can give testimony to people who entered into relationships with us in love, despite our sinful state, and were won over to Christ by this love. I think choosing to decline because of the homosexuality issue would be more of a “political statement” and less Christlike than giving the address. I think it’s important to view his presence at the event in context with his very well publicized position on homosexuality. To view his participation as some type of approval of the homosexuality seems like kind of a leap.
HOWEVER, having said that…….
My question to Rick Warren would be, “How can a believer stomach asking God’s blessing on the inaugeration of a man who believes in the outright slaughter of the unborn?” To me, its less about who he’s standing next to on the stage, and more about who is being elevated in the ceremony. And it certainly isn’t God.
All of this focus on the gay issue seems kind of silly to me in light of that.
Enjoying the back and forth with people over three feet tall,
Lesli
Thanks for the first hand account Lesli.
That was an example to show that “preaching” is not the only model to sharing the Gospel. And that there are times and places for things, to everything turn, etc.
He hasn’t even said a prayer yet.
How is Warren promoting evil? We can either show up and represent, or boycott and not represent (how we got into this mess of a culture in the first place).
Or we can silence the infidels through legislation and/or force, of course. 😉
@ David
“He hasn’t even said the prayer yet.”
No, but when asked whether he would pray in Jesus name, he hedged and refused to give a straightforward, clear answer. Something that should be a no-brainer for a Christian minister.
BTW, I didn’t say that Warren was promoting evil, I said that Robinson was. My point is, we should not say that Robinson’s presence is no different than Warren’s, which it seemed to me you were saying. The one promotes evil, the other good.
@Leslie,
I agree with you. I don’t think the right choice is to decline. After choosing to accept though there is then the choice of pleasing men or pleasing God with our prayer (which I think you alluded to). As David pointed out the prayer has not yet been delivered but my hope is Warren will choose to please God rather than men when he takes advantage of this high profile opportunity.
I am impressed with the argumentation put forth, thank you all. I think it is fantastic to lay out compelling thoughts on both sides of this very complex subject. I think the discussion so far points out a couple sharp points of tension that I would like your input on.
1. A christian (whether pastor or layperson) cannot maintain the same level of allegiance to the standards of Christianity when dealing in the world of politics.
Would we say this is true?
2. A christian will find him or herself at odds with others of similar faith due to this type of activity (see blog string). So, how does this individual christian (namely, Rick Warren) reconcile this with Christ’s desire to be in unity with others within the church? When Christ says they will know your Christians by your love for one another he is speaking of christian to christian. So, does the tension that Rick is creating by praying at the Presidential Inauguration automatically hurt the witness of the church? Should he, therefore, decline on that basis alone?
Thoughts?
@Larry,
Granted, he could have easily said yes or no but, “I’m a Christian pastor so I will pray the only kind of prayer I know how to pray” isn’t caving … yet. Time will tell I guess.
Sidenote: I imagine non-Christians looking at this discussion like some kind of ET headline of “What will Oprah wear to the inauguration?” :^)
As for spreading evil, my point was that it seems like we are expecting some kind of monumentus thing from Warren as our “evangelical” representative. Like he has to speak out against abortion, the gay-agenda, and have an alter call to send the right message and fulfill his Christian duty.
But at the same time, the very presence of Robinson sends the wrong message loud and clear. There’s a double standard.
@Dan,
1. This is not true. If it were then it would also be true when applied to the world of business, the world of technology, the world of the arts, the world of healthcare, the world in general. The Christian is only responsible for maintaining their own allegiance to the “standards of Christianity”. We all live in a big fallen world, if our environment dictates our allegiance/standards then we are all in trouble.
2. I think that would be chickening out — whatever the issue. Kinda like the SBC’s stance on alcohol. Or leaving an event because your 5-18 year old is having a temper tantrum — only affirming the behavior, instead of demanding discipline. Declining is only a quick, cosmetic response that isn’t going to solve anything or benefit anyone.
@Lesli,
Question:
Answer:
The point you made about making a big jump applies here too — as if Warren now endorses abortion.
David,
While the scriptures are clear that we are to pray for those who persecute us, I think the question is what are we to pray for them? I would say we do not pray for God to bless them in their rebellion against Him but we pray for God to convict and convert them. Jesus didn’t pray “Father bless them” on the cross, He prayed “Father forgive them.”
Again, he hasn’t even said anything yet.
I expect him to follow the pattern of Graham.
Is this compromising the Gospel? I don’t think so. I think it is being respectful of the event — not the time or place. Everyone is well aware of the issues.
For Warren to pray for conviction and convertion would be just as tacky and rude as Robinson to pray for God to convict the Evangelicals of their hatred and bigotry during the inauguration.
Why do you have the expectation that Warren should do such a thing but would be horrified if Robinson did the same? Or would you say that Robinson would be acting appropriately based on his beliefs?
Allow me to modify my example:
For Warren to pray for conviction and conversion would be just as tacky and rude as Robinson asking God to protect the president as he stands against the hatred and bigotry of the anti-gay movement and those who want to legislate a women’s freedom over her own body.
So do we use the world’s standard of what’s “tacky and rude” to determine how we conduct ourselves? Many people would say its “tacky and rude” to share one’s faith with a lost person.
Again, the two positions are not morally equivalent. For Robinson to do what you suggest would be evil and we should be horrified. However, if Warren were to pray for the repentance of our nation and its leaders that would be good, regardless of the world’s standards.
You answered Dan’s first question with a “no” but it seems to me you are here suggesting just the opposite, that a Christian should subordinate their behavior to the standards of the world when ministering in public.
Mmmm, interesting conversation here. As I read I think, what are prayers? They are an open dialogue to God. The more formal, the more hypocritical they can become, and well, the more like a politically correct speech.
Remember the WWJD bracelets? I couldn’t help but think what would Christ pray if in a wild form of possibility He were asked to pray at the inauguration? Would he be broken over our country, our laws, our stinginess? Would His goal be to unite everyone as Americans-because it is by being an American that we are greater as a country, and in that is real living? I disagree, it is by repentance God blesses a nation. And quite frankly that is not a message our nation wants to hear now, so instaead of praying for that, we excuse it and think it may not be the best form of evangelism.
I’m not slamming Rick, he is a brother in Christ to me and I love him, in the bond of Christ. I’m sort of wondering what in the world OBama expects Rick or Robinson to pray for? Why didn’t he ask his original pastor to pray? Too much of a risk? He’s heard him pray for the past 20 years and thought he was fine, but now his reputation is on the line. There seems to be a weird sense of political set-up here. Seriously…would any of us be excited to be in Rick’s position right now? It’s tough! We need to be praying for him. May God’s spirit lead him, and may his prayer be sincere and one that God smiles at.
@Larry,
Try to see things from the other side. They think they know the truth just as much as we do. Saying that it’s okay for you to be obnoxious because you’re right and they’re wrong is not making a very good argument and resorting to school yard behavior.
This is not just limited to the world of politics but everyday life. Do you pray for all the smokers in your family to give their destructive addictions to nicotine over to Jesus at Thanksgiving as they are sitting at the table? (I’ll assume no.) Is it because you’re ashamed of Jesus and you’re compromising to the world’s standard of polite behavior? I say no. It’s because there is a time and place for things.
The world already has a very clear picture that Christians are rude and obnoxious. Just look at the mass media stereotype (along with stupid and naive). I say there is a way to live without compromising but also being gracious and courteous to the lost. You won’t always be red and you won’t always be blue and you won’t always be purple. The degree will change as the opportunity changes.
@Vicki,
You’ve picked up on inconsistency in Warren’s previous statement. You can’t make a personal humble appeal without stating a position. But I think Warren can also make an appeal for repentance without naming the certain pet sins of Uncle Larry and Aunt Judy as they are sitting around the table with the family.
@Larry
To clarify my response to Dan’s question. He asked if we can maintain the same level of our allegiance — implying compromise. Just because you change an approach, action, or behavior doesn’t mean you’ve compromised. Dan also limited the question to the world of politics.
First, we all change our approach as we minister to the public based on the audience, occasion and leading of the Spirit.
Second, if it were true then Jesus’ would have compromised as he varied His approach, actions, and behaviors in public ministry.
I’ve tossed this thought around a bit. Despite the politics surrounding the inauguration, going beyond the choices of who prays, we have a man of God (an ambassador of Christ or Christian “little Christ”) representing America before a Holy God. This, to me, is more about our country before God than it is about offending people that are otherwise offended anyway.
I think of it sort of like this..
You ask a medical Doctor, who specializes in treatments of Cancer, to speak at a major event that perhaps the majority of the people have cancer; some know it and some do not. People then begin to question what he may say. Some say you better not mention chemo and radiation, I hate that stuff! Others, if you mention the symptoms of cancer, I’ll get nauseous. We don’t want people walking away from this talk sick, our role is to make everyone feel good about the years to come. The doctor thinks to himself, well at least I’ll get my name out there and some may find out about chemo later? So the doctor (Whom everyone knows his credibility or that he is an expert in that area)gives in to the pressure and alters his speech. It basically centers on taking vitamins, eating well, and exercise. An opportunity given to help many is missed. He will never have those exact people again for an audience. Although some still criticize his speech, many leave feeling fantastic, embracing the good will of a doctor, not even realizing the danger they are in.
I think as Christians, (Myself totally included in this) we forget what an empty state of sin felt like and how amazing the words of forgiveness through Christ were when we first heard the message. As a child I can remember hearing certain adults pray and think, “Wow! they have a real close tie with God..I want that!”.
Preaching the truth of the Gospel is an extremely loving thing to do; towards friends and enemies. Yes, as David said, we definitely alter our conversation depending on who we are talking to, and the leading of the Spirit, but the message of Jesus is still the same in the end; we are sinners in need of forgiveness before a Holy God. Christ never backed down from that message. And who better than to hear it from…a Pastor! Being asked to pray a prayer representing our Country but not in some way confessing our sinfulness (I can see your point Larry in not being overly specific) and our need for God, does appear to be compromising or more like a pressured pre-written speech. Even if we look like a freak, at least we are taking Christianity seriously and our sincerity before God.
Like I said earlier, we need to pray for Rick. The more I think about it, the more I see the awkward position he is in, but also the amazing opportunity God has given Him! 🙂
Larry and I talked today and agreed that we will pause in the discussion (dialog), and pray for Rick over the next 2 days. Then we’ll pick back up after the inauguration and Pastor Warren has made his appeal.
(For those that aren’t used to this … Larry and I still share respect, honor, and friendship for each other … I even gave him a hug and it wasn’t even Christmas Eve.)
Guiroo and Larry, thanks for showing that personal disagreement doesn’t have to lead to a relational divorce. I think we have explored the edges of the issue and now we will see what happens on Tuesday. I plan on taking up the discussion again after the speech in light of what Pastor Warren communicates.
I’ll be joining you guys in prayer.
And I really enjoyed this discussion.
At no time did I sense tension, I hope you didn’t on my part.
Can I say it here? I guess it’s safe… God Bless!
Yes, David and I enjoy the back and forth like this, never any hard feelings. We even agree sometimes. 🙂
I hope this isn’t considered breaking the pause in the discussion, but I felt this was a good place to share that Warren has, in fact, promised to pray “in Jesus’ name” at the inauguration.