Rick Warren, “America’s pastor,” is the country’s most prominent Southern Baptist preacher. His Purpose Driven Life has propelled him into the public spotlight in ways reminiscent of Billy Graham fifty years ago.
Warren’s global AIDS summit has opened the eyes of thousands to the widespread problem of AIDS in Africa. He should be commended for his efforts to eradicate this plague and for his compassionate Christian response to the issue.
In a recent interview on Fox News’ Hannity and Colmes, Warren compared himself to William Wilberforce, who forged coalitions with people poles apart on other issues but who had convictions against slavery. That seems to be what Warren is doing with his AIDS summit. At the Saddleback meeting earlier this month, he invited Senator Brownback (Republican) and Senator Obama (Democrat). This is not an unusual practice when a church pastor enlists support from political parties. It should not be read as a blanket affirmation of support for Obama’s views on other issues.
Evangelical fury erupted over Warren’s invitation to Barack Obama, a potential presidential candidate. But that uproar was accompanied by the mysterious silence of evangelicals regarding another man who attended the meetings: the Bush-appointed openly homosexual Global AIDS coordinator, Mark Dybul.
Promoters of the homosexual agenda will no doubt have a field day with Warren’s invitation of Dybul. So that’s why I’m amazed that Warren has received hotter attacks from evangelicals for inviting a Democrat than an open homosexual.
Why the fuss about Obama? Because as a probable candidate for president, he poses a threat to Republican power.
Why no uproar over the Dybul invitation? Because Dybul received the Bush administration’s blessing.
When he was sworn in on October 10, Dybul asked his partner to hold the Bible for him. Condoleeza Rice went so far as to call Dybul’s partner’s mother his “mother-in-law.” So much for the Bush administration’s fervent advocacy of traditional marriage. Rice may nod her head in agreement at Bush’s rhetoric against same-sex unions, but she has undercut any substance to her position by adopting language that affirms them.
But how dare I criticize Condoleeza Rice? After all, she received a standing ovation and more applause at the 2006 Southern Baptist Convention than a church planting pastor.
Warren’s global summit is very revealing. The true scandal is not that Warren invited Obama. It’s that the evangelical reaction shows that our loyalties do not lie ultimately with those who share our faith (or even our values), but with those next to us in the pocket of the Republican party.
Don’t you think it is OK for them to invite BOTH politicians?
Comment by frecklescassie — December 22, 2006 @ 10:36 am
It’s common for a pastor to enlist support from both parties when trying to do something like this. In all fairness, I think it was the wise choice to invite a Democrat and a Republican senator. Both, by the way, are considering presidential bids.
The point of this article, though, was that the evangelical outrage over the Obama invitation and the accompanying silence over the invitation to Dybul shows where evangelical loyalties lie… and it’s with the Republicans, no matter what. As an evangelical myself, I am concerned that the evangelical identity in this country has less and less to do with doctrine, theology, or church practice and more and more to do with a particular political agenda.
Comment by trevinwax — December 22, 2006 @ 10:47 am
I share your same concern. The evangelical church is too much in bed with the Republical party. And when religion and politics join forces, it never ends well. I myself have registered as an independent and will pledge loyalty to no political party.
Comment by R. Mansfield — December 22, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Wow, I did not hear about this other guy being there. I to wonder about the silence of evangelicals, but it could be because of ignorance. It was for me. As far as cozying up to the advocates of same sex lust, sad to say the Bush Administration is not that much different than the Clinton Administration. I remember drawing the connections between the use of the words, “vile affections” in Romans 1:26 (KJV), describing same sex lust, and Psalms 12:8. “The wicked walk on every side when the vilest men are exalted.” Some of his appointments were really vile, for example Joycelyn Elders. I am fully persuaded that gross error in judgment in this regard causes gross error in judgment in other areas.
Don Costello
Comment by Don Costello — December 22, 2006 @ 11:47 pm
It was my impression that people were upset that Obama was invited because of his stances on abortion. He is in favor of legalizing even partial birth abortion, which to many people is horrific. I do agree that many evangelicals are tied too deeply to the Republican party, but what I read on this controversy seemed to indicate the problem people had was Obama’s specific stance on abortion, not his party alliance.
For example, Bob Casey Jr. has just been elected as a pro-life Democrat senator here in PA and if he had been invited, I doubt the uproar would have been as big among the same evangelicals.
Comment by Dave — December 23, 2006 @ 8:18 am
And the controversy has nothing to do with the health crisis that faces the nation, and the world — and especially our children.
Talk about misplaced priorities! We can’t even get the evangelical right to agree to fight disease? Gee, what would Jesus do in such a case?
Comment by edarrell — December 24, 2006 @ 9:23 am
Maybe it’s cynical to say but this just convinces me even more that evangelicals are losing (if they have not lost) the ability and willingness to think critically and compassionately about much of anything that really matters.
We all know that Jesus is a Republican.
Comment by Bill — February 24, 2007 @ 11:43 am
It is interesting that I hear a lot of people citing Romans 1:take your choice, but I seldom hear the same people cite Romans 2:1. 2:1-? is why Dybul was invited, and also why he should not have been thrown out the back door. Any person who is trying to heal the sick that enlists the help of other people that are willing to help, should not be critisized for not only accepting the help of like minded people. I do not know who Warren is, or his take on Christianity, but I do not think this particular action goes against the Bible as a whole.
Comment by Biff — February 14, 2008 @ 1:38 pm