Well I’m not gay nor lesbian and I am sure they are not happy about this at all and it may be the only time that I would be in the same boat as they are! How disappointing! What is Rick Warren thinking in allowing himself to be used this way?
I don’t know much about Joseph Lowery. From what I can find on youtube, he appear to be quite moderate, nothing like Jeremiah Wright. Is that assessment correct?
Re # 3
One Day Closer,
[blockquote] What is Rick Warren thinking in allowing himself to be used this way? [/blockquote]
I have some differences of opinion with the good reverend and would have chosen someone different. But then again I am not a Protestant. That said, the President-elect of the United States asked him to give the invocation at his inauguration. That is a great honor and I believe this is one of those moments where we set aside our political differences and show the respect due the office. We will have the following 1460 days (counting a leap year) to snipe at Obama.
What depresses me so much is – – – even the selection of the person to pray at the inauguration is a politicized decision. Though it seems to be generally escaping the perception of a lot of us, this President – elect is one of the most politically – driven persons I have ever seen. He simply does not seem to do, or decide, anything – – without considering the possible poll results. Same old thing, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
#1 and #3:
Why is this a negative thing? Does this somehow compromise Rev. Warren’s character and standing as a pastor? Warren has not been shy in his stance against same-sex marriage and abortion, yet he seems in some way to have this liberal president-elect’s ear. I see this as a positive thing.
I’m with #8. Obama can’t please some people — if he selects someone like Warren, he’s “politicized” the process. Yet I can only imagine the response if Obama had picked any well-known liberal religious figure (like a certain Presiding Bishop, for example).
Re: #8, I’m not bothered by this for Rick Warren. I mostly disappointed in Obama. The Purpose-Driven® Presidency? It almost boarders on McCain’s picking Palin – obviously calculated political manipulation. But, of course, I think Obama was better off under the teaching of Rev. Jeremiah Wright anyway. I’ll be curious to hear what Warren prays. Twenty bucks says he uses the word “purpose”. 🙂
[i] What depresses me so much is, even the selection of the person to pray at the inauguration is a politicized decision [/i] —JKC1945 [#6]
Why would you expect a president-elect, in framing the signature public ceremony of his presidency, to be heedless of political considerations?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] This President-elect is one of the most politically driven persons I have ever seen. He simply does not seem to do, or decide, anything–without considering the possible poll results [/i]
How do you claim to know that? What’s the evidence that the planning for this inauguration is more “politicized” and poll-driven than the planning for other modern inaugurations?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Here’s what’s [b] really [/b] going on. Obama is the most lied-about presidential candidate in modern American history. Obama haters (as exemplified by right-wing talk-show hosts) have propagated the Big Lie of a dangerous, anti-white, anti-American Marxist hard-line radical.
[b] When Obama acts like himself, instead of like the Big Lie, the Obama-haters cry foul. [/b] They want him to give credence to the Lie. When Obama embraces moderate policies and constructs a centrist administration, they don’t reconsider the Lie; they claim his moderation as proof that he lacks principle and is overly attuned to politics.
Irenaeus: you nailed it. You’re the hammer. When people talk about Obama on this blog, I’m going to cut and paste your comment.
What is true is that – in spite of the complaints of leftists – this is more dangerous territory for Warren. Especially if Warren wants political favors.
Did they lie about his refusal to allow for medical help for infants born as a result of botched abortions? Not according to the verified documentation out there. You’re right – this is politics, people do exaggerate and lie about their opponents but Obama’s vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act will always be something that I can never reconcile with his apparent concern for others. I will respect him as my president, but I can’t respect his view on life.
All life is politics! What’s new?
I for one am DELIGHTED that we will hear an evangelical preach the invocation at the inauguration. What an opportunity for God’s Word to be spoken at such a significant time. (And I don’t expect for a moment that Warren will exploit this opportunity but will rather meet and greet it with Christian grace!)
I would ordinarily tend to agree with Ad Orientem and Irenaeus on the merits of Warren giving the invocation. In this case, though, I have to stop short. No Christian pastor or priest should associate himself with someone, like Obama, who has worked so tirelessly to keep infanticide legal under the color of law. Whatever else has been said about Obama, his record on that score is clear, and factual.
C’mon Phil, at least Warren is not associating with tax collectors and prostitutes.
No Christian pastor or priest should do that, I’m sure we can agree.
John and Scott, point taken. However, it seems to me there’s a difference between “associating” with someone and appearing with them in a situation that is obviously promotional of that person’s, in this case, sinful beliefs. You’ll note the Bible doesn’t relate a story in which Christ helped the tax collector shake down citizens or had a few drinks at the prostitute’s strip club while she performed.
Nevertheless, I understand your point. I hope you recognize mine.
Branford [#15]: I don’t dispute that vote, and Obama’s position on abortion deeply troubles me. But (as you recognize) that’s not what the talk-show hosts and their followers have been ranting about. They have been depicting Obama (among other things) as a radical, antidemocratic leftist, which he most emphatically is not.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Prediction: Obama will not sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act into law as his first official act. Nor as his thousandth official act. He will neither sign it nor expend significant political capital fighting for it. To be an effective president, he needs to govern from close to the political center—and his appointments and other actions since the election make clear that’s what he intends to do.
Phil, I understand what you’re saying – you don’t want Warrn to lend Obama that kind of legitimacy. I still disagree, but I understand what you’re saying.
Irenaeus – I’ll be shocked if FOCA ever gets to the President’s desk to sign. Or even on the floor of the Senate. It’s staying in committee for as long as possible, so both parties can use it to scare people when they run for re-election without having to actually vote on the bill and alienate potential voters.
Hmmm…
I like to think of this as another example of Obama being wise to the saying, “Keep your enemies close and your friends closer.” Or is it the other way around?
See Hilary Clinton as Sec of State as a previous example of this proverb.
Other way around. Friends close, enemies closer. And yes, H.C. is a good example of this.
As to the ‘right-wing’ “lies”, well, even the MSM is coming out and saying, “Hey, we don’t know a lot about this guy, and what we are finding out isn’t that flattering.” Too little, too late.
But, hey, as Obama said, “We’ve investigated ourselves, and have found that we haven’t done anything wrong”. And a lot of people find no problem with that.
I suppose I shoud not be concerned with the tenor of the inauguration as I will not watch it, but I do wish they could without invocations or prayers. I dislike fake piety and phony religiosity.
I know quite a few pro-life democrats who voted for Obama…in fact, several pro-life democrat candidates defeated pro-choice republican candidates in some local and state races…some day there could be a pro-life plank in the democratic platform…political party ‘definitions’ have a tendency to evolve over time…keeps things interesting and healthy…
John, I think you are wrong. I think He would go in a strip club, yes, but I don’t think He would be our buddy in the strip club. Thinking he would, I believe is a part of the cheap grace philosophy, that Jesus is fine with anything we do, as long as it makes us happy and fulfills us as human beings. Feelings of lust are natural human feelilngs, so they must be ok and humans must be allowed to act on them. Balderdash! I think He would be asking a lot of questions of the people in the strip club, both strippers and learers – not necessarily accusing questions but questions to make the people there ask themselves what they were doing there and why they were there – like of the learers, “Does this girl in front of you have a mother or father, like yours; is she someone’s mother? Is she a real human being, with feelings and goodness inside her? And to the stripper – what is your purpose here? Can you make money doing other things? Is this man in front of you someone’s father or son or brother – is he a real human being? Does he have feelings other than lust feelings inside him? He would ask both groups if this was a way to love God and love their fellow human beings? Then I think He would move on to another place to minister.
This just in from Stand Firm: [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/18853/]Bp. Chane is incensed[/url] that Obama would have Rick Warren participate in the inauguration.
I voted against Obama. I think he is wrong for America and he hid a lot of his views.
However, he wil be the President. As such, he deserves our prayers and our support. We do not need ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) any more than we needed BDS. I applaud Rick Warren’s slection for the invocation. It is a slap, not to liberals or LGBT people, but to those liberals who would work to fire someone for their political views or because they are a member of a certain church or because they don’t believe as the liberals want them to. That is not “liberalism.” It is fascism disguised as leftist activism.
Will the other politically conservative people on this board join me in praying for Obama and being a loyal opposition? Will you join me in resisting ODS?
You said it Philip Snyder. I am a conservative and that means I want the best for our country and so I am praying for Barack Obama.
(I am starting to feel like the Philip Snyder fan club.)
Billy, I don’t know what Jesus would do in a strip club. I think he would try to help us understand what was going on. But sometimes that’s done best by not saying anything: not approving, but not blaming. All he is doing is just being present.
John, you and the more liberal (reappraising, if you will) clergy seem to believe that Jesus simply would approve or not say anything about our behavior. Where do you get that notion? Our creed obviously says He will judge us. Now, you piously say back to me, “I don’t know what Jesus would do in a strip club,” when you 5 entries up say you think He would have a drink in a strip club (and imply that He would be our buddy there and just observe and not say anything). Now you say you don’t know, after I’ve called you on it. One of our problems in this 21st century world is that our clergy refuse to say what the Christian standards of behavior are – like you suggest, “by not saying anything.” When bad, sinful behavior, like seductive behavior for money and lust and leering behavior (treating a person as an object) is going on, as in a strip club, not saying anything is approving the behavior. I cannot imagine God intends our clergy to do nothing or not say anything in those situations, nor can I imagine that Jesus would simply have a drink and watch us go to hell. As I mentioned in my prior entry, accusatory language may not be the best language to get through to those involved, but “not saying anything,” is, IMO, going along to get along, which is what TEC is doing right now in our very secular society. And it ain’t working, as we see from the dwindling numbers – and by the way, how are the growth numbers in your church, just to put this on a personal basis?
Ugh. Bummer.
[i] Rick Warren to Give Invocation at Obama Inauguration [/i]
Good for them both!
Well I’m not gay nor lesbian and I am sure they are not happy about this at all and it may be the only time that I would be in the same boat as they are! How disappointing! What is Rick Warren thinking in allowing himself to be used this way?
I don’t know much about Joseph Lowery. From what I can find on youtube, he appear to be quite moderate, nothing like Jeremiah Wright. Is that assessment correct?
Re # 3
One Day Closer,
[blockquote] What is Rick Warren thinking in allowing himself to be used this way? [/blockquote]
I have some differences of opinion with the good reverend and would have chosen someone different. But then again I am not a Protestant. That said, the President-elect of the United States asked him to give the invocation at his inauguration. That is a great honor and I believe this is one of those moments where we set aside our political differences and show the respect due the office. We will have the following 1460 days (counting a leap year) to snipe at Obama.
What depresses me so much is – – – even the selection of the person to pray at the inauguration is a politicized decision. Though it seems to be generally escaping the perception of a lot of us, this President – elect is one of the most politically – driven persons I have ever seen. He simply does not seem to do, or decide, anything – – without considering the possible poll results. Same old thing, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Hmmmmmm, might he be the new Billy Graham to the presidents?
#1 and #3:
Why is this a negative thing? Does this somehow compromise Rev. Warren’s character and standing as a pastor? Warren has not been shy in his stance against same-sex marriage and abortion, yet he seems in some way to have this liberal president-elect’s ear. I see this as a positive thing.
I’m with #8. Obama can’t please some people — if he selects someone like Warren, he’s “politicized” the process. Yet I can only imagine the response if Obama had picked any well-known liberal religious figure (like a certain Presiding Bishop, for example).
I was wrong.
Re: #8, I’m not bothered by this for Rick Warren. I mostly disappointed in Obama. The Purpose-Driven® Presidency? It almost boarders on McCain’s picking Palin – obviously calculated political manipulation. But, of course, I think Obama was better off under the teaching of Rev. Jeremiah Wright anyway. I’ll be curious to hear what Warren prays. Twenty bucks says he uses the word “purpose”. 🙂
[i] What depresses me so much is, even the selection of the person to pray at the inauguration is a politicized decision [/i] —JKC1945 [#6]
Why would you expect a president-elect, in framing the signature public ceremony of his presidency, to be heedless of political considerations?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
[i] This President-elect is one of the most politically driven persons I have ever seen. He simply does not seem to do, or decide, anything–without considering the possible poll results [/i]
How do you claim to know that? What’s the evidence that the planning for this inauguration is more “politicized” and poll-driven than the planning for other modern inaugurations?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Here’s what’s [b] really [/b] going on. Obama is the most lied-about presidential candidate in modern American history. Obama haters (as exemplified by right-wing talk-show hosts) have propagated the Big Lie of a dangerous, anti-white, anti-American Marxist hard-line radical.
[b] When Obama acts like himself, instead of like the Big Lie, the Obama-haters cry foul. [/b] They want him to give credence to the Lie. When Obama embraces moderate policies and constructs a centrist administration, they don’t reconsider the Lie; they claim his moderation as proof that he lacks principle and is overly attuned to politics.
Gee, I was kind of hoping he’d pick Jeremiah Wright.
Irenaeus: you nailed it. You’re the hammer. When people talk about Obama on this blog, I’m going to cut and paste your comment.
What is true is that – in spite of the complaints of leftists – this is more dangerous territory for Warren. Especially if Warren wants political favors.
Did they lie about his refusal to allow for medical help for infants born as a result of botched abortions? Not according to the verified documentation out there. You’re right – this is politics, people do exaggerate and lie about their opponents but Obama’s vote against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act will always be something that I can never reconcile with his apparent concern for others. I will respect him as my president, but I can’t respect his view on life.
All life is politics! What’s new?
I for one am DELIGHTED that we will hear an evangelical preach the invocation at the inauguration. What an opportunity for God’s Word to be spoken at such a significant time. (And I don’t expect for a moment that Warren will exploit this opportunity but will rather meet and greet it with Christian grace!)
I didn’t vote for Obama, but am glad about this. The more time Obama spends with Rick Warren, the better, as far as I am concerned.
I would ordinarily tend to agree with Ad Orientem and Irenaeus on the merits of Warren giving the invocation. In this case, though, I have to stop short. No Christian pastor or priest should associate himself with someone, like Obama, who has worked so tirelessly to keep infanticide legal under the color of law. Whatever else has been said about Obama, his record on that score is clear, and factual.
#18 – so, no pastor should associate with sinners? Interesting idea. In this case, Following Jesus means doing the opposite of what Jesus did.
C’mon Phil, at least Warren is not associating with tax collectors and prostitutes.
No Christian pastor or priest should do that, I’m sure we can agree.
John and Scott, point taken. However, it seems to me there’s a difference between “associating” with someone and appearing with them in a situation that is obviously promotional of that person’s, in this case, sinful beliefs. You’ll note the Bible doesn’t relate a story in which Christ helped the tax collector shake down citizens or had a few drinks at the prostitute’s strip club while she performed.
Nevertheless, I understand your point. I hope you recognize mine.
Branford [#15]: I don’t dispute that vote, and Obama’s position on abortion deeply troubles me. But (as you recognize) that’s not what the talk-show hosts and their followers have been ranting about. They have been depicting Obama (among other things) as a radical, antidemocratic leftist, which he most emphatically is not.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Prediction: Obama will not sign the so-called Freedom of Choice Act into law as his first official act. Nor as his thousandth official act. He will neither sign it nor expend significant political capital fighting for it. To be an effective president, he needs to govern from close to the political center—and his appointments and other actions since the election make clear that’s what he intends to do.
Phil, I understand what you’re saying – you don’t want Warrn to lend Obama that kind of legitimacy. I still disagree, but I understand what you’re saying.
Irenaeus – I’ll be shocked if FOCA ever gets to the President’s desk to sign. Or even on the floor of the Senate. It’s staying in committee for as long as possible, so both parties can use it to scare people when they run for re-election without having to actually vote on the bill and alienate potential voters.
Hmmm…
I like to think of this as another example of Obama being wise to the saying, “Keep your enemies close and your friends closer.” Or is it the other way around?
See Hilary Clinton as Sec of State as a previous example of this proverb.
Other way around. Friends close, enemies closer. And yes, H.C. is a good example of this.
As to the ‘right-wing’ “lies”, well, even the MSM is coming out and saying, “Hey, we don’t know a lot about this guy, and what we are finding out isn’t that flattering.” Too little, too late.
But, hey, as Obama said, “We’ve investigated ourselves, and have found that we haven’t done anything wrong”. And a lot of people find no problem with that.
It’s going to be a looong four years.
I suppose I shoud not be concerned with the tenor of the inauguration as I will not watch it, but I do wish they could without invocations or prayers. I dislike fake piety and phony religiosity.
Warren isn’t doing either. He’s offering a blessing. It may not work in the way you’d like, but that is for God to decide.
but I do happen to think that Jesus would have a drink at a strip club. Would he be lusty?
I know quite a few pro-life democrats who voted for Obama…in fact, several pro-life democrat candidates defeated pro-choice republican candidates in some local and state races…some day there could be a pro-life plank in the democratic platform…political party ‘definitions’ have a tendency to evolve over time…keeps things interesting and healthy…
John, I think you are wrong. I think He would go in a strip club, yes, but I don’t think He would be our buddy in the strip club. Thinking he would, I believe is a part of the cheap grace philosophy, that Jesus is fine with anything we do, as long as it makes us happy and fulfills us as human beings. Feelings of lust are natural human feelilngs, so they must be ok and humans must be allowed to act on them. Balderdash! I think He would be asking a lot of questions of the people in the strip club, both strippers and learers – not necessarily accusing questions but questions to make the people there ask themselves what they were doing there and why they were there – like of the learers, “Does this girl in front of you have a mother or father, like yours; is she someone’s mother? Is she a real human being, with feelings and goodness inside her? And to the stripper – what is your purpose here? Can you make money doing other things? Is this man in front of you someone’s father or son or brother – is he a real human being? Does he have feelings other than lust feelings inside him? He would ask both groups if this was a way to love God and love their fellow human beings? Then I think He would move on to another place to minister.
This just in from Stand Firm: [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/18853/]Bp. Chane is incensed[/url] that Obama would have Rick Warren participate in the inauguration.
I voted against Obama. I think he is wrong for America and he hid a lot of his views.
However, he wil be the President. As such, he deserves our prayers and our support. We do not need ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome) any more than we needed BDS. I applaud Rick Warren’s slection for the invocation. It is a slap, not to liberals or LGBT people, but to those liberals who would work to fire someone for their political views or because they are a member of a certain church or because they don’t believe as the liberals want them to. That is not “liberalism.” It is fascism disguised as leftist activism.
Will the other politically conservative people on this board join me in praying for Obama and being a loyal opposition? Will you join me in resisting ODS?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
You said it Philip Snyder. I am a conservative and that means I want the best for our country and so I am praying for Barack Obama.
(I am starting to feel like the Philip Snyder fan club.)
Billy, I don’t know what Jesus would do in a strip club. I think he would try to help us understand what was going on. But sometimes that’s done best by not saying anything: not approving, but not blaming. All he is doing is just being present.
John, I’d think that he would say, “Go, and sin no more.” I realize that many Episcopalians no longer believe in sin, but Jesus very obviously did.
John, you and the more liberal (reappraising, if you will) clergy seem to believe that Jesus simply would approve or not say anything about our behavior. Where do you get that notion? Our creed obviously says He will judge us. Now, you piously say back to me, “I don’t know what Jesus would do in a strip club,” when you 5 entries up say you think He would have a drink in a strip club (and imply that He would be our buddy there and just observe and not say anything). Now you say you don’t know, after I’ve called you on it. One of our problems in this 21st century world is that our clergy refuse to say what the Christian standards of behavior are – like you suggest, “by not saying anything.” When bad, sinful behavior, like seductive behavior for money and lust and leering behavior (treating a person as an object) is going on, as in a strip club, not saying anything is approving the behavior. I cannot imagine God intends our clergy to do nothing or not say anything in those situations, nor can I imagine that Jesus would simply have a drink and watch us go to hell. As I mentioned in my prior entry, accusatory language may not be the best language to get through to those involved, but “not saying anything,” is, IMO, going along to get along, which is what TEC is doing right now in our very secular society. And it ain’t working, as we see from the dwindling numbers – and by the way, how are the growth numbers in your church, just to put this on a personal basis?