Somehow the liberal media have made Rev. Rick Warren out to be as the new Jerry Falwell; I even heard him described this morning on the Sunday morning talk shows as a "conservative evangelical". This is despite the famous author of the Purpose-Driven Life has worked to expand the agenda of the traditional evangelical right to explicitly discuss issues of global poverty and disease, environmental responsibility, and educational opportunity. The myth of the dominance of the evangelical right has persisted, despite Bush's explicit description of his own views as "compassionate conservatism" and a related quantum leap forward in US aid to Africa, including the widespread distribution of medicines to control the spread of HIV/AIDS.
We've seen a lot of media attention point towards the new generation of evangelicals (e.g., recoveringevangelical.com) and its influence on a new generation of eligible young voters, which heavily supported Obama in the recent election. In short, there's been a desire to distance the new generation of evangelicals from the culturally divisive wars of the past four decades, in particular, abortion and gay rights and refocus on unifying issues of social justice.
This disingenuous attempt to paint Rick Warren as a social conservative ignores the fact that Rick Warren stayed clear of political battles and had befriended both Barack Obama and John McCain long before their first public debate of sorts at the Saddleback Civic Forum. Warren played a notoriously nonpartisan role in the debate; even after the debate, Warren refused to venture his own public assessment of the candidates' performance. There were times he did hint that he empathized with traditional values, but wanted to broaden the scope of political discussions beyond the gridlocked culture wars.
The fact that Obama befriended Warren and asked him to give the invocation at his inaugural is hardly surprising, given Warren's emphasis on topics like education and the environment. The far left's attack on Warren, based on the fact that Rev. Warren supported reinstatement of the tradtional definition of marriage (California Proposition 8), is predictable; as I pointed out in an earlier post, the traditional definition of marriage had been affirmed in 2000, but that an analogous concept of domestic partnership for gays also was established. The California Supreme Court, in a 1-vote decision, decided, by activist judicial fiat, to repeal the traditional definition of marriage. Rick Warren's decision to support the traditional concept of marriage is entirely consistent with the Church's moral teachings through the centuries; the practices of homosexuality and abortion were known and legal in ancient Greece and Rome, and the Judaic/Christian tradition clearly had a different moral mandate (e.g., Jewish historians during the first century, the Didache, etc.)
As for the neo-evangelical focusing on the sparse number of Biblical references to these practices relative, say, to the number discussing the poor, liberal Christians often blur the line between personal responsibility and political mandate. This is a point I've addressed in past posts, where it turns out that liberals, despite their socially conscious rhetoric, actually have given less than conservatives, whom actually make slightly less (cf. Arthur C. Brooks' Who Really Cares). I call this the "Scrooge mentality" (making reference to Dickens' A Christmas Carol): "Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses?" Scrooge is rebutting queries for charitable donations; he's arguing that he's already paying taxes for society to take care of disadvantaged people: it's not his personal problem. There's a huge moral hazard problem here: For instance, if the government gives you ready-to-cook fish fillets, what incentive do you have to fish for your own supper? If your local fishing hole is overfished, perhaps you should find a new pond. The point, though, is that if government becomes Big Human Secularism, what becomes of individual responsibility?
In particular, these self-righteous, morally self-superior, judgmental liberal Christians seem to overlook Jesus' rebuke of Judas. Judas slammed Mary Magdalene for purchasing expensive oil to anoit Jesus' feet; that oil is a frivolous purchase that cost the proceeds of 300 days of work. Surely the money would best be given to the poor. In essence, Judas' works are not so much aimed at Mary, but at Jesus, whom he's implicitly calling a hypocrite. Who does Judas think he is, putting the Lord to the test? Doesn't Jesus realize how much the oil cost and how far that money could stretch for servicing the needs of the poor? Isn't this the same Master whom rejected a young disciple because he would not sell all he had and give the proceeds to the poor? How does Jesus respond? "The poor will always be with you." The secular humanistic Christians are incensed, because they believe conservative Christians have misused this verse to suggest the futility of any anti-poverty initiative, government or otherwise. I think Jesus is really saying two things: First, Judas' argument is disingenuous. He's not really motivated by a concern for the poor; his motivation is really judging other people, i.e., Mary Magdalene and Jesus. Judas doesn't know Mary's motives in anointing the feet of Jesus. But Jesus has reminded His followers that only God knows all and can judge motives for individual actions. Second, I believe Jesus is saying that we cannot simply absolve ourselves from acts of individual responsibility in our lives because, say, we've done our part, i.e., delegated the needs of our neighbors by supporting Big Government anti-poverty legislation. There will always be a need to respond to our own needs and those of other people through prayerful acts to the glory of God.
There's also Jesus' own recognition of what His enemies said of Him: that He is a glutton, a drunkard, and associates with the wrong type of people (tax collectors and other sinners). We know He had friends of means like Joseph of Arimathea, whom donated His tomb, and whom secured lodging for Jesus and His disciples in Jerusalem at a busy time of year (Passover). Jesus, on a number of occasions in the Gospels, studiously avoids linking His mission to a political agenda, including anti-Roman insurrectionists. He refuses to accept a crowd's attempt to crown Him king. He does not take a stand against Roman taxation of the Jews. He performs a miracle at the request of a hated Roman centurion. He chooses a hated tax collector as a principal disciple. At His own trial, He does not dispute the secular authority of the Romans.
Not only that, but He attracted controversy and powerful enemies, to the point the Israeli collaborators at His trial were trying to make Him out to be an insurrectionist. He provoked many orthodox religious, at times even calling them hypocrites, plus there was His intemperate response to the money changers at the Temple. At times disciples were cautioning Him that His hard stances on issues were losing Him followers, and Jesus' response was to stand His ground. There were times He so incited crowds that they attempted to stone Him. So whatever these Next Generation Evangelicals are trying to do by attempting to focus on "unifying themes" against global poverty and other issues and low-key attacks by the liberal elite on the very core of family values, one only wonders at what substance is left.
If Jesus Himself paid a price by refusing to water down His teachings--and He was not executed for preaching charity towards the poor--why are the Next Generation Evangelicals seduced by the Obamaian have-it-both-ways rhetoric, where Obama claims to support the traditional concept of marriage but opposed California's proposition 8 to reinstate what an arbitrary California Supreme Court struck down? [Note that the gay activists prefer to pose the scenario as "taking away" an alleged right to marry and make an invalid civil rights argument related to restrictions against mixed-ethnic marriages. Mixed-ethnic marriages never violated the traditional concept of a marriage between a man and a woman.] Not to mention being taken in by the lip service paid by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to limit the practice of abortion (but who at the same time refuse to support any meaningful restriction, regardless of reason)?
Rev. Rick Warren not only practices what he preaches, but has used the proceeds of his book profits to pay back the parish every penny he drew in salary. His books have been purchased by many middle-class Americans. His mainstream views on the traditional definition of marriage now have carried twice in California and dozens of other states. That Rick Warren is being singled out--vs., say, black voters in California whom voted 2-1 in favor of traditional marriage--is unjust. Obama has not named him to a political office or to a judicial seat; we are simply talking about Warren giving the invocation at the inaugural.
I'm glad to see that, to date, Obama has not rescinded his invitation. Poor Pastor Warren has been forced to retreat to defensive "some of my best friends are gay" rhetoric. Rick Warren would do well to remember that the Lord did not water down His words to increase His flock. When Jesus stopped the stoning of the adulteress, and He forgave her sin, the act of forgiveness implies that she had done was wrong. Jesus loved the person but hated her sin. I think that many of today's Christians are so anxious to culturally fit in, they will surrender their moral judgment to the imprimatur of the Hollywood intelligentsia.
