Return To   Rick Warrens Strange Bedfellows

"Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." Ephesians 5:11

Why is Obama's Evil in Rick Warren's Pulpit?
Kevin McCullough (WorldNet Daily)

See Excerpts from Obama Call to Renewal Address (Below)

Rick Warren, the best selling author of "The Purpose Driven Life" and senior teaching pastor at Saddleback Church in California, has invited Sen. Barack Obama to speak to the congregation of the faithful on Dec. 1, 2006. In doing so, he has joined himself with one of the smoothest politicians of our times, and also one whose wickedness in worldview contradicts nearly every tenet of the Christian faith that Warren professes.

So the question is "why?"

Why would Warren marry the moral equivalency of his pulpit – a sacred place of honor in evangelical tradition – to the inhumane, sick and sinister evil that Obama has worked for as a legislator?

According to press reports, it is because of a mutual respect that each feels towards the other over the HIV/AIDS pandemic on the African continent. That rationale, however, is not only dishonest, but is not even logical given the two distinct positions that the men come to on the matter. Because of this supposed shared concern, Warren is ready to turn over the spiritual mantle to a man who represents the views of Satan at worst or progressive anti-God liberals at best in most of his public positions on the greatest moral tests of our time.

Warren's stand on the matter in this instance is what is in doubt – not Obama's!

Barack Obama has a long history of defying the intended morality of Scripture. As a state legislator, he actively worked to preserve availability of abortion in all nine months of pregnancy. He opposed parental notification. He opposed any and all bans on partial-birth abortion (an act that includes delivery of the baby up to the head, the crushing of the baby's brain, the suctioning of the brain matter, and then completed delivery of the child's deflated cranium). In his run for the U.S. Senate, Obama even asked his wife to pen a letter to Illinois voters that reassured them of his commitment to fighting for the right to butcher children in the womb.

Barack Obama has long supported the advance of the radical homosexual activist lobby in its pursuit to destroy traditional marriage. He supported the creation of "special rights" for people who engage in homosexuality for the sole purpose of putting them at the front of the line on issues of employment, housing and litigation. He has also solidly backed the advancement of all "hate crimes" legislation, which ultimately may be used to silence clergy who believe according to their own convictions that homosexual behavior is wrong and preach so from biblical texts. Obama has a perfect voting record against the defense of marriage. [See Section on Homosexuality]

Barack Obama advocates continued funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in our nation's inner cities, which are performing genocide against the populations of African Americans living there.

And most damnable of all, when a brave nurse named Jill Stanek brought about national awareness to a practice at a local hospital in suburban Chicago that allowed the starvation and neglect of newly born children who had survived abortion procedures – Obama opposed her. He opposed the right of those children to be given the chance to live and he advocated against a ban on such procedures – then known as "born alive abortions." [See Section on Abortion]

Even if they share a professed concern over the AIDS pandemic, what difference would Warren and Obama's union actually make?

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.

If you say to a society, as Uganda has, that the only way to be sure of not getting AIDS is through "abstinence until marriage," then they will be likely to believe you. (It's scientifically provable. And it explains Uganda's unique improvement on the African continent in the number of people contracting the virus.) On the other hand, if you say to a culture, as has happened in more than one African nation, "Try abstinence – but if you can't remain abstinent then use a condom," what do you think the likely outcome will be?

Warren's reasoning might be similar to other leaders of doctrinally weak seeker churches like Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois. Senior Pastor Bill Hybels first invited an unrepentant then-President Bill Clinton to attend his pastor's conference, and proceeded to pitch him one softball after the next in an interview before the gathered masses. Hybels' idea was to allow Clinton to "teach pastors" ideas about what "true leadership" was all about. (At what? Adultery? Lying under oath? Oral Sex?) Clinton was at least smart enough to be able to play the game a bit and profess certain vagaries about a "life of belief in God." Obama doesn't let such nonsense get in his way.

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......

What "common ground" could Obama and Warren possibly have on AIDS? It's bad and something needs to be done?

SURE - but what?

Obama believes in condoms, Warren is biblically bound to believe in abstinence...
Obama believes in abortion, Warren is biblically bound to believe in life...
Obama fought for the right of hospitals to allow children to die outside the womb... i.e. Christ Hospital in Chicago.
Obama fights against the protection of the institution of marriage on the state and federal levels...
Obama promotes homosexual unions as being the same thing as marriage...
Obama believes advocates for "hate speech" laws that would require the silencing of clergy on the issue of homosexuality and the relation that behavior has to the practicing of faith...
Obama so strongly believes in abortion, that in running for the United States Senate in Illinois he had his wife write a letter to the voters of Illinois to assure them that he is a champion of abortion rights...
Obama (when he occassionally attends) goes to a Chicago "church" that does not adhere to any doctrinally sound positions in its theology...

My question to Rick Warren is - would you essentially invite the anti-Christ to share your pulpit simply because you both think that "something needs to be done" about AIDS?

Rick Warren's staff should hear from any who are bothered by this... here's the phone number: 949.609.8000. You can (and should) e-mail them here as well.  Rick, we're waiting...
 

IPS NOTE: A November 29, 2006 report in the Orange County Register [www.ocregister.com] is headlined “Rick Warren defends Barack Obama invitation”. Saying

"Of course we expect criticism," Warren wrote in an email sent to his 22,000-plus congregation Wednesday. "Jesus loved and accepted others without approving of everything they did. That's our position too, but it upsets a lot of people, so we get attacked from both sides."

Which of course shows how much Rick Warren knows about Jesus. See the following two articles

The Inclusiveness of Jesus It’s true that the inclusiveness of Jesus was extraordinary. Unlike his religious contemporaries, Jesus included among his followers those who were generally excluded from religious life, if not polite society, people such as tax-collectors, “sinners,” lepers, and women. Yet, the inclusiveness of Jesus was not of the “come as you are” sort. Jesus offered new, transformed life in the kingdom of God, not acceptance of all people as they were in their broken, sinful state.

Would Jesus Do That? Christians often defend their worldly behavior and their association with those involved in that which is forbidden by Scripture by claiming that Jesus Christ would associate with the lifestyles and behaviors of the unsaved if He were walking the earth today. Often, Fundamentalists are accused of being "holier-than-thou" because they refuse to attend Christian rock concerts, nightclubs or bars.

Excerpts From Barack Obama’s 'Call to Renewal' Keynote Address (Wednesday, June 28, 2006) in which Obama refers to Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes as friends of his, while speaking positively of Tony Campolo.

“Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.”

I guess the following is Obama’s version of Born Again.

“It wasn't until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.

I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me. They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst.

And in time, I came to realize that something was missing as well -- that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart, and alone.

And if it weren't for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn - not just to work with the church, but to be in the church.

For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.

And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship -- the grounding of faith in struggle -- that the church offered me a second insight, one that I think is important to emphasize today.

Faith doesn't mean that you don't have doubts.

You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.

It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ on 95th Street in the Southside of Chicago one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany. I didn't fall out in church. The questions I had didn't magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.

That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values”.

And

“While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge....

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

I wonder if Obama has been reading the bilge spewed out by the likes of Brian McLaren.. Especially since as of mid 2008 Brian McLaren is an informal adviser to the Obama campaign.

Brian McLaren

On July 26, 2008 Christian Today carried an article entitled Emerging church leader Brian Mclaren on Lambeth, mission and reconciliation. The article was aimed at discovering “what impression Lambeth left on him and his vision of Christianity in today's ever changing world”.

When asked whether “we should shape the Bible around the surrounding culture” McLaren said in part

It's not just what the Bible says, but how we understand, interpret, and apply what the Bible says. In the Bible, for example, God commanded polygamy in certain situations in the Old Testament. And God also commanded stoning in certain situations. Nobody I know of wants to apply those passages literally today. The question of which passages to apply to a certain situation, and how literally to apply them, is a question of interpretation, and interpretation is not simply a science or technique, like solving a math equation. There are many layers of skill in Biblical interpretation. [Read More Of the Interview]

Which is almost exactly what Barack Obama said.

So, as I said before... in the least possible words.. at the time God handed out these regulations He was actually running a small nation… A nation that had to stay on the straight and narrow in order to be able to present the world with God’s most valuable gift.. the Messiah. After the spread of Christianity to the four corners of the earth people who became Christians were and are members of dozens of different countries each with it’s own set of laws.. Certain aspects of the Old Testament laws, which applied to the nation of Israel became redundant.

As to the rest of Obama’s comments..

He cannot “evoke God's will”. I guess Obama has never thought it through...  God’s will is all that counts in the long run and He will enforce His will one way or the other.

“I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all”. How about genocide Senator? That violate enough principles for you?

“whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's”? Every heard of Biblical Christianity Senator? Where everyone’s word is compared to Scripture and dismissed if it is found to deviate.

Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?” This passage is simply stupid.. For details see The Great Gospel Deception, which  largely deals with the Sermon on The Mount..and exposes the False Promise of Heaven Without Holiness.

“Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example”.

To NOT base policy on what the God of the universe has commanded is nothing short of personal suicide and ensures the death of the nation.. See Articles in Section Our Country..Our Children

Rick Warren In Syria
Joseph Farah (WorldNet Daily)

Rick Warren wrote to me this morning to protest this column. He claims he didn't say anything he was actually quoted as saying by the official press in Syria. However, in a video posted on YouTube but removed today, he says Syria "does not allow extremism of any kind." In fact, Syria is, in many ways, the No. 1 sponsor of terrorism in the world.

For a long time I've held off criticizing mega-church leader Rick Warren, author of the best-selling "The Purpose Driven Life," even though I have been sorely tempted.

When he joined up with now-disgraced National Association of Evangelicals leader Ted Haggard to suggest man-induced global warming represented an impending calamity, I didn't say too much. I questioned it, but I let it go.

When he joined Haggard again in writing an open letter to President Bush urging government action to fight global poverty, I didn't say a word – even though I thought it ironic. After all, it is the church's responsibility to help the poor. It is not government's responsibility.

But now that Rick Warren has traveled to and provided legitimacy to a hostile foreign government, presided over by a brutal fascist dictator who hates Jews, threatens Israel, subverts neighboring Lebanon, imprisons and terrorizes its own citizens and even kills them in massive numbers when they stand up in revolt – now I have to denounce this impostor in the strongest terms possible.

It is my biblical mandate to do so.

Other Christians may be holding back, waiting to hear Rick Warren's explanation for his behavior in Syria. Some are cautiously suggesting that accounts of his activities there may have been distorted by the controlled press. Some want to give him the benefit of any doubt.

I'm going to give it to you straight: Rick Warren had no business traveling to Syria and being used for propaganda purposes by Bashar Assad, the terrorist-supporting president. There are only two possibilities to explain what happened:

· He made the outrageous statements attributed to him by the Syrians, for which he should be ostracized – maybe even tried for treason, in my opinion.

· He didn't make the statements, or was misquoted – in which case he has placed himself in the predictable position of being a "useful idiot" for the Islamofascist regime in Damascus.

Take your pick. Neither option is very attractive.

Here's what we know now.

The official press in the Syrian police state is suggesting Warren is taking sides with Syria against his own country with regard to issues in the Middle East. The reports indicate we can soon expect Warren, upon his return to the U.S., to lecture Americans about our abusive role in the region.

The Syrian newspaper Umar Jaftali quotes Warren as saying: "Washington is wrong not to hold dialogue with Syria, which wants peace. I call on the Americans to visit Syria and meet its beautiful people. I will tell the Americans that their idea about Syria does not reflect the truth."

Here's what the Syrian Arab News Agency reported:

· "[The] American delegation stressed that the American administration is mistaken not to hold dialogue with Syria."

· "Pastor Warren hailed the religious coexistence, tolerance and stability that the Syrian society is enjoying due to the wise leadership of President al-Assad, asserting that he will convey the true image about Syria to the American people."

· Warren gave Assad a "memorial drawing" to "thank the Syrian people for their ... efforts exerted for maintaining peace and harmony."

· Warren was quoted as saying: "Syria wants peace, and Muslims and Christians live in this country jointly and peacefully since more than a thousand years, and this is not new for Syria."

· He would, in the words of the official news agency, "tell the Americans that the ideas which had been shaped about [Syria] didn't reflect the truth and they have to come to Syria and see by themselves and realize her nice people and visit her wonderful and historical ruins."

· It was reported he told Syria's Islamic grand mufti that there could be no peace in the region without Syria and that 80 percent of Americans rejects what the U.S. administration is doing in Iraq.

· He praised Islamic-Christian co-existence in Syria.

If I were a betting man, I would wager that Warren will come home and allege he was widely misquoted. He probably was. I HOPE he was. But here's the problem: When you place yourself in the position of being used – and you ARE used – whose fault is it?

Rick Warrren’s Strange Bedfellows

www.inplainsite.org