Rev. Rick Warren's Invocation

When I first heard that President-elect Obama invited Rev. Warren to give the invocation for the Inauguration, I was saddened. There are so many other pastors to whom he could have turned, Rev. Jim Wallis, Rev. Jesse Jackson, a Catholic bishop, or a Rabbi. Why the pastor who rigged the debate between the two nominees for President? Why the pastor who supported California Prop 8 and verbally beats up on some folks he disagrees with? At least, the pastor giving the benediction, Rev. Joseph Lowrey, is going to get the last word.

Then I saw an article about Rev. Warren which explains some good things about the man. I was much impressed with how he gives 90% of his income to help the poor. Somehow he looks like he is doing very well on the 10% that's left but, still, he has few peers in the generosity department.

I sent the article to my liberal friends and got a response which reflected how I originally felt but quite a bit more angry.

So I tried to figure out why the choice of Rev. Warren might make sense.

The main reason, of course, is what the President-elect said, that Rev. Warren had invited him to speak at Saddleback Church early in his campaign, knowing they disagreed. Sen. Obama reaches out . . . . And he is willing to take the heat from constituents who disagree with him.

My friend said he really shot himself in the foot. Of course, the promises Sen. Obama has made about changing law and policy in ways supportive of the GLBT community are yet to be actualized, but we will be surprised if he does not follow through.

Then I realized that by giving the invocation on Jan, 20, Rev. Warren may not be as effective in furthering the anti-GLBT agenda he has led. Further, even all this negative publicity and controversy puts the subject on the front pages. As they say in the entertainment business, even negative publicity is better than no publicity.

But more moving to me is that Sen. Obama may be forgiving Rev. Warren for the stunts related to the Saddleback debate.

So how will the modern day Billy Graham respond? Will he even look at the forgiveness angle? Will he presume he deserves the attention? Will he actually begin listening to those he has condemned?

Cynics don't like to take a chance on giving an inch to their enemies, certain they will take a mile. Jesus was willing . . . and got crucified. But He changed things.

Who knows? Sen. Obama, a "sermon-soaked pew squatter" for twenty years, may actually be trying to do the Word, and not just be a hearer only.

Saturday Debate, Part II

From Salon.com, I've borrowed the following quote from Dan Gilgoff of Beliefnet.

Dan Gilgoff: Some Obama supporters are claiming that McCain saw the questions before the forum began, giving him a leg up on Obama.

Rick Warren: They're dead wrong. That's just sour grapes. They both did fantastically well. The only question he knew, I gave them the first question and I was changing the questions within an hour [before the forum began]. I talked to both of them a week before the debate and told them all the themes. I talked personally to John McCain and I talked personally to Barack Obama. I said, 'We'll talk about leadership, talk about the roles of government,' I said I'd probably have a question about climate change, probably a question on the courts. I didn't say, 'I'm going to ask which Supreme Court justice would you not [nominate]. They were clearly not prepared for that.

D.G.: A source at the debate tells me that McCain had access to some communications devices in the few minutes before he went on stage with you and that there was a monitor in his green room, in violation of the debate rules.

R.W.: That's absolutely a lie, absolutely a lie. That room was totally free, with no monitors -- a flat out lie.

Hmmm. . . . I was right that Rev. Warren did some pre-debate discussing of the questions with both candidates. If I had been him, I would have done the same thing to reassure both candidates that it was a legitimate event. The difficulty is that if he as moderator has a preference between the two, he may say a little more to one than to the other. The moderator's credibility is on the line since it is his opportunity to gain national stature. Who knows how honest he was in his pre-debate discussions?

Well, Rev. Warren's honesty was put to the test because while he told the audience that Sen. McCain was in a room where he couldn't hear what was going on onstage, Sen. McCain's staff reported that he was still in his motorcade on the way to the event. For someone who had so much at stake to put on a responsible effort with a national audience, Rev. Warren had to either know of Sen. McCain's actual whereabouts or presumed too much. He certainly had not accompanied Sen.McCain to the room as a matter of hospitality, which would have been what I'd have done.

Rev. Warren failed that test.

How much of the debate Sen. McCain heard is not clear from this snippet. But other reports say there was a monitor in the green room where Sen. McCain was supposed to have waited and that it was turned off (disabled?). But Rev. Warren offers a different response. There was no monitor!

Is this a big deal?

Is truth telling a big deal? Was it the Packer offensive line whose names Sen. McCain used when he was asked for names of his unit as he wrote in a book about his POW experience or was it the Steelers' defensive line as he told a Pittsburgh crowd this year?

Somehow those who do not worry about the truth in little things do not worry about it in the big things.

Update: You may have noticed that I removed the reference to the "cross in the dirt" vignette that McCain uses and some have said was borrowed by McCain from Alexander Solzhenitsyn. I still have my doubts but researchers at FactCheck.org have found that the story could have happened but no one will ever know. The alleged borrowing is unlikely because of the differences in the details, the likelihood of numerous such communications among the many Christians under persecution, and the ambiguity about Solzhenitsyn's actual use of the story. - I've tried to find the blogs where I originally got information related to the vignette and I can't find them now. . . .