Obama, Warren, and a divided American Church
If you consort with the Devil, are you the Devil too?
It seems the Rick Warren inauguration kerfuffle is an opportunity for everyone to re-fight the culture war aspects of the last election. On the one hand, Obama has spit upon the liberal “coalition” that supported him by inviting an evil clansman-bigot-hatemonger to his party (that's the tone on the radio and in the papers up here in Madison); on the other hand Warren is implicitly supporting a liberation-theology baby-killer (that's the stuff I'm finding in evangelical blogs).
I am not interested in entering this debate, largely because I find it tangential and uninteresting. Political symbolisms do not do much for me; in any case, I’m more concerned about the long-term changes in our society.
Still, this to-do sheds light on just how isolated we are from another in this country. I’m talking about within the American church. As a member of a majority-black church in disproportionately liberal Madison, in historically Populist/Socialist Wisconsin, I did not see much public debate—only through national publications and the web. So I’ve been a little unnerved by the degree of hostility out there over Rick Warren at the inauguration.
In a very roundabout fashion, I was dragged into the debate. It’s not a really big deal. Mike Pohlman, a blogger at crosswalk.com suggests that Warren would do well to read Blessed Are the Uncool: Authentic Living in a World of Show—a book I wrote two years ago.
Pohlman’s point seems to be that Warren is trying to be cool by being associated with Obama. I’m not sure I agree that there’s much coolness to be gained from speaking at the inauguration. Warren already has a large audience, and seems genuinely uninterested in the trappings of fame. I met him a few years ago at Urbana 06, when he visited our webcast room; previously I interviewed him about AIDS in Africa and his local interests in Orange County.
My impression was that Warren was keen to disarm the mystique around him, and liked to draw attention to small people around him. So I don’t think the inauguration prayer is important to him in that regard.
But Pohlman’s greater point seems to be that Warren ought to reject acclaim from “the world”—meaning, presumably, that association with Obama taints Warren’s credibility as a church leader. Such a view would derive from the (questionable) convictions that
- Christians are to live out Jesus' call to holiness by disassociating from unholy political leaders, and
- Obama is one such an unholy leader.
Is that fair? I'd love to hear your thoughts. Not about point (2), as there's only name-calling and indignation to be gained in discussing that issue. I mean point (1), about Warren. Is our Christian credibility compromised by association with politics?
Disclaimer: These blogs are the words of the writers and do not represent InterVarsity or Urbana. The same is true of any comments which may be posted about any blog entries. Submitted comments may or may not be posted within the blog, at the bloggers' discretion.
And as Jesus* reclined at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were reclining with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” But when he heard it, he said, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice.’ For I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.”