Posted by
EdieF on Saturday, December 20, 2008 3:00:00 AM
A little over two years ago, Kevin McCullough had a provocative blog post asking why Obama's evil was in Rick Warren's pulpit. It was a good question, given Obama's support of the homosexual agenda and radical pro-"choice" politics. But now the shoe is on the other foot, and almost-President Barry has invited Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration.
I can understand why some Christians are upset about this, but as Marvin Olasky said in his wonderful column, our purpose in life is to learn to trust God more. Regardless of how you feel about Obama, or even Rick Warren for cultivating a relationship with Obama, what are the practical consequences here? Warren has a national platform to make an argument for traditional values, the sanctity of life and the need for God in society. These are all good things. Jesus himself went to the homes of pharisees and walked among unrepentant sinners in an attempt to show them the truth. Isn't Warren just following this example? Is this not an opportunity for him to metaphorically overturn the moneychangers' tables? What if his presence and Christ's powerful message gets us a step closer to making our house God's House? Even if you argue that this merely a calculated move on the part of Obama (or even Warren) to raise his credibility among those who don't like him, what harm can come of this?
We're being bombarded with secular messages. Atheists are posting anti-religious signs among Christmas displays, and our government and most of the citizenry don't seem to care. Our culture is becoming a cesspool because morality, tradition and religion have been replaced by unquestioning obedience to the doctrines of evolution, radical feminism and sexual hedonism. Obama could've picked some far-left "cleric" to give the invocation, or an openly homosexual "minister". He didn't. He picked someone who will stand up against the evils that are destroying America. On balance, how can that be a bad thing?