Comments

Do we really need politicians in the church in any fashion whatsoever? I don't think so. I don't like it when candidates pander, and I don't like it when the church panders. We loose our prophetic ministry to society when we start looking at how we can use politicians to motivate us. Isn't Biblical authority enough anymore? Clinton is no expert. What is she going to add to the discussion that we don't already know? I'm not saying a politician can't speak in the church, but they should speak from Biblical authority and not from poliitical promises and pandering. Clintons "promise" of 50 billion was just a way to make political points.

This is just another proof of Father Richard John Neuhaus prediction made many years ago: "You're going to see an increasing politicizing of religion and an increasing religionizing of politics" Not sure I have it exactly what he said, but you get the general idea. What I find really hypocritical from certain politicians is the welcome some of them get in black churches and yet when a politician speaks in a white church, the red flags go up that we need to keep church and religion separated. What gross hympocrisy! Of course, that's nothing new coming from the likes of the Clintons, is it?!

As Horatio Bonar once said, 'The church has gotten so worldly and world has gotten so churchy, it is difficult to tell where one leaves off and the other begins." Pandering favor with political candidates puts the church in an awkward position. They only value us when it is election time and change with the wind when the election is over. Agreement on one issue does not warrant endorsement. Since it looks like the Republicans will be out, fairweather churches and pastors are now hedging their bets lest they be left with no more invitations to the White House. What a shame.

What must be done to fight aids is to speak out and boldly preach that homosexuality and fornication is sin, then tell people is it wrong to engage in these immoral practices. However, that is not what Rick Warren's conferences are all about with guests such as Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton. Clinton, Obama and other liberals do not help fight aids, but rather add to the moral decline of our society through their perverse social agendas that promote homosexuality and all forms of illicit sexual practices, which only increases the aids epidemic.

When did the church stop converting individuals and start trying to force everyone Christian or not to live by Christian laws. Jesus didn't do that nor did Paul or Peter or the rest. So why are we doing it now?

Hillary Clinton will say or do anything to get elected. She is trying to show some degree of spirituality in order to portray herself in a positive light to evangelicals. It is an abomination of the pulpit to allow Hillary to speak or to give her any recognition at all. Remember, although she vows to "stop AIDS", this a woman who embraces abortion in all manner.
There has to be a line. Rick Warren is becoming a pawn of the Democratic party. The pandering of Hillary to the evangelical crowd is tremendously disengenuous. If faith played a role in her upbringing and value system, there would be more evidence. To look at her on a daily basis, there is no apparant evidence that she has any faith, other than that the American people are suckers looking to be taken for a ride.
Her views on Abortion should disqualify her from speaking in any capacity other than to publically denounce it and seek forgiveness from God for her stance on that issue. Even then, keep your hand on your wallet and take what she says with a grain of salt. She will say anything, do anything, do what it takes to get elected. This woman has no moral compass to guide her.

Being a resident of the Detroit area, where political pandering in the church is king (small cased k), this is nothing new to me, but I have to agree with most of the posts here as this being a tad over the top - even for the Rickster. My major concern is the amount of churches in the country parroting Sir. Rick in their own congregations who will think that this is the green light they've been waiting for to do the same. And as for the standing ovation given Hillary? It just proves how in the dark evangelicals are regarding politics in this country and certain candidates' respective histories. It should also sound a HUGE alarm that the "Evangelical Vote" is no longer owned by the folks with the elephant pins.

The devil has been in the Church for quite a long time so why not give him more room to pervert the truth of the Bible? The Head of the Church, JESUS, issues a warning to His Church in Rev. 2:20 about allowing Jezebel to corrupt His church. Rick Warren and many other pastors like him are playing into the hands of the devil. The problem is not Clinto or Obama or any political leader here in the USA. They work for Satan. That is obvious! The problem is when the Church invites Satan to teach and preach within the House of God. Be warned - Jesus will vomit out many within the Church (Rev. 3:16). REPENT and return to our God Who will purify His Chruch as a bride for the Groom, Jesus.

I like Rick Warren a lot. I think his Purpose Driven approach to ministry has really improved the kingdom of God. Like other great church leaders, though, once he steps out of his expertise (like Michael Jordan playing baseball or golf), then things start to get dicey.

The HIV/AIDS pandemic in Africa is a fine cause for Warren, Hybels et al to elevate. But it really needs to be done in the context of malaria and clean drinking water (each which claim more lives), as well as civil rights and trade liberalization (in addition to direct aid).

Should we expect any one mortal to be experts in diametric subject matters? Judge ye not, lest ye be judged.

Both Sen. Clinton and I were raised in conservative Methodist families, Kevin, and I disagree with you. Methodists aren't all that dogmatic as a whole, beyond the core of Trinitarianism, but in general, have tried to stop proscribing behaviors.

Methodists instead urge a "burden of responsibility" standard, as someone put it. I would say that Sen. Clinton is endeavoring to try and do just that, as do I, even if I sometimes disagree with her (She's rather too conservative for me. as was her husband).

I'm not running for office, after all. Nudging our society towards a greater good, as President, is a burden of responsibility I can't image myself doing, I have some idea of my limitations. I don't have to politically compromise on anything, at least until I go vote. It's always a choice of the lesser evil, to me, and it's my civic duty to chose it, like it or not. I wish I had the strength to participate at a more involved level, but I don't, so what can I say?

Acting upon the burden of responsibility is a more difficult thing to do than merely telling other people what to do, or not to do, because a Bible verse or many seems to say so (while hopefully not being too much the hypocrite).

The Abolitionist movement made that sort of thing morally and intellectually bankrupt, I think. It's a radical understanding of the Golden Rule while reading the Bible that counts to me, not clobber verses (there are no anti-homosexuality verses anyway. There wasn't "homosexuality" back then, or nor is there homosexuality now. "Homosexuality" is an obsolete Victorian era scientific theory. It had it's uses in expanding knowledge, all theory does, but not anymore.)

The proslavery apologists had all the Bible clobber verses one could want, even the Ten Commandments seem to condone slavery, as they pointed out, yet the conservatives were very wrong and the anti-literalist radicals were more morally and intellectually right, though they were still mostly racists by today's still too low standards.)

With holding to a burden of responsibility standard, you have to try to "think and let think," as I think John Wesley himself put it. You probably sometimes have to make uncomfortable decisions and compromises, especially when you're in high office, I would imagine.

I disagree with Sen. Clinton, but I still think that she's basically a person of good will. With most of the GOP presidential candidates, I see a grave and dangerous misunderstanding that personal piety equals morality. She will probably be the lesser evil if she makes it past the primary season.

Robert E. Lee was a pious man, but that didn't keep him from becoming a blood soaked traitor pimping for slaveholder hegemony.

Basically, sin is what I do, but not what other people do. I can judge other people's actions as being probably foolish, criminal and/or dangerous, and act upon my judgment as my burden of responsibility and civic duty suggest to me, but, as with Lot's daughters, I'm not in their minds. God understands them, I hope, even if I don't, and God is more than welcome by me to judge them. I have enough things to do.

For an instance, I can't think of any reason I would buy cigarettes for a young man or woman (maybe there are some, I hope I don't have to find out), but I have bought cigarettes for my old neighbor, when he was too ill to go buy them himself.

Why put the stress of withdrawal upon an old man who's already not feeling well? I felt pretty uncomfortable buying the cigarettes, but probably less than he would have been without them...and I had probably had more stamina to cope with my stress. Did I do wrong? ...Maybe yes, maybe no, but I think it was the more a right thing to do than a wrong thing to do, and the old guy is still going strong. He must have some "good" genes that other people shouldn't count upon.

As the brother in law of a pulmonary specialist who has seem what cigarette use can do, I have a special duty to to discourage cigarette use, I think...but it's not an absolute. There is but one absolute, after all, the God I cannot know, otherwise, as a medieval rabbi once pointed out, I would BE God. I don't want that burden of responsibility.

Greg: I appreciate your worldview, which is seasoned with grace. I am surprised by your claim that the Bible does not address homosexuality. For instance, we see in Romans 1:27 that "the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion".

I have several gay friends and acquaintances, a few who are actually followers of Jesus and who abstain from sexual relationship. I believe Jesus loves each of these people as much as He loves me. But I think you may need to examine your generalization of scriptures, as, even with differing interpretations, the scriptures have authority in our corporate faith.

I am one of those who stand firm in the belief that politics and politicians should be kept out of the pulpit.

I am not against someone using the pulpit to educate, enlighten, and update members of the Church on HIV/AIDS. However I believe the Church can and should not let persons spreading the message from the pulpit be politicians, particularly ones known for expousing views that are clearly not biblical, like those who endorse homosexuality, abortion, prostitution, etc.

The Church should not and must not allow itself to be used for partisan politics, neither should the Church curry favour with one side or the other, since if we are true to the Bible, we may occasionally have cause to speak out against one or both sides.

There are persons in the Church who are qualified, experienced and competent to speak to the issue of HIV/AIDS, these should be given the opportunity to do so.

There are messages that many need to heed about HIV apart from the "use a condom" mantra. There is a need for a call to responsible behaviour. There is a need for a call to right living.

Someone has said that HIV/AIDS is probably the only lethal disease "that we know how to get and how not to get". It is almost impossible today for a grown person to acquire it by accident or chance. It is about time then that we tell people in the strongest possible way to behave themselves. This is a message that only the Church can give.

My advice: keep politicians out of the pulpit. They will use you until they no longer have need of you. Then it will be business as usual.

Great site!

Would you like a Link Exchange with The Internet Radio Network? At the IRN you can listen to over 50 of America’s top Talk Shows via Free Streaming Audio! In addition you can email the President, VP and Congressional Leaders!!
http://netradionetwork.com

It's uncontroversial, I think, that Romans refers to pagan temple prostitution and therefore not loving gay couples. Much of the Bible seems devoted to exploring non-polytheistic identity, and it's clear that not every avenue to that identity is always and forever tenable.

The Bible probably has an antipathy towards same-sex sexual activity, but that's not the same thing as saying that homosexuality is a sin...if no other reason than "homosexual" is an obsolete Victorian scientific theory, and now mostly a pejorative word used by people demonstrating ill will towards others.

There is an antipathy towards a lot of things in the Bible, but...as Paul lived in his time and place, we live in our time and place. I don't see many temple prostitutes around today. Do I live an especially sheltered life. I don't think so. Prostitution is a problem, still, but temple prostitution isn't. People got that message.

As far as "unnatural" goes, if it's "unnatural," it's simply impossible. Paul's ideas on nature and what's unnatural is sometimes...quaint, like his idea that a seed is dead in the soil until it somehow sprouts.

That's not a good analogy to use today, and one has to ...hummmmmm....over it, or wrongfully accept a sort of pseudo-Christian gnosticism. He was simply wrong, unless the English translations are wrong, then it's maybe a Bultmann-ish example of Gnostic influence on Paul? Which I quite doubt. It's just an analogy with which time has caught up. Paul never claimed to be a farmer, anyway.

What's the entomologist's "Totalitarian law of nature?" Something like, "if it's not impossible, it's mandatory."

Of course, simply because something can be done, that doesn't mean that it's something moral and wise...but somebody is likely to do it, at some time and some place, anyway, and maybe for noble if misguided reasons, like Lot's daughters actions...reprehensible, but...one can somehow condone it.

Encouraging gay people to be chaste is fine by me, situational chastity is probably necessary for society, if nothing else, but saying gay people must never consummate their love because the Bible says so...that's simply looks cruel and unnecessary, and it's not supported by scripture, I think.

An antipathy in the Bible is not a prohibition for all people at all times. It is a reason to carefully think about it, as Paul thought about mandatory circumcision as a covenant of Messiah identity. Things change.

Like being uncircumcised, Gay is OK. Moral people, without certain cultural identities anyway, don't care, and probably think it an unnecessary procedure for male infants. (However, if one sleeps around without condoms, circumcision may be good thing in making it harder to get an HIV infection, if the latest scientific studies hold up...if I'm reading the reporting correctly.)

The majority of states had anti-interracial marriage laws at one time or another, but then and now, actually moral people didn't care. But, a lot of pious people said that God hates race mixing, and had their clobber verses to back them up, however dubious today.

It would be considered eyebrow raising, though not unlawful, for a man to marry his brother's widow, and illegal if he were already married. But as Onan could testify, it was once legally mandatory, even if, I think, one were (was?) already married. Wife number one just had to put up with it. She had no choice, no voice. That's simply wrong today.

There are rules about some sexual activities in the Bible, but...it's following the Golden Rule that really determines what one should, or should not, do, and that's not always clear. That's what good will is for.

Gay makes life a little more interesting, though in an ideal world, nobody would care, and Golden Rule sexual activity makes life a lot more livable.

We're sexual creatures. It is not good for man to be alone...though being coupled sometimes isn't all that easy either. How many presidential candidates have never been divorced? One clear Bible prohibition, by Jesus himself, was divorce, so how are we rationalizing it?

Well, woman who were divorced then had little say about it, and were tossed into the street if their families wouldn't take them back and support them the rest of their lives, as they were too "impure" for respectable men to marry. But today, divorced women have resources, and men should make sure those resources are fully available, or to my mind anyway, they are divorcing immorally.

As women had little say about divorce...the prohibition was in accordance with the Golden Rule

Not to mention, that Joseph had apparently originally decided to divorce Mary quietly after they married, as she was pregnant not by him. He could have had her stoned to death. It was God's law that he do so. He was a good man in not following the Law. However, God persuaded him not to follow God's law...? Who said that the Bible is consistent in every way? Or that it should be. Joseph tried to practice the Golden Rule over THE LETTER OF THE LAW as best he could, that's probably what made him a good man.

And...how are we justifying the "abomination" of usury today? Not as well as we should, I think, especially by the so called religious-right.

It's never having sex that's rather deviant...though if memory serves, the late, great Sun Ra had a noticeable lack of interest in sex. He didn't know what he was missing, even if one can sometimes wish one were asexual, at least at times.

Why, as Christians must we be afraid of encounter and dialogue with people with whom we will not completely agree. HIV/Aids is not merely a homosexual issue. It is a global crisis which will take involvement from many directions to get a handle on. I applaud Rick Warren for daring to step out of the mold and deal with this difficult issue. While I believe that the practice of homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching" to focus on just that at the expense of getting significantly involved with a real health crisis would indeed be "incompatible with Christian teaching."

I do not need to agree with everything a person says to appreciate what they might have to offer. Thank you, Rick, for your daring involvement.

I am finding it very hard to understand Hillary's appearance at the AIDS conference at Saddleback other than to promote her own political ambitions. One would think that a conference like that would be focusing on life and cures for this horrible disease. Hillary is so far from being concerned for life - just examine her extremely liberal views on abortion during all nine months of development. Does anyone else besides me see this as gross hypocricsy??

Pardon this evangelical for borrowing from a Unitarian billboard, but the Unitarian church in my town once proclaimed,"Faith has nothing to fear from thinking." I remember that everytime fear of any person starts to creep into my life. That includes all those from the "dark side," i.e. those who don't hold views exactly like mine.

HIV/AIDS is a global issue and every person of every persuasion should be concerned. Just because we may disagree on how to deal with the problem doesn't mean we shouldn't dialogue. At least we all agree it is a problem.

We can't expect non-Christians to act like Christians or even nominal or cultural Christians to line their morals up with the bible. Jesus' mandates are tough and cannot be acheived without the Spirit. In our society, sexual purity as Christians define it hasn't been the standard in over 30 years. Do we need to promote the benefits of living a sexually pure life? Absolutely. But let's not forget the Gospel is more than morality.

As for political pandering behind a pulpit, I don't like it, I find it completely distasteful, but it goes on, Democrat or Republican, liberal, conservative and everything inbetween. In my home state, the former Conservative Republican AG wrote a memo to his staff to "get to the money people" after he spoke in a evangelical church one Sunday.

I'm just so tired of how polemic this country has become. Can Christians trust themselves enough to be part of the solution? Can I at least appreciate Hillary for trying, even if deep down, I feel she's being disingenuous? Just because she said all the right things doesn't mean I'll vote for her. She has an eight year White House track record for me to recall when making my voting decision. But I do appreciate the dialogue.

Greg: I appreciate your cultural exegesis, but I find it strains any reasonable hermeneutic framework, in which case the authority of scripture is tossed out with the bath water of ministry artifacts. We don't need to share a view of the Bible to make as much corporate progress as sharing a view of Jesus (although I would caution that the Jesus of the Bible is the only One worthy of worship, not one shaped in our image of cultural convenience).

As far as the collision of what is "christian" and what is "public policy" in America--both heavily influenced by self-selection over the centuries--I would submit Russ Roberts "Baptists and Bootleggers" as worthy of your consideration:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/y2007/Robertspolitics.html

I didn't think I was being surreptitious at all. I've long read CT to learn something, and I'm learning something from you, too. I may be an artist today, but I have a degree in sociology from an accredited state university (in the Bible Belt)...a long time ago. I think I learned how to learn, from most anything. If curiosity killed the cat, well, I hope this aging cat has nine lives.

Reading and responding to CT clarifies my thoughts, and I've learned much from CT...One is that the American religious right, at least it's putative leaders, in general, are still racist, and still using the same massive resistance tactics as conservatives used in my youth...as if the nasty ethnic cleansing fantasy of "Left Behind" didn't prove that. Not to mention the same old "activist judges" accusation that always comes out when our courts, however reluctantly and long delayed, tries to support the whole Constitution, preamble and all, in the progressive manner towards equality under the law that America's Constitutional generation merely started, not ended.

As somebody said...Bayard Rustin? "Racism isn't just about black and white." He ought to know.

Today's racism, at least the racism that I have learned about in CT and on Christian TV, is a different model than what it was in my youth, but as Malcolm X said, if memory serves, "Racism is like a Cadillac, there is a new model out every year."

It's been long, long been well established, in the field that I studied, that same-sex sexual attraction is not a mental pathology, the whole of one's identity to the exclusion of everything else needed to be a consenting adult, so I expect equality for gay people, and all consenting able adults, in every possible way.

I expect our governments and our courts to protect and support gay equality in every possible legitimate manner, regardless of cost or efforts at scapegoating "the other" in hard times, or good, for that matter. It's not a "special right," also retreaded from massive resistance propagandas, it's full American citizenship.

I have the duty and the right as an American citizen to demand that of my country. And as a citizen of the world, to expect basic human rights and dignity to be respected wherever anyone has same-sex sexual attractions, which is everywhere, despite the President of Iran's misinformation. Am I being surreptitious here?

Gay people can avoid HIV infection with "right" gay living, but... those without sin...should still urge condom use for those who are not without sin. If only to keep sinners from dying on the streets. Very untidy.

Bonar...
Considering that Bonar, who lived through most of the Nineteenth Century (Don't you love search engines?) was talking about Victorian times in Scotland... Those were heady, complex times of great change, when some people were probably longing for "simpler" times (as if there has ever been "simpler" times. People just aren't simple at any time).

Scottish engineers and doctors became highly esteemed, if memory serves. I wonder what Bonar said about the "clearances" of the Highlands inhabitants...where once men ate sheep, sheep ate men...my thoughts aren't coming together here.

Perhaps I'm not sure of the point you're making about Bonar. I'm all for separation of church and state, but politicians will be informed by their religious practices...for good and ill.

I would prefer not to know the religion of politicians, but it's apparently unavoidable, alas. I expect the people I vote for to be informed by their religious practice and religious and secular traditions (not always the same thing), as am I, but I also expect them to support equality under the law for all adults capable of consent, regardless of what religious authorities say or don't say.

Sexual activity with someone other than your spouse is sin. Leaving the natural use of the woman, lying with a man as with a woman is sin. It is amazing how uncomplicated those statements are. For some people, the simple things of God's word are too complicated for words.

Please don't bring up miscegenation. I am an African American. The difference between what my grandparents experienced in Arkansas and Tennessee and what homosexuals experience today have nothing in common with one another. The only way I would know that the man next to me lusts after other men is if he either tells me or approaches me. When you attempt to equate racism with a refusal to accept same sex lusts, you insult me and every other African American who survived the white power domination that ha been a part of this country's history for so long.

Today, I, according to the friend, go to club of executionperformance of desires. My friend has characterized this club in a word “oeao”.
In a reception I was met with nothing the remarkable, usually dressed secretary who has suggested me to wait for a meeting with the owner a few. In some minutes I have come to ithim;them into a cabinetstudy, and ithe began me to tell rules of club.

free online dating services You come to our club for executionperformance of the perverted desires which are carried out with members of our club, and for it you grant of their desire - all very simply. When you come to club, you describe the desire. For it you carry out someone's desire, and then someone executes yours. All conditions stipulate in advance, but the basic restriction one: at members of club all traces on a body, and painfulunhealthy sensations should passtake place traumas less than for 72 hours