I have to admit, I am still coming to terms with the concept of Evangelicals who actually care about social justice, let alone allow their concern to carry through into their daily lives.

As for the candidates, face time inside a church is only going to help Obama and can only hurt McCain. Obama is perfectly at home in a church, and has obviously thought at length about how his politics and faith each compliment the other. McCain, from what I understand, has trouble giving better than tepid responses when it comes to the issue of faith and politics. The end result for Obama will be making a good case for himself, and likely making his case to those of the audience are open to be had. The end result for McCain will be giving his Evangelical hardline Republicans another cause for concern regarding their presumptive nominee.

Any relation to Brokeback?

Do they worship an "awesome" God, or just a like, totally tubular one?

Why is no one in the MSM pointing out that Rick Warren has scheduled this "faith" event on the Jewish Sabbath?  He doesn't care about social justice other than as an opportunity to "witness."  He's still out to destroy science, put women back in the home, and criminalize homosexuality.  Don't give him even the remotest break.  And I'm disappointed in Obama for participating in the general drift toward the Established Church of Evangelicalism.  Come live in the Bible Belt for a while, Professor Wolfe, and you'll understand.

JimTX: I don't think you've been listening. Rick Warren is trying to move away from the narrowness of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson. I'm not an "Evangelical" (I come from the southern black Baptist tradition that produced Dr. King and reads Reinhold Niebuhr), but Warren seems to be stressing that majority of the Bible that talks about helping the poor, the sick, the outcast.

He may not be a perfect ally, but he may well be an ally. No clergyman should be able to be "counted on" by any political party. Religious conviction necessitates breaks from secular political calculation from time to time. Warren shows that he understands this by demonstrating and advocating a more nuanced religio-political idea.

In short, the "Bible Belt" has very little to do with Warren. He's in California and my hunch is that he's just as fed up with Bible Belt bigotry as you seem to be. He just has to be more diplomatic in his repudiation.

Inviting the junior senator from Illinois to his church is evidence of this.

A diplomat doesn't tell people they will burn in hell if they don't believe what he does.  

He's the same story as an other closed minded zealot, only without the bad suit and scowl.  Gee, he invites Democrats (this doesn't have any benefit for his amassing more power, right?) doesn't live in the south and periodically reads what the bible actually says - whoop-de-doop.  He's still a bigot and a mysoginist.  

Sorry - I can't stomach any of these people.  I'm glad Barack can because I sure can't.  I read "The Purpose Driven Life", or tried to trudge through anyway.  Hectoring drivel, lots of "this is the one and only way or you'll burn in hell" squished between lessons so obvious on how to be a nice person, I laughed.  Yes, we should care about someone besides ourselves and help the suffering.  What a genuis.

I'd rather just have my hectoring straight up and stop pretending to be so kind and true when you're preaching hate against gays, Jews, and everyone else that isn't you.  It's actually worse than Fallwell - he was at least honest about his intent.  

When both of these candidates meet with the Reverend Gene Robinson - of New Hampshire fame - after reading his wonderful book and understanding his life's work, then I'll believe they want to meet with a real man of God.

Anyone who spends some time looking at Warren's work will agree he is not a politico-evangelical, at least not in the sense that Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, et. al. He's not trying to build a coalition that he can 'deliver' to a candidate for the 'right' policy positions. He's much more about raising the issues that Christians should worry about and asking his flock to consider all these issues before casting their private vote. I have a lot of respect for his work.

It is always good to be reminded that closed-mindedness is not the province of any one side of the politico-religious spectrum, isn't it?  

I would not go so far to say that Warren is an "ally," It is probably enough for the likes of Obama that he is not necessarily an enemy.

politicians want votes. The more obama gets, the better. I think there is no danger of him conflating church and state, so who cares if he reaches out to evangelicals. They are just another potential constituency.

Republicans have courted the evangelical vote for precisely this reason by focusing on abortion. But abortion is just one of many issues of social justice that evangelicals care about.  A lot of them are also beginning to care about environmental issues.And if they really starting to care about social justice, the next thing will be anti-death penalty, and anti-torture.

"Hectoring drivel, lots of "this is the one and only way or you'll burn in hell" squished between lessons so obvious on how to be a nice person, I laughed."

I have a copy of "The Purpose Driven Life" in front of me, and I'm trying to find a single page or paragraph that fits this description.  In fact, what's striking to me is its complete *lack* of  a salvation message--- a bit surprising for an unabashedly Evangelical work.  What I see instead is a thoughtful blueprint for living a life in the service of others.  Not an easy task......even for nice people like you and me.  :)                

I don't presume to know who is a "real" man of God and who isn't, but as dbhuff noted above, Warren's efforts to (re)focus the Christian mind and heart on issues beyond the embryo and bedroom speak for themselves.  I, for one, am heartened by the prospect.

Wandrey, if you want to bring people together and find common ground to get stuff done that needs doing, well, you don't only talk to people who agree with you on everything, 100%. If these people are interested in social justice, then I don't care if they believe you can only go to heaven on the back of a turtle while handling snakes and reciting the lotus sutra backwards.

I don't have a copy in front of me Celines and I'm sorry if I was harsh, I have no wiggle room with homophobia at all, not a half a hair.  His statements on gays closed my mind to him forever.

But I do clearly remember lots of statements stating that this - presumably Warren's personal form of Christianity - was the only way.  Eventually all religious leaders say this.  Ugh.

I read it at my Mother's house - she's a very religious Christian and admires him (although she found the book simplistic as well) and I admire her, so I will try again.  She's on the progressive end of politics, as is her congregation, and they do all appreciate him bringing back mercy, working for the poor and forgiving the damned - the real teachings of Christ.  

I am a reluctant atheist, if such a thing exists, but like I said, Reverand Gene Robinson in New Hampshire (the first gay bishop of the Episcopal Church) is one of my all time heroes. When asked what it was like for him to have to give sermons wearing a bullet proof vest, he said Christ told us we'd always be in trouble as Christians, we'd always be rebels and always be going against the grain, and that we need to accept that with love.  Pretty racy stuff from an Episcopalian, you must admit. THAT is my kind of Christianity.  THAT is what its about.  Not fetting the powerful, but protecting the weak from them.

I won't dig through The Purpose Driven Life looking for gotchas to prove my original points, but to try again and see what is so different about this person - who looks and sounds exactly like any other religio-huckster to me using Christianity to amass power (ha!  wouldn't Jesus laugh at that) and divide people.  But I will try, because I too am being judgemental.  

Just don't ask me to trust anyone who preaches against anyone else.

I really hesitate to say this, because it matters not one whit - I just want to know that I am a straight lady.  I'm just as offended by him telling a Jewish woman she will burn in hell.  How dare he?

Burning in hell = rising early on a Sunday morning to sit through a two hour sermon spoken in abstract, new-agey math, and with no promise of brunch afterwards.  

In my experience, having performed some of all four activities, social justice is to worship as making love to one's soul mate is to masturbation. Nothing wrong with any of them, but it's nice to be able to cut to the chase when you have the chance.

I used to pray regularly to a discrete, deity-like unit I considered to be separate from myself. At the time I had read but not yet absorbed Paul's admonition to the Thessalonians to "pray without ceasing." My definition of prayer was to change.

One year between Christmas and New Year's I had the great fortune to find myself in the position where I had to organize, fund, staff, and manage a dinner program for about 130 homeless men in San Francisco. Long story short: the need arose; somebody got my name; I said "yes" even though I had no money, staff, or expertise. How do you feed 130 hungry men at the drop of a hat?

Well, it came together, because people just materialized out of the woodwork: a chef, who planned the menus and loaned me his resale license to rent equipment on the cheap; a night supervisor at a produce market who showed up with a truckload of free and impeccably fresh and delicious fruits and veggies; a gaggle of highly competitive nuns who took over the kitchen and kicked ass; entire families--of all races, incidentally--bringing in home-baked pies and cakes; and donations, donations, donations.

After it was all over the homeless guys gave us a standing ovation. I just went home, sat in the dark by myself, and wept. It was then that I realized that my praying, which had been on dial-up to some remote, celestial server, had been upgraded to optical fiber to my own heart.

I left the Church for various reasons, not least because I realized that I trust Doubt over Faith. No matter. I weep even now as I think of the goodness that lies within each of us, that we so desperately want to express. Social justice is that expression; if you look very, very closely at the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, you can see it passing between the fingers of God and Adam.

Oh, and not to put too fine a point on it, but charity and social justice are different, yet interdependent. Charity is the gateway drug to justice. The goal of every soup kitchen manager is to close for lack of business.

Amen, Dylan.

Wiliam Y: simply beautiful.

In fairness, Wandrey, Warren "dared" because the woman challenged him with a direct question.  Should he have equivocated? Pleaded the Fifth?  Or stayed true to his core beliefs in a crowd not at all sympathetic to his point of view?  What Would Reverend Robinson Do?  :)

I understand your anger toward the Religious Right and the Evangelical community at large.  We have a lot to atone for.  But as your mother will attest, Rick Warren (and fellow social crusader, Jim Wallis) represents a new paradigm in how we, as Christians, should put our faith into action.  A change that millions of us not only believe in....but welcome as well.  

By the way, we've had a couple of conversations under my pre-Canadian West name of susanwood87.  It's nice to see you again.   I'd have been back sooner, but I've been busy helping some of my ignorant lemming friends.  Seems one of them followed an exhortation to "hurl themselves into the sea" and then another, and another, and then, well.....you know the rest.  :)

And this is the religion that is supposed to be so important for moral thinking?  One that places its highest premium and threat of punishment on "belief" in a character who bears suspicious resemblance to every other stock mythological figure?  A loving God who would punish for eternity a person who simply doesn't believe something as if they did someone harm - this is moral thinking?  What kind of meglomaniac is this God?  And that politicians prostrate themselves before such charlatans who say such stupid thing is just an embarassment.  We rightly laugh at Muslims who believe dumb things written in ancient books of transparently human-created content.  

Check out Robert Price's "Reason Drive Life" for an apt response to the sort of drivel that comes from folks like Warren.

When people say we need religion for morality, I just want to laugh - I think getting rid of religion is the first step to clearer moral thinking.

With due acknowledgments to Noah Feldman—Divided By God, your framers did better with church and state than they did with slavery. They constitutionalized liberty of conscience and church state separation. But still church state problems exist given great religious diversity and non belief too.

America has experimented politically and legally with nonsectarianism, strong secularism, legal secularism and values evangelicism. Yet church state issues and tensions abound and abide still. Feldman argues that secularists and values evangelicals are animated by a desire to reconcile unity and diversity--good luck I say.. He says that secularists need to understand that religious values form an important source of political belief and identity for most Americans and values evangelicals need to recognize that church state separation is essential to avoid outright “political-religious conflict”.  But he argues too that inclusive symbolic expressions of religion in public space ought not be objected to.

That all said, I see no virtue in Warren saying “Yes” in answer to the Jewish woman’s question whether she would burn in hell. There may be virtue in a principled response. But there is no virtue in irrational principles.

For myself I don't see  the disjunction between conservative politics and philosophy on one hand and religion on the other that Wolfe observes in his post. Rather, as Feldman argues, fundamentalists reframed their legal and public positions in the wake of legal secularism so as to argue for values as distinct from religion and as the unacknowledged carrier of religion. So that ,for example, the loss of school prayer became the detaching of “Americans’ collective engagement with values derived from religion.” A school day without prayer was an unsanctified day, a day disjointed from symbolic relation to the goals of collective learning and good values.

And for myself, and unlike both Wolfe and Feldman, I cannot now foresee the day arriving when religious faith is reconciled, both institutionally and constitutionally, with non adherence and unbelief. For that day to come, in my view, the legal secularist position of an absolute disjunction between church and state, save where secular tradition vindicates the use of religious symbols, rendering to Caesar what his and to God what is His, and revivifying the strong and clear and articulated disjoining of the public and the private realms.  (I do believe that underneath it all, this is Feldman’s true position though he does not say so explicitly.)

Wolfe says, “The joint appearance of McCain and Obama at Saddleback is only one event in a long political campaign. But it is also a significant antidote to the poison that the religious right injected into American politics.” But I say rather it betokens the spreading of the religious impulse across party lines because that is where votes are. And I say that rather than being a positive sign, it may signal the possibility of the further erosion of church state separation, so cynically exploited by Bush and his evil genius Karl Rove

Wolfe says that it is doubtful that America will ever be as secular as Europe.  Given that the only group in Europe having children above the replacement birth rate are burka-wearing or head-scarf wearing Muslims, while most native Europeans are brainwashed into thinking that only Nazis support immigration restrictions, the real question is how long it will take for Europe to be as religious as America.  Although in the case of Europe, Religous is likely to mean "let's beat up homos", as opposed to, "lets try to make abortion illegal."  

That's one of the main problems with most supposedly clear-thinking secularists:  they're too selfish to reproduce.   Another problem: a warped sense of "social justice."  Just what is the socially just response to millions of culturally reactionary third world people trying to get into Europe?  

Susan - so good of you to say hello and tolerate my rantings, you remind me always of the good in Christians.  I have wondered where you've been, we do need your voice around here but saving lemmings is  my job too (social  worker) so I know how time consuming that can be.

Reverand Robinson would probably say something like: "No of course not, Christ loves everyone with no reservations. He does that burning part for us so we can do the hard work of finding our way to him.  That is our greay joy."  He's all about love and joy.  

It's very presumptous for any human to speak for God, very obnoxious.  How sure Warren was!  How lacking in humility and oozing arrogance. Ugh!  Again - how dare he?  I just don't see much difference beteween him an any mullah who claims to know what God really thinks.  I admire the Jews who won't even say or write God's name (G-D) because they are so humble in the face of the unknowable.  

Besides, I'm not much of a biblical or Christian scholar, but as I recall, the only folks Christ clearly had it in for were the rich.  I love him for that (classist as it is of course).

I think Christ also had bad things to say about churches, correct if wrong.

Susan,

As I was reading down the comment thread I though "Celine's_Ego" might be you before you even identified yourself.  I'm not all that familiar with Rick Warren's work, but I am absolutely tickled that there is a widely respected evangelical leader who is willing to engage with Democratic candidates in a serious and respectful way.  

hindsight is 20/20:  Obama got rolled.

TNR contributing editor Alan Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life

gurdjieff66 - You know, that's a really interesting conclusion to reach based on the facts that you presented.

Europe is highly secular *because* there was no separation of church and state (for example, even today, people who check "Catholic" in the German census pay an additional tax).  Consequently, the usual (perennial or cyclical) distaste with politics began to stick to religious figures and hence religion more and more as time went by.  And senior religious figures tend to stay in the picture a lot longer than regular politicians, not helping the situation much.  Add to that a general inclination on the continent to not solve their various problems through bloodshed, much of which has a strong religious background (The SS after all, did have "God is with us" on their belt buckles), and it's not hard to understand why the move to secularism occurred.

If the US dallies with much more direct religious involvement in the federal government, I'd expect that we'd experience a similar revulsion as has occurred in every other country.  As an example of how close we are, read up on the administration's latest deal where abortion clinic and family planning organizations must employ people who are morally opposed and hence will not do the job they are paid to do.  Of course, Churches are not required to employ homosexuals or pro-choicers to retain their federal tax exemption.

As for fertility rates;  the US' rate has been steadily declining since statistics were first kept.  And I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that the US' higher birth rate is primarily due to the reproductive prowess of (non-white) migrants and the rich.  So don't get too excited about it.

Secularism isn't the cause of low birth rates;  the availability of choice for woman (and couples) coupled with high tax rates (in Europe) and the insane costs of education (in the US) keep 'em down.

The Aftermath.

It is interesting to see on this left of center blog that there are NO comments.

Because candidate Obama was exposed as an inexperienced empty suit.

He is a pampered elitist who thinks that:

Everything in world affairs can be negotiated

every domestic problem can be answered with more government spending