Since Barack Obama has chosen Rick Warren to lead the inauguration, there has been criticism given to Rick by his former friends and allies, telling him that he is giving in to pressure, and taking to the glory of man instead of the glory of God. While it should be apparent that I find much of what Rick Warren says to be wrong, and possibly dangerous, I also think the kind of criticism currently being given is erroneous and indeed, is the kind of criticism which would separate church and state and to prevent a religious influence being felt upon the state. Technically, it would be “guilt by association.”
I find Rick Warren probably was one of Obama’s best possible candidates for this position: he, like Obama, is Protestant, and Rick represents a large number of mainstream Americans. He already has engaged Obama several times over the past year, and Obama knows who he is, and he knows more of who Obama is than many of us. While it is possible that an element of Obama’s choice is based upon shrewd political maneuvering, even that should not be a reason for Rick Warren to reject Obama’s invitation nor for people to criticize Warren or Obama for this choice. Instead, we should remember history, where, the truth be told, such claims have been made, time and again, even with justification, only to have the politician in question end up with a change of heart and to take seriously that which they once thought would be a tool for political gain (look, for example, to St Vladimir, if one wants to see where this could lead).
People should read what Deal Hudson has to say on this, who, within the past few days, has been giving a good, solid case defending Rick Warren, but also has congratulated Obama for his choice. This is exactly the kind of way the pro-life movement should act.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In