A Purpose-Driven Obama
EmailDespite protests from conservative Christian groups, Sen. Barack Obama, D-IL, spoke today at Pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback church.
Here’s Obama on the pulpit getting an AIDS test — Sen. Sam Brownback, R-KS, got one, too — to bring attention to the importance of testing for HIV.
IN THIS DOT-COM STORY WE COVERED THE EVENT, and I wanted to draw your attention to this comments from Rev. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council, who objected to Obama’s speaking from Warren’s pulpit, acknowledging that part of the reason for his concern is the fact that Obama, who has made a point of reaching out to evangelical Christians, is pretty good at that task.
"If I were a Democrat strategist and my task was to secure at least a small percentage of the evangelical vote in ’08, I would definitely put Barack Obama forward," Schenck said. "He does speak church language, he does understand the churchgoing public, he does have a certain facility when talking about the Bible and prayer and God."
That said, Schenck thinks Obama’s positions on abortion and related issues, such as stem cell research, "nullify his moral credibility on those issues" and "I’m afraid that the average American doesn’t pay close enough attention to pick out those nuances."
He sees Obama as offering "a credible face for those who may want to obscure what are the big issues for the evangelical community."
What do you think? Does Obama pose a credible threat? Is it because he "obscures" well, or is it something else?
- jt
CPAC: Romney Struggles to Convince Voters 
Obama Backs Off Birth Control Battle?
Rev. Schenk’s fear about the Democrats in ’08 cutting into the Christian vote exposes the threat of reactionary religioinists: they are obsessed with political power — exactly what Jesus declined. The more I hear these overfunded whited sepulchres preach their message of judgment and exclusion, the more I thank God for Jesus. His Word is not what I hear coming from the mouths of these hypocrites. What a pleasure it is to turn to His message of love after being exposed to the rantings of these heretics.
Posted by: Jack | December 2, 2006, 5:18 am 5:18 am
Great dot-com piece. Damn Obama is good. He’ll be formidable if he throws is hat in the ring.
It’s clear that Schenk is a zealot – not a religious zealot, but a political one or a pro-life one. Which is fine. There are plenty of pro-choice zealots in our midst. Both pro-life and pro-choice advocates further the debate in crucial ways. But the difference is pro-choice zealots don’t hide behind religion or some other institution. Schenk is being false in that respect. And misleading those who blindly follow him.
Posted by: cordelia525 | December 2, 2006, 10:03 am 10:03 am
Barack Obama’s great political skill is seen in his ability to portray his agenda as being an agenda for everyone, and anyone who disagrees with him as being part of a small minority.
Liberals have figured out that if they talk about advancing their agenda by calling it “non-controversial” they can move it forward and, at the same time, brand anyone who opposes them as simply fomenting controversy.
And yes, he and those like him on the Left do use language that “obscures” what their real agenda is. Or, they only talk publicly about the parts that sound good to everyone, and not the details of how they would implement their agenda.
For instance, with respect to AIDS, I’m sure Sens. Obama and Brownback have very different ideas on what would actually be good ways of fighting AIDS: condoms for people having sex, or educating people about not engaging in sex until marriage.
Tim
10,772 days
Posted by: Tim McGhee | December 2, 2006, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
The biggest problem I have with evangelicals like the Rev. Schenck is about their unyielding intolerance of other points of view. That is, for someone to be considered favorable by them, that person must meet a religious “litmus test” of beliefs: if even one belief differs from their “approved list,” that person is considered a heretic and an opponent. I agree with Jack’s comments in that most evangelical leaders are now only concerned with amassing political power and not with what should be their prime consideration–acting as Christ taught. The only obfuscation going on here is that done by the evangelical leaders as to their true motives in wanting political power.
Posted by: chuck | December 2, 2006, 5:24 pm 5:24 pm
My thought on Barrak Obama that if he were to run and win, the African Union, The NAACP and The ACLU would collectively get off our nations back and Americans could begin living as “Americans” again.
We have our own faiths to sow. If we be Moslem and go along with the ‘radical’ element of our faith then they go to town following like sheep.
On the other hand, Obama is an American, A Senator and potentially able to get through to the likes of Jessie Jackson and his son, to Hillary and her husband and Barbra and her family as to what it means to be truly American. In the past you couldn’t be a German without being a NAZI. Now it’s our turn. We can be an American without being a Christian, Jew,Moslem, or Athiest.
We as a nation of people need to wake up and smell the coffee (figure of speech) before the radical element of the blind and ignorant put our lights out forever.
My thought every evening is not one of where another human being decides to play God and send me to my Master so he or she doesn’t have to ask why their God is better than mine. If I don’t ask that question then no one cares, if they ask the question no one will answer.
Posted by: Charles | December 3, 2006, 3:41 pm 3:41 pm
Here is what Schenck sounds like to me: Obama talks like someone who’s as anti-rational as I am, but he’s not really as anti-rational; witness his rather rational positions on abortion and stem cell research. In sum, don’t trust this guy because he won’t rely exclusively on twisted readings of dusty texts to resolve the great issues of our time.
Posted by: DKNY | December 4, 2006, 8:47 am 8:47 am
Thanks Jack. Rev. Schenk (schnook) once prayed for
the nuclear senate option. He said the holiest thing
a Christian can do is die fighting for his beliefs,
not holding his beliefs. His idea of a good Christian is to be pro life regardless of how else
you abandon the teachings of Jesus. Any Christian
that supported Rogers-Brown whom believes in the ex-
ploitation of the poor and environment should reread
the Bible.
Posted by: Jimbo | December 4, 2006, 6:19 pm 6:19 pm