I have just one or two things to add to the conversation.
I would like to begin with incredulous agreement. The Other Guy is not a moderate; I have never considered him one, and I would hope that not too many others have made that mistake. He's not well-known and well-respected for being The Moderate; he's known and respected for being The Conservative You Can Talk To. He's the megachurch pastor who talks to the people who disagree with him instead of chasing after them with stakes and torches. He's the prominent Christian leader who actually devotes the majority of his agenda to the agenda of Christ -- physical and spiritual poverty -- rather than to loud arguments about whether birth control measures that prevent fertilization vs. implantation a split second later are morally distinct, and whether using the latter is equivalent to shooting a two-year-old in the face.
[The fact that charity and dialogue garner so much attention says something about some of the holier-than-thou navel-gazers in Warren's line of work and perhaps offers some clue as to the low regard in which Christians tend to be held among many non-Christians. But I digress.]
But if you think that these things make him a moderate, you have made the same mistake as those who argue against dialogue with America's political adversaries: conversation with someone does not imply that you agree with their views or condone their actions. It does not mean a softening of position or an expectation that one party will change the other's mind. If you have this expectation, you will be disappointed. It means simply that both parties feel that they will benefit from the relationship and that they are willing to work on common interests.
And Warren and Obama do have common interests. I expect you share many of these interests with them. To quote from one of Warren's web sites:
Dr. Rick Warren is passionate about attacking what he calls the five “Global Goliaths” – spiritual emptiness, egocentric leadership, extreme poverty, pandemic disease, and illiteracy/poor education. His goal is a second Reformation by restoring responsibility in people, credibility in churches, and civility in culture.
Disagreement, anyone?
Warren has said some truly grotesque and reprehensible things about gay relationships, comparing them to incest and pedophilia. He has made other parallels I find repugnant, such as comparing pro-choice people to Holocaust deniers. But he has done great good in the world as well, such as by raising the profile of those suffering from HIV/AIDS in the developing world, combating poverty, and protecting our environment. And he has not just outlined an agenda verbally; he has the financial and human support to drive that agenda.
Does the good outweigh the evil? I have yet to decide, though I am leaning No. But I think it's naive to consider Obama's decision an obvious one, either for or against. The fact that both Left and Right are condemning the choice, but for opposite reasons, tells me that this is a debate we need to have.
