Rick Warren, Gene Robinson, Barack Obama and the false presence of the Kingdom of God...

When I say to the wicked, "O wicked man, you will surely die," and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. (Ezekiel 33:8)

(Tim, w/thanks to Michael) According to the Washington Post, Pastor Rick Warren issued a statement praising President-elect Barack Obama for his selection of Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson to call down God's blessing on our nation and new president during the Inaugural weekend. Robinson, a man infamous internationally due to his promotion of sodomy in the Name of Jesus Christ, is, according to Warren, a good choice because it is one more indication that Senator Obama has a "genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground." Warren concludes concerning Senator Obama's selection of Robinson, "I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen."

It sounds good. I could almost hear myself saying the same. But then you stop to think about it and you realize this is one more step in the silencing of the witness of the Church of Jesus Christ. Such statements are precisely the thing warned against...

by Jaque Ellul in his excellent False Presence of the Kingdom. When the church works with the state, the state always wins. The church's witness and allegiance are corrupted.

So Warren agrees to call down God's blessing on a nation of bloodshed, whose infants are slaughtered by decree of our highest court and have died at the rate of a million and a quarter to a million and a half per year for thirty-five years, now--well over 50,000,000 in all.

And the occasion of Warren's invocation of God's blessing is the elevation to our nation's highest office of a man whose commitment to that slaughter is as personal (extending to his own grandchildren) and as radical (extending past birth, to newborn babies) as any man who has ever held office in Washington D.C.

But beyond his own prayers and blessings, Pastor Warren speaks--what, politically? pastorally?--in praise of the prayer of blessing in God's Name that will be uttered by another purported Christian pastor whose services were sought precisely because of his commitment to the rabid promotion of one of the most perverse forms of sexual immorality known to man.

Pastor Warren says this is a good thing for America.

So here are the boxcars: in the Name of Jesus Christ, Emergelicals shill and vote for a promoter of abortion and infanticide to be our nation's president; a third of the professors of Covenant College say this evil man is a true Christian; Saddleback Community Church invites this evil man into their house of worship several times during his campaign; this evil man then asks Saddleback's pastor to come to Washington and call down the blessing of Jesus Christ at the inaugural moment of his bloody administration; some get upset that the man calling down the blessing of Jesus Christ on this evil man's inauguration has opposed sodomite marriage; the man of bloodshed responds to this complaint by finding another minister of the Gospel to call down God's blessing on his bloody administration, choosing this time a man who is only known, publicly, because of his promotion of "gross immorality" and "strange flesh" (Jude 7) in the Name of Jesus Christ; Saddleback's pastor issues a public statement commending the prayers and blessings of this false prophet; and there you have it.

Abortion doesn't matter. Not really.

Sodomy doesn't matter either.

Civility in the midst of diversity is the whole enchilada. Except, of course, in our private moments as faith communities. Then we're free once again to say words like 'murder' and 'perversion' and 'eternal fire' and 'greed' and 'adultery' and 'repent' and 'Molech' and 'Sodom' and 'brimstone' and 'Hell' and 'no' and 'sin' and 'repent.'

Count on it: If a minister of the Gospel can call down God's blessing on a man whose definitive trait in public policy is the promotion of child-slaughter; and if our PCA college professors can declare this man of bloodshed to be a true Christian; and if it can be a good thing for the man of bloodshed to invite a self-affirming sodomite who uses Christ's church and Name to promote sexual perversion to call down God's blessing on the inauguration of his administration; then good is evil, wrong is right, lies are truth, and man is God.

Brothers and sisters, these things are nothing but run-of-the-mill complicity in the bloodshed warned against all through Scripture--the murder of tormented sinners dying of AIDS and helpless infants slaughtered by their own fathers and mothers.

Tremble with me before our Holy God Who Himself has said He will hold the watchman personally responsible for the blood of the wicked he has refused to warn--wicked men such as Pastor Warren is commending and soon, before the watching world, will bless.

Comments

Tim, I got that Washington Post link from World Net Daily.

> Warren: Obama has a "genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground."

Finding "common ground" means we have to adjust our stand to be considered "of goodwill," and thus cannot stand our ground. They must gain, we must lose ground. Warren is politely aiding the enemy.

> Pastor Warren says this is a good thing for America.

Perhaps because he thinks saying so is a good thing for Rick Warren. I wonder if he'll invite Gene to speak at Saddleback.

> So here are the boxcars:

Train wreck coming! Then there is the whole economic situation, which I think is mainly a moral issue, also. Our national sins will find us out.

> wicked men such as Pastor Warren is commending and soon, before the watching world, will bless.

Well, if I were Rick, I wouldn't have agreed to do any official praying of any sort without first seeing that mythical Hawaiian Birth Certificate.

Tim,
Regarding "half the professors of Covenant College say this evil man is a true Christian":

Would you happen to have a link or publication reference for this?

Thanks,
Bill

Dear Bill,

I went back and checked the survey, and I was wrong. It was only one third of Covenant's profs who believe Obama is a Christian, with half being unsure whether he's a Christian. Here's the link:

http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/09/an-open-letter.html

Warmly,

Hello Pastor Tim,

I would like to point something out here. This survey was fairly imprecise in my view. The question was not if he is a true Christian, but rather if he is a Christian.

Some may interpret that to be, "Is Obama in the visible Church". Now, it is probably an incorrect conclusion that the UCC is de facto part of the visible Church, but I think this is a different question altogether than "Do you believe that Obama is regenerate". Obama identifies himself as a Christian, so I think we need to be more precise to know what these folks really think. The good news is that I don't think any man will be judged on whether or not he can determine another’s state of regeneration.

I think the best answer about Obama is that he is/was a member of a heterodox Church, and holds views that are not compatible with Christianity. With his current views on abortion, homosexuality, and a whole host of other views, he certainly doesn't belong in the visible Church, but I wonder if it is possible that the Church has gotten so sloppy as to leave true Christians in this sort of state without any discipline or warning.

As far as Pastor Warren goes, I would hope he would pray for Obama’s repentance on the issues of abortion, homosexuality, as well as many other issues. Certainly, he could ask God to bless Obama as well as the nation as we repented of these horrible sins. I believe he could do this in a very respectful way, but his comments about Gene Robinson are not encouraging.

>I think the best answer about Obama is that he is/was a member of a heterodox Church, and holds views that are not compatible with Christianity.

Dear Brett,

In our ecclesiastical fellowship, the PCA, the elders of a particular church are required to judge those souls seeking membership. When they give their profession of faith, the elders have to vote them up or down. This is the context for the question asked of Covenant's professors, "Do you believe Barack Obama is a Christian?" "Do you believe John McCain is a Christian?" And the only answers allowed were Yes, No, or Not sure.

More of these profs were not sure John McCain was a Christian than were not sure Barack Obama was a Christian. Similarly, more of them were sure Barack Obama was a Christian than were sure John McCain was a Christian. And putting their money where their mouths were, one third of them said they were likely to vote for Barack Obama.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the profs were asked to respond "Yes," "No," or "Not sure." They didn't have the option of responding with a short essay. They also had no pressure to take part in the survey, doing so of their own free will.

When asked, "Do you *believe* Barack Obama is a Christian," one third of them chose not to respond "No" or "Not sure," but rather "Yes."

Contrary to what you wrote, then, "the best answer about Obama" was not "that he is/was a member of a heterodox Church, and holds views that are not compatible with Christianity."

Rather, the best answer was "No," second best was "Not sure," and third best was to decline to take the survey.

Yours,

Tim,

When I gave what I said was the best answer, I meant that in a general way. I did not mean to say that is how the profs should answer.

I believe that when elders determine qualification for membership, they are able to give an interview as to a persons profession. I think this would be apples to oranges.

My main point in all of this, is that I think you might be drawing too much of a conclusion from this survey. I agree that it is a concern, but I think we need more information.

>I think we need more information...

I had a lot more information when I wrote about this extensively. Here are just two of the posts:

http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/09/an-open-letter.html

http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/10/senator-biden-a.html

Sometimes, things that are simple just need to be said, and let the people make up their minds. My simple thing is that it is scandalous for reformed Christians who are professors, have the terminal degree, and profess at the PCA college to "believe" Barack Obama is a Christian, let alone say it.

You disagree. Peace.

Pastor Tim,

Thanks for posting the links. I had already read the second one, and will the first one.

I don't know that I really disagree with you on substance; perhaps in degree. Either way, I think this debate demonstrates the difficulties with modern evangelical ecclessiology.

"The question was not if he is a true Christian, but rather if he is a Christian.

Some may interpret that to be, 'Is Obama in the visible Church'."

The problem with this interpretation of the survey is that the answer is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. In other words, Obama is in fact in the visible Church. That is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. The question was not about the legitimacy of the UCC. It was about the evident state of Barack Obama's soul.

Stephen,

If you recall, there was alot of chatter about Obama being a Muslim at the time. Some could have interpretted the question as one of alignment.

I would not say that Obama is as a matter of fact a member of the visible Church. First you must establish that the UCC is still part of the Church, and that Obama is in membership (not sure he still is).

As for Obama's membership in UCC, I watched a live interview with him very recently where he said that he is actively seeking a faith community in D.C., and that said church does not have to be UCC.

Commitment to a denomination usually implies commitment to a set of beilefs, and I have never gotten the impression that Pres-Elect Obama takes his faith all that seriously, as evidenced by remarks such as "some obscure passage in Romans" or "clinging to guns and religion" or "above my pay grade." Not at all statements of deep conviction. At least not deep conviction of faith in Christ.

I have always rather believed that his church membership was more about political expediency rather than faith.

I agree with your conclusions, Tim. I think Bro. Warren would have done much better to distance himself from these inaugural celebrations so as not to find himself defending the indefensible, such as he is doing now.

This has perhaps been mentioned many times before in relation to this subject, but the words of Isaiah 1 jumped off the page at me as I read it recently:

Isaiah 1:15-17 When you spread out your hands, I will hide my eyes from you; even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. 16 Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, 17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause.

bring justice to the fatherless . . .

Thank you, Leslie.

"Rabbi! May I ask you a question?"
"Certainly, Lebisch!"
"Is there a blessing for the Tsar?"
"A blessing for the Tsar? Of course! May God bless and keep the Tsar... far away from us!"

Well put!

I take back anything good I ever said about Warren. It is one thing to befriend the lost, it is another to support and promote their agenda.

Prayer without obedience is a wearisome noise to God.

When you elevate a bad man, you give to him a hundred-fold more power of example to corrupt your sons, and your neighbour’s sons by his evil acts. Those acts are a hundred-fold more conspicuous and more weighty to attract notice and imitation than if you had left him in his deserved obscurity. When you delegate your money, influence or civic power to a bad man, you make his wicked official acts and influences your own; he is your chosen agent, and acts for you, and be assured a jealous God will not forget to visit the people for the guilt thus contracted.

R. L. Dabney

Add new comment