No, not ‘faster than light’, but rather ‘for the lose’. And while I will continue to support him (he hasn’t actually made any policy proposals yet), this is perhaps the worst political calculation of Barack Obama since the FISA vote, and doomed to fail as I will explain below.
I admit that I was intially and naively impressed with Rick Warren, believing that he was some sort of moderate who was trying to shift the focus of evangelicals away from the culture wars and towards more universal goals such as climate change and alleviating poverty. But after looking more closely at Warren’s ideology and the political initiatives he supports (most recently Prop 8), I have to conclude that Warren is little better than the Falwells and Robertsons – only with a much better PR machine to make him look like a moderate and much less ‘angry’. The video below pretty much sums everything up:
[youtube]Xz4O8j8MIhs[/youtube]
It’s pretty clear what Barack Obama is doing; evangelicals make up about 25% of the country (and supported McCain overwhelmingly), while gay people make up less than 10% (and supported Obama overwhelmingly). Thus it would make sense to try to gain votes with a larger section of the electorate… but then you would have to take into account Warren’s likening of abortion to the holocaust and being against stem cell research (60% of the country considers themselves ‘pro-choice’ and only 18% of the country believes that abortion right should be banned under all circumstances) and his right-wing foreign policy views. All three of these issues are central to the voting patterns of right-wing evangelicals, who are also notorious for being inflexible and exceedingly intolerant of dissenting opinions.
This is not even taking into account that we are dealing with a fundamental human rights issue (that Mr. Obama should be especially sensitive to, being an African-American…) and that if this were happening 40 years ago, Pastor Warren would be arguing for the separation of races based on biblical infallibility. If I were to try to woo the evangelical vote – not that I would even have to at this point after getting 7.5% more of the popular vote than John McCain and having a 68% popularity rating – I would get liberal evangelical Jim Wallis or former NAE president Richard Cizik to do the invocation, not some pseudo-moderate wolf in sheep’s clothing. That, and I would wait for the younger generation – who are generally more tolerant of alternative lifestyles – to take over the electorate.
Another possibility is that this could be just some sort of ploy where Obama tries to look more moderate while adopting left-wing policies (a reverse Rick Warren?); George W. Bush after all had left-wing Rev. Louis Leon during his 2005 invocation despite tacking hard to the right. But either way, it’s a bad day for the transition.
Personal relationship with Jesus?
Tuesday, August 12th, 2008Rick Warren: Christianity is not like other religions because it is a personal relationship with Jesus. Christianity teaches that Christians will have a personal relationship with Jesus in a process of ‘falling in love with him’.
Here comes the fun part: I am going to refute Warren’s assertion using the Bible itself.
There are various passages that speak of how one is required to repent of sins and believe that Jesus was resurrected and is the only way to the Father to be saved. The act of believing in Jesus is a far cry away from actually having a personal relationship with Jesus, and here we shall see that nowhere in the Bible is there such a mandate for this personal relationship dogma. As far as the Bible is concerned, this doctrine is simply made up by evangelical Christian theologians.
Let us now take a look at John 15: 1-13.
Here, we can see that being a Christian involves a vague spiritual union with Jesus, but nowhere in there is the ‘personal relationship’ which is much touted by modern Christianity even seen. Warren’s “carrying on a continual conversation with Jesus” seems ridiculous in light of scripture. The Bible does not even say anything remotely like what Warren claims, yet he sums up Christian worship as having this very relationship (which is notably absent from the Bible)!
Next comes John 10:1-16, in which Jesus says that his sheep recognize his voice, while those not of his flock turn a deaf ear:
These verses again have nothing to do with a personal relationship with Jesus and talking to him on a daily basis. These verses simply depict the reception and rejection of the gospel, where the non-believers are likened to Satan’s flock as opposed to the Christians of Jesus’ flock. Let’s take a look at John 10:14 in particular, as most Christians will pull out this verse haphazardly to save their precious doctrine. What this verse really means is that Jesus’ followers will be able to distinguish him from the false teachings and teachers that were earlier mentioned in John 10:8. It has nothing to do with the personal relationship that Warren so desires.
Christians will usually point out Revelation 3:20 next. Is this the saving grace for Warren’s assertions?
Sadly (at least for Warren and his followers), it falls short yet again. By itself, the verse sounds promising. It shows not only Jesus talking with you, but also eating with you! However, when put in context, the verse is contained in John’s letters to the seven churches, and the letters are regarding the events of the End Times, not a personal relationship with Jesus.
But, what about the whole context of the letter to Laodicea? Doesn’t the whole letter hint at a personal relationship with Jesus? Am I the one now following Warren’s cue at taking Bible verses out of context? Well, let’s take a look at the scripture:
What this letter really says is that Jesus is calling on those within the city, hoping that they will hear him so that they can be led to salvation. These events will take place just before the End Times, and all this has clearly nothing to do with having cozy personal conversations with Jesus. The supper that Jesus promises is not some one-on-one Warren-like meeting, but the Marriage Supper of the Lamb at the End Times:
Revelation 19: 7-9:
Even further on, in Revelation 19: 17-21, Jesus is not even hinting at wanting a personal relationship with Christians at all. He is merely inviting his flock to witness and indulge in the slaughter of the non-believers and the beast:
I have clearly shown that these gory details are nothing like Warren’s “falling in love with Jesus” and conversing daily with Christ. Even better still, I am relying solely on the *Bible (albeit without Warren’s back-and-forth hopping using about 15 translations) to show that Warren’s whole premise of “real Christian worship” is not founded upon anything in the Bible. There is simply no basis in scripture for claiming that Christianity entails having a personal relationship with Jesus, therefore, one of the most popular Christian slogans has been refuted using the Bible itself.
Tags: atheism, bible, christianity, Evangelism, god, jesus, Rick Warren, skepticism
Posted in Commentary | 2 Comments »