Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) are about as different on the ideological spectrum as two politicians can be. Yet both appeared and spoke Friday at the Global Summit on AIDS, which is taking place in Lake Forest, Calif., this weekend.
At first blush, host pastor Rick Warren seems to be sending a bipartisan message, one that was echoed by the two senators.
Quotes and analysis below the fold.
"We are all sick because of AIDS, we are all challenged by the crisis," said Obama, encouraging the audience of spiritual leaders, social workers and medical professionals to surmount geographic, economic and social distances in fighting the disease.
"No one can solve it on their own," Obama said. "AIDS is an all hands-on-deck effort." Seeming to address criticisms of his attendance, Obama said "what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart."
Obama was preceded by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., who acknowledged Obama's rock star popularity, and humorously described himself as a "mule at the Kentucky Derby" in comparison.
Brownback highlighted his travels to the African subcontinent and the need for bipartisan engagement. "There is nothing political about dealing with malaria and global HIV.
"This is in our best interest," Brownback continued. "This is for us to do. And this is our time to do it."
Of course, the other side had its say, too - but their complaints were only about one of the senators:
"When you put someone like Sen. Obama in that pulpit, you loan that individual a religious credential they otherwise wouldn't have," [National Clergy Council chairman Rev. Rob] Schenck told ABC News. "That's what we object to."
Schenck said Warren has no business bringing a man who supports abortion rights to the pulpit, what he called a sacred desk.
"Sen. Obama's policies would nullify that right to life, and right now, that is the paramount moral issue of our day," Schenck said. "Sen. Obama's presence in Rick Warren's pulpit will send a very confusing signal on that."
Schenck also seemed to acknowledge 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 [sic] 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."
I am worried, frankly, that Sen. Obama is being used as a bit of a pawn in this game. In fact, I would take a diametrically opposing position from that of Rev. Schenck: I am concerned that Sen. Obama's participation in this event places an unwarranted imprimatur of bipartisanship on a church and, indeed, a movement, that is anything but bipartisan.
This conflict is something with which I long have struggled in my own mind and heart. There was a time in my life when my religious faith was extremely important to me. I don't believe I ever could have been considered an "evangelical" Christian, but I considered myself a Christian for many years, during which time I was active in churches for extended periods, especially in Nashville, St. Louis, and here in Florida. My separation from the church arose initially as a political matter, when I began to perceive some subtle hints within the church community that my political beliefs made me unwelcome, or at least undesirable. As a longtime abortion rights supporter (it was that issue that was the genesis of my political identity today) and as one who believes an open mind is the most valuable tool a member of a free society can have, the ongoing assault by the evangelical movement against freedom of thought, science, and education, among other things, now has completely turned me off of organized religion, perhaps forever.
So, despite my instinctive open-mindedness, I don't trust Rev. Warren or his church, and I don't necessarily believe that their invitation to Sen. Obama was motivated by true bipartisanship. I don't blame Sen. Obama for his decision to appear at the conference, for I'm sure that was the politically expedient thing to do, and perhaps he truly was motivated by his faith, for which I respect him. But color me skeptical if I hear any evangelical Christian saying anything positive about a Democrat. I haven't seen much evidence of open-mindedness from their ilk yet - why should I believe them now?
I don't know whether Rev. Joel Hunter, who recently resigned as president-elect of the Christian Coalition of America, shares my viewpoints at all. But I respect his desire to go beyond the "hot button" issues of abortion and gay marriage that seem to upset evangelicals the most:
"I wanted for us to do in the political realm, in the political advocacy realm, what we do in the church," Hunter said. " We pay attention to poor people, we pay attention to injustice, we pay attention to those who are sick, we pay attention to the environment, because it's God's gift of creation, and so on and so forth. So I wanted to expand the issue base ... because Christ was not just about morality, Christ was about compassion."
Hunter said he would also have "stuck by" the traditional moral issues while tackling the other issues. But this week, he announced that he and the board had parted ways.
I have not found anything in the Bible to dissuade me from my opinion that if Jesus returned today, He would be a liberal. The evangelical positions against things like abortion and gay marriage purport to come from a literal interpretation of the Bible - but it is a highly selective interpretation as well. I find evangelical positions hypocritical because they don't interpret the entire Bible literally; for example, I don't hear a lot of advocacy for stoning prostitutes or sacrificing animals, yet those customs are Biblically advocated as well.
The Jesus about whom I learned, and for many years worshipped, was compassionate, loved everyone, and took special interest in what we today call the underprivileged. Yet, the conservatism of today has distorted those positions to the point where evangelical Christians, who should support aid to the needy among us, vote for (and, in many cases, elect) candidates who want to reduce social services and promote big business.
In short, it's not the concept of Christianity itself - that is, the belief in God and in Jesus Christ as His manifestation on Earth - that has turned me off so much as the rank hypocrisy of its most vocal adherents. When the idea of "becoming a Christian" or "accepting Christ as your savior" was presented to me, as a 16-year-old back in 1982, I understood it as a choice that was left up to me - I retained the autonomy to make that decision for myself. What would Jesus do? I believe He would maintain the same basic stance I understood when I became a Christian almost a quarter century ago: human beings have a free will, and their choice to follow Him or not has nothing whatsoever to do with anyone else but themselves.
The sooner American society can remove religion from the political equation ... the sooner the conservative (Republican) hypocrisy of reducing government activity on the one hand while trampling on personal rights on the other can be stopped ... the more I believe we as a nation will be in line with what Jesus really advocated: compassionate, free-thinking people who value the diversity and opportunity of modern society.
(Cross-posted to Blast Off!)