A political ploy or a personal, religious choice? (Op Ed - Post-Dispatch, Dec. 25, 08)

By Scott L. Stearman
12/25/2008

If President-elect Barack Obama's choice to lead the invocation at his inauguration — the Rev. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in Southern California — was a personal one, I find it refreshing and appropriate. If the choice was political, I think it is unfortunate.

I have followed Rick Warren's church and ministry for many years. Our religious heritage is similar. I've met him (once) and heard him speak (on numerous occasions). His vision of the world has grown over the years. In the beginning, it seemed as though his only ambition was that of the mega-church pastor: putting butts in pews or, in his case, rears in seats. But in recent years he has come to understand that to whom much is given, much is required.His concern and compassion toward the needs of people in Africa, his appreciation of his role in alleviating extreme poverty in this country and even his awareness of our environmental responsibilities have grown.

He may be Southern Baptist, as Jerry Falwell was, but Rick Warren is no Jerry Falwell.Still, Warren is very conservative on social issues and differs from the president-elect in this regard. That is why I find this choice refreshing — assuming Barack Obama truly has a friendship with and an appreciation for Rick Warren as a person and pastor. For a political leader to choose someone with whom he differs is the kind of change for which many of us have hoped. In this sense, it is good that Obama's "walk" about reaching across lines and boundaries matches his talk.

I, too, have many friends with whom I disagree. I am a progressive Baptist pastor from Oklahoma, and one of my dearest friends is a conservative Jewish lawyer from New York. Surely this is part of what it means to be an American.

If, however, Obama's choice of Warren was simply political, I find it unfortunate. Of course, in terms of crass political power, it would be wise to reach out to a major constituency that will appreciate seeing one of its own on the national stage. But that is not what the nation needs.Rather than a choice determined by political considerations, America would be better served by the choice of someone from Obama's former denomination; that is, someone who embodies a stream of Christianity that has been on the progressive edge of every positive change this nation has made.From the abolition of slavery to public education to women's suffrage to civil rights and even to anti-discrimination measures against homosexuals, followers of Christ have been the heart and soul of real change. Progressive Christians — those who have exemplified the call of Christ to love as we love ourselves and to treat others as we would be treated — are an underappreciated part of America's history.They have been supplanted in the public consciousness over the last three decades by the Religious Right. But the Religious Right's anti-science activism has done much harm.

In such a climate, it has been easy to forget that Christians from Isaac Newton to the contemporary geneticist Francis Collins have helped advance our understanding of the world.Moreover, their motivation has been driven by their faith. Much of what we western liberals think as "good" — human rights, gender equality, and so on — is rooted in the Christian ideal of the person having worth and dignity.

It would have been helpful and in keeping with Obama's own heritage to have had a progressive Christian deliver the inaugural invocation. In fact, I would have liked the president-elect to choose a layperson to lead the prayer. Ideally, it would have been a scientist who could have embodied the reality that faith and reason don't need to be compartmentalized, that one advances the other, as one foot progressively supports the other.However, it wasn't anyone's choice but Obama's to make, and he chose Warren. I just hope that it was a deeply personal choice, as all things religious should be.