Thursday, December 18, 2008

Obama and Warren: Civil Disagreement at Work

Barack Obama is under fire from the fringe left for inviting Southern Baptist evangelical pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation. Some of the comments being made by left-wing radicals are absurd, illustrated by this blog, which advocates attendees at the inaugural drown out the prayer with booing. The reaction is further evidence that the fringe, on both the right and the left, are absolutely intolerant. Give credit, however, to Barack Obama. He stood before the press corp yesterday and explained his choice of Warren, by saying:

"A couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren's church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion. Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak. And that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign's been all about -- that we're not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans."

The Southern Baptist Convention would do well express similar civility to those who disagree with our convictions. We may not be able to convince others of our views, but we may be surprised at how we are treated when we show respect and decency to those who disagree.

In His Grace,



Brent Hobbs said...

I think its a good point Wade, and a good comparison. And we should always keep in mind our faithfulness to biblical truth will evoke negative reactions by the world, but those should be caused by the content of what we say, not because we are saying it abrasively.

Ramesh said...

In court rooms, logic and rational discourse carries the day. But in the public arena, where we have to convince ordinary people, civility, kindness and leading by example shows the way to convince others of ones views and even cause them to change.

Anonymous said...

Wade ,
This guy is from Canada....who cares

Rob in Nashville

John Daly said...

Hey if someone wants to boo, let'em boo, Americans are famous/infamous for their booing. In fact, if I were attending, I might throw a few boos at Warren too for different reasons.

When a pro-choice speaker gets to speak at a SBC convention, then my civility goes out the window.

Why do I have to wear a skirt because I'm a Christian?

Anonymous said...

This is a hard one since I have no respect for either one of them. I would not be uncivil to either of them given the chance but then, I believe nothing either of them say anyway.

Just a note of caution. Warren has used the 'civil' discourse arguement to promote false teaching. I have a huge problem with that. He past actions show me that he considers any public
disagreement with his teaching as 'uncivil'.


Alan Paul said...

I'd like to know details Lydia (on Rick Warren's false teaching that is).


Steve Bezner said...

Wade, that's a good word. I agree wholeheartedly with your position. It's amusing to see some attempt to demonize Warren for agreeing to pray and Obama for asking him, but, in the end, this is what reconciliation and progress looks like.

Ken Coffee said...

"The Southern Baptist Convention would do well express similar civility to those who disagree with our convictions. We may not be able to convince others of our views, but we may be surprised at how we are treated when we show respect and decency to those who disagree."

Never, never, never read anything with which I agreed more. Great word.

John Wallace said...

Obama's invitation to Warren is significant. Many pro-gay lobbyists are determined to completely marginalize those who disagree with their agenda, to paint those who believe that homosexual behavior is immoral as right wing radicals, completely out of the mainstream. Their tactic is essentially dishonest but it has worked for them. Obama is thwarting the tactic simply by acknowledging reality: a majority of Americans does not support the radical pro-gay agenda. This is why pro-gay lobbyists are livid with Obama. It will be interesting to see how Obama actually governs.

greg.w.h said...

In the "for what it's worth" category: Obama seems intent on being the President of all Americans and not just some. And he intends to use communication methods that help everyday folks shape the government.

He may intend that primarily to put together a progressive agenda and may believe that such an agenda is best for the nation, but being willing to listen to all of the people could result in his being one of the greatest administrations. Just as Bush responded to Clinton's administration by seeking to restore order to the Office of the President, Obama seems intent on restoring access by everyday people to the levers of government.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the result will be a good result. And his willingness to defend the selection of Warren can only be seen as a HUGE net positive in how we conduct our politics. I applaud this effort.

Greg Harvey

Anonymous said...


Have you not read PDL? Or I guess we have to go way back to Synagogue 2000 and just go from there.

Quite frankly, the list is too long. When a long time Christian or even a pastor wants me to explain Warren's bizarre half-Gospel message, I know we have nothing to discuss. It is all in the public domain for anyone who wants to research it.

Thankfully, I have never signed Saddleback's membership 'covenant' that says one should never say anything negative about it's leaders.


Anonymous said...

Another view of this situation that is the opposite of Wades, written by Christian egalitarian, Doug Groothius.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

In our polarized country there would be adverse comments no matter who he invited to pray, or whether he even has a prayer (another issue). He's trying to bring us together rather than divide and conquer which seems to have been the agenda of those in power before him.

What if he had invited either the former or present pastor of the church he was a part of for many years, until he was pressured to withdraw from it? Can you imagine the uproar about that from another front? I still have a problem with him doing that, but I understand.

We will get a lot further when we "focus on things we have in common". That applies to many things. What about reaching people for Christ? If we hit them in the face with the gospel they are likely to turn away, but meet them where they are and we can gain a hearing.


Anonymous said...


I am not sure I would hold Obama and Warren up as the models of tolerance that you propose for the SBC. The policies that Obama supports regarding gay marriage and abortion on demand, are a little more than a friendly "civil disagreement".

Tom Parker said...

Joe White:

What did the Republicans do to stop abortions while they were in office for years? I really tire of reading comments like yours, they accomplish nothing. Let's see you mentioned the gay agenda, abortions, why didn't you mention some more hot button items that Republicans always talked about while running for office but once elected did little or nothing about.

Who do you think Obama should have chosen to speak? It's probably going to be a long 8 years for you.

Anonymous said...

Wade, it's interesting that your quotation from Obama sounds like some of your writings regarding inclusiveness. We never go wrong by being kind and considerate, no matter the circumstance; and it doesn't cost a penny!

Florence in KY

Ramesh said...

"Wade, it's interesting that your quotation from Obama sounds like some of your writings regarding inclusiveness."

My guess, Obama and his advisers are reading Pastor Wade's blog and borrowing his writings and ideas. :-)

Anonymous said...

Which is more likely to lover the number of abortions:

Passing laws. Those who can afford it will simply go elsewhere and those who cannot will resort to backstreet butchers, homemade solutions - either of which is likely to injure or kill them and the baby - or have the baby and be condemned for an unwed pregnancy and, probably, being on welfare.


Availability of contraception, and when that fails help - education, jobs, child care while they work and/or go to school - for women who are unexpectedly pregnant and their children.

Not to mention that all the blame and responsibility is placed on the woman. Just like the story in the Bible of the woman taken in adultery and brought to Jesus. Where was the man? (It takes two to commit adultery, the last I heard.) There is a joke (?) that says he ran out the back door and grabbed a stone.

As Tom Parker says, those who said they were so against abortion and other hot button issues don't seem to have accomplished much in their time in power.


Steve said...

Hmmm... Obama wants to serve as EVERYBODY's Prez. Warren talks to everybody in hiw own way aboujt Jesus and doing what He would do.

Kinda reminds me of our recent Calvinism discussion.

(I s'pose I missed the warren-with-a-red-trident-behind-his-back messages.)

Anonymous said...

Romans 16:17

Lin said...

"As Tom Parker says, those who said they were so against abortion and other hot button issues don't seem to have accomplished much in their time in power."

We talked about this on a thread a while back and several here gave links to exec orders, funding for abortions in Third World countries, etc that were done by Bush to do what he could legally to curtail abortion and funding for it. I am not sure what thread it is on but it is there.

Obama has already said he would overturn those exec orders.

Alan Paul said...


Are you taking veiled shots at me for asking a simple question? if you are, I am sorry for you. If you didn't intend for it to sound that way, please accept my apologies.

It really was an honest question because apart for people accusing his books of being simplistic in it's approach to walking with Christ and the whole contemporary seeker sensitive church model that is controversial, I have never heard anyone but fringe folks accuse him of false teaching. Those are the same folks who generally accuse almost every modern Chrtistian leader (i.e. Billy Graham, John McArthur, greg Laurie, etc.) of being heretics. And having read some of your comments here over time, I didn't classify you as being in that fringe category.

BTW: I don't ever ask anyone to convince me of anything and I don't try to convince anyone of anything. No need to convince me - you won't anyways. Just wondering why you posted what you did.

Also, I have read through parts of PDL and I found it too simplistic in nature to take very seriously, but there is some good, foundational stuff in it - such as the very first point: It's not about you. The church still hasn't learned that lesson.

Tom Parker said...


What I am trying to say is that for some people they are one issue voters and the Republicsns were smart enough to use abortion to get voted in and then do very little to change the abortion laws and to always blame someone else for the little they actually attempted. It was a very smart way to get elected.

Joe White was doing his usual flaming and as I said it accomplishes nothing. It is going to be a very long 8 years for Joe.

I would be glad if there never was another abortion!!

Anonymous said...

Tom Parker,

Why did I mention abortion and gay marriage? Because leaders of those two groups are the ones upset at Obama.

Tom, comments like yours concerning those who have opposed abortion show one of two things; either an obvious bias or an willful ignorance. Republicans have passed laws the following laws:

- Informed consent laws... these laws require abortion providers to give patients state-prepared materials, to recite state-scripted information, or both, usually at least 24 hours before the abortion may be performed.

- Parental involvement laws... these laws require the consent or notification of one or both parents before a minor can obtain an abortion.

- Reporting requirement laws... these laws require abortion providers to report certain information periodically to the state or to keep records of certain information for possible state inspection.

- Physician-only laws... these laws prohibit anyone other than a licensed physician from performing an abortion.

- Public funding laws... these laws are concerned with government-funded programs. The federal Medicaid program currently funds abortions only in cases of rape or incest, or when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical condition.

- The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (Pub.L. 108-105, 117 Stat. 1201, enacted November 5, 2003, 18 U.S.C. § 1531[1], PBA Ban). This law prohibits a form of late-term abortion that the Act calls partial-birth abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the term "partial-birth abortion" in the act pertains to a procedure that is medically called intact dilation and extraction. Under this law, "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." The law was enacted in 2003, and in 2007 its constitutionality was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Gonzales v. Carhart.

These laws and many others place restrictions on abortion, not to mention that President Bush vetoed the embryonic stem-cell research bill, saying it "crossed a moral boundary." President Bush also placed 2 Supreme Court Justices on the court who are pro-life.

Tom, who do I think he should have picked? How about Jeremiah Wright, his pastor or maybe Jessie Jackson.

You are right Tom, this is going to be a long presidency (4 years though, not 8).

Alan Paul said...


I think that Obama would do whatever he could to extend abortionists rights to kill babies. As Lin has pointed out, he has already promised to take a step in the opposite direction and rescind Bush's orders. He has consistently been in favor of open and free abortion - abortion on demand. He even condones it for his own daughters so they are held back by something silly like say, an unwanted baby.

Bush, though he didn't do much to change abortion laws (other than appointing pro-life justices - which more than Obama will do), would never have furthered the rights of those who would murder babies.

I do agree with you though that it was a one-issue political thing with repubs to get elected - Dobson has been saying this for years while threatening to not vote for repubs (but he always does in the end).

Alan Paul said...

I meant "aren't held back..."


Alan Paul said...

I stand corrected Joe - much has been done - especially the partial birth abortion measure that I failed to remember...

Anonymous said...

Lin and Joe White:

Thank you for providing some very real and very significant citations to how the current administration has tried to reduce and eliminate abortions.

I can only hope that your good efforts will help inform people who read this blog.

Here are three more things the administration and Republicans have done:

1. The Hyde amendment.

Since is was first passed (sponsored by the late Henry Hyde (RIP), this amendment has prevented federal money from going to pay for abortions.

We have not had both houses of congress and the Presidency in the hands of the Dems since 1994. We shall see if the Hyde Amendment survives. If it does, it will be because of a few Northeastern Catholic Dems in congress who have not completely sold their own church and the Holy Father down the river for a little political gain and the Blue Dogs, conservative Dems in congress, like Heath Shuler, NC representative and former UT and NFL quaterback.

2. Chief Justice John Roberts.

3. Associate Justice Samuel Alito.

Also, due only to the votes of Republican appointees to the Supreme Court, the Court has upheld state bans on partial birth abortion. If Dems had placed their people on the court (ala Ginsburg, Breyer), even this victory could not have been achieved.

I surely hope that the people reading this blog can now see how differences have been made.

Ignoring accomplishments by pointing to what has yet to be accomplished is not a very optimistic or "forward thinking" way to live.

Also, with regard to the incoming administration, President Obama has said that as soon as he is sworn in, he wants to start sending more U.S. money to provide abortions overseas (revoking the executive orders), AND, he wants to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which will enact into federal statutory law the right to abort the unborn.


Anonymous said...



O Root of Jesse, who standest as the ensign of the people; before whom kings shall not open their lips; to whom the nations shall pray: come and deliver us; tarry now no more.

AT length, O Son of Jesse! Thou art approaching the city of Thy ancestors.
The Ark of the Lord has risen, and journeys, with the God that is in her, to the place of her rest.
‘ How beautiful are thy steps, O thou daughter of the Prince,’
now that thou art bringing to the cities of Juda their salvation.! The angels escort thee, thy faithful Joseph lavishes his love upon thee, heaven delights in thee, and our earth thrills with joy to bear thus upon itself its Creator.
Go forward, speed thee, thou propitiatory that holdest within thee the divine Manna which gives us life! Our hearts are with thee, and count thy steps. Like thy royal ancestor David, ‘we will not enter into the dwelling of our house, nor go up into the bed whereon we lie, nor give sleep to our eyes, nor rest to our temples, until we have found a place in our hearts for the Lord whom thou bearest, a tabernacle for this God of Jacob.’
Come, then, O Root of Jesse ! thus hidden in this Ark of purity; Thou wilt soon appear before Thy people as the standard round which all that would conquer must rally. Then their enemies, the kings of the world, will be silenced, and the nations will offer Thee their prayers. Hasten Thy coming, dear Jesus! come and conquer all our enemies, and deliver us.

Blessed is the womb of the Virgin Mary, which bore the invisible God: there did he deign to dwell, whom seven thrones cannot hold: * And she bore him as a light weight in her womb.
The Lord hath given him the throne of David his father, and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end:
And she bore him as a light weight in her womb.

From the Sarum 'O' Antiphons for the Season of Advent: Dec. 19th

Tom Parker said...

Joe White:

So President Bush did all of what you mentioned by himself? Amazing. Just like Preident Obama will do all of what you and others are saying he is going to do when he takes office. Just a reminder that President Bush recently said he did not take the Bible literally--so maybe he was not really a conservative after all. I think he just used conservatives to get elected.

By, the way who told you that I did not appose ABORTION. But I guess you would want to paint me otherwise--great tactic by the way.

I oppose abortion and really wish the Republicans in power had done more, but in spite of what you say I believe most Republicans used the issue of abortion to get elected and it worked.

You say it will be only 4 years, but it will be eight.

Anonymous said...

Something we agree Rick W
Warren. Hope that doesnt tarnish you!

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Tom Parker said...


Just a reminder that President Bush took the United States into a war where there were no WMD's and over 4000 people have lost their lives and thousands have been injured and maimed.

So, let's say he did make some headway on the abortion issue, but a lot of innocent lives were lost in the "War." You can't be for life in one situation and not the other.

I think Bush's administration has been very inconsistent about protecting lives.

Tom Parker said...


What is (are) your problem(s) with Rick Warren? Has he even done 1 thing you might agree with him on?

Anonymous said...


Maybe you ought to reread my post. I never said President Bush did all that I wrote. In fact, I specifically noted what he did. Plus I never painted you as someone who was for abortion, however, you did paint all republicans as “do nothings” on the subject. Would you like to take that statement back? I know, facts always mess up good arguments. :)

I was disappointed when President Bush made that statement about the Bible. But I was even more disappointed when President-elect Obama said determining when life began was above his pay grade.

And none of this rhetoric undoes my initial statement that this is probably not a good example to cite for tolerance in the SBC.

Anonymous said...


Rob in Nashville

Anonymous said...


It is tragic that over 4,000 men and women have lost their lives in the Iraqi War over the last 7 years. However, nearly 50 million abortions have taken place in America since 1973. This represents 3,542 innocent victims PER DAY!

Our innocent unborn children did not volunteer to risk their lives, have any say in their fate, or any opportunity to defend themselves.

When the unborn child gets a machine gun to defend itself... I will call these issues identical.

Anonymous said...

Wade; I am almost led to believe that you are obsessed. Everything you see or hear reminds you of what you are obsessed with.
Jim Sadler

Anonymous said...

Congrats to Rick Warren, one of our own.

Let's hope and pray that he doesn't "blow it" by either being too wishy-washy in what he says publicly or by overreacting to all of the negative press and becoming defensive.

Warren is experienced and mature enough to avoid those problems, I believe.

I think that we are being too hard on Warren.

Sure, many of us may not like PDL (I have never read it) or his style (I don't wear Hawaiian shirts and sandals), but he is one of us and is a true believer.

We can be really thankful that Obama didn't reach out to Jeremiah Wright or someone whose theology is way off (wasn't there some other Baptist meeting last year where the speakers might have been expecting to be in Warren's shoes?)

We need to pray for Warren - that he does a good job, and we should be very proud of him.

Actually, what was and is at stake here is not our right to believe what we want, but the privilege of being heard and seen in public. That is the significance of Obama's decision.

It's not that Obama is going to follow what we think would make good policy. In many cases, he is not.

But, Obama recognizes that conservative, Bible-believing Christians are mainstream in our society, and should be seen and heard. We are not an obscure band of weirdos. (I am, but the rest of you are not).

We are mainstream, still, in this society. I don't know how much longer that will last, but that is the case now.

Obama rejected the call to marginlize Warren, and thus, all of the people whom Warren represents. That's you and me. (I know about the disagreements many have with the particulars related to Warren and such, but in the broad spectrum, we are very close to Warren).

Obama's selection is a good thing.


Tom Parker said...

Joe White:

As someone recently said to me--your last comment to me is "either an obvious bias or an willful ignorance."

You just do not want to see the similarities.

Lin said...

"What I am trying to say is that for some people they are one issue voters and the Republicsns were smart enough to use abortion to get voted in and then do very little to change the abortion laws and to always blame someone else for the little they actually attempted. It was a very smart way to get elected."

Tom, Pro-life is not just about abortion. It is a slippery slope in how view life. I made the point that Bush did all he could do personally to curb funding and abortion with exec orders. Obama is overturning them.

What the repubs have going for them that Obama does not in this respect is that they have not been working to withhold medical care for born alive babies. Obama thinks that is wrong and it should be withheld. Again, it is a slippery slope in how we view life..even the innocents born alive from a botched late term abortion.

Republicans have not done enough on pro life issues even though some have tried. But thank God they did not campaign to withhold medical care from born alive babies.

Is there a more important issue than how we view life?

Anonymous said...

Well, Tom, you can always change the subject and start talking about something else. There are lots of issues we can switch to, once we knock down one.

Problme is - I thought there was all this fuss over Bush not having done anything about abortion.

I take it that now you recognize he did quite a lot, about as much as he could do in a democratic society with a two party system.

So, I was just adding to the abortion talk.

There are lots of issues that we could talk about with Bush, but at least we put to rest the talk about him not doing anything about abortion, which is what I was addressing.

The war will take all night. Pick two opposing blogs - say National Review and Huffington Post, and it's all been said before.

By the way, I did my best on answering your question about Smith & Helwys on the last post. You can go back and read it if you like.


Anonymous said...

Here is a berean commentary on Rick Warrens purpose driven life.
Notice I did not link to what John MacArther has said about it or how Richard Abanes threatened Bob DeWaaay
How thousands of SBC churches have split of purpose driven life.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

Obama, interestingly enough, while supporting gay/lesbian rights, does not support gay marriage and has been very open about his thoughts on this subject.

I think his pick of Warren shows that he is reaching out to the right and wants to have an inclusive administration.

Frankly, I'm way more upset about his pick for Sec. of Ag. :) than picking Warren to give a prayer.

Anonymous said...

Sorry here is the link

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...


"But I was even more disappointed when President-elect Obama said determining when life began was above his pay grade."

I wasn't disappointed or surprised.
Obama showed humility in doing so.
No one, NO ONE, knows the exact moment when God fuses the fetus with a spirit and a soul. We simply do not know this.

Many traditions do NOT approve of abortion BECAUSE they do not know the exact timing.

So, Obama was in line with many religious scholars. He stated that he simply did not know.
Do YOU know when the soul is given to a human fetus? No.
Yet, McCain spoke openly and clearly because he 'believes' it to be true. Some special revelation, I guess.

Anonymous said...

Oh Smack!

Check out Albert Mohlers advice.

From the Southern Baptist Geneva
Robert I Masters

Anonymous said...

Obama is behaving like an adult.
He is not trying to keep the horrible divided 'status quo' going that has led our country spiraling down, down, down.

He is NOT pandering to ANY base.
He is providing an opportunity for a civil discourse in our country for the first time in eight years.

The 'dividers' were voted out.
Big Time. Eight years of that was enough. People stood in line for many hours to vote to get rid of that.
Afraid to try a new way? Why?
Could things be much worse in our country now? After eight years of being led by 'godly men' ?
Give me a break.

Give Obama an opportunity to look out for ALL Americans: we ALL are free to believe the way we want.

Obama is behaving like an adult.
He is encouraging the participation of all Americans openly. If this makes you uncomfortable, then you need to go where people have to all think alike: some nice 'Christian Nation' where you had better think like your leaders or you might be severely disadvantaged.

Anonymous said...

"Something we agree Rick W
Warren. Hope that doesnt tarnish you!"

Robert, you would be shocked at how orthodox I am. I may be an egalitarian (which I think is Gen orthodox) but when it comes to the Gospel, I don't do 'lite' or watered down. There IS Wrath to come. There is a hell and Jesus is coming back with a sword in His mouth. And we have the Good News. But it cannot be Good News unless we know the bad news first which is that we are totally depraved and cannot save ourselves.

Warren calls sin: mistakes.

Alan said in PDL his first sentence is: It is not about you. But then the content of the rest of the book is about you! (shaking head)

I think it was a very safe pick for Obama. It would be no different than picking Robert Schuller or Joel Osteen. There is not a lot there to offend folks except a few in the gay lobby who have no other place to go and can count on his votes anyway.

I wonder if Warren will take the opportunity to rebuke him for his work on behalf of abortion? Nah.


Anonymous said...

I am glad Robert linked to this study. For those of you who think PDL is bibical and not false teaching, I would recommend this study. It is quite in depth about PDL. said...


To be obsessed with Jesus and love for all those who love Jesus is a healthy obsession in my opinion.



Anonymous said...

The Wall Street Journal article quoted in Albert Mohlers program said that Saddleback was a nondenominational this now true? If so when did it happen?

Nashville Rob

Anonymous said...

All Bush seemed to do was make laws and regulations against abortions. What about help for those facing such a choice? He opposed increasing health care for poor children, cut aid for college education, and opposed other such measures that would have made it easier for parents to care for children they had.

If less well-off women thought they could care for a child after it was born it is less likely that they would seek an abortion. Those who can afford to travel are likely just to go where they can get one anyway. Or am I the only one that idea makes sense to?


CB Scott said...

Maybe Rick Warren will have enough influence to persuade President-Elect Obama not to sign FOCA into law if it comes before him as he promised Planned Parenthood he would if elected president.

Anyway, I pray that would be the case.


Tom Parker said...


I agree with your idea. What seems to be lost on some is that both women that are Democrats and Republicans have abortions, not just Democrats. If a women really desires an abortion and can afford it she will get one. A poor woman does not have that kind of option.

Abortion will always be a polarizing issue.

If it was outlawed today, sadly abortions would continue.

CB Scott said...


I understand what you are saying to Susie.

And it is true not enough has been done relating to what she states as a concern. (that includes churches)

But, surely you would agree that the signing of FOCA into law would be a terrible thing would you not?


Jeffrey Shallit said...

Why do you think booing demonstrates intolerance? I think it demonstrates disapproval.

Bob Cleveland said...


God told Jeremiah that He knew him (Jeremiah) before He formed him in the womb. That leaves no doubt in my mind, and after we've left a trail of dead fetuses behind, it's going to be a bit late to say "whoops".....

Ramesh said...

- impatience with annoyances;
- unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions or beliefs

- a feeling of disliking something or what someone is doing
- disfavor: an inclination to withhold approval from some person or group

I believe Southern Baptists to their regret have booed Dr. Herschel Hobbs in their Convention, here and here. I am not familiar with the whole story, but links will guide you to some of the comments.

Jeffrey Shallit: Don't you think, if people booed Pastor Rick Warren, they are also undermining President-Elect Barack Obama? But if they were civil and listened to him, even though they disagreed with him, that might send a better and noble signal?

Paul Burleson said...


I know booing. I've booed in disappointment at an athletic event either for the play or the call many times.

I know anger. I've been angry to my own detriment and the hurt of others when I've intolerant of their actions.

To boo others in anger is NOT disappointment. It is intolerance.

Most of what I've read being said about the decision to invite Warren is birthed in anger. [I've read MANY blogs about it including yours.]

We may disagree here but we can be tolerant of each other though disappointed each other. The booing would only add a childish element to what we disagree about it seems to me.

John Wallace said...

I find it very interesting that the pagans understand Rick Warren quite well enough to be outraged by his teachings while so-called Christians accuse Warren of watering down the truth because he puts it in simple language.

CB Scott said...

Thy Peace,

You really are unfamiliar with much of what you make such statements about in the SBC. Like the statement you make about H. Hobbs here and those you made about BBC and First Jax on other blogs.

Why do you do that?

The SBC has never booed Herschel Hobbs.

I actually doubt the SBC has ever booed anyone.

That makes no sense.


CB Scott said...


You know I have great reservations about President-Elect Obama. You also know I do not agree with some of Rick Warren's positions and statements.

But, I am in total agreement with you here about the booing.

During the inauguration of the President of the United States it would be certainly rude behavior.

It is not like you guys will be doing when Tebow beats the Sooners.

It is just not the same.


Jake Barker said...

Bob Cleveland,
And a big thanks to Wade for agreeing to preach at our churches winter revival. Those of you in the neighbohood of Holdenville OK come be with us January 4th at 6PM.

Jake Barker said...

Poor, poor whiney CB (big grin) What happened to 'Bama? And you think that's going to happen to the Sooners? Come on now, surely you jest.

CB Scott said...


I have great hope:-)


Tom Parker said...


You said to me--"But, surely you would agree that the signing of FOCA into law would be a terrible thing would you not?"

You act as if you do not know how I would answer that question as if to imply I would say that it would be ok if he signed it into law.

You are a better man than that.

Why do you try and play games with people? I do not treat you that way so please do not treat me that way.

Me thinks you are trying to play hardball with me and I'm not going to play with you.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Booing at the inauguration may be rude, but I think it is actually far less rude than asking a man to give the inaugural invocation who

- claims that atheists are unfit to hold public office
- has equated gay relationships with pedophilia and bestiality.

Why should I, an atheist who has gay relatives who are in happy, permanent family relationships and raising kids, just sit idly by?

Just imagine if the President had asked someone to deliver the invocation who had claimed Jews were the spawn of Satan and Muslims unfit to hold public office. You can imagine the outcry. But since atheists and gays are so despised, Obama can get away with it.

I say, shame on him.

CB Scott said...

No, Tom,

I just simply asked you a question.

Actually I have asked you two questions today.

You have refused to answer the first one. I have tried to answer all of yours. It is you sir who is playing hardball. And, I might say; You throw a wicked curve there, Tom.


Tom Parker said...


The answer to your first question to me will remain unanswered.

The answer to your second question is yes it would be terrible.

CB Scott said...

Well. Jeffery,I guess since it is his party he can ask whomever he wants.

Now, if he had asked someone to deliver the invocation of the nature you describe I would not like it.

I would actually loathe it.

I did not vote for Barack Obama. I sent money to his opposition. It is my conviction his being president of this nation may be a terrible thing for many innocent people.

Yet, I will respect him as my president, for he did win the election. More Americans considered him fit and they elected him.

I am an American. I will honor the president. But, a higher reason is because I am a Christian. Therefore, I am mandated by the God of whom you do not acknowledge (someday you will)to honor the president.

Therefore, I will not for I cannot boo him, nor his guest.

Lastly, if it is your desire to boo the president you have that right. And as I have defended the rights of others I will defend yours also.

So go ahead. Boo the president and his guest.

Yet, I ask you to remember, because you are an American, I have the right to tell you you are wrong to do so.


CB Scott said...


I really didn't think you were around back then.

But, that is OK. You can say what you want to also.


Tom Parker said...


I didn't say I was there back then or not, so please let's just leave it at that.

Anonymous said...

Mr Shallit,
Are you a citizen of the United States of America?

Rob in Nashville

Dr. Mike Kear said...

John said: "I find it very interesting that the pagans understand Rick Warren quite well enough to be outraged by his teachings while so-called Christians accuse Warren of watering down the truth because he puts it in simple language."

Amen. You gotta love it when neo-cons and pagans are both going into convulsions at the same time.

Anonymous said...

I am going to defend the sinner/heretic /saint Rick Warren because I am a sinner/heretic/saint. I read The Purpose Driven Church in May of 2006. This book so invigorated me that the Spirit, I believe used the book to enlighten me as to the possibilities of doing church differently that I had been accustomed to as a child. Finally I had a book with some practical answers. I surrendered the Gospel Ministry that October after a year of anguish and turmoil from running. I had become so convinced that the Seeker-Sensitive Movement was God's plan to fix the Church that I had all but decided to finish my BA and become an intern at Saddleback. It was my dream. But God had a different plan. He wanted to run me through the ringer of Reformed Theology first. I am glad he did. But then came the conundrum: My dream of interning with the King of Pragmatic Methodology vs. My newly discovered affinity for John Calvin...shall I, in the words of Tiny Tim: "Tiptoe through the TUPLIPS? Nay said the horse. And so I began to look upon Purpose-Driven Ministries and the Sultan of Saddleback in a negative light. Then I became a Pastor. And through this experience I have seen that the rules are not as tightly wound as the "hard-shells" once told us. I began to see that dying on the hill alone saves no one. And while I still think 1 Cor. 9:22 can be applied too broadly in some cases, Paul did say by ALL possible means. Now to the crux of my post. All the means possible for Kevin at Delhi Baptist Church are not the same bag of means possible for Wade at Emmanuel are not the same as for Pastor Rick at Saddleback are not necessarily the same available for a Missionary like Guy Muse in Ecuador. God casts the vision through his divinely appointed under-shepherds and ministers of the Gospel through various and varied means that HE and HE alone determines will work for such a time as this in accordance with His Word.

We may not agree with everything Dr. Warren has said or done. He may exegete, interpret, and apply some texts in a manner that drives some of us up a wall. But ladies and Gentleman, this man has been given a platform. His vision is given to him by the spirit, not you or me. What he says he will be held accountable for. Do we not think that the Spirit has the ability to draw the hearers of Warren? Do we really believe that God's sovereignty is impeded by the mistakes Rick will make and that some poor soul might go to hell because Pastor Rick failed to convince a sinner of hell and sin? We have potentially the most liberal President-to-be about to be inaugurated in a month and an ordained Southern Baptist Minister is giving the invocation to the largest audience the world might ever see.

I hope Dr. Warren will listen to Wade's Mighty Men message and pray the closing he prayed to the OK Republicans.

But if he doesn't, and if he simply says "Amen," let us know that a man of God offered a prayer to God standing in the throne room of God. Let us all be standing there with Him. I believe with all my heart that if all the attentive believers the world over would get on their knees and place their hearts before the throne behind our Brother Rick and with all the Angels and all the Saints in heaven, that the Father would smile upon our nation, and the Son would glow with pride for His people and advocate on our behalf a healing of a nation.

To have the President's ear will not be an easy job. Rick Warren will forever have Obama's ear. Let us pray for him.


CB Scott said...


Well said.


Ron said...

One word in favor of Rick Warren is that those on the left and right both dislike him. It is interesting that a few years ago the CR leaders offered him the job of President of the NAMB. He has also often claimed W.A. Criswell as his mentor and Criswell had nothing but good things to say about Warren and this ministry.

I believe Hershell Hobbs was actually booed at the 1980 SBC. CR messengers had been whipped to such a frenzy by their leaders that they booed Hobbs when he spoke of keeping our emphasis on missions and evangelism and spoke against creeping creedalism. This of course was anathema to leaders of the CR and those they had been indoctrinating. The result of not listening to Hobbs is today we are hearing of a call for a Great Commission Resurgence and our baptisms numbers have been going down ever since the CR took complete control.
Ron West

CB Scott said...


I really don't remember it that way. I really don't.


CB Scott said...


It is my understanding that some guys heckled Dr. Hobbs.

Dr. Hobbs was hurt. He left the platform.

Marse Grant is the guy who said; "They're booing Herschel Hobbs.

He said some other things. he was widely quoted.

Some people yelled at Bailey Smith in 1981 also. It again happened in 1985 to Charles Stanley. I think it also happened to Ed Young.

Guys yell at the SBC. Back before the mic. systems were made better it happened more often.

I would also say the drop in Baptisms is a complex matter and not just due to the CR. That is overly simplistic in my opinion.


CB Scott said...


One more thing. I was there. I did not boo Dr. Hobbs.

I did not even boo when Sam Bradford got that little award the other night.:-)


Paul Burleson said...


I love you bro. You and I will agree on most things and disagree on some things. I also thought you and I would always be able to be cordial and civil with one another. But I've reached my limits. I cannot stand silent any longer. So I will say it in no uncertain terms.

Sam Bradford DESERVED the Heisman. He IS the best football player in the nation. The Oklahoma Sooners will win their eighth national championship by beating the Florida Crocodiles by 3 touchdowns. Anything of any value in sports these days is crimson and creame.

Now...having regained my composure... before I boo you...I say this in a much kinder and gentler way...That's the truth.

By the way...I would apologize to Wade for going off post but he never considers OU off post. Smart guy.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Robert I Masters:

Yes, and you would have known that if you read my piece, since I said clearly that I was an "Obama voter".

But I note your attempt to dismiss my arguments simply because you guessed wrongly that I am not an American -- as if the merit of the argument is somehow based on the citizenship of the one who proposes it. That's shoddy thinking.

Paul Burleson said...


I have my opinion about the morality [or lack thereof] of ANY sexual activity outside marriage whether it's same gender sex, different gender sex, sex with children, sex with animals, or group sex.

I have my opinion about the morality [or lack thereof] of ANYONE who would despise [to look down on with contempt] an atheist, a gay, a Republican, a Democrat, President-elect Obama, President Bush or Pastor Rick Warren.

But you would have to show me where Rick Warren said Atheists were unfit to hold office. I've known Rick for thirty having been his pastor for his years at SWBTS and he does not condemn people for behavior even if he disagrees with their behavior.

Paul Burleson said...

Make that "thirty years" and "belief" as well as "behavior."

Bob Cleveland said...

CB & Paul,

I know both of you are Baptists; surely one RELIGION is enough for you guys.

I hope Wade instituteS A BAN on further football talk.


Ron said...

I was not there in 80 so I will listen to your judgement. It is probably one of those things that gets built up through the years. I am sure that enough was done that if one wanted to claim Hobbs was booed there would be evidence of that and if others said there were just a few hot heads heckling him that would be true also.
You are right there are many reasons behind the decrease in baptisms and membership and missions support. Probably disunity and division has been the main one. Most of us are ready to unite around the truth of God's word and the major doctrines. We can't unite around ego centered politics.

Anonymous said...

Wade probably can't help talking football. Not long ago two guys got into a fight (in OKC I believe) over OU and UTexas. The fight was bad enough to get one, maybe both, charged with assault, and neither had even attended or even had any apparent connection to either school! It's crazy.

I enjoy football and may hope for certain teams to win, especially those I have some connection to (OU for one) and understand how one can even just want a team from where they are from, but in this part of the southwest(maybe elsewhere - I don't know) it seems over the top.

So, as I said, Wade probably can't help talking football. Maybe it's something in the water we drink.


Bob Cleveland said...

Not to get all preachy, but ultimately, the numbers of baptisms and the like is determined by God. And it seems to me that, when He is unhappy with what's going on somewhere, He's less apt to trust us with some more souls.

Since we can't collectively find a whole bunch of the one's He sent us years ago, the decline in numbers makes sense to me.

When a hospital starts losing patients, the answer to that doesn't seem to be redoubling efforts to bring more of them in.

Anonymous said...

Although I've been tempted NUMEROUS times to comment here before, I'll venture into this discussion to say this:

The problem with our society isn't too many abortions or gay marriages or pornography or divorces or "insert your issue here".

It's the been the same since the garden, since the day Jesus met the woman at the well... sin.

What have we done today to introduce people to the truth of the gospel? Last night, I was talking to a 2nd grader whose friend had brought her to church, and she was reading John 3:16 for the first time. She had NEVER heard it before.

Friends, this is the society we live in. How can we expect people to live morally if they haven't even heard the truth that God loves them? I don't buy the lie that everyone has heard in the US.

I'll ask again. What have you done today to share the gospel? It's the Christmas season. Let's get off the computer and get out there and invite some friends to church with us.

Stephen said...

Obama is like what he does rather than what he says.

Lin said...

Obama is like what he does rather than what he says.

Sat Dec 20, 01:07:00 PM 2008

Ironically, some of us watched him closely in the Ill legislature (Land of Lincoln) and it was chilling. Not very Lincolnesque.

Many want to ignore that and pretend it did not happen or explain it away with technicalities. But it speaks to true character.

Some are ignoring the fact it would be very hard for him to actually get stuff passed unless he reaches out to what is perceived as the center right. His cabinet and other appointments is all the buzz as being centrist. Hillary centrist? I think it is a ruse to appease certain factions. We need to look behind the curtains. We might just see Bill Ayers, the terrorist, crafting education policy. Never forget that Obama learned politics in the Chicago machine.

We will wait and see.

Anonymous said...

Jeffrey Shallit:

Welcome to the discussion. I don't think that I have seen you here before.

In one of your comments it appears that you said you were an atheist and had homosexual relationships. Are you an atheist? Are you a homosexual, or do you simply have homosexual friends? Or were you speaking hypothetically, such as "If I were an atheist...etc."?

I ask because I don't want to misunderstand as we converse in the future.

Now, on to the topic that you have raised, that is, that people who disagree with Rick Warren, are entitled to boo him at the inaugural.

We have free speech, so, yes, people are free to express themselves. Individuals booing lacks class, but they have the legal right to do that.

Free speech, however, has reasonable "time, place and manner" restrictions. That's why lots of protest events now require permits, they are usually put in areas that are close to, but also removed from public celebrations. The people can all protest, but they are not allowed to disrupt the celebration.

The inaugural events are a public celebration of the peaceful transition of power that we have enjoyed in this country for over 200 years. They have all been peaceful. They have all been respectful events, even when some people opposed the new office holder or someone who might speak at the event. I am 47, and I cannot remember an inaugural being disrupted by booing, protesting, cat-calls etc. I hope that atheists, homosexuals and other groups that might want to do this will think twice about it and reconsider.

I think I have my stats right on this, but I did not check. But I think about 90 to 95% of the people in this country believe in God. About 85% say they are Christian. A smaller percentage of that, but still very large are of an evangelical stripe.

Every inaugural that I have witnessed and many of our national celebrations have prayer or religious expressions in them. Given our history and make up, it is not surprising that those prayers and expressions are Christian. And it is not surprising that those Christian expressions come from people who believe the central teachings of Christianity that have been around for 2000 years.

I know that the atheist community wishes that there were no public displays of religion at governmental events. I know that many homosexuals wish that most people in the U.S. did not seem them as engaging in depraved acts.

Those changes may eventually come to the U.S., or they may not.

It seems to me, however, that decency is in order at all times. I would hope that atheists, homosexuals, NRA members or whomever would be able to control themselves. Self control cannot be imposed.

Finally, although you may not be able to bring yourself to say this, but your real disappointment is with the man you believed was going to bring change - Mr. Obama. Rick Warren has been around Southern California for over 25 years, doing what he does, just as the other thousands or millions of congregations in this country have been. You may disagree with them, but the hurt comes not from strangers, but from your champion.

So, if you and your friends cannot exercise self restraint and feel that you must boo or engage in whatever other agitprop that makes you feel good, I hope you will at least have the intellectual consistency to express it toward the source of your problem - Mr. Obama.


Tom Parker said...


You said--"We might just see Bill Ayers, the terrorist, crafting education policy."

That is uncalled for.

Please give the man a chance. President Bush had 8 years and look where we are.

Anonymous said...

in Advent Preparation for Christmas

O Key of David, and sceptre of the house of Israel! who openest, and no man shutteth: who shuttest, and no man openeth; come, and lead the captive from prison, sitting in darkness and in the shadow of death.

O Jesus, Son of David! heir to his throne and his power! Thou art now passing over, in Thy way to Bethlehem, the land that once was the kingdom of Thy ancestor, but now is tributary to the Gentiles. Scarce an inch of this ground which has not witnessed the miracles of the justice and mercy of Jehovah, Thy Father, to the people of the old Covenant, which is so soon to end. Before long, when Thou hast come from beneath the virginal cloud which now hides Thee, Thou wilt pass along this same road doing good, 1 healing all manner of sickness and every infirmity, 2 and yet having not where to lay Thy head. 3 Now, at least, Thy Mother’s womb affords Thee the sweetest rest, and Thou receivest from her the profoundest adoration and the tenderest love. But, dear Jesus, it is Thine own blessed will that Thou leave this loved abode. Thou hast, O eternal Light, to shine in the midst of this world’s darkness, this prison where the captive, whom Thou hast come to deliver, sits in the shadow of death. Open his prison-gates by Thy all-powerful key.

And who is this captive, but the human race, the slave of error and vice?
Who is this captive, but the heart of man, which is thrall to the very passions it blushes to obey?
Oh! come and set at liberty the world Thou hast enriched by Thy grace, and the creatures whom Thou hast made to be Thine own brethren.

O Gabriel! the messenger of heaven, who camest unto me through the closed doors, and didst announce the Word unto me : 'Thou shalt conceive and bear a Son, and he shall be called Emmanuel.'

from Sarum 'O' Antiphons for Advent for December 20th in preparation for Christmas.

Anonymous said...

LIN wrote:

'Is there a more important issue than how we view life?"

Dear Lin, I agree with your comment above wholeheartedly. I am thinking that the Christian Right needs to expand the term "life" to be much more inclusive.

Focusing on one aspect of life to the neglect of other aspects of life is not integral to the Christian faith. All life was created by God, all life lives at the constant and merciful care of the Creator, ALL life has purpose and meaning.

I am hoping that the Christine Right will cease allowing politicians to exploit their vote.
Little good has come of this.
I am hoping that a wider, more inclusive view of what is important becomes the norm for the Christian right, so that Christianity is not vulnerable to exploitation by cynical people, who have fostered division in the past for their own advancement.

Anonymous said...

I think Obama is trying SOMETHING NEW.

I think Obama is celebrating the fact that all Americans have a right to exist in this country WITHOUT THE HARASSMENT OF OTHER AMERICANS.

People voted him in because they were SICK of the divisions that tore our country apart.

He has had a theme since the beginning of his campaign: to bring people together so that they could focus on what they have in common as Americans and then, cooperate and get to work to help our country.
That is not a bad theme.

INTOLERANCE had its day.
It is a 'sick' philosophy that breeds hate and disrespect among Americans.

Americans want something better for their country and for their children.

The day I voted, the lines went around the church which provided the voting precinct, out into the parking lot and down the street as far as I could see.

People voted to get rid of intolerance. Something about Obama's message spoke to them of something better for our country.
That's why they waited, in the rain, to vote. And they did. L's

Anonymous said...

Mr Shallit,
I dont believe I made any conclusion about your thought process or ideas.

It is possible that one consider himself a dual citizen!

I do wonder how one is a vice-president of the Electronic Foundation Canada? How does one advocate for Canadians as a U.S citizen.

I think many U.S Christians have seen the future of religous civil liberties in Canada.Have no desire
for those "tolerant" views on this side of the border.


Rob in Nashville

Scott Shaffer said...

I just keep thinking about all those murdered unborn children and the millions more that will come on the heels of the FOCA that he has promised to sign immediately after taking office. Too bad their mothers and fathers wouldn't tolerate them.

Lin said...

"People voted to get rid of intolerance. Something about Obama's message spoke to them of something better for our country.
That's why they waited, in the rain, to vote. And they did"

Intolerance? For whom? They obviously did not listen to the same Jeremiah Wright sermons Obama listened to for 20 years.

Something better for our country? Like what Wright preached and what Obama obviously agreed with until it threatened his campaign? That 'tolerance'?

The blindness about Obama is astonishing.

Tom Parker said...


If all you say about Jeremiah Wright was true the Republican's would have used it against Obama every single day when he was running for President, but they used if sparingly and it never did seem to stick.

Sorry, but he won the election and now each one of has to decide how we are going to deal with it.

You can keep bringing up the past but I"m not sure it is helpful.

Only By His Grace said...

Tom Parker,

Sorry, I just took a break to log on and am in the process of reading comments.

You say where 4,000 people lost their lives in this war. Are you saying that one million Iraqis who have lost their lives are not human beings too? How about one million, four thousand people and still counting? I think it interesting that Ishmael the father of the Arabs and Israel (Jacob) were second cousins. Jesus would have looked much more Arabic than Caucasian.

I fully realize you mean American lives while fully believing that a dead Iraqi little girl is just as precious as a dead American little girl whose parents suffer and hate and love just as American parents do; evidently most Americans do not realize this.

Phil in Norman.

Anonymous said...



Great words that show a lot of growth.

John Wallace said...


When they gave Sam Bradford that "little award" they might as well have painted a target on that boy and stamped "gator bait" on his bottom.

Anonymous said...

I don't think it's blindness Lin, I think we need to recognize that Obama is now the President of the United States, at least he will be when sworn in January, and we need to give him the respect that office is due as Christians. It's good to stand against abortion, but we don't have to be Christian warriors to do it. Obama isn't in office yet, prayer and the fact that he chose Rick Warren to do the prayer is the way all disagreements should be handled in my opinion.

I also don't understand the criticism from Christians against Rick Warren, who has probably done more than I know I have. Kevin Bussey asks a good question in his blog concerning do people think that Warren and Billy Graham's converts will go to heaven. It's a good thinking discussion.

Anonymous said...

Also read Paul Burleson and Civil Disobedience is also Civil.

CB Scott said...


It is better to be a Christian warrior than an infidel warrior, don't you think? :-)


Anonymous said...

I'm sorry that should be Civil Disagreement. Freudian slip?

Anonymous said...

"Intolerance? For whom? They obviously did not listen to the same Jeremiah Wright sermons Obama listened to for 20 years.

Something better for our country? Like what Wright preached and what Obama obviously agreed with until it threatened his campaign? That 'tolerance'?

The blindness about Obama is astonishing."

Preach it girl!!!

"but ultimately, the numbers of baptisms and the like is determined by God. And it seems to me that, when He is unhappy with what's going on somewhere, He's less apt to trust us with some more souls.

Since we can't collectively find a whole bunch of the one's He sent us years ago, the decline in numbers makes sense to me."

Preach it!!!


Great words that show a lot of growth."


Last night after our Ministerial Alliance Christmas Service I walked the line of folks waiting to get their food baskets, shaking hands and getting to know some of them. One lady asked me what kind of preacher I was...I told her Baptist...she said are you one of those "hard"[shell] Baptists? I chuckled and told her no ma'am, I am Southern Baptist. She said, "I thought Southern Baptist's were hard." I told her that like most denominations we are varied in our methods, and that I would fall somewhere in the middle. (this was not intended to be a lie, in actuality most of you know I do not fall in the middle, but for the purpose of the conversation, simplicity of description was all that could have been comprehended in this case.) Point being, the BI folks are right on one point. WE as Baptists have an identity crisis.

And...I detest having to explain myself in order to explain God.

Thanks for the props Darrell, I am learning and it is "hecka-fun" :)


Anonymous said...

CB: I don't know, sometimes it's hard for me to tell the difference between the two.

Anonymous said...

Brother Kevin,

I start by telling them that my Saviour was not a Baptist and my job is to preach Jesus and love people.

My favorite scriptures are

John 6:44 "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him,"

John 12:32 " But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."

HE SAID HE WILL DRAW, i won't draw people and Brother Rick or Billy Graham won't draw them. He will draw ALL men unto Him.

Then the arguments begin among preachers about who He will save. It is not my problem. I preach, He draws, He saves.

God Bless us all and have mercy on us all.


Anonymous said...

Phil in Norman said ...
I think it interesting that Ishmael the father of the Arabs and Israel (Jacob) were second cousins.

Ishmael was Isaac's half-brother, and Jacob was Isaac's son, so Ishmael was Jacob's uncle.

Anonymous said...

I would be interested to know what
your response is to Al Mohlers position.

I thought it was well reasoned out.

Robert I Masters
From the Southern Baptist Geneva

CB Scott said...

Alas, Debbie;

I have had some experience among the Mennonites and the Amish.

I do think you would have fit well among them rather than us fighting Baptists.

I can see you now making those quilts and furniture and making that homemade bread.:-)


Anonymous said...

"He will draw ALL men unto Him.

Then the arguments begin among preachers about who He will save. It is not my problem. I preach, He draws, He saves.

God Bless us all and have mercy on us all."


Just remember that "all" does not mean ALL. ;)



Only By His Grace said...


You are correct; my carelessness for being in a hurry and not self-correcting my own scribbles; however, Iraqis are much closer to Jesus' earthly people than we of European extract are. I think I was thinking that the twelve sons of Ishmael and the twelve sons of Israel were cousins.

I still stand by my statement that an Iraqi child's death is just as important as an American's death and we as a nation have much responsibility for killing a million Iraqis, many of them children, and no one seems to care-- but God does. We did the same thing to them after Iraqi War I when we let it be known to the Shiites we would give support to them against Hussein in a rebellion and we let them hang out to dry to the tune of forty-five thousand Shiite Iraqis deaths. They hate us for a reason, and for some weird reason they thing that oil under their sand belongs to them and not to us.

Phil in Norman.

Anonymous said...

I think Obama is a shrewd politician.

I think Rick Warren is a follower of Jesus.

I'm glad he will be there praying. I hope everyone who reads Wade's blog will also be praying to the Father for His Kingdom to come and His will to be done on earth just as it is in heaven. I hope we can all pray for our leaders as well, for them to grow in the knowledge of the one true God and of His love.

And, hey, Merry Christmas!

Anonymous said...

KMC, you seem to be commenting in a new way.

Anonymous said...

for Advent: December 21st
Preparation for Christmas

December 21: "O Oriens..." (O Dawn of the East (Dayspring))

Prose Version:

O Oriens, splendor lucis aeternae, et sol justitiae: veni, et illumina sedentis in tenebris, et umbra mortis.

O Rising Brightness of the Everlasting Light and Sun of Righteousness: come Thou and enlighten those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.

Alternate Prose Translation:
O DAWN OF THE EAST, brightness of light eternal, and Sun of Justice: COME, and enlighten those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.

Poetic Version:
Veni, Veni O Oriens,
Solare nos adveniens,
Noctis depelle nebulas,
Dirasque mortis tenebras.

O come, Thou Dayspring, come and cheer,
Our spirits by Thine advent here;
And drive away the shades of night,
And pierce the clouds,
and bring us light!

Scriptural Citations:

Isaiah 9:1: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; upon those who dwelt in the land of gloom a light has shown."

See also Luke 1:78-79; Malachi 4:2.


Anonymous said...


"I still stand by my statement that an Iraqi child's death is just as important as an American's death and we as a nation have much responsibility for killing a million Iraqis, many of them children, and no one seems to care-- but God does. "

Yes, God does.

Just a thought: in honor of my niece, Linsay, a Navy nurse, who just returned from Iraq.

Lindsay tells story after story of helping Iraqui women and children.
The Navy nurses, when not on duty, volunteer their time to help those who need medical care, but who do not want to go to male doctors.

I know that many innocent people have died by the hand of the Bush Administration. I also know that many innocent people have been helped by our brave young men and women who serve in Iraq.

I'm so proud of Linds and her service to her country and her service to the women and the children of Iraq.

Some good has come out of this terrible nightmare, and thanks to Linds, I have learned of part of it so I could share with you. L's

Only By His Grace said...


I noticed I used "thing" in place of think "for some peculiar reason they thing that oil under their sand belongs to them and not to us." Dabburnit! That spelling sure is hard to get down. Somebody must of moved that "g' to the "k" side of this here keyboard.

Phil in Norman.

Debbie Kaufman said...

CB: The truth of it is, there are so many lost among those that are for abortion, etc. that I can hardly enjoy my own salvation because I want so badly for them to know Christ, who is the only one who can free them. I don't want there to be another soul in hell. Not one more.

The feeling is so strong in me that I don't want to fight them, I just love them too much.

Anonymous said...

I'm so amused by this comment thread.

First, it devolves into whether or not Warren is conservative enough. Whether he is or not, people are right to say that Obama could have picked worse (and I detest PDL).

Then, the question becomes whether or not the war in Iraq can be compared with abortion. As though one death, one premature departure for the afterlife, wasn't enough for us as Christians to condemn both actions (instead Southern Baptists have officially condoned the war).

Then Obama is the tool of the devil to undo all the work that pro-life agencies have done to pass legislation that won't change the way people act. If the church really cared, we wouldn't make this the job of the government, but would make preventing abortions our job by being available to love and support those who would otherwise choose abortion.

Then I see the comments about how America is/was a Christian nation, as though God ordained America over any other country in the world. To bad God ordained the church instead. I wonder what He was thinking? Surely it would have been better if God had ordained an actual nation state rather than calling people from every nation state to be ruled by Him.

And then I love how we talk about Christian warriors and describe the people fighting for the preservation of America by killing Iraqis. Let's call a spade a spade. If they are fighting so that the church (God's nation) survives, then we can call them Christian warriors. If they are fighting so that we can continue in greedy, lustful pursuit of the American dream, let's call them Marines, Navy, or Air Force.

Anonymous said...


The Bible records a natural wonder -- a sign in the form of a miraculous star -- that was visible in the heavens at the birth of Jesus Christ.
But beyond that singular miracle, the scriptures are silent on the other elements of nature participating in the Nativity.

One legend speaks of a rooster who from the stable rooftop declared, in Latin no less, Christus natus est, or, "Christ is born". Supposedly a raven heard this and then asked, again in Latin, When? The rook replied This night! The ox asked Where? The sheep chimed in Bethlehem! and the ass cried out Let’s go! This story is especially beloved in some cultures because the Latin phrasing for each statement mimics the sound each animal naturally makes.

European folklore teaches that the animals respond as humans on the night of Jesus’ birth. The oxen kneel down in their stables each Christmas in commemoration of the event. Many are said to speak only on Christmas Eve. It is said that humans do not want to actually hear what the animals are saying because, even though they have the gift of speech just one day a year, they usually don’t have many kind things to say about their human masters.

The robin and cardinal have long been associated with Christmas. This could be tied to folklore stories about the robin that stayed near the flames of the fire made to keep the Baby Jesus warm by beating its wings all night so that the fire might burn brightly. So devoted was the bird to the cause that it singed her breast red by being so close to the flames.

The stork is widely held as associated with new births. This happy tradition began as a story of a stork plucking feathers from its own breast to make a down feather bed for the Baby Jesus.

Plants are also famed in folklore for their animated qualities and worshipful behavior on Christmas Eve.
There are tales of the Christmas rose or other vegetation that miraculously blooms only at Christmas time.

'Behold a Rose e'er blooming. . '

Lin said...

"I don't think it's blindness Lin, I think we need to recognize that Obama is now the President of the United States, at least he will be when sworn in January, and we need to give him the respect that office is due as Christians."

I guess I am confused. Of course he is our duly elected president. Are you saying that Christians should not speak out? Are you suggesting it is not Christian to be concerned and vocal about the FOCA? Or his past actions with the Born alive bills?

I fear God more than I respect man or an 'office'. I do not understand why it is being unChristian to point out facts. But, I guess if we can get folks to believe that,it can silence the uncomfortable truths.

" It's good to stand against abortion, but we don't have to be Christian warriors to do it."

Exactly how is pointing out facts about Obama's past actions and his own declared actions for the future being a warrior? Did I suggest an armed insurrection?

Debbie, Do you believe that what Obama believes about Jesus Christ is truth? Or does it even matter if it is truth? Are you saying that Christians should not challenge what he teaches?

" Obama isn't in office yet, prayer and the fact that he chose Rick Warren to do the prayer is the way all disagreements should be handled in my opinion."

To paint over truth? You know, I have little optimism that Warren can change Obama because Warren is not that grounded in the full gospel. He learned from Schuller.

Think of the fact that evn Ravi Zacherias agreed to give the official prayer at the National Day of Prayer without using the Name of Jesus Christ. As
Chuck Colson warned us, folks are blinded when it comes to being around all that power.

" also don't understand the criticism from Christians against Rick Warren, who has probably done more than I know I have. Kevin Bussey asks a good question in his blog concerning do people think that Warren and Billy Graham's converts will go to heaven. It's a good thinking discussion."

Is this an arguement for quantity over quality?

Are they 'Warren and Graham' converts? I am of Paul and I am of Apollos?

The Graham people have been aware for decades that probably less than 5% of the 'converts' at Crusades are real. As to Warren, are we saying that presenting only the good part the Gospel is the full gospel? Is there no bad news that makes the Good News, good? We cannot understand the Good News if we do not know the bad news.

Do we see any model in the NT where Paul asked folks what they would like in a church before they started one?

One thing about disagreement, it is not a sin to disagree. Wade does it all the time. Why is it a sin for others to do it?

I say that Obama supporters who are Christians have been blind to what he really believes when it comes to Life, Abortion, Homosexual marriage, etc. If saying that is a sin, then I am guilty. I do not know what else to say.

Lin said...

"If all you say about Jeremiah Wright was true the Republican's would have used it against Obama every single day when he was running for President, but they used if sparingly and it never did seem to stick."

Actually Tom, many in the party were furious it was not used more.

But then Obama quit his church and said he did not agree with the pastor he sat under for 20 years and who was one of his 'best friends' and 'mentors'.

And you and millions believed it.

Only By His Grace said...


I praise the Lord for those in Iraq like Lindsey and hope He keeps them safe. I would dearly wish that all our soldiers would be like her. Sad to say they are not.

What happened at Abu Ghraib, at Guantánamo Bay, and the way the Blackwater people have acted is something I hope that never repeats itself under our flag again. The five enhanced rules of interrogation should never be condoned by Americans.


Jeffrey Shallit said...

Paul Burleson:

Even the slightest effort would have found you Warren's remarks about atheists, e.g., here:

This is from the Larry King show:

KING: Rick Warren is our guest. Rick, let me ask you a couple of Rick Warren questions. OK?


KING: Does a person have to believe in god to be president?

WARREN: I would say so. I couldn't vote for a person who was an atheist, because I would think -- I think the presidency is a job too big for one person. I would think there's a little arrogance that says, I don't need anybody else. I could vote for someone of different religions than mine, but I don't know that I could personally vote for somebody who denies that we need somebody greater than ourselves to help us.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

"In one of your comments it appears that you said you were an atheist and had homosexual relationships."

Try reading more carefully. The comment is right there on the page. I said I am an atheist and have gay relatives. Not relationships. Relatives.


Anonymous said...


Thanks. Atheist, but not gay. Gay relatives.

Take care.


Ramesh said...

Jeffrey Outlaw Shallit:

He is a well regarded professor of Computer Science at University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Home Page: Jeffrey O. Shallit

Wiki: Jeffrey Shallit

Electronic Frontier Canada

The Shallit Report: Lies of Our Times - How the Words of the Holocaust Deniers and Their Allies Show Them For What They Are

Blog: Recursivity

Only By His Grace said...


Hang in there. Some comments are falling into the catagory of those fundamentalist who believe that unless you pray the prayer just as proscribed by the fundamentalist you are not and never can be a Christian until you pray exactly as they prayed which means that Warren and Schuler and maybe even Billy Graham are not Christians.

Some seem to be saying, "Sure you can disagree, but to disagree about one area is not to have fellowship and work together in another area. It is whole hog or no hog, my way or the highway.


Ramesh said...

Transcripts: Rick Warren and the Religious Test against Atheists

Atheists Are People Too

I would sincerely encourage ALL people to be civil. (I know I have not been in the past. I am trying to mend my ways).

Anonymous said...

Thy Peace:

Thanks for posting the cites about Jeffrey Shallit.

But let's don't get ahead of ourselves with the accolades.

"Well regarded?" By whom? For what?

He may be well regarded by some people (his family, the trustees or governors at the Unviersity of Waterloo in Canada), but I did not get anything from those cites that would lead me to believe he is anymore well regarded than any other professor of Computer Sciences that one can find at any number of college campuses.

I didn't see any cites for winning a Nobel Prize or anything like that, or really any impressive list of articles in peer reviewed journals.

The Wiki cite says he gained attention on the internet because of a post on holocaust deniers. At least he is right on that issue.

Jeffrey has not held himself out as being "well regarded."

So let's not make that kind of a judgment on his behalf.

For all we know, he could make a lot of sense, or he could be a sterotypical atheistic crackpot that one sees now and then.

Time will tell.

The substance of comment to this post (i.e. the booing of Rick Warren during a prayer at the Inauguration), is not an auspicious beginning.

Also, makes you wonder why a guy like that with his background would have any interest in a blog published to discuss the SBC and related issues.

But, then again, some athesists are very evangelistic about their faith.


Ramesh said...

Louis: I was only going by my personal technical opinion of his work and his standing in the computer science field.

I clearly do not agree with Shallit of his blog posts on Rick Warren.

I too like Shallit am from Philadelphia. I too once was an atheist.

I have tried many times to reason my way of Christian Faith and have always failed to comprehend it. It never makes any logical sense.

But by the grace of God, my eyes were opened and was convicted by the Word of the Bible. I sincerely believe this to have been given from outside of me. For I could not with my thinking behold the "logic" of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

So when one attempts to reason and argue with atheists, without this Faith, the rest of the logic falls away (in my opinion).

I am not upset with Shallit because of his writings. I clearly do not agree with him. I understand where he is coming from and his attempts to combat Christian thinking.

I have read Pastor Rick Warren's comments as related to Shallit's posts, and I come with a different understanding than Shallit. I feel Pastor Rick Warren has been consistent in his words.

I sincerely pray for Pastor Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation with Grace and with The Holy Spirit guiding his words.

I sincerely pray and hope the world will see us as Christians based on the love and charity we bring to the world, through the gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

I would be dishonest if I did not say I lot of times struggle with my faith. Lot of times I get discouraged both from my own actions and of what I see in the world. But I am learning to persist in Faith and from reading the Word of God.

Paul Burleson said...


I was assuming you were referring to Atheists AND Muslims being "unfit" as you stated in you comment. My understanding of your definition of "unfit" obviously was muddled by you combining the two since the Muslim has a belief in his God.

That is different, at least to me, than the fact that he [Warren] would NOT vote for an Atheist for President BECAUSE a person in that office would need all the help they could get, even divine help. This would render an Atheist candidate not the best qualified for the office in Rick Warren's personal opinion. [Which position I would hold to.] He does say he would vote for one of another faith. It seems that Rick simply regards faith as important for one to successfully serve as President. You may agree or disagree. But that is far from "despising" on who is an Atheist.

To use "despise" to describe his position would not be my interpretation of Rick's attitude toward Atheists OR Muslims at all.

Jeffery, thank you for participating in the conversation. I wish you the best.

Anonymous said...

Lin: I'm saying swords are drawn where no swords should be drawn. What did Christ do when Peter drew his sword cutting off the ear of the soldier?

Lin said...

Lin: I'm saying swords are drawn where no swords should be drawn. What did Christ do when Peter drew his sword cutting off the ear of the soldier?

Sun Dec 21, 10:03:00 PM 2008

Debbie, It seems we are talking right past each other and perhaps not even about the same thing?

I have no sword drawn. And I want to peacefully walk away at this point. Blessings to you.

Anonymous said...

CHRIS SAID: 'If the church really cared, we wouldn't make this the job of the government, but would make preventing abortions our job by being available to love and support those who would otherwise choose abortion.'


This is the most Christian statement I have read concerning the prevention of abortions on this blog.
I agree with your statement completely.
I believe that it IS the job of Christians to reach out to those in need of support ACTIVELY to help them if they wish to choose life for their unborn, but feel they have no support.

Chris, if you ever run for office, you will have MY VOTE. But you right, it is not a 'government issue', it is any issue of the commitment of the Christian heart towards those less fortunate and without friends.

May our merciful God help us to see our neighbors as we see ourselves, and teach us to care for them. L's

Ramesh said...

NYT: Mormons Tipped Scale in Ban on Gay Marriage

This is one of the issues, the atheists, gays and lesbians are fighting the Christians on. At least the rhetoric has been very heated due to this debate.

There is also the irony that lot of Christians do not consider Mormons to be Christians.

oc said...

Debbie said:
" Lin said...
Lin: I'm saying swords are drawn where no swords should be drawn. What did Christ do when Peter drew his sword cutting off the ear of the soldier?

Sun Dec 21, 10:03:00 PM 2008

Lin said:
"Debbie, It seems we are talking right past each other and perhaps not even about the same thing?

I have no sword drawn. And I want to peacefully walk away at this point. Blessings to you."

Sun Dec 21, 10:15:00 PM 2008"

And there it is. Jesus is our Lord.
So we are to love like Him. And that's where we should live, and where we should love from. If we can't appreciate His love, we can never understand each other.
And if that should be the case, then His love and grace would be just a another wonderful theory.

Just sayin'.

Anonymous said...

Thy Peace: I do not consider Mormon religion as Christian. Why? Their teaching about Jesus Christ. Just because someone does good works or is considered good, that is not a true born again Christian. Faith in Jesus Christ as he presents himself in the Bible is the only way.

Anonymous said...

Mormons do have a very different take on Christianity, that is true.
HOWEVER, they do have something that many in other denominations lack: HUMILITY.

What is Christian?
Just what WE say it is?
Do we HONESTLY want to say we follow Christ's commands as expressed in the Bible in their totality? Or do we just 'pick and choose' what suits us and marginalize His other words to us? Even when we judge others?

They claim Christ as 'the Savior'.
Yes, they have a VERY different interpretation, but they listened to His call to learn from His humble ways and they obeyed.

Let's take a look at how much of Christ's teachings our OWN churches ignore and kick to the curb, before we start judging the Mormons. That is, if we honestly can bear to do it.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Louis says, "Also, makes you wonder why a guy like that with his background would have any interest in a blog published to discuss the SBC and related issues."

Because this blog discussed my blog posting about Warren, that's why.

You sure know how to make someone not of your faith feel welcome!

Jeffrey Shallit said...

Paul Burleson says, I was assuming you were referring to Atheists AND Muslims being "unfit" as you stated in you comment.

Actually, I didn't say anything about Warren saying anything about Muslims. My only comment about Muslims was a hypothetical widely separated from my original claim about Warren and atheists.

Please make some genuine effort to read what I wrote.

Jeffrey Shallit said...

I find it absolutely fascinating that some commenters are spending their time investigating my background, questioning my citizenship, etc., instead of actually addressing the arguments I have given.

Address the argument, not the person making it. That's logic 101.

Anonymous said...


I'm L's and I am from a different faith than the SBC.
Don't worry, even the Baptists on this blog manage to offend each other rather well, so you can pretty well be yourself and let the chips fall.
I found this blog because I heard about the 'Westboro Baptist Church' and I was afraid (as in terrified) that it might be what my grandmother's church had disintegrated into.
I was wrong. But I did find something that was equally troubling: The SBC seems more intent on targeting its own that don't conform in the eyes of their SBC 'leadership'.
And the 'targeting' is severe and cruel, with pitiable results for the victims.
I say this sadly.

Tell us a little about yourself.
Not all people on this blog are totally 'intolerant' of those who see things differently.
Some openly and aggressively will provoke you. Some will listen and react intolerantly, but often more out of ignorance of their own intolerance, and ignorance of where you are coming from.
Yes, there are the others, but the sad thing is that they don't seem to understand the harm intolerance has led to in our world: rejection of 'lepers' and todays AIDs victims, witch-burning, slavery, the Holocaust, gay-bashing: discrimination against the mentally challenged, the mentally ill, the physically handicapped, forgetting our veterans' needs, rejecting the poor: all connected and interwoven with the same evil.
So much harm done.

When you are honest, here, you can expect a reaction. But you can also expect those who are tolerant to speak.
The 'peace-makers' here are for real. And they ARE here.

The important thing is that people here DO make some effort to read the thoughts of another. Just in doing that, there is the BEGINNING of some kind of understanding of what is shared among us.
Even a BEGINNING is good. L's

P.S. It is said that 'doing the right thing' for the wrong reasons eventually may lead to 'doing the right thing' for the right reasons.
One can hope. We still have that.

Anonymous said...

As an IMB M serving in a security 3region of the world, where human rights are often denied, where OLD men hold a literal DEATH GRIP on freedom of speech,I AM FED UP with the neocons of the Republican party, and ESPECIALLY those within our own denomination who feel the CONSTANT, OBSESSIVE need to control and critize those whom hold even the slightest difference of opinion!!
There are BILLIONS of people who have never even HEARD the name "Jesus" uttered, and you all are fighting for CONTROL of YOUR precious thoughts and convictions regarding things like Prayer language, The Lord's Supper,
"PROPER" baptism, and yes, gay rights. And NOW...we have a president whose efforts are spent trying to build a unified nation, who is willing to embrace and include Rick Warren as a person of influence in his administration, and in stead of praising the Father, you resort to attack. I supposed I shouldn't be surprised!!
It's so much easier, and FAR more conventionally correct these days.
It's not been that long ago that Rick Warren was THE pastor to follow, he was the SBC's model pastor. Everyone wanted to be Rick Warren, and everyone wanted a club like Saddleback. But far right-winged fundies are attacking yet another WONDERFUL Brother and Evangelical Pastor!! What's with you guys?!?!
It's obvious that Father is raising up a Holy Military here in our host country who will take the Gospel to MILLIONS of non belivers across East Aisa, until it's reached Jerusalem. An honor, and place in the history of Christianity to which many of you say you aspire. And yet you spend your lives with fighting other Brothers(DON'T EVEN get me started on how you treat women...including the WMU/WOM for example).
But there are still so many who still need YOU to spend your time, your money, and HOURS on your knees asking the Father for His truth to touch lives. Get over your pitiful, Adamic need to criticize and control, and spend your time pleading for Him to send workers that His love can be embraced by those so desperately lost, with little chance to hear.

My heart is racing with frustration and anxiety as I write, but things are DESPERATE in our part of the world and all you can do is complain about ONE OF OUR VERY OWN being invited to begin the presidency of one whom I consider a great leader and BROTHER in Christ by offering a prayer.
You guys are to be pitied. I'll spend a good bit of this day lifting you all up. In the mean time, I'm off to share His love with a couple thousand high school students who've never had a chance to hear the Good News!
You guys...come on!!!!

Anonymous said...

MISSIONARY: You are so right to remain 'anonymous'.

It is on the front lines that you can clearly see what is most important in the Kingdom of God.
So many of our 'soldiers of the Cross' have been shot in the back by the SBC in the war against 'the moderates'. Anonymity may offer you some protection, at least for now.
When U.S. soldiers in the field die by the hand of their own comrades-in-arms, it is called 'friendly-fire'

What the SBC has done is not 'friendly-fire'.
Those missionaries are gone now.
They were expendable.
So, apparently, were ALL the thousands of people that they might have led to Christ who now will never know Him.
The SBC has made sure of that.
What more is there to say?
It's done.
And all in the name of

Makes my blood boil.

'And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
Wm B. Yeats

Makes my blood run cold.

Anonymous said...

I remember reading somewhere that the "Christian army" is the only one that shoots its wounded. Not quite true, but close enough.

Which is better, to reach out to others in love or blast them with hate? Which does the Bible tell us to do?

Disagreement is one thing, but it can be done without being disagreeable - with respect for the other person as another created and loved by God. Frequently this blog shows the good side of this, but at times comments deteriorate.

As for Obama, he can't do worse than Bush and those he brought to power with him. Give him a chance.


Anonymous said...

Anony - You said, "...everyone wanted a club like Saddleback."

I think you meant this as a compliment, but it actually points to the biggest problem a lot of people had / have with Warren.

I'm sure the word "church" didn't cross your mind when you wrote that. The word "club" did. The word "church" doesn't cross many people's mind when they think of Saddleback.

Painfully accurate I'm sorry to say.


Anonymous said...

Warren on Hannity and Combs: Give Jesus a 60 day trial.

Anonymous said...

What is it about Warren that angers some Baptists?

I thought he was an 'evangelical'.

What is 'Saddleback'?

So maybe Warren is more appealing to those in the middle after all?

Don't people ever get tired of trying to make everybody jump through such narrow hoops to 'prove themselves'?
That kind of smugness smacks of pride and intolerance, not of faith.

Stop the nonsense.
If Warren doesn't do it for you, who did you want to give the invocation?
Let me guess: Paige Patterson or Al Mohler?
I wonder who Sarah Palin will choose to speak at her inaugeration in four years?
You will have your day soon enough.
Right now, the American people would like a respite from all the mean-spirited hate of the 'christian' far right.
If you doubt the 'mean-spirited' part: just look at what the SBC leadership did to its missionaries.

Anonymous said...

"Stop the nonsense.
If Warren doesn't do it for you, who did you want to give the invocation?"

Should there be an invocation at all?

Anonymous said...

Rick Warren has taken a stand against gay marriage as do I, as do most Christians. But, Rick Warren has also raised money in the fight against AIDS and been the most compassionate to those whose actions he has taken a stand against.

Anonymous said...

I am glad there is an invocation, but God is God no matter of there is an invocation or not. It doesn't make Him disappear.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote: "Should there be an invocation at all?"

Our country has religious freedom, at least for now.
Part of that freedom has been to guard the rights of everyone to believe OR NOT TO BELIEVE as they choose.
This right is essential to a free nation.

However, many of our people are people of many faiths and many faith traditions. An invocation, if done in the right spirit, should be respectful to ALL of our nation's faiths and not show disrespect to those who do not choose to believe.

I think an invocation is a good thing, if handled in the spirit of what we share in common as Americans.

For myself, I would prefer to see a series of speakers of different faith orientations AND perhaps a poetry-reading for those who do not have a faith tradition:
so that it truly becomes an
AMERICAN celebration.

I am a little puzzled by Obama's choice as Warren is a red-light to both extremes in our nation.
But maybe, Obama is showing wisdom here.
I do not know what Warren will say. I often think our open, loud 'prayers' , outside of liturgical prayers, are more a way to communicate with each other. So, yes, 'invocation':
a blessing or, if you will, an expression of hope.
Not a bad way to start, if it is done with some sense of the unity of our peoples' deepest longings for the future of our families, our communities, and our nation.
I'm for it. I really don't think Warren will use this experience as another way to further divide our country. I hope not. This may turn out to be a time for healing after all. L's

Anonymous said...

"Stop the nonsense."


I gonna throw something out there that might not set well with ya, and for that I am sorry, but please try and understand from a different perspective: Coming to a blog and tossing out imperatives is of no effect from one who is posting anonymously. Whether your imperative is justifiable or not, your credibility is most certainly lacking. You are not a part of the conversation unless we can identify you. It would be better for you to sign your comments with:

"Matilda, the 45 y.o. 300lb single lady with 4 kids whose microwave and TV just quit."

You see? Then we could call you by name, feel sorry for you, and understand your rage. But as it stands, we just laugh and move on. Help us help YOU, Matilda. We are a precious bunch with lotsa lovin's to gives this Xmas season.



Anonymous said...

Kevin said to 'Matilda':
"We are a precious bunch with lotsa lovin's to gives this Xmas season."

Shalom to you, too.

I'll take a weight reduction program, a nanny for the kids, a new microwave, and a flat-screen TV. Thanks for offering to help.


P.S. Sounds like you got into the wine. Better have a cup of coffee.

Only By His Grace said...


It makes no difference at all to me that you for whatever reason do not sign a name. Someone living in certain areas of the world must keep their identity hidden for their safety and the safety of many others. Some would like to know the names of some in order to do them occupational harm—just maybe.

Your argument or statement must stand alone by itself to face the test of truth by logic. Sometimes I think it would be neat just to have a blog where all comments were anonymous, that is, I would prefer this if all were honest in debate and mature deportment.

Names and occupations bring so much connation to the comments we read being colored by gender, race, theology, education, religion, sexual orientation and dozens of other things that color our perception of what is written or said. The comments must stand on their own merit whether the comment come from a liberal, atheist or whatintot.

Phil in Norman

Anonymous said...


You hit the nail on the head. I desire to do great "occupational harm" to Matilda. lol

"The comments must stand on their own merit whether the comment come from a liberal, atheist or whatintot."

As for this, I have been thinking alot about it, and I have come to the conclusion that I disagree. In preaching class and other communication classes we are taught about the 3 components of a message.

1. the logos
2. the pathos
3. the ethos

You are right Phil in that the logos must pass the "logic" test in that it must be both valid and true. But on a blog, there is so much unwritten communication that goes on. No one would blog if it were not for the unwritten ethos and pathos which comprises the essence of the logos. I am not sure if we can call it "para-text" but that term might help you to know better about what I am talking. People always have an angle. There is always a reason for which they speak. Knowing something about their pathos and ethos will help the their logos on its journey from their minds to ours. We ignore those with a poor ethos (hypocrites) and we laugh at those with no conviction (those who shoot off at the mouth). Even anonymous bloggers convey some sort of pathos and ethos through this "para-text" of which I speak. The problem is, we as readers tend to get wrong the true nature of the anonymous because our minds implant an image of the blogger using preconceptions we each bring based on how the logos effects us personally with regard to the subject matter and our history with that subject matter.

At the end of the day however one could say that information about the author is not required to get the meaning of the communication. But if we look to Scripture, can we say that authorial evidence/intent has greatly contributed to sounder exegesis? I submit it has.

Btw: I cannot in good conscience lend credence to anything said or written by the “whatintot’s”. They are heretics and should be ignored. :)

Jeffrey Shallit said...

For those defending Rick Warren, such as Paul Burleson, I'd like to hear you defend this:

Here's Warren caught in a flat-out lie - claiming he never compared gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. He did.

Anonymous said...

Jeffrey, I listened to Rachel and Warren and I can see where you are coming from. HOWEVER, Warren seems loquacious to the extreme and doesn't 'clarify' precisely his meanings. He is not consistent, certainly, but it may simply be his style of speaking 'around' the issues.

I don't know enough about this guy to call him a 'liar', I just think he had not been very clear on where he stands.

Who knows? Maybe he is thinking through the issues as he jumps from one comment to another?
Maybe he hasn't quite got a grip on his own opinions about how to talk:
1. to his own constituents
2. to the general public
3. to the gay community

I hope he is able to conduct this inaugural invocation out of respect for all Americans who do seem to share a Judeo-Christian set of morals and ethics at heart.
We are a 'diverse' people and that is our strength. If he can celebrate that, he will have done something worthy of respect.

Anonymous said...

No Jeffrey, you might want to listen again. You and dare we say the professional reporter BOTH got it wrong. Rick equated the wrongness of marriage based on X, Y, and Z. He did not say that X, Y, and Z were equal evils. There is a BIG difference. Let me put this is terms that you might understand.

f(z)=z where f=marriage, a factor of 1 (to be fair to each of the circumstances.) x=homosexual relationships; y=incestuous relationships; and z=you and your dog.

As you can see Professor Shallit, you are wrong.


Anonymous said...

Suggestion to Kevin and
to Jeffrey:

You need to get on the same wavelength to understand each other.

For example: try using Socratic debate or some other technique familiar to you both.

Communication is really hard when people don't have the same frame of reference.

Just a suggestion.

Only By His Grace said...


Most people want to know who they are talking to so they can attack their person and not attack their argument for various reasons; for instance, I would not cross the street to hear Jerry Falwell if someone were to pay me fifty bucks a minute; however, if Jerry Falwell makes a statement against the SBC which he did thousands of times, his attack must be answered by facts and not by the false fact he is Jerry Falwell. Those who like him will say he is telling the truth just because he is Jerry Falwell; those who dislike him will say he is lying just because he is Jerry Falwell.

Since Jerry Falwell is no longer alive, the above is not likely to happen.

People who have not read "The Purpose Driven Life" for themselves have no right to attack it by using the commentary of those who claim to have read it. They need to get off their lazy rears and read the book for themselves. All pathos and ethos do is obscure the argument. The logic fallacy of ethos is argumentum ad hominem and to decide by pathos is to decide by emotion or feelings sort of like argumentum ad misericordiam. I have met young men who can persuade the pants off a mop on my back porch with their pathos, but the young lady is still in a lot of trouble if she does not think through the emotive argument. Every mob is led by pathos in every lynching. If you are going to write a murder mystery, you had better know how to use logos, pathos and ethos; however, if you are dealing with political or theological truth, please leave pathos and ethos at home.

Phil in Norman.

Anonymous said...

"however, if you are dealing with political or theological truth, please leave pathos and ethos at home."

Thank you Phil, you just shot I didn't have to.

Please tell me that again after reading 1 Thess. 1:5.


PS: The mob does not have a valid logos. Hence, bad analogy. But thanks for playing. :)

Anonymous said...


The goal of argumentative writing is to persuade your audience that your ideas are valid, or more valid than someone else's. The Greek philosopher Aristotle divided the means of persuasion, appeals, into three categories--Ethos, Pathos, Logos.

ETHOS (Credibility), or ethical appeal, means convincing by the character of the author. We tend to believe people whom we respect. One of the central problems of argumentation is to project an impression to the reader that you are someone worth listening to, in other words making yourself as author into an authority on the subject of the paper, as well as someone who is likable and worthy of respect.

PATHOS (Emotional) means persuading by appealing to the reader's emotions. We can look at texts ranging from classic essays to contemporary advertisements to see how pathos, emotional appeals, are used to persuade. Language choice affects the audience's emotional response, and emotional appeal can effectively be used to enhance an argument.

LOGOS (Logical) means persuading by the use of reasoning. This will be the most important technique we will study, and Aristotle's favorite. We'll look at deductive and inductive reasoning, and discuss what makes an effective, persuasive reason to back up your claims. Giving reasons is the heart of argumentation, and cannot be emphasized enough. We'll study the types of support you can use to substantiate your thesis, and look at some of the common logical fallacies, in order to avoid them in your writing.

Anonymous said...


Socratic Method (or Method of Elenchus or Socratic Debate) is a dialectic method of inquiry, largely applied to the examination of key moral concepts and first described by Plato in the Socratic Dialogues. For this, Socrates is customarily regarded as the father of Western ethics or moral philosophy.

It is a form of philosophical inquiry. It typically involves two speakers at any one time, with one leading the discussion and the other agreeing to certain assumptions put forward for his acceptance or rejection. The method is credited to Socrates, who began to engage in such discussion with his fellow Athenians after a visit to the Oracle of Delphi. Diogenes Laertius, however, wrote that Protagoras invented the “Socratic” method.[1][2]

The practice involves asking a series of questions surrounding a central issue, and answering questions of the others involved. Generally this involves the defense of one point of view against another and is oppositional. The best way to 'win' is to make the opponent contradict themselves in some way that proves the inquirer's own point.

Plato famously formalized the Socratic Elenctic style in prose — presenting Socrates as the curious questioner of some prominent Athenian interlocutor — in some of his early dialogues, such as Euthyphro or Ion, and the method is most commonly found within the so-called "Socratic dialogues", which generally portray Socrates engaging in the method and questioning his fellow citizens about moral and epistemological issues.

The term Socratic Questioning is used to describe a kind of questioning in which an original question is responded to as though it were an answer. This in turn forces the first questioner to reformulate a new question in light of the progress of the discourse. MethodElenkhos (Greek: ἔλεγχος, a cross-examination for the purpose of refutation), more usually spelled 'elenchus',[3] is the central technique of the Socratic method.

In Plato's early dialogues, the elenchos is the technique Socrates uses to investigate, for example, the nature or definition of ethical concepts such as justice or virtue. According to one general characterization (Vlastos, 1983), it has the following steps:
Socrates' interlocutor asserts a thesis, for example 'Courage is endurance of the soul', which Socrates considers false and targets for refutation.
Socrates secures his interlocutor's agreement to further premises, for example 'Courage is a fine thing' and 'Ignorant endurance is not a fine thing'.
Socrates then argues, and the interlocutor agrees, that these further premises imply the contrary of the original thesis, in this case it leads to: 'courage is not endurance of the soul'.
Socrates then claims that he has shown that his interlocutor's thesis is false and that its contrary is true.

One elenctic examination can lead to a new, more refined, examination of the concept being considered, in this case it invites an examination of the claim: 'Courage is wise endurance of the soul'. Most Socratic inquiries consist of a series of elenchai and typically end in aporia.

Frede (1992) insists that step #4 above makes nonsense of the aporetic nature of the early dialogues. If any claim has shown to be true then it can not be the case that the interlocutors are in aporia, a state where they no longer know what to say about the subject under discussion.

The exact nature of the elenchos is subject to a great deal of debate, in particular concerning whether it is a positive method, leading to knowledge, or a negative method used solely to refute false claims to knowledge.

The Socratic method is a negative method of hypotheses elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those which lead to contradictions. The method of Socrates is a search for the underlying hypotheses, assumptions, or axioms, which may subconsciously shape one's opinion, and to make them the subject of scrutiny, to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. To the extent to which this method is designed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, it was called the method of maieutics. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method. Perhaps oddly, however, Aristotle also claimed that this method is not suitable for ethics.

Only By His Grace said...


You make wrong conclusions from invalid arguments. All I am saying is that an argument stands alone on its own merits. I looked at both my feet and there are no gun shot wounds in them. I do not even own a gun.

If Billy Graham says something false, just because he is probably the greatest evangelist since the Apostle Paul does not make his argument correct; whereas if Adolph Hitler said some things that are true, it does not make what he says false just because he was one of the three or four most evil men in history.

For whatever reason a person making comments on this or any blog chooses to remain anonymous is anyone's guess.

I could imagine if you worked for a company that would fire you without a chance of redress if they knew you criticized them in the least way, or would blackball you to where you could not get another position somewhere else, you might want to remain anonymous.

I cannot remember of any such situations happening on a state or convention level until the past few years. Much to our shame the blackballing seems to be the mode of operation lately even on the mission fields.

As far as what anyone thinks about what I say personally. I would never intentionally offend anyone; however, I will reserve my right to say what is what I see as right. I care not about being blackballed by the powers that be. Isaiah 51:12 was given to me by the Lord many years ago which I take out of context in interpretation but take for myself by application.

Phil in Norman

Only By His Grace said...

The Lord Jesus said let your "yea be yea and your nay be nay" (Matthew 5:37). I do not think he cared much about pathos, ethos or even logos.

The goal is not to persuade to "win" argument but the goal is to convey truth accurately.

Every preacher or teacher uses pathos and ethos in every message, and should, but in order to persuade the audience to believe the truth. Too many times in Southern Baptist history the pathos and bathos have degenerated into manipulation of the audience to make decisions out of emotions and not faith; too many times we use tools to do the work of God's Spirit and the results are manifest in most every church we see. We should teach or preach the truth in the power of God's Spirit and leave the results to God.

Phil in Norman.

Anonymous said...


Forgive me if I misinterpreted you.

You said: "You make wrong conclusions from invalid arguments. All I am saying is that an argument stands alone on its own merits."

I based my previous post on this:
"however, if you are dealing with political or theological truth, please leave pathos and ethos at home. "

I find that to be a most powerful statement. I am of the opinion that one's ethos and pathos is the very vehicle by which truth is delivered. That is even true of Scripture.

But as for preaching, one can read a passage, explain the passage, and then give personal testimony, tell stories and make the folks laugh for an hour (all totally true stuff) but completely bomb in the area of conveying the truth. One can preach truth all day long and live in sin. Do you think the Spirit works as effectively through preachers like that? On the other hand we have some liturgical and High Church practices which recite truth in a rote fashion. You have truth, but no interest or desire (lacking pathos).

But here is the deal. This method works for me. It helps me to wholly focus and be holy devoted to the task which I am called to do. I believe it to be a biblical concept. I will always strive to preach the truth, be passionately convinced of the truth, and finally and equally to live the truth.

I see failure where one part is missing.

Happy New Year,


Anonymous said...

Jeffrey Shallit:

Have been gone for days, so I doubt you will read this. Sorry for not noticing that your blog was the one commented on. I got caught up in the comments and did not look carefully. That explains your presence here which seems reasonable given that background.

I continue to maintain that booing an inaugural prayer is beyond the pale for the reasons I have stated. It is agitprop with a goal of exclusion and marginalization.

I also continue to maintain that some other comment writers were wrong to build you up as renown, respected or whatever the adjective used was. As I said, you did not do that, but he did. So, it is appropriate to understand the background of the person commenting. If we were talking computer science, you would be the man.

But we are talking church/state issues, religion, theology etc. So, your opinions are not worth anymore than mine - or anyone else's.

You are welcome here any time. But if you want to posit views such as supporting the booing of an inaugural prayer, you will have to do better than you have done so far.

And when people point that out, you will have to do better than "the Christians are very hospitable or Christlike" (which is what I notice many atheists do when they are challenged).

I do hope that you hang around for future posts.

And I wish you the best in the fight against holocaust deniers.


Anonymous said...

"aren't" not are.


Anonymous said...

Is it POSSIBLE that the 'logos', 'pathos', and 'ethos' of two thousand years ago would have a different application due to a different context?

What the Holy Spirit does is to help you to understand the meaning of a scripture for YOU in the context of YOUR OWN LIFE. The scripture may mean something else to someone else's situation.
Application of the blessings of scripture to our lives is personal, when we need it.

Anonymous said...

Hairy Tic,

You said:
"Application of the blessings of scripture to our lives is personal, when we need it."

Awesome. I think I'll keep all but the parts that talk about the sins of commission and sins of omission. I might skip the book of James as well (It was not meant for ME) But you can keep it if you want to.

The Bible is SO much more palatable if you take out Jude 3 first.

Thank you,


Anonymous said...

Better remove gospel of Matthew if you want to ignore sins of 'omission':

"for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink;"