Rick Warren's AIDS Conference
This week is Rick Warren's AIDS Conference at Saddleback Church, and he's getting
both applause and criticism. Most of the criticism seems to revolve around
bringing opposing political and moral perspectives to the table, including
pro-abortion and/or members of the homosexual community. It's the old
debate about potentially compromising the message to achieve a result.
For my money, whatever argument you may have with the guy, he's putting the church squarely in the middle of the issue, and showing the world that Christians should have a voice in finding a solution. As a result of him standing up on the issue, I'm seeing a growing voice in the mainstream culture and media begin to recognize the remarkable contribution Christians are making in the AIDS battle.
In today's LA Times for instance, the opinion section has the following editorial:
Christian conservatives vs. AIDS
November 30, 2006
OF ALL THE international forums and events to mark World AIDS Day on Friday, what may be the biggest will happen in an unlikely place: little Lake Forest, Calif., just north of Mission Viejo. Its coming signals a shift in political momentum as AIDS awareness is promoted not just by Hollywood celebrities and gay activists but by conservative evangelical Christians.
The Rev. Rick Warren and his wife, Kay, will host their second annual summit on AIDS starting today. Warren, author of the bestselling book "The Purpose-Driven Life," is among the most influential evangelical leaders in the United States, and his summit will attract such politically diverse figures as Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.).
The focus on AIDS by evangelicals isn't new, but Warren is taking it to a new level. Though churches were initially and inexcusably silent on AIDS, attitudes began to shift as AIDS declined in the United States while growing in Africa. Pressure from his Christian base may have been a factor in President Bush's 2003 decision to start an initiative against AIDS, devoting $15 billion over five years to fight the disease. Now, Warren aims to increase church involvement.
All this religious intervention in the traditional province of doctors and scientists hasn't been entirely positive. Bush's anti-AIDS money comes with morality-based strings attached that infuriate secular health advocates. The most self-defeating is a directive forcing recipients to sign a statement that they will not use the money to aid any group that "does not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking."
This pledge has little practical effect; it doesn't prevent those who agree to it from treating sex workers for AIDS. But many potential recipients fear that it will, so they either stop working with prostitutes or decline U.S. funds.
About 7% of the AIDS initiative money, meanwhile, must be spent on abstinence programs. Though these programs may help lower AIDS rates, it's questionable whether they're more effective than other prevention methods such as distributing condoms. At any rate, U.S. bureaucrats should consider regional health needs before politics when setting funding formulas.
Yet these troublesome policy issues are also relatively minor. Bush and his Christian supporters seldom get the credit they deserve for their role in the global fight against AIDS. U.S. spending on the disease overseas has risen more than tenfold under Bush, while Christian groups have given unselfishly to the cause. Churches, in fact, run health clinics in much of rural Africa; without them, stemming AIDS would be all but impossible. So praise the Lord and pass the antiretrovirals.
Granted, Rick Warren is taking a glorious stand in doing what he will for the AIDS/HIV issues around the world. It is wrong for him to give up the sacred desk of his pulpit to a man who has voted and supports all types of abortion, at any part of the pregnancy term. To a man who has voted consistantly in support of homosexual marriage. Just because the gentleman has a good understanding of the HIV/AIDS issues does not mean that the Christian community must now totally embrace the man and his mission.
If Rick Warren wanted to have a grand meeting with the "leaders" of the issue, he should have rented someplace away from the sanctuary of God. He should have chose a place that would distance the Church from questionable individuals and the flury of rebukes he is now being showered with.
There are some still out there who still believe the scriptures concerning holiness and righteousness. God hasen't changed. Yes, the building is just a building. But, it represents a holy and righteous God. We have allowed so much of the world into the doors of the church that in some Churches it is impossible to tell the difference between the world and Godly. To blindly accept Ricks abuse of the sanctuary only continues to blurr the lines between the secular and the Godly. It is no wonder that the unchurched find the church of today not revelant.
Our job as Christians is not to keep the world out of the chruch but bring them in. The church is not builidings, it is us - the believers in Christ who are filled with His Holy Spirit ready to present the Gospel - The Gospel is not stoping homosexuality or abortion but to present Jesus Christ and Him Crucified. Those who have fallen into homosexuality or have aborted a child are ripe for the Gospel's grace and forgiveness. If we don't want them in our Church building shame on us. That is why the "unchurched", much better discribed "unsaved, find us not relevent.
What God are you speaking of?
The God that embraced slavery in the bible?
The Bible that spoke of Solomon having more than one wife?
Or the bible that talks about stoning women who are not virgins?
Abortion and homosexuality are NOT sins.
Places where abortion is legal and birth control is readily available have LOWER abortion rates as well as lower transmission of stds.
Locations where gay marriage is permitted actually have LOWER divorce rates.
I tend to agree with Mack here. We've marginalized ourselves in the culture because we spend too much time arguing about what we're against, not what we're for... Rick isn't bringing these speakers in for spiritual advice, he's bringing them in for advice on stopping a disease with global impact. As such, he's putting the church squarely in the middle of the discussion. I can't think of a better place for the church to be...
The church has, or should be, already involved with the social issues of the day. The Bible speaks to us about our duties as children of God. Directly, you will not find anything about the HIV/AIDS issue except for numerous ways to avoid getting the diseases.
There are many churches today that have ministries in the same areas as does Saddleback. They are doing a work with out media attention and without compromising the scriptures. They do so without E mailing a statement saying they are a member of the Council on Foreign Relations(CFR) and theOxford Analytical. They do so with out stating no recorded media was used in a recient trip to Syria, then post a YouTube excerpt and show the congregation vidio excerpts of the trip on return.
Not only was Rick Warren used by the Syrians, he is now being used by politicians. I still believe that the Sanctuary is to be used for Gods busisness and that the pulpit is a sacred desk used to impart Gods word. Our good works to aid the citizenry of whatever cause we elect to contribute our time, energy, and finances don't belong in the sanctuary, unless of course we are doing it for recognition or gain. I'm afraid too many works, when tried by fire, will end up being consumed as stubble and hay. Time will tell.
Unless you're Ps Warren's spiritual advisor let him worry about what he's doing and you worry about what God's called you to do...seeing as that's what God will be asking you about when you croak!
Rick Warren should be praise no end for not taking the regular "head in the sand" approach most Christians take to the AIDS problem.