Rick Warren and the Candidates… What was your take?
- Posted by: Todd
- Posted on: Mon, August 18, 2008
- Viewed 68
- (77) comments so far
Leave your comments here…
Thanks!
OK... how many of you got to watch the Saddleback Civil Forum on Saturday night? I watched as 'my good friend' Rick Warren gathered the candidates, and I have to tell you... I really was surprised.
No offense, Rick... but I really thought you would ask some pretty boring, safe questions. But I was very encouraged to hear him ask questions like, "What was your biggest moral failure; what Supreme Court justice would you NOT have appointed; and a straight-up question about abortion.
I came across feeling differently after watching both candidates, and I'm wondering what your take is... what did you think of the forum? Who was the real winner? (My personal take: the real winner was Rick Warren). And how does this change the way you think of each candidate? I'd love to hear your comments...
Comments
if you want a Globally Recognized Avatar (the images next to your profile) get them here. Once you sign up, they will displayed on any website that supports them.
Paula Clare on Mon, August 18, 2008
While I applaud Pastor Rick Warren’s very gut-level questions and interview approach, I came away feeling as though Senator Obama was more sincere, more “genuine” in his responses than was Senator McCain. McCain’s answers had a definite “political” flavor…and it felt more like he was playing to the crowd than was Senator Obama. I’m not saying Obama didn’t do his share of hedging the issues, indeed I believe some of his answers were vague and given with lots of wiggle room…however, I believe the answers he DID give were given without regard to the reaction of the audience. I felt McCain was playing up the fact that he is a “conservative” speaking before a typically conservative crowd.
I was most impressed with Rick Warren, whose interview style was honest, straightforward, and non-attacking. News media folks like Glenn Beck, and others who use the guise of “interview” to lambast, attack and harass their guests, should take note. Warren actually allowed the candidates TO FINISH THEIR SENTENCES and to SPEAK. He was not defensive. He was not antagonistic. I SO appreciated his “I will not endorse” stance and his honest effort to get to the heart of the issues.
Carol on Mon, August 18, 2008
Last evening Sen. Obama once again tried to gain credibility for the social causes he holds dear by invoking Matthew 25 (to which he frequently refers as one of his favorite verses in Scripture). Notice, however, that he never references his favorite verse when “the least of these” is referring to unborn babies.
fishon on Mon, August 18, 2008
Some say Warren was the winner. But Christianity was the loser, I say.
For a Christian pastor to play the role of Larry King is a disgrace.
This forum was a mockery of the Church of Jesus Christ and what it stands for. For a Christian pastor to appear neutral on the answers given that promote evil is….
Folks, this wasn’t a forum in the dark. It was national, and to sit there and not ask follow-ups to some of the answers for the position of sin is a travesty.
“Above my pay grade.” If that doesn’t turn on Warren, what will?
fishon
Alison Bridges on Mon, August 18, 2008
I was very much an Obama supporter in the early months - up until the evening before my state’s primary. I went on line and looked at his voting record. While I don’t support abortion rights, I do understand why some folks want to keep it legal - choice, rape, medical issues, etc. However, I learned that Barak Obama voted to repeal President Bush’s ban on partial birth abortion, and that it is his intent, if elected, to reinstate partial birth abortion as Bill Clinton originally accomplished. Sorry Barak, infanticide is not for me.
Phil DiLernia on Mon, August 18, 2008
Rick Warren ... very nice guy but very light on his follow up to their answers.
For instance: if McCain is going to make the world safe for demorcracy and we’ll go and defend militarily those in Georgia, the Sudan, et. al I would have liked to now how he was going to pay for it.
A real indication of Warren’s lack of economic acumen. I quote him “The US is the richest and most blessed nation in history ...” Well I must differ on the basis of facts. We have the most material goods but our individual debt, national debt, state debt, and local debt, FAR OUTWEIGHS THE TOTAL WORTH OF ALL OUR MATERIAL GOODS. In an era of declining wages that means we are technically bankrupt as a nation.
If he would understand that then his questions about taxes would have been different.
McCain obviously came across as the better potential leader. But his one HUGE shortcoming was his willingness to put us in more wars without a corrosponding program of wealth generation that is needed to pay for it. We’re not talking 5 years here, we’re in this for the next century.
Someone here mentioned that McCain falsely believes that HE CAN DEFEAT EVIL. I don’t think he meant that humans can necessarily defeat evil but that if good stands up to evil then evil will be defeated. That’s a Biblical truth. The reason why evil gets so much inroads and advancement is not because good can’t defeat it but because good goes ‘underground’ (saltless salt and hidden lights.)
Obama, well spoken and very likeable but there’s not a side of an issue that he won’t stake out if it means you’ll like him and elect him. Not my man for President.
BTW, I came into that night hoping to like Obama more (I hadn’t really heard McCain for any length of time before the other night.)
gr guy on Mon, August 18, 2008
I’m impressed that the forum here, unlike many others, is uncharacteristically civil and respectful of a variety of opinions. Also, there are some very good comments here re: both candidates. Nice job people staying focused on the issues instead of attacking your fellow bloggers. i didn’t get to see the debate, but I’ve been educated quite a bit just reading this blog.
Leonard on Mon, August 18, 2008
I really liked the forum personally. For those that missed it, RW was a facilitator of questions from a bunch of different people. His role was to ask a set of questions that revealed to the listener what candidate felt, thought and believed. He did this in stellar fashion.
I for one appreciate the self control it took to remain neutral and not be in the center of the conversation. This allowed each candidate to be seen much more clearly. He did not come off as a pompous know it all, and clearly understood that he was using his influence to create a platform by which informed people could make an even more informed decision about who will be the next president of the United states, not preach.
This was not about his understanding of economics, his view of sin, abortion, same sex marriage, taxes of for that matter God, the bible and Jesus. This was about a pastor, who is on record being pro-life, bible believing, pro marriage (man and woman kind) understanding that he has influence very few pastors have today and him using that influence to help people see clearly each candidate.
I find it too bad that in this matter we have to trash RW even when he did not sin, did not lie, did not break any of the commandments, and in fact used his reputation and life to leverage an opportunity for evangelicals to hear a candidates answers to some great questions.
For those who think he needed to ask follow-up questions you simply missed the format. He made sure it was even for both. He could not have asked the same follow-up questions and had it be even since each candidate gave different answers. I say THANK YOU RW!
fishon on Mon, August 18, 2008
Leonard,
If you think not following up on, ‘above my pay grade’ was a good thing, you just don’t get it.
No, America’s pastor didn’t lie or sin, but then again, he didn’t do much else either. At least Larry King does follow up now and then.
Yep, thank you RW for staying neutral [luke warm].
I am trying to remember if Elijah, John, Peter, and Paul stayed neutral? Oops, I think their lose of objectivity and neutrality to the truth cost them dearly. If I remember right, Paul’s willingness to confront issues got him a bruise or 3. Watch out for that there rock, Paul. Be careful you don’t ruffle any feathers, Peter, it could get you dead. And oh yes, can’t forget John the Baptist—-he did not confront sin when it was in front of him. I think he tried to play Mr. Neutral——-NOT. I do believe I am thankful that John the Baptist did NOT get counciling from America’s pastor on how to deal with politicians, when they give answers that reflect sin as their answer for our nation, on nation wide TV.
Just my humble point of view.
fishon
Peter Hamm on Tue, August 19, 2008
Leonard,
good points. I would like to think that we might approach stuff like this with something other than a hyper-critical eye.
Leonard Lee on Tue, August 19, 2008
I agree Peter. Maybe like Jesus instead of debat, RW used questions to reveal something. Just sayin…
Phil DiLernia on Tue, August 19, 2008
Leonard I’ve got to say that you’re unreasonably ‘wound up’ in your response.
That being said I personally don’t believe that follow-up questions are the same as the questioner giving his/her opinions. Follow-up questions are meant to give clarity, add nuance, or maybe even address questions that are naturally derived from the previous answers.
That being said I prayed for Rick before the session and have thanked God for him afterwards.
Just sayin ...
Wendi on Tue, August 19, 2008
Great points Leonard, and IMO, appropriately “wound up.” Jesus didn’t wander around trying to “nail” everyone about their sin. He just asked questions and allowed the questions and answers to make His point. It says more about RW’s critics than it does about him that they seem to think the only “Christian” thing to do is make sure they’ve exposed his sin for the whole world to see.
I wasn’t all that bothered by Obama’s “above my pay grade” comment. I think his point was that there are some things only God can know, and when life begins is one of those things. Not that I agree with him, nor am I persuade that he really feels this way. It could have been a completely political response, given the audience he was playing to.
One thing I do appreciate about his position (at least his statements) about abortion . . .
The evangelical position is all or nothing, repeal Roe v. Wade, make abortion illegal. That’s the only option for them. The Demo’s at least talk about the issue as multifaceted; issues that lead to unwanted pregnancies, creating and promoting more viable options, etc. It would serve us well to incorporate these discussions into our public position on this issue. Yes, stand up for the rights of the unborn, but also be equally public about what we are doing (and what we want America to do) to care for and help women who face an unwanted pregnancy; REGARDLESS OF THE CHOICE THEY MAKE.
Wendi
Leonard Lee on Tue, August 19, 2008
Phil, what is unreasonable? Is that a subjective or objective assessment.? Just sayin…
Rick said, I had to bite my tongue because I kept wanting to say… Yea but. but this forum was not about debate as much as it was about letting our next president tell us where he stands.
For us to watch this forum and let it fuel more bashing of RW is IMO simply wrong. To call him a shame, to say his work here is a travesty, to say the church loses because of this… Might that also be worked up?
It is one thing to be disappointed in the format but to use your disappointment with the format to bash RW, well that does get me worked up but I am not so sure I’d use the word unreasonably.
Phil DiLernia on Tue, August 19, 2008
Forgive me here guys (and galz) but did someone here say that Rick was a travesty or that Rick was acting sinful or that Rick caused the church to lose .... et. al?
I must have missed it and if I did then I apologize.
And while I love to nuance things and make sure all bases are covered I can’t see how a person with a Biblical worldview can believe that abortion is a multi-faceted issue. That’s why I didn’ t like Obama’s response to this question. Either it’s killing a person or it’s not. Period. If it is then we should stop the practice immediately and if it’s not then let us continue with the law as it stands on the books.
I believe we all know how God’s Word falls on this issue.
Leonard Lee on Tue, August 19, 2008
Phil, this is what gets my panties in a bunch. People who dislike RW, are simply using this to bash. I love dialog, but with some people there is no dialog, just conclusion. It does get me going. Maybe it is true as fishon says I don’t get it.
I don’t get how being disappointed with a forum gives license to the comments below.
“Warren was seeking the approval of the church”
“I further see Warren as seeking man’s approval rather than obedience to God. He set the forum and failed. Purpose driven life is void of the real purpose of Christ and that is to destroy the works of the devil.”
“Rick Warren has become an anti-christ plain. He tours the world, makes a great name for himself and chases those who are anti christ persons and powers and seeks to draw them into christianity and vice versa. With Warren being such a problem for Christianity, I dare not even begin on that closet Mohammedan, anti American, anti christ Obama and Mr. liberal, go wither the wind blows McCain.”
“Sadly, Rick Warren, Tony Campolo and growing host of others are being de-listed from a growing number of Christians who understand that Warren’s way is not Jesus’ way at all. One cannot in honesty to Jesus and His Word mix the world of man with the world of Christ-to do so causes one to be cast into the anti-christ domain.”
“Some say Warren was the winner. But Christianity was the loser, I say.”
“For a Christian pastor to play the role of Larry King is a disgrace.”
“his forum was a mockery of the Church of Jesus Christ and what it stands for. For a Christian pastor to appear neutral on the answers given that promote evil is….”
“Folks, this wasn’t a forum in the dark. It was national, and to sit there and not ask follow-ups to some of the answers for the position of sin is a travesty.”
Page 3 of 6 pages < 1 2 3 4 5 > Last »
Post a Comment