Rick Warren Lauds Obama Choice Of Openly-Gay Pastor For Inaugural Prayer

Question from the Editor: Can anyone tell me what is wrong with the following story!? I want to hear from the readers on this. Please leave your comments below.

Pastor Rick Warren, demonstrating his recently discovered and ever-increasing political savvy, has issued a statement lauding President-elect Obama's choice of openly-gay Pastor Eugene Robinson for the Sunday night Inaugural kickoff prayer. From the statement, issued to Christianity Today:

"President-elect Obama has again demonstrated his genuine commitment to bringing all Americans of goodwill together in search of common ground...I applaud his desire to be the president of every citizen."
Obama announced Warren's role in the Inauguration in December of last year, and there has since been relentless criticism from various gay-rights groups and others, due to the conservative pastor's anti-gay actions and statements.

Warren has gone to great lengths to make his inaugural appearance more politically palatable to such critics by obscuring any signs of homophobia -- for example, by removing from the Saddleback Church website the statement, "someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be welcome at Saddleback." But such efforts have failed, at least in the eyes of his critics, to recreate the man as the bastion of tolerance and acceptance that he now claims to be.

Indeed, just this month David Brody of the Christian Broadcast Network dredged up a skeleton Warren perhaps missed: a video from the Saddleback "News and Views" video site wherein Warren describes same-sex marriage as a "humanitarian crisis".

Notably, his detractors include his fellow inaugural participant, Pastor Robinson. As Robinson told Beliefnet:

" He's done some good things. The difficult thing is that he's said, and continues to affirm, some horrendous things about homosexuality -- comparing it to incest, bestiality, that kind of thing. This is not a choice that really represents everyone. This choice was just really, really unfortunate.

It's about this particular venue and the role that he has in praying for all of America, and I'm just not sure he'd pray to God the same way I would."

Warren, presumably playing it safe, is no longer accepting interview requests, as reported by the New York Times Thursday. However, in his Beliefnet interview, Robinson expressed a desire to sit down with Warren and engage him on issues, making Warren's statement a likely welcome overture.

Obama: "We Need A New Declaration Of Independence"

Note From the Editor: In publishing this article, I am in no way endorsing its remarks or sycophantic tone. My intent is to merely emphasize how far we have already traveled down a devastatingly dangerous road. Pay particular attention to the words Barack Obama chooses in his speech and the manner in which he is being portrayed by the writer. It is as if we are crowning a King as opposed to the swearing in of a public servant who has been hired by the People as the Constitution intended.


(CNN) -- Barack Obama's historic train ride to Washington on Saturday drew large, cheering crowds of people who braved freezing weather and gathered along the tracks in cities and small towns along the way in hopeful anticipation of getting a glimpse of the nation's next president.

In Baltimore, Maryland, alone, about 40,000 people stood shoulder-to-shoulder in the cold to greet Obama as he stopped on his way to his Tuesday inauguration.

His welcome was raucous and animated, as the sea of people cheered, waved and took pictures. Tears rolled down one woman's face as Obama spoke. "We love you, Obama!" another yelled out. "I love you back," Obama answered calmly, eliciting a roar from the crowd.

The same emotions were expressed up and down the tracks on the 137-mile journey, a trip that started in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and retraced the train ride Abraham Lincoln took on his way to becoming president in 1861. Watch Obama share the love »

As he did so often during his campaign, Obama drew upon American history in his remarks to pose a parallel to the country's current challenges. He noted the struggles of the colonials, the "first patriots," against the British.

"They were willing to put all they were and all they had on the line," Obama told the crowd in Baltimore. "Their lives, their fortune, and sacred honor for a set of ideals that continue to light the world: that we are all equal. That our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come not from our laws but from our Maker."

Later he said, "the American Revolution was, and remains, an ongoing struggle in the minds and hearts of the people."

And, as in Philadelphia, Obama alluded to, but did not name, the president who inspired his train journey. The soon-to-be president used a call-to-action uttered by Lincoln in his inaugural address in 1861, an appeal to Americans' "better angels."

Obama, who will take up what he called the country's "enormous" challenges in fewer than 72 hours, noted that they will probably not be solved quickly.

"There will be false starts; there will be setbacks," he said. "There will be frustrations and disappointments. I will make some mistakes. But we will be called to show patience even as we act with fierce urgency."

He added, "So, Baltimore, starting now, let's take up in our own lives the work of perfecting our union," an appeal that brought forth a loud rumble of approval.

Obama arrived later in Washington, where he will take the oath of office Tuesday. He did not have a speaking event there Saturday.

Before getting on board the train in Philadelphia, the president-elect implored Americans to commit to a new declaration of independence -- rejecting ideology and bigotry -- as he acknowledged that the nation faces severe challenges.

"Only a handful of times in our history has a generation been confronted with challenges so vast," he said at a town hall meeting in Philadelphia's 30th Street Station.

"An economy that is faltering. Two wars: one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely. A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil."

"What is required is a new declaration of independence, not just in our nation but in our own lives -- from ideology and small thinking, prejudice and bigotry -- an appeal not to our easy instincts but to our 'better angels,' " he said, using a phrase from Lincoln's inaugural address.

The train stopped in Wilmington, Delaware, to pick up Vice President-elect Joe Biden and his family and then headed to Baltimore, Maryland, on its way to Washington.

The train made its first "slow roll" in Claymont, Delaware, allowing Obama to wave at cheering residents gathered near the tracks. Claymont is also the town where Biden's family moved in 1953, when he was 10 years old. iReport.com: Is the train coming to your town? Send us your photos

Security for Obama's train ride was tight. Law enforcement officers from 40 jurisdictions provided protection from the ground. The U.S. Coast Guard was stationed on waterways along the route as well.

The Federal Aviation Administration established "moving" flight restrictions that prevented private pilots, news helicopters, balloonists and others from getting anywhere near the train.

The FAA is imposing additional airspace restrictions in Washington on Sunday during pre-inaugural activities and from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Tuesday, the day of the inauguration. Watch how security will protect Obama on way to Washington »

Nearly 2 million people are expected to hit the streets of Washington on Tuesday. Police will shut bridges across the Potomac River into the city, along with a huge chunk of downtown. People coming from Virginia will have to walk or take public transport, such as the area's Metro subway system. Read about the times and places for inaugural events »

Two of the major routes coming into the city -- Interstates 395 and 66 -- will be closed to inbound traffic, at least for private vehicles.

Amtrak said it has increased the number and length of trains running to Washington on Inauguration Day. Tickets are still available but are going fast, it said. Watch more on inauguration transportation and security plans »

Security officials also say charter buses, taxis and car services are an option for those attending.

Rescue of U.S. banks hints at nationalization

By Edmund L. Andrews

Friday, January 16, 2009
WASHINGTON: Last fall, as Federal Reserve and Treasury Department officials rode to the rescue of one financial institution after another, they took great pains to avoid doing anything that smacked of nationalizing banks.

They may no longer have that luxury. With two of the nation's largest banks buckling under yet another round of huge losses, the incoming administration of Barack Obama and the Federal Reserve are suddenly dealing with banks that are "too big to fail" and yet unable to function as the sinking economy erodes their capital.

Particularly in the case of Citigroup, the losses have become so large that they make it almost mathematically impossible for the government to inject enough capital without taking a majority stake or at least squeezing out existing shareholders.

And the new ground rules laid down by Obama's top economic advisers for the second half of the $700 billion bailout fund, as explained in a letter submitted to Congress on Thursday, call for the government to play an increasing role in the major activities of the banks, from the dividends they pay to shareholders to the amount they can pay executives.

"We are down a path that this country has not seen since Andrew Jackson shut down the Second National Bank of the United States," said Gerard Cassidy, a banking analyst at RBC Capital Markets. "We are going to go back to a time when the government controlled the banking system."

The approximately $138 billion aid package on Thursday for Bank of America — including injections of capital and absorbed losses — as well as a $300 billion package in November for Citigroup both represented displays of financial gymnastics aimed at providing capital without appearing to take commanding equity stakes.

Treasury and Fed officials accomplished that trick by structuring the deals like insurance programs for big bundles of the banks' most toxic assets.

Instead of investing tens of billions of taxpayer dollars in exchange for preferred shares in the banks, which has been the Treasury Department's approach so far with its capital infusions, the government essentially liberated the banks from some of their most threatening assets.

The trouble with the new approach, analysts say, is that it is likely to conceal the amount of risk that taxpayers are taking on. If the government-guaranteed securities turn out to be worthless, the cost of the insurance would be much higher than if the Treasury Department had simply bailed out the banks with cash in the first place.

Christopher Whalen, a managing partner at Institutional Risk Analytics, said the approach also covers up the underlying reality that the government is already essentially the majority shareholder in Citigroup.

"There's nobody else out there to invest in them," Whalen said. "We already own them."

Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, outlined the elements of what could become the Obama administration's new approach to bank rescues in a speech on Monday.

Speaking to the London School of Economics, but addressing American audiences as much as European ones, Bernanke warned that the U.S. government had no choice but to put more money into banks and other financial institutions if it had any hope of reviving the paralyzed credit markets.

Known officially as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, the rescue program has infuriated lawmakers in both parties, who complain that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. has doled out money to banks without demanding accountability in return. Obama and his top economic advisers convinced enough lawmakers that shoring up the banks was essential to preventing a broader financial collapse, and offered written assurances that they would address the lawmakers' biggest complaints.

But Bernanke proposed an array of alternative approaches to dealing with the banks in the months ahead, and all of those options reflected a fundamental shift from the original assumptions of the Bush administration.

Paulson had insisted that the government would be investing only in healthy banks, some of which might take over sicker rivals. The Treasury would invest taxpayer dollars in exchange for preferred shares, which would pay a regular dividend and come with warrants that would allow the government to profit from increases in company stock prices.

By contrast, Bernanke proposed various ways to fence off the troubled assets, from nonperforming loans to mortgage-backed securities that investors had stopped buying at almost any price.

Bernanke's options included guarantees for bank assets, which was at the heart of the rescue packages for Bank of America and Citigroup. Citigroup received its rescue package in November, but it is expected to report additional losses on Friday that could top $10 billion.

In both of those deals, the U.S. government set up a complicated arrangement that would limit the banks' losses on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of their worst assets.

Citigroup's deal in November covered $300 billion in assets. Citigroup agreed to absorb the first $29 billion in losses. The Treasury agreed to take a second round of losses up to $5 billion, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation agreed to take a third round of losses of up to $10 billion. The Federal Reserve then agreed to lend Citigroup money at low interest rates for the value of the remaining assets.

As a second option, Bernanke and other Fed officials have proposed putting a bank's impaired assets into a separate new "bad bank." The effect would be much the same as providing a federal guarantee: the bank would be able to free itself from the need to set aside reserves for extra losses.

Both the idea of a government "wrap" and a government-backed "bad bank" have the virtue of protecting the bank's common stockholders from being wiped out by the government.

By contrast, the Bush administration's original approach to recapitalizing banks — injecting capital in exchange for preferred shares with warrants to convert to common stock — had the effect of squeezing out the common shares. That was because any losses would have to first wipe out common stockholders before the bank could stop paying dividends on preferred shares.

"One of the problems with TARP has been a result of the government not wanting to own the banks," said Fred Cannon, chief equity strategist at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. "If you get losses, there is less common stock. What we are hopefully moving toward, to the extent that the government guarantees some of the assets, is a structure that protects common shareholders and allows the company to go out and raise common shares through the market."

But a growing number of analysts warned that the approach may be too clever, because it gives policy makers too many ways to conceal true problems at banks and true risks to taxpayers.

"What we have is a weird, shadow nationalization," said Karen Shaw Petrou, managing partner at Federal Financial Analytics, a consulting firm in Washington. "The government does not want to and should not want to own banks. But if they get forced into that situation, they should resolve that situation. Here, what you have is a huge diversified financial services industry with recognized losses and looming losses in every aspect of its operations. There's nothing straightforward about it."

Stimulating Our Way to Rock Bottom

By Ron Paul



With attention turning to the next big economic stimulus package, questions are still swirling about our economic troubles. How did we get here? How do we get out? As usual, Washington has all the wrong answers. According to many politicians, we got here by not spending enough, not consuming enough, and not regulating enough. Now government, like some mythical white knight, is going to ride in to save the day by blanketing the economy with dollars, hiring an army of new bureaucrats, creating make-work jobs, and sending everyone some form of a bailout check. The debate seems to focus on whether this will cost enough to save the economy, or if this is just a "down payment" with much more government spending to come. Talk like that would be comical, if the results weren't going to be so tragic.

The results will be worsening economic woes until we learn our lesson. But instead Congress is behaving like drug addicts who must hit rock bottom before they are ready to face reality. They are playing foolish games with the economy now because they are thinking only of political expedience. This talk of job creation is a perfect example.

Contrary to the belief of many, the goal of the economy is not job creation. Jobs can be a sign of a healthy economy, as a high energy level can be a sign of a healthy body. But just as unhealthy substances can artificially give the addict that burst of energy that has nothing to do with health, artificially created jobs just exacerbate our problems. The goal of a healthy economy is productivity. Jobs are a positive outcome of that. A "job" could be to dig a hole one day, and fill it back up the next, or perhaps the equivalent at a desk. This does no one any good. But the value in that paycheck ultimately has to come from taxing someone productive. Some think this round-robin type of economic model is supposed to get us somewhere.

Politicians and bureaucrats have already done their fair share to ensure that jobs in the private sector are prohibitively complicated and expensive to create. They are now shocked that the economy is shedding jobs, and want to simply create hundreds of thousands of jobs to make up for the job losses, through another so-called economic stimulus package. The private sector must be permitted to do that, but instead they are massively burdened with taxes and webs of red tape and regulation. Washington's bandaids will only prolong this agony. The Austrian school of economics teaches that only a free market economy, unencumbered by onerous government controls, creates long-term prosperity. Politicians, however, tend to be notoriously short-sighted.

I am left with these questions - who is going to be left standing to tax in the private sector to pay for all these public sector make-work jobs? Is Washington really to be considered some sort of savior for creating unproductive jobs in place of the productive jobs they eliminated?

We are at an economic dead-end and those in power are in denial. The truth is our economic problems are due to loose monetary policy, central economic planning, and the parasitic expenses of government. Unless we assess these problems honestly, we unfortunately have a long way to go until, like the junkie, we hit rock bottom.

Ron Paul is a Republican United States Congressman from Texas and a former 2008 U.S. presidential candidate.

I Love Jesus Christ

By John Piper
December 31, 2008


One of the most memorable moments of my seminary days was during the school year 1968-69 at Fuller Seminary on the third level of the classroom building just after a class on systematic theology. A group of us were huddled around James Morgan, the young theology teacher who was saying something about the engagement of Christians in social justice. I don’t remember what I said, but he looked me right in the eye and said, “John, I love Jesus Christ.”

It was like a thunderclap in my heart. A strong, intelligent, mature, socially engaged man had just said out loud in front of a half dozen men, “I love Jesus Christ.” He was not preaching. He was not pronouncing on any issue. He was not singing in church. He was not trying to get a job. He was not being recorded. He was telling me that he loved Jesus.

The echo of that thunderclap is still sounding in my heart. That was 40 years ago! There are a thousand things I don’t remember about those days in seminary. But that afternoon remains unforgettable. And all he said was, “John, I love Jesus Christ.”
James Morgan died a year later of stomach cancer, leaving a wife and four small children. His chief legacy in my life was one statement on an afternoon in Pasadena. “I love Jesus Christ.”

Loving Jesus is natural and necessary for the children of God. It’s natural because it’s part of our nature as children of God. “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God” (John 8:42). The children of God have the natural disposition to love his Son.

Loving Jesus is also necessary because Paul says that if you don’t love Jesus, you will be cursed: “If anyone has no love for the Lord, let him be accursed” (1 Corinthians 16:22). Loving Jesus is an essential (not optional) mark of being a beneficiary of God’s grace. “Grace be with all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with love incorruptible” (Ephesians 6:24). If you hold fast to the love of anything above Jesus, you are not his disciple: “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37).

Loving Jesus is not the same as obeying all of Jesus’ commands. Jesus said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). That means that obedience to the commandments is the result of loving Jesus, not the same as loving Jesus. Love is something invisible and inside. It is the root that produces the visible fruit of loving others.

So here at the beginning of 2009, I join James Morgan in saying, “I love Jesus Christ.”

And as I say it, I want to make clear what I mean:

• I admire Jesus Christ more than any other human or angelic being.
• I enjoy his ways and his words more than I enjoy the ways and words of anyone else.
• I want his approval more than I want the approval of anyone else.
• I want to be with him more than I want to be with anyone else.
• I feel more grateful to him for what he has done for me than I do to anyone else.
• I trust his words more fully than I trust what anyone else says.
• I am more glad in his exaltation than in the exaltation of anyone else, including me.

Would you pray with me that in 2009 we would love Jesus Christ more than we ever have? And may our Lord Jesus grant that from time to time we would deliver quietly and naturally a thunderclap into the hearts of others with the simple words, “I love Jesus Christ.”

“Though you have not seen him, you love him. Though you do not now see him, you believe in him and rejoice with joy that is inexpressible and filled with glory” (1 Peter 1:8).

If Christ Predicted War, May Christians Pray for Peace?

By John Piper


I ask this question because some Bible-believing Christians feel that prayer for peace in these "last days" would be contrary to God's will, since Jesus said, "When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. This must take place, but the end is not yet" (Mark 13:7). If war "must take place," how can you pray for peace without opposing God?

Our prayers should be guided by what is morally right for men to do, not by what God, in his sovereign providence, may will to take place. Rarely, if ever, should we pray for moral evil to take place, but God may will that moral evil prevail for a season. For example: 1) God willed that Christ be crucified. Many of the necessary acts involved in crucifying Christ were morally evil. Therefore, God willed that this moral evil prevail for a season (Acts 2:23; 4:27-28). 2) God willed that Joseph's brothers sell him into slavery in Egypt, even though this was evil for them to do (Genesis 50:20). 3) And God ordains the sinful ravages of the end times (Revelation 17:17).

In other words, God ordains and predicts that moral evil prevail for certain seasons, but this does not mean we should pray for moral evil to happen. We should pray according to the way God has commanded us to live - in righteousness and love. We should pray that God's will be done on earth the way it's done in heaven by the perfectly holy angels (Matthew 6:10), not the way it's done on earth through the agency of sinful men.

In fact, Paul teaches us to pray for peace among nations for the sake of the gospel. The crucial text relating to prayer and peace is 1 Timothy 2:1-4. "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

Notice the link between praying for 1) national leaders, 2) the preservation of peace and order, and 3) the "desire for all to be saved." There is a connection between 1) national leadership, 2) peace, and 3) evangelism and missions. It is true that the church may grow in times of hostilities and war. But it is also true that wars have devastated the church in many areas. It is not our business to decide the sovereign purpose of God in ordaining that some wars happen. Our business is to pray that justice, peace, and the proclamation of the gospel prevail. Our business is to pray that the Christian church not be complicit in national affairs as if nation and church were one. Ours is to pray that the church be seen as aliens in the cause of Christ-exalting love and justice with no supreme allegiances to any nation.

This leaves open the possibility that Christians might support a just war. God has given to the governing authorities the right to bear the sword (Romans 13:1-6). There are occasions when justice and love painfully call for military force for the sake of opposing aggression or liberating the oppressed. In such cases our prayers would be for the minimizing of misery and the speedy triumph of justice and the restraint of animosities and cruelties.

So let us pray for the love and wisdom and courage and power and fruitfulness of the church of Jesus Christ around the world. Let us plead that she would be distinct from all the nations and all the national and ethnic manifestations of pride. Let us plead that she would be a peace-making presence of salt and light everywhere. And that she would be unafraid to call every nation into question for the sake of justice and humility. And that Jesus Christ would be magnified as no national deity, but as Lord of lords and King of kings. And let us pray that all lords and all kings see this and humble themselves and make way for the Lord of glory.

Bailout Generation

By Debra Saunders
12/11/08

For eight years, Democrats have hurled all manner of criticism at President Bush. Some of the heat was well deserved, some was not.

Either way, it is about to be their turn to be held to the standards they held for Bush -- and they are not prepared. I saw a taste of the future at the Democratic convention in Denver, when Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., sat down with journalists to discuss the now President-elect Barack Obama's economic plan. In light of an anticipated $482 billion deficit -- how quaint that humble number seems today -- I asked Stabenow, how can Obama propose a tax cut and more spending?

Her answer: "The first question is: How do you do a tax cut and fight a war, which is what George Bush did." Funny thing. Stabenow seemed genuinely and completely oblivious to the fact that her nominee was campaigning daily on a platform that promised a tax cut for 95 percent of American families, while he pledged to beef up the U.S. presence in the war in Afghanistan. Sounds like a tax cut during a war to me.

And now, after Obama spent the silly season saying he would rescind the Bush tax cuts on families earning more than $250,000, Obama is rethinking the issue. Sunday he said on "Meet the Press," "My economic team right now is examining, do we repeal that through legislation? Do we let it lapse so that, when the Bush tax cuts expire, they're not renewed when it comes to wealthiest Americans? We don't yet know what the best approach is going to be."

That is, there could be a new tax cut and old tax cuts while America is fighting two wars -- without Bush in the Oval Office.

It makes you wonder: Did Democrats not believe what they said on the campaign trail in 2008? Or did they believe what they said then, but they've moved away from their core beliefs because they'll do anything and spend any amount of other people's money to retain power?

They complained that Bush gave tax cuts to corporations. Now that they are in charge of Congress, Democrats are raiding the cookie jar so that they can toss cookies to favored industries. Note the proposed emergency credit line of $15 billion for Detroit's Big Three. (Credit Bush, by the way, for insisting that the money come from an existing program.)

Blame Bush for the $700 billion bailout bill -- which Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid inflated by another $110 billion. Obama promised "change you can believe in." Here it is: Earlier this year, Obama proposed a $50 billion stimulus package, which grew to $175 bil before Election Day. Now the proposed price tag is reported to be $700 billion -- with well-wishers suggesting a $1 trillion package.

The bailout mentality is growing -- as is the list of people who believe they should be recipients. It's not just the auto companies who want to follow greedy investment houses. State governments want in. Experts are calling for billion-dollar infrastructure projects -- I guess because state governments weren't spending on infrastructure.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, proposed redistributing the unspent $350 billion in Bush bailout money by suspending federal payroll taxes for two months. It's a bad idea, in that the last stimulus package failed to stimulate the economy as hoped. It makes the entire country look like the Wal-Mart shoppers who crushed to death a Long Island temporary worker in their rush for a bargain.

So where is Barack Obama? Sure, I know many readers will jerk their knees and blame Bush. It's a freebie. But after a while, the public may start to wonder: Where's the responsibility now?

dsaunders@sfchronicle.com