Sally Quinn on Rick Warren

[Marcia]

This was an editorial today in the Washington Post on Obama's selection of Rick Warren and how it might have been a good thing because it may have turned RW towards accepting gay civil unions (Quinn's thoughts, not mine).

I was surprised by this part:

Etheridge nearly canceled her appearance at an event with Ahmad last month when she learned Warren was to speak there. Instead, though, she called Warren. He told her he was a big fan and owned most of her albums, she later said. He told her that "every loving relationship should have equal protection" and that he regretted his choice of words in his video message to his congregation about Proposition 8. He invited Etheridge to his church, and she invited him to her home. "This didn't sound like a gay hater, much less a preacher," Etheridge wrote later.

.....And Obama's move is already yielding results: Warren has taken down the anti-gay material from his Web site and has essentially come out in favor of civil unions.

.....In the end, it seems that Obama's choice was brilliant -- good for gays, good for the country and good for him. Who knows? Perhaps in a few years, Pastor Rick Warren will have another epiphany . . . and may eventually be officiating at same-sex wedding ceremonies.

Source
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/19/AR2009011902374_pf.html

 

[dcorbett]

This writer might be right. Rick Warren is already a compromising fool.

 

[rbell]

This writer might be right. Rick Warren is already a compromising fool.

I don't guess you believe the "thou fool" admonition given by Jesus.

Pardon me, but your hatred (and ignorance) is showing.

 

[windcatcher]

I don't know!

It sounds like an opinion piece and who is Sally Quinn?
Her conclusions sound in sympathy if not open support of the homos@xual agenda.

As for Warren, I hope what some are perceiving as getting soft or compromise is nothing more than compassion for the lost.

We often fail to realize in our walk with God and before others, we have an obligation to cling to that which is right and pure and true: We are also ambassodors of God to a lost and dying world: The world is not aware or refuses to believe in God's judgement...... therefore the love of God compells us to warn them: But God is the one who has appointed the time of judgement and is the judge..... and, as his ambassadors, we must present his gift to all who will receive. It is a tight wire that a Christian walks who wants to win souls; yes it is said he who winneth souls is wise.... and only in the power of the Holy Spirit can one walk that tight wire of showing and conveying compassion and remain uncompromised.

Pray for Rick Warren. The more he is given, the more will be required. The world will require its due for what it perceives as its recognition and God has his expectations for the conduct of the servant to whom he's bestowed with opportunity.

As Christians, we have a foremost obligation, more than that of being critical, and that is to love one another and to pray for one another: The more so when we realize one is entering the arena.

Indeed, we need more Daniels!

 

[webdog]

I don't guess you believe the "thou fool" admonition given by Jesus.

Pardon me, but your hatred (and ignorance) is showing.

Don't worry, he only drive by posts on these RW threads on occasion.:BangHead:

 

[webdog]

This was an editorial today in the Washington Post on Obama's selection of Rick Warren and how it might have been a good thing because it may have turned RW towards accepting gay civil unions (Quinn's thoughts, not mine).

I was surprised by this part:

Source
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/19/AR2009011902374_pf.html

Just goes to show that anything can be twisted for any purpose. How Quinn could have come to this conclusion shows she approached the prayer with her own agenda and presuppositions of what "acceptance" entails.

 

[Aaron]

Quoted by Marcia:
.....And Obama's move is already yielding results: Warren has taken down the anti-gay material from his Web site and has essentially come out in favor of civil unions.

I know Warren came out if favor of civil unions, but as I don't frequent his website I was wondering if the former is true.

BTW, I'm not surprised.

 

[Ps104_33]

The Church is constantly moving to the left. Either you are steadfast in your Biblical beliefs and stay put or you move along left-ward with the rest of the weak and luke-warm compromisers.
staying on a narrow road is not easy and it is never popular and it is sometimes awfully lonely.

 

[Aaron]

. . . almost takes the reproach away from Fred Phelps.

 

[Aaron]

The Church is constantly moving to the left. Either you are steadfast in your Biblical beliefs and stay put or you move along left-ward with the rest of the weak and luke-warm compromisers.
staying on a narrow road is not easy and it is never popular and it is sometimes awfully lonely.

John 5:44. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?

I heard a speaker say in reference to this verse, "And 'only' rhymes with 'lonely.'"

 

[Jim1999]

Sometimes it is not a matter of coming out "in favourof" civil unions. If it is mandated by law then it is law and we have to accept that. In Canada, however, we got together as evangelical ministers and petitioned government, who controls weddings, and had them change the designations as "civil unions" and "marriage". Further, we petitions government to include that as ministers we not be required by law to perform weddings for anyone who comes to us to perform weddings. This our government accepted and added it to the law.

By the way, weddings come under federal and provincial jurisdiction in Canada. We are in essence civil servants.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[webdog]

I know Warren came out if favor of civil unions, but as I don't frequent his website I was wondering if the former is true.

BTW, I'm not surprised.

Source??..

 

[Steven2006]

IMO it appears that Warren's desire to be popular and well liked has placed him in the situation where he often chooses his words based on how they are going to be received by others. I'm sure his heart is in the right place, but sadly I think his desire to be popular has weakened the way he stands for God's standards.

 

[gb93433]

The Church is constantly moving to the left. Either you are steadfast in your Biblical beliefs and stay put or you move along left-ward with the rest of the weak and luke-warm compromisers.
staying on a narrow road is not easy and it is never popular and it is sometimes awfully lonely.

Those who are on the narrow path are also part of the church of Jesus Christ. History records how some strayed from the faith and returned too, while others were never of the fold.

I do not find very many among those who claim to believe the Bible actually do in terms of practice. They will say they do, but it is nothing more than a good sounding statement but has no real substance.

 

[Marcia]

IMO it appears that Warren's desire to be popular and well liked has placed him in the situation where he often chooses his words based on how they are going to be received by others. I'm sure his heart is in the right place, but sadly I think his desire to be popular has weakened the way he stands for God's standards.

I agree.

I posted what I did (btw, Sally Quinn is liberal) because I don't think a well-known columnist (and she is well-known) would write that without any reason.

I was hoping someone would know if RW removed that stuff from his website and/or if he has spoken in favor of civil unions, or seemed open to it.

 

[dcorbett]

I see nothing about marriage on his website(rickwarren.com) ....and I don't see the plan of salvation there either.

I went to his church website and see a plan of sorts....no where in the plan is a mention of a need to repent. If a person doesn't repent of sin, how can he or she be "saved" ??????

Warren is not a Baptist at all.

 

[Marcia]

This is from the Huffington Post.

Warren supports full rights and privileges for civil unions -- health and insurance benefits, visiting rights, etc. -- and has done so for some time. He simply does not want to alter a definition of marriage that has been supported in every culture and every religion for some 5,000 years. A large majority of Americans feel that way. Are they all "homophobes" or do they just have a conception of marriage different from that of gay activists?

Warren points out that no practical benefit for gays is involved in the Proposition 8 ruckus -- in California, all the benefits of marriage were extended to gays in 1999 under a domestic partnership law.

Does Warren really think gay unions are like incest? No. Talking to Steve Waldman of BeliefNet, Warren offered a list of partnerships that he doesn't believe qualify for the term "marriage": a committed boyfriend-girlfriend relationship, "a brother and sister being together, an older guy marrying a child and a guy having multiple wives."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-leo/rick-warren-and-gays_b_152166.html

 

[Marcia]

I went to the link at Belief Net and saw this. Apparently, people might have thought he was endorsing civil unions when he wasn't. Maybe this clears it up:

One controversial moment for you in the last election was your support for proposition 8 in California. … Just to clarify, do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?
I don’t know if I’d use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don’t believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.
[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the “right” to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It’s just not there. ]

What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?
You know, not a problem with me.
[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. If I am willing to pay for it, I should be able to put a friend, partner, relative, or stranger on my coverage. No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital. But visiting rights are a non-issue in California! Since 1999, California has had a domestic partnership law that grants gay couples visiting rights and all the other rights. Prop 8 had no –zero -effect on those rights.]

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2008/12/Rick-Warren-Transcript.aspx?p=7#gaymarriage

 

[Aaron]

Classic double-speak. "I'm for equal rights (meaning giving all the rights and privileges reserved for a legitimate spouse to ones homosexual lover), but the right to civil unions is not in the Constitution."

He's just trying to back peddle. Too late, Rick. The cat's out of the bag.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

The Church is constantly moving to the left. Either you are steadfast in your Biblical beliefs and stay put or you move along left-ward with the rest of the weak and luke-warm compromisers.
staying on a narrow road is not easy and it is never popular and it is sometimes awfully lonely.

Yeah, I imagine. What's it like living in 1509? :tongue3: