While Obama may have miscalculated the strength of the reaction to his decision, I suspect that feels that changing his mind that this point would only be worse for him politically, in the long run.  It could make him look weak and a prisoner of the "fringe activists" of the Democratic party if he backtracks now.

If Warren withdrew, claiming that he did not want to be cast as a divisive figure at the inauguration, it would give Obama the cover he needs, but I doubt Warren's ego will let that happen anyway.  (I have no doubt that he is as stoked about his brush with the inner circles of power as Dobson was during Bush's terms.)

Probably the best that can come of the controversy is:

a) Rick Warren is exposed to the wider public as the religious right's wolf in sheep's clothing.  

b) feeling the heat, Obama decides to bring forward some policy moves that materially benefit the gay community in some way.

The bottom line is, that although it's not a great decision for Obama to be starting out with, in the end it's only a symbolic gesture.  Unless we have misread Obama completely, he still intends to carry out his campaign promises to do away with DADT and act on the FOCA legislation.  As long as he keeps those commitments, then I really couldn't care less if he throws the other side a symbolic bone every now and then.

by tacitus on Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 08:05:08 PM EST

C. Peter Wagner was Rick Warren's dissertation advisor at Fuller Theological Seminary.  I have a copy of his dissertation (anyone at a college or university with access to ProQuest Digital Dissertations can get it) and it is an early draft of Purpose Driven Church.  Warren also cited Wagner and several of his other compatriots in a complimentary manner in his tome.  So it's not just coincidence that Warren chose Wagner as his advisor.  While others have examined Peter Drucker's influence on Warren's thought, not many have examined Wagner's.

Christian discernment groups critical of the Purpose Driven and New Apostolic Reformation Movements have noted that Warren's PEACE plan is nothing more than dominionism in very poor disguise.  While on the surface Warren's fighting the AIDS epidemic seems laudatory, in many ways I think it is similar to the NAR's position on spiritual warfare (like Transformations).  Rid the earth of evil (since they're like gods they can do that) and Christ will come back.... and/or they will take over the earth for Christ by proxy.

I voted for Obama because I was beyond scared of Palin, but his "Joshua Generation" initiative toward young evangelicals gave me pause since it reminded me of NAR/Joels Army groups also targeting youth, as it did dogemperor.  I excused it away as a reference to this generation of African Americans and Americans in general who are able to enter the "promised land" opened up by MLK and the Civil Rights movement.  But his selection of Warren to give the inaugural invocation makes me wonder about that again.

by ulyankee on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 11:02:45 AM EST

I would be fine with reaching out to those biconceptuals among the political Right, and the Religious conservative followers who have many progressive ideas, and bring them in ON those progressive ideas. However eliminationism as ideology, particularly from leaders of the far right does not deserve homage in symbol or reality and can only serve to muddy and make equal positive change and unacceptable regressiveness, and  negotiating between the two starting at the halfway point.

Even that would be a lot more acceptable if there actually was a Leftish list as a subset of the many appointments, but except for areas like conservation where there is broad support across the spectrum, the list is stunningly slanted to Corporate support.

There is a lot of work that needs doing, and unless Obama shows a lot more respect for his base he might see an insurgency in his own party even before the next election.

by FreeDem on Fri Dec 19, 2008 at 12:20:41 PM EST