Reflections on the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency

Rick Warren shined as the moderator of a recent forum which featured the major candidates for US President this season, Barack Obama and John McCain. For transcripts of Warren’s interviews with the candidates, go here. For the videos, go here.

To the dismay of many who wish that born-again Christians kept their faith and their political opinions to themselves (see the Garrison Keillor quote below), here comes a Southern Baptist pastor who, besides making the cover of TIME magazine, organizes an event at the intersection of faith and politics which attracted enormous interest. 200,000 questions were pre-submitted by interested individuals. The resultant interviews were broadcast multiple times on both Fox and CNN. Do the math on this event and you cannot fail to get an idea of the immense soft power a figure like Pastor Rick Warren is able to wield in the current political climate.

In a sense, Warren is following in the footsteps of Billy Graham, another prominent evangelical who hobnobbed with the powerful. But he is doing more than Graham ever did in building bridges with people of both parties around issues of concern to many people of faith such as abortion; the definition of marriage; confronting evil in the world, if necessary, by military intervention; rules to apply in government funding of faith-based initiatives that address things like poverty, substance abuse, and disaster relief; the twin disasters of a low high school graduation rate and a sky-high incarceration rate, and so on.  

If the purpose of the forum was to show how revealing a discussion at the intersection of faith and politics can be, and how discussion along those lines can occur without being rude and without demonizing those who advocate approaches at variance with one’s own – Warren’s pro-life positions, defense of the traditional definition of marriage, support for US military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his hands-on emphasis on the need to address poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the persecution of believers around the world have never been in doubt – the forum was a smashing success.

A number of liberal opinion-makers are intent on minimizing the importance of born-again Christians as a religious phenomenon or a (split along racial lines) voting bloc. Said minimization is an exercise in smoke and mirrors and a luxury which politicians who want to be elected cannot afford. Barack Obama and John McCain knew what they were doing when they accepted Rick Warren’s invitation. By their candid willingness to speak about the intersection of faith and politics in their approach to life and decision-making, both candidates earned the respect of a very large number of Americans for whom the intersection is of decisive importance.

It goes without saying that, for most evangelicals, Obama’s answers on the issues of abortion and Supreme Court judges left much to be desired. McCain’s less than warm relations with the “Religious Right” quotient of the Republican party have also not been forgotten, but this will hurt McCain among evangelicals far less than is sometimes imagined. But the larger political point is quite different. Warren and many other evangelicals will continue to reach out to people in the political arena regardless of party affiliation. They will seek to make common cause and find common ground on a host of issues. It has not always been so. It’s a step in the right direction.

For another take, note Duane Smith’s (pre-event) comments. Amy Sullivan’s pre-event comments were insightful.  After the event, the number of comments favorable to the event and to Warren’s role in it from across the political spectrum have been very high. Here is one example; here is another. Here’s a fine discussion by E. J. Dionne.

Ann Althouse’s remarks are telling (she’s a UW-Madison law professor, and Obama supporter):

I can't think of anyone I've seen do a better job of probing prospective Presidents. He did a brilliant job of demonstrating the way and the extent to which religion belongs in politics. If Warren is to be the new face of Christian evangelism in America, we are experiencing a great advance.

Here is Garrison Keillor’s famous and funny sour-grapes remark, after evangelicals contributed once again to a Republican victory in national elections:

I’m trying to organize support for a constitutional amendment to deny voting rights to born-again Christians. I feel if your citizenship is in Heaven, like a born again Christian’s is, you should give up your citizenship. Sorry, but this is my new cause. If born again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?

Comments

[Jared]

I found Warren's balance, giving each candidate equal time, equal questions, and equal weight admirable. He clearly works well with people of different positions, whether they fully agree with him on all issues or not.

The actual candidates seemed less than interesting in their answers. Nothing much really surprising or new here.

Responding to the last bit posted (the alternative view), this country really only works because we all disagree with one another. Homogeneity in perspective will be the death of the democratic experiment in the U.S.

[JohnFH]

Jared,

Thank you first of all for your excellent blogging.

For people who follow politics closely, Obama and McCain's answers were not surprising. But for the majority of those who heard the answers, they learned a few things they will ponder all the way into the voting booth. As it should be.

[Ros]

Shined? Shone? Is that a US/UK thing?

[JohnFH]

Good one, Ros.

Here is what englishpage.com says:

With the verb shine, the form shined is preferred in everyday English, possibly because shone sounds too much like the form shown, which is the past participle of show. However, in Internet searches the form shone occurs quite frequently because of its use in literary English.

The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993) is more prescriptive:

This strong verb now has a full set of weak forms as well: past tense and past participle are each either shined or shone. There is some interchangeability in those forms, but there are also some semantic distinctions. It’s always He shined his shoes (never He shone his shoes), but it can be The sun shined all day, although The sun shone all day is more frequent. Nor is it simply the transitive/intransitive distinction that governs choice: transitive He shined his light into the cellar and He shone his light into the cellar are both acceptable (although British English uses shone almost exclusively in such sentences). Intransitive sentences can use either shined or shone, but shone is more prevalent, especially in Edited English, unless the meaning is “to polish”: His cheeks shone with embarrassment. With wax and elbow grease we shined all day.

Google "Kennedy shined" and "Kennedy shone" and watch what pops up, and in what sources. UK usage is uniformly in favor of "shone," or almost; usage here is divided.

[Alan Lenzi]

I didn't watch the debate because I don't get TV, but I saw some of the questions and read reports. One blog entry that struck me as particularly interesting was from the Washington Post blogger David Waters, who considers what Warren might better have asked (here). For example, instead of asking, Does evil exist and what do we do if it does (paraphrasing)?, Waters suggests this: "As Christians, how should we confront violent evil such as terrorism?" Instead of asking the candidates to "define rich," he might rather have asked, "As a Christian, define the difference between need and greed. How much is enough?"

Despite my mixed emotions about Warren doing this interview, at least he didn't pray for rain of biblical proportions on the night of one candidate's acceptance speech!

[Alan Lenzi]

Here's the rain link.

[Ros]

Thanks, John - that's one I didn't pink up one while I was there.

[JohnFH]

Alan,

I'm impressed by the fact that you don't get TV. In my household, we purposely don't get most channels, but even the major networks carry programs I wish my kids (and I) were never exposed to.

David Waters sounds good. Warren's "definition of rich" question was lame, sort of what I would expect from a well-to-do context in Orange County CA.

Ros,

I assume you meant "pick up on." However, "pink up on" might make an interesting neologism.

[Daniel]

John,

Thanks for the link to the full videos. I've enjoyed watching them. When I heard the "does evil exist" question, my mind went to Augustine, obviously the candidates did not... anyway. I was disappointed to see a really good idea perpetuate the two-party mentality of this political process. Why not include libertarian candidate Bob Barr? I'm sure he'll also be excluded from the debates, as third parties and independents always are. In fact, in an interview (on ABC I believe) Warren said that he is registered as an independent. It seems that this good idea would have been better had all voices been heard.