http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565076,00.html
I’m more than just a little conflicted on this topic. Both arguments have merit.
Barack Obama is very pro-choice. Rick Waren is very pro-life. Aids is an important topic to the secular community with a heart, and Rick Warren is trying desperately to remind the evangelicals that they have a heart and should care about this as well. (I acknowledge that other evangelicals have been hitting this topic as well)
Speaking out for the disenfranchised in the poorer countries of the world is logically inconsistent with being pro-choice because you are ignoring the most disenfranchised group of people there are. The unborn ones that can’t speak for themselves.
But logically inconsistent positions are held all the time by the majority of evangelicals (the pro-death penalty vs. the pro-life stance comes to my mind…but there are of course others).
And, holding a logically inconsistent position in one area does not negate experience in wisdom in another area. Also, the aids in Africa problem is not something that American evangelicals, or even worldwide Christians are likely going to be able to improve without the assistance of our secular leaning section of the population.
Also, there is the bridge-building aspects of the idea of bring in Obama to the church to speak on the topic.
So, I probably think that the positives outweigh the negatives. It will appear as if Warren is somehow condoning Obama’s opinions on abortion despite the fact that Warren is not brining him in to speak on abortion. But on the plus side it will also give the people watching the understanding that despite our religious differences, there are ways, politically and socially, to work together for a common goal.
And if there is anything I think our country could use right now, it is a good dose of unity on important issues revolving around extreme poverty and curable diseases.