As the inauguration of President-elect Barack Obama approaches, every single detail of the ceremony has come under intense scrutiny from supporters and critics alike. Of all the minor controversies that have broken out thus far, the selection of Rick Warren, who has been described as “the most prominent evangelical preacher of the post-Billy Graham generation,” to deliver the invocation at this historic event has been by far the most publicized. While some have charged that Obama is merely pandering to the Religious Right, the truth is that Warren’s selection symbolizes Obama’s hopes to move into a post-partisan dialogue for believers and skeptics alike.

There is no doubt that the Religious Right is a powerful force in American politics. Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska is merely the latest in a long series of political leaders who have exemplified its outspoken and often divisive stands on issues such as gay marriage and abortion. Since the founding of the Moral Majority in 1979, the GOP has managed to link political and religious conservatives in a surprisingly successful electoral strategy based on these “wedge” issues. But in turn, the rise of the Religious Right has deepened the gulf between secularists and believers.

It hasn’t always been this way. Throughout American history, evangelical Christianity and more progressive political movements have often found themselves intertwined. During the nineteenth century, many who believed in a literal and inerrant interpretation of Scripture fought for an agenda of social progress, including the abolition of slavery and women’s equality. But ever since the late 1970s—when the IRS declined to grant tax-free status to fundamentalist Bob Jones University—many evangelical leaders have become increasingly conservative in their political demands. As a result, in recent years, “religious” has become synonymous with the aims of a few influential leaders in the Republican Party.

But these religious leaders cannot claim to speak for all Christians. Much of their agenda is either extra-scriptural or plainly illogical. For example, the parts of the Bible that pro-life activists cite to justify their cause are not explicit and can often be interpreted in different ways. “Of course, nothing addresses abortion directly,” concedes Willem A. VanGemeren, a professor of the Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Nor have the champions of the Religious Right bothered to explain how their support for the death penalty or the tragically costly War in Iraq lines up with the Ten Commandments.

Thankfully, some evangelicals—including Warren, the author of “The Purpose-Driven Life”—have tried to change the tone of the debate. In 2004 the National Association of Evangelicals created the “Evangelical Call to Civic Responsibility,” which focused on social issues like poverty, AIDS, human rights, and the health of the environment. Other evangelicals—who believe just as strongly in the injunctions of Jesus Christ—have become eloquent spokesmen for the cause of peace.

If anything, these “new” evangelicals—who may care more about the plight of those suffering from AIDS than the legal ramifications of the latest court case on same-sex marriage—are practicing their faith in a very real way. After all, the Bible is much more forthright and adamant on issues such as peace and poverty than abortion or sexual orientation. As Duke Divinity School professor Richard B. Hays says, “Let us stop fighting one another, for a season, about issues of sexuality, so that we can focus on what God is saying to the church about our complicity in the violence that is the deepest moral crisis of our time.”

Indeed, there may be a deeper significance to Obama’s selection of Warren. The President-elect’s recent selection of openly gay Episcopal bishop V. Gene Robinson to give an inaugural prayer suggests that his invitation to Warren is one of mere courtesy, not an endorsement of the evangelical leader’s political views. In fact, there may be a distinct policy perogative at stake—winning younger evangelicals over to a more progressive position on gay rights. And there is reason for such hope as, despite Biblical injunctions, younger evangelicals are becoming more liberal on these so-called “family-values” issues.

By reaching out to evangelicals on these broader economic and social issues, secular liberals can create a much larger coalition behind a progressive agenda, and evangelicals can feel like they are not compromising the Biblical roots of their faith. In doing so, they should follow the example set by Edward O. Wilson, Pellegrino University Research Professor Emeritus, who has argued forcefully for the inclusion of environmental issues in any evangelical policy agenda. Given the importance of Barack Obama’s inauguration to the entire country, his selection of Warren is an encouraging sign. While Warren’s stances on social issues might understandably alienate some of the President-elect’s supporters, our new president should not waste any time before tackling critical issues like climate change and poverty reduction. Beyond that, a new outreach program may help liberals and progressives to persuade the younger generation of evangelicals to moderate their stance on the divisive but important issues of abortion and gay marriage. Those who criticize Warren’s selection are missing a valuable opportunity.


Rachel A. Stark ’11, a Crimson news writer, is a Social Studies concentrator in Currier House.