OBAMA HOLDS THE DOOR AS RICK WARREN POURS THE WINE

After reading the onslaught of email that has been sent to me since Rick Warren was announced as Obama's choice to deliver the invocation, I have to sound another trumpet blast as the other trumpets are blaring.

I have observed many heated blog discussions about the Obama's selection of Rick Warren as the invocation speaker. Many ask: Why is Obama allowing a range of representatives from the American constituency to participate in the inauguration ceremonies? Why isn't Obama shutting off access to those who express views that he doesn't support?

They think that shutting out everyone who doesn't think like we do is the wisest political strategy to undertake?

Is there a Christian minister in this country who is pro-abortion and pro-life, anti-gay rights and pro-gay rights, pro-gay marriage and anti-gay marriage? Is there another minister Obama should have chosen whose views will appease every group in the nation who voted for him?

Why Rick? He was named one of "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America" by Time Magazine and has an enormous following worldwide. It was not shocking to me that Obama's advisory team placed Rick on the list of possible invitees. It is often assumed that Rick's core following is the white American conservative Christian. For the last twenty years, Rick Warren has been seeking to build a support base among the black, Latino and Asian moderates in the Christian community. He's made substantial progress on all fronts. His Pastors.com web site provides more free resources than any other ministry web site in the entire country.

Rick Warren is the keynote speaker at Martin Luther King, Jr. Annual Commemorative Service that is scheduled for January 19, 2009 at Ebenezer Baptist Church and is included in the official program of the ten-day King Center’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration which begins on January 10th. He can put a check mark on his target list for scoring that coup: National media coverage and photos with respected black leaders.

Political strategists measure the expected level of support and the level of opposition for every decision announced by the President-Elect.
How many gays and lesbians will be outraged?
How many Christian progressives will be outraged?
How many pro-choice radicals will be outraged?
How many women will be outraged?
They identify the groups that will be outraged, estimate how long the outrage will last and identify the probable actions that will result from the outraged groups.

These political strategists knew that the outrage that would result from Rick Warren's participation would not have a lasting impact on Obama's approval rating. Political and religious commentators would debate each other on t.v., editorialists would write about the reactions of different segments of Obama's support base, while bloggers would have rant sessions. Meanwhile, there is no collective strategy that results in any type of punitive action by any of the outraged groups.

These political strategists aren't phased at all by the outcry from the black electorate. Everyone knows that Obama received 80% of the black vote while promising black voters absolutely nothing for their loyalty. Obama's team knows that it doesn't matter if black voters lodge complaints because there is a large segment of the black electorate that will unconditionally support Obama's re-election. Everyone knows the black electorate doesn't have a national strategy in place to hold politicians accountable.

Over the last few days, I have read blog discussions in which black bloggers were expressing outrage about the implications of Rick Warren's enhanced global credibility, post-inauguration. They are concerned that world leaders will pay close attention to who has received the endorsement of the new president. Whether Obama wants to admit it or not, we all know that an invitation gives the perception of endorsement. The political maneuvering of Rick Warren has reached its zenith as he declares "checkmate!" and takes the podium. He's hardly surprised that he has seized center stage. He has been building his platform for three decades.

The Obama who now answers his critics by saying "everyone's voice should be heard" is the same Obama who sternly denounced his own pastor when white people decided that his pastor's views about the U.S. government were offensive, and decided to be offended that blacks at his church focused on the problems of the black community by outlining an agenda.

The Obama victory was a case study in how white people are willing to bake, glaze and package cosmetic racial progress - as long as everyone follows their rules on their game board.

Obama distanced himself from the esteemed black spiritual leader whose views intimidated white people - but now Obama says he's "open to dialogue" with the esteemed white spiritual leader who offends gays and progressives. What happened to the Obama who distanced himself from anyone whose views were divisive?

The church and the state are odd bed fellows.

Over the years, I have watched how power is being bartered among the spiritual leaders who have a national following.

Rather unexpectedly, I was quickly brought into a global ministry conglomerate to work as a papal scribe for a well-connected televangelist. I was not impressed with him and had not paid much attention to his ministry, although I knew that his ministry was operating throughout the world. I quickly learned that this bishop had political connections throughout the world. He has had private dinners with several heads of state in order to give "spiritual counsel". He can tap into contacts at The World Bank and the United Nations. The general public doesn't realize how often these televangelists are part of the private conversations in corridors of power.

This summer, I was contacted by a televangelist who asked me to write devotional material for a head-of-state. After I sent it to him, he got on a plane and hand-delivered it. All of this took place away from the media. Do you think this head-of-state won't invite him to a ceremony?

These strategic inroads are crafted skillfully. It is clear to me that the church has chosen to have many one-night-stands with the state. At times, the church is the well-paid and pampered mistress who has no intention of demanding marriage.

There are many speculations about which spiritual leader will be the spokesperson for American Christianity. While other members of the clergy are sitting on the sidelines making speculations, the spiritual leaders who are focused on dominance are well into the implementation of their strategy. There are many t.v. preachers who hire public relations strategists and political experts. No one takes the political spotlight without a strategy. Rick Warren's invitation to participate was not a fluke. His presidential forum was part of his strategy and was not an idea that popped into his head during the campaign.

Read his web site and you'll see that Rick Warren is interested in making sure that his ministry's message has "the largest participation", "the widest distribution", "the longest continuation", "the fastest expansion" and "the simplest administration" (substitute "shrewdest").

Rick Warren told Ann Curry in a Dateline interview that with one mouse click, he can send a message to 250,000 pastors in 163 countries.

The marketing strategy of his conglomerate is astounding. The P.E.A.C.E. plan uses this slogan: "Ordinary people empowered by God making a difference together wherever they are." Sounds inclusive, doesn't it?

There are several expansive initiatives that Rick Warren has launched that have had a phenomenal impact on those in need. I believe that the Purpose-Driven series that Rick Warren (and others) developed is a tremendous resource to churches.

Rick Warren has not kept his political platform a secret.

I see many global ministry leaders adopting a three-fold strategy:
- a humanitarian focus,
- an apostolic focus, and
- a political focus.

Why is Rick Warren controversial?

Rick Warren is against homosexuality/lesbianism in the body of Christ. He's not hunting down gays and lesbians in society but he would prefer that they join someone else's church.

Rick Warren is against gay marriage legislation and believes that marriage is defined as a heterosexual covenant. He is against "redefinition of marriage".

Rick Warren is against abortion.

Rick Warren is against stem cell research.

Rick Warren is pro AIDS/HIV advocacy.

Rick Warren is pro Africa outreach for humanitarian aid. (It's now in vogue for preachers to openly care about Africa while staying silent about wars financed by U.S. corporations.)

Many bloggers have insisted that Rick Warren is not supportive of women in ministerial roles and that he is not supportive of women in church leadership. Someone better tell him that his wife is a woman because she helped him start his church and now leads a global ministry that he financed. She is publishing books and preaching to crowds all over the world. Her husband mentions her ministry work everywhere he goes.

Over a year ago, I sat and listened to a t.v. preacher tell the crowd: "Overnight my message went into 1,000 countries". I learned that this happened because of a restructuring of a television network merger. Do you think that the politicians have nothing to do with network mergers? The church and the state make odd bed fellows.

At times, I am annoyed when I hear black women complaining about the shenanigans of others who are methodically executing successful (and dubious) strategies. We fail to shut down the opponents' strategies when they are set in motion...but later we scream about their success.

When will we decide to hunt down political weapons before they are unleashed? Must we always show up late?

I have lost count of the number of times that I have heard my ministry colleagues railing against the "show biz" preachers who are "fleecing the flock". Just when does that outrage translate into collective action? I don't silence the voices of protest but I silence the ranting and raving that yields no tangible strategy.

Where is the blueprint? I see many blog rant sessions that continue for days...calls to action announced...and no one in the conversation has introduced a blueprint. I want to invite the participants of this think tank to think about the blueprint that is necessary.

It seems that there are so many esteemed members of the black clergy who claim to be so politically-astute and so knowledgeable about the maneuvers of the Religious Right. I must ask: "Just how has the Religious Right gained so much ground under your watch?"

I know a CEO who regularly has lunch with members of the media. There are high profile celebrity preachers who have alliances with different media outlets. Do you think that certain people just "happen" to be invited to give their opinions on t.v. while others are not?

Rick Warren has allies in places that you would not expect. These men who have multi-million ministry conglomerates implement a global strategy and have public allies and invisible allies. I was told explicitly by a well-known spiritual leader that he viewed me as a "secret weapon" in his matrix.

There is a huge difference between the expansion of power baseis and the identification of proteges within ministry networks.

There is a huge difference between the expansion of power bases and the cultivation of supporters of our ministry.

There is a huge difference between the expansion of power bases and the initiation of friendship networks in the ministry.

The expansion of power bases usually requires that we engage with our detractors in order to disarm them and establish a bartering system with them. Very few leaders will admit that they engage with their opponents with the intention of bartering power chips.

Several months ago, I wrote a post about "Black Women and The Redefinition of Power" because too many of us are content to gain access to circles of influence. We don't strategize for dominance. Take a look at the black church construct that is financed by black women and controlled by black men. There is not one major black denomination that is led by a woman. Look at the conference agenda of women in ministry conferences. You probably will not find that there are sessions planned that focus on tactical strategy to train women in ministry leadership how to construct blueprints that will enable black women to dominate the most crucial spheres of influence.

It is disturbing to me to hear black women crying "foul!" every time we are out-maneuvered. We need to master the game board. I am not justifying underhanded tactics and back door strategies, but we need to proactively plan to address underhanded tactics and back door strategies.

The expansion of the strategy of Rick Warren requires deep pockets, even if these ministry leaders want to pretend that they accomplish everything that they do on a shoe-string budget and "Kumbaya". What's in the war chest, sistas?

This case study of Rick Warren and his march into the White House has many valuable lessons that we can't ignore.

Pundit Sarah Posner wrote, "Obama had thousands of clergy to choose from, and the choice of Warren is not only a slap in the face to progressive ministers toiling on the front lines of advocacy and service but a bow to the continuing influence of the religious right in American politics. Warren vocally opposes gay marriage, does not believe in evolution, has compared abortion to the Holocaust and backed the assassination of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

Black women have fought long and hard for inclusion. Many of us have made inclusion the highest goal. Over time, we decided that we wanted inclusion and equality. We accepted a few convoluted distortions and began to embrace cosmetic equality as an acceptable substitute. This acceptance of cosmetic equality as a measurement of social progress became a decoy that was used by those who wanted to keep our focus off of dominance.

We were invited to the table. We were happy to see a name tag at the table that validated our sense of belonging. We were grinned at and complimented for the "progress" we made by sitting at the table. We accepted pats on the back for being "symbols" of cosmetic equality.

By the time we notice what's happening, the feast is over, the dessert has been served and we are sitting before an empty plate. Dominance is the dessert that others savor, that we do not partake of.

Many lessons must be grasped as we watch Rick Warren capitalize upon his latest political coup. A most important lesson to begin with: Let's stop showing up late for dinner and complaining that we didn't have any dessert.