America California Christianity/Religion Church Conferences/Seminars Culture Life Political insight Social

Hillary Clinton Speaks at Saddleback

I was interested to read a few hours ago that on Thursday Hillary Clinton was the keynote speaker at Saddleback Church in Irvine, CA. where Rick Warren is the pastor. The occasion was the third annual Global AIDS Summit. It seems a strange mix: a church, a pastor whose teachings include those against abortion and against homosexual activity, and a Presidential candidate who is a strong homosexual rights advocate, and who is pro-abortion.

CLINTON SPEAKS AT AIDS SUMMIT (Picture from Orange County Register)

On more than one occasion, I have discussed with my friends and family just who should stand behind the pulpit of a church. Should those be allowed whose convictions and ethics are diametrically opposed to the pastor’s–the leader of the church? Should all churches be open to politicians so that the congregations would be well informed and thus be more likely to vote? Does the nature of the venue make a difference? Is it an extenuating circumstance that the occasion where Mrs. Clinton spoke was not a regular church service, but was a summit on AIDS?

In the main, I believe the thrust of a church should be that of a spiritual nature. Although I’m quite aware that there may be no two persons who interpret everything in life and in the Bible exactly the same, it seems logical that speakers in a local church would reflect the ethics and ideals of the pastor who is leading the congregation. I find it difficult to understand how Pastor Rick Warren can invite a person into his pulpit who has a philosophy that would allow the sucking out the brains of a fully formed baby in a procedure called “partial birth abortion.” I am puzzled to consider how a pastor could invite a speaker to his church who is an advocate for homosexual rights when he personally considers the Bible to teach against such activities.

If Pastor Warren felt strongly about inviting political candidates to his summit, I believe it would have been better had he selected a municipal building to conduct these meetings. I do commend him for his work on relieving AIDS around the world.

Any thoughts?


My devotional blog is here.

By Shirley Buxton

Still full of life and ready to be on the move, Shirley at 83 years old feels blessed to have lots of energy and to be full of optimism. She was married to Jerry for 63 years, and grieves yet at his death in August of 2019. They have 4 children, 13 grandchildren and 11 great-grandchildren...all beautiful and highly intelligent--of course. :)

20 replies on “Hillary Clinton Speaks at Saddleback”

I have to wonder what Rick Warren was thinking. In my mind I want to believe that he was praying for an opportunity to be a witness to Hillary. Even though this may be true would you want her at your pulpit in your church? If there is anyway that Rick Warren could respond to all of us that do not understand him I wish that you could get him to respond to all of us. When I think of Hillary Clinton I think of a woman who will sacrifice almost anything to get to where she wants to be. Is this the type of person you want at your pulpit? Why not bring someone who is in the midst of helping Aids victims that have first hand of what is going on. Please try to get his thoughts on this because this definitely changes my view of Rick Warren without an understanding of it.


Sis. Buxton:
This is my third attempt at bring my perspective to this article. I have boiled it down to two points.
One, those who stand behind the desk of God’s anointing should be those called to that place. I am a very firm believer that the Holy Desk should not be used as or for political advantage or political use.
Two, did Mrs. Clinton used this meeting to advance her political position. Did she use a congregation to portray herself as something that she has not portrayed in her life style, a christian?




Thank you for your comments concerning your esteem of the things of God.


Tonight you have taught me a new word: Heterodox nonconformist, dissenting, dissident, rebellious, renegade; heretical, blasphemous, recusant, apostate, skeptical; freethinking, unconventional.



Every organizaiton, including secular ones, has a certain mission and purpose, and they rarely invite speakers whose views are at odds with their own mission and purpose. That’s just reasonable. If one has a certain objective, one doesn’t want to support people who oppose that objective.

I don’t know what this church was thinking. I’m pretty sure that they could do great work in the area of AIDS prevention without inviting heterodox people to a summit.


Good morning, Karen–

Some people agree with your observations; others do not. When a church merely advertises on television, they are not watching the objectionable material. Some people feel quite strongly and sincerely that the medium of television can be used to win people to God, and that we should use every means we can to do that.
Others of course object to that.

Have a great Sunday.


I agree with your sentiments. By the same token, if a church organization does not believe in its members owning a television but yet they have sanctioned advertising on it (The T.V.), doesn’t that too seem like a double standard?


Thanks to all of you who have commented here on this important subject.

Paul wrote in the 13th chapter of Hebrews: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.”

While the word pastor is not used here, it seems clear that Paul was speaking of pastors’ watching over their “flock,” and that one day pastors would give account for their people.

Although of course the Bible teaches us individually to study–and well we should follow that admonition–it is clear in Scripture that preachers-pastors are set in the church to lead us. We certainly should pray for them that God gives them wisdom to speak His Truth, and to lead us into righteousness.

…which leads to my original statement: “I am puzzled to consider how a pastor could invite a speaker to his church who is an advocate for homosexual rights when he personally considers the Bible to teach against such activities. “


I have a problem with having someone coming into the pulpit that is so opposite of what we stand for and teach in our churches. I understand wanting to reach out to the community and help in various projects. But I don’t think that we should condone the persons actions by allowing them to come into our pulpits.
We greatly degrade the house of God and send confusion among the people as to what we beleive and teach. I feel that unwittingly we fall into a snare of the adversary when we allow this to happen.


Wow. I grew up in a church that in which the local Rabbi and our pastor “swapped pulpits” about once a year. What’s confusing about learning from the start that Christians must “study to show [themselves] approved”? Christians ought to be encouraged to think for themselves and extend to others the same freedom. Pastors are sometimes dead wrong on important issues.


If politicians invade our churchs, will we have to remove the ‘Ten Commandments” while they are present? Would we still be able to say “In God we Trust?” ” Diversity is fine, except when it comes to Salvation” That is my ten cents worth, and my partner agrees. Peace


Hi Sister Buxton,

It doesn’t make sense to me to have someone in your pulpit whose teachings would be contradictory to that of the pastor. It seems like doing this would sow confusion in the minds of those in the congregation, especially those that have been in the church for a while. I would be wondering, “Well, what am I supposed to believe? I know my pastor doesn’t believe and has preached against this ideal, but this person behind the pulpit believe the exact opposite.” I know there are some within our organization that would bring someone in that doesn’t believe our basic doctrine to teach on for instance, cell group ministries, but I don’t agree with such a practice. Just my opinion.

Love you bunches,



One more thing, Linda. Not through with you yet. 🙂

As regards the crowd Jesus “hung with,” I believe the difference is that He did the teaching–He and His disciples. Would He have asked persons to speak/teach who disregarded His laws?

Okay. I’m finished now…maybe.


Hi, Linda.

You’re right of course that it is not a building that constitutes a church, but it is the people. So, daily, the church moves about in society–actively being salt and light. While I understand that and truly believe it, there does seem something sacred and special about a church and about a pulpit. Perhaps it is my upbringing, and because I have always been taught to respect the house of God, I find it difficult to imagine asking a person to speak who advocates actions that are strongly condemned in the Bible.

However, when our church organization has a big conference our officials always invite the governor or the mayor to greet our group. I suspect that if the US President were available–no matter who he/she were–an invitation would be extended.

I understand that in the southern states it is common at election time to invite politicians to speak at church services. I’ve never seen that done in any churches I’m associated with in California–or in Arizona, and personally, I’m a bit uncomfortable with it.

Paper bags to put on barefoot hippies? In my opinion that is not only ridiculous, but definitely ungodly. I join you in being mortified. To our grave together, we shall walk mortified. That is almost unbelievable, and I truly doubt if such actions led anybody to Jesus.

I always enjoy hearing from you.


For years, one of the churches I attended met in a high school gym. What made the building “church” on Sundays was the people.

I don’t have a problem with Clinton being there this year nor Obama last year. I don’t have a problem with them speaking from the pulpit. What was spoken about was not in conflict with the particular teachings of that church body. I am sure that Rick Warren prayed much over this summit and how to run it. And yes, you are correct in that he invited all the principal candidates to be a part of the summit.

It is a strange mix, yes. But take a look at the group of people Jesus hung out with.

I believe the church the perfect place to discuss what ails the world today. We should not relegate the problems of the world to a municipal building. We should usher them in to our churches and synagogues.

When I was very young, my family used to take in hippies and runaways. We would take them to church with us. On one occasion the church elders gave these lovely but barefooted seekers paper bags to wear on their feet as it was inappropriate for them to be in the church without shoes on. I was mortified for them and I still am to this day. I’m not sure what all this has to do with your topic, but it came to mind as I was writing.



It’s hard to figure, Rochelle, for he did not only invite Hillary Clinton. As I understand it, he invited all the principal presidential candidates.

Such actions would seem more appropriate if he had chosen another building–a building other than his church.


I’m with you here… I was raised to regard the pastor, the pulpit, and the entire platform really, in very, very high regard. And so this baffles me… what message is he really trying to send? Sometimes actions, well, all the time, actions speak louder than words.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s