When I first heard that President-elect Obama invited Rev. Warren to give the invocation for the Inauguration, I was saddened. There are so many other pastors to whom he could have turned, Rev. Jim Wallis, Rev. Jesse Jackson, a Catholic bishop, or a Rabbi. Why the pastor who rigged the debate between the two nominees for President? Why the pastor who supported California Prop 8 and verbally beats up on some folks he disagrees with? At least, the pastor giving the benediction, Rev. Joseph Lowrey, is going to get the last word.
Then I saw an article about Rev. Warren which explains some good things about the man. I was much impressed with how he gives 90% of his income to help the poor. Somehow he looks like he is doing very well on the 10% that's left but, still, he has few peers in the generosity department.
I sent the article to my liberal friends and got a response which reflected how I originally felt but quite a bit more angry.
So I tried to figure out why the choice of Rev. Warren might make sense.
The main reason, of course, is what the President-elect said, that Rev. Warren had invited him to speak at Saddleback Church early in his campaign, knowing they disagreed. Sen. Obama reaches out . . . . And he is willing to take the heat from constituents who disagree with him.
My friend said he really shot himself in the foot. Of course, the promises Sen. Obama has made about changing law and policy in ways supportive of the GLBT community are yet to be actualized, but we will be surprised if he does not follow through.
Then I realized that by giving the invocation on Jan, 20, Rev. Warren may not be as effective in furthering the anti-GLBT agenda he has led. Further, even all this negative publicity and controversy puts the subject on the front pages. As they say in the entertainment business, even negative publicity is better than no publicity.
But more moving to me is that Sen. Obama may be forgiving Rev. Warren for the stunts related to the Saddleback debate.
So how will the modern day Billy Graham respond? Will he even look at the forgiveness angle? Will he presume he deserves the attention? Will he actually begin listening to those he has condemned?
Cynics don't like to take a chance on giving an inch to their enemies, certain they will take a mile. Jesus was willing . . . and got crucified. But He changed things.
Who knows? Sen. Obama, a "sermon-soaked pew squatter" for twenty years, may actually be trying to do the Word, and not just be a hearer only.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I am very disturbed. many of us put much effort into getting the literalists out of the situation so we can become a truly loving and more peaceful society. Instead President Elect Obama, who I supported with much, picks a guy who may as well wear a white hood and white robe vis a vis human dignity, love and acceptance of all GOD's, ALAH'S children. there are many accepting and loving people he could have picked. it is his call. he better have some really incredibly great explanation or he will start moving toward continuing the many awful policies of Bush and his henchmen. (I like your idea of Jim Wallis, or Rabbi Kushner (either one), or Bishop Tuto, or Nelson Mendela, or anyone from the reconcilation council of South Africa. but no, he picks a Christian Con artist with a large castle in the "Southern CA Bible Belt" who just helped pass another statement of segregation and proving some people are inferior to others. unask him is my choice but alas it will not be. So appeasement is now on the table. Barak better wake up or he will go down faster than he came up.
From a friend's recent e-mail:
I really like your response regarding Rick Warren. It saddens me to hear people disappointed in Barack Obama when he doesn't obey their very personal wishes. They can't seem to see the whole picture. I am encouraged that Senator Obama seems to be a man of his word and as you say, might actually be trying to do the Word. I always appreciate people who take the time to do the research before they spout off, so thank you for your enlightened and enlightening essay.
Another friend had this to say:
Rick Warren is a neo-conservative evangelical NAZI. 10% of his vast fortune from the sale of those books is significant. He can live quite comfortably on 10% of a bunch of millions. And the 90% you applaud him giving to those in poverty is something I would want to look at closer. It may be that he has structured his massive giving to go to arms of his own ministry from that Saddleback Church there. That is different than simply donating 90% of your total income to charitable causes.
But no matter how one spins things on this, picking this guy to give the Invocation Prayer at the Inauguration was a blunder. Obama is perceived as throwing gays under the bus, as politicians are prone to do. Clinton did it too in 1996 when he signed the Defense of Marriage Act. He was, after all, running for re-election (and you could say running from Monica Lewinsky). Republicans sent that bill to him to veto so they could use it against him in the '96 election. He signed it and won a second term.
No doubt heartland America really hates gays. In Ohio they hated gays more than they felt anger for losing their jobs from the NAFTA outsourcing. So in 2004 they voted for the Defense of Marriage Act referendum there and of course Bush carried the state and also got himself a second term. Bush did come out and call for an amendment to the Constitution about the Defense of Marriage between a man and a woman. He knew he would never get that amendment but it was great theater. You see, bashing gays is really great fluff for politicians. Bashing gays costs them nothing and mainstream types like to hear the bullshit against gays.
No only did Obama throw gays UNDER the bus (AGAIN), but he symbolically relegated blacks to the BACK of the bus (AGAIN) by asking Joseph Lowery to deliver the Benediction. Joseph Lowery, a United Methodist clergyman and champion of the marginalized, is gonna pray last? Most people will not stay and he will have to be super-brief. But there is one consolation throughout all this: Lowery, not Warren, will have the last word, won't he?
Rick Warren has no place on the national stage to usher in an Obama presidency. If Obama wanted to show diversity and inclusivity why couldn't he have picked Jim Wallis to deliver the Invocation Prayer instead of this arrogant fundamentalist? It is nice to read you think Obama might be forgiving Warren for sandbagging him at that sham interview with McCain. But forgiveness doesn't mean that you alienate your own people who stood by you through thick and thin just so you can turn the other cheek.
Rick's next book? THE PURPOSE-DRIVEN POLITICAL MOTIVES OF OUR FIRST AFRICAN-AMERICAN PRESIDENT.
Jack (Copas)
From yet another friend:
Enjoyed reading your blog re Pastor Warren. In our opinion, he is a good choice for the in- auguration prayer, despite the many who object to his being there.
From a California friend:
Thanks for your very reasonable piece on Rick Warren.
While I take a solidly pro-gay position, I was very unhappy with the response from representatives of the gay community condemning Obama and saying they felt they had been rejected. I could say much more about such a narrowly partisan and mean-spirited attitude, except to say that the President-Elect has the privilege of deciding who should deliver the invocation at his Inauguration
and it is not proper or respectful to criticize him and to turn the decision into a political item.
From my brother-in-law:
WHATS THE BIG STIR ABOUT THIS WARREN GUY? WOULD YOU RATHER HAD JEREMIAH WRIGHT? AS LONG AS HE BELIEVES IN GOD WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IF THE DOGMA ARE DIFFERENT. SAME GOD OR IS HIS DIFFERENT THAN YOURS?
I THINK WE GET TOO INVOLVED IN WHAT KIND OF GOD WE EACH HAVE. WE SHOULD BE GLAD THAT YOU HAVE ONE. IT'S NICE TO BELIEVE IN SOMETHING RATHER THAN EVOLUTION AS THE ANSWER. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT THINK YOUR GOD IS NUTS AND OTHERS THAT BELIEVE THE SAME AS YOU, BUT EITHER GOD IS STILL GOD. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WE AS HUMANS CHANGE OR DECIPHER THE "WORD".
WE CHANGE THE WORD TO PLEASE OURSELVES AS INTERPRETATION OF THE MEANING. I MAY BE WRONG ,BUT THAT'S WHAT I THINK.
A colleague sent these brief lines:
I've been thinking along the same lines, simply because Obama's choice is so inexplicable.
I'm truly sorry for this, and am miffed that Obama would do such a thing, especially after all the support from the gay community.
I agree with your post about Rick Warren. He is not my favorite preacher either, but there is a reason Obama selected him. It is because of Warren's approach of moving beyond areas of disagreement and focusing on common ground to create change for common good. Warren may not believe Gays should be blessed in a Holy Sacrament called 'Marriage' and many may disagree with him on this point. 'Now let's move to something we do agree on and make progress.' HIV/AIDS for example, is an area where he and Obama agree more needs to be done.
*Warren has given financially (he gives away 90% of his salary ) toward this cause in the US and Africa.
*Not only that, he publicly asked his congregation and community to 'repent' for their sin of past indifference to the AIDS/HIV crisis and for stigmatizing people with this disease.
*He encourages Christians to help the Gay community with HIV/AIDS.
*His church has created CARE teams to help those suffering with AIDS with everyday needs like laundry, doctor visits, pet care, food preparation, etc.
*He invited Obama to speak at his church in 2006 about AIDS prevention even after TREMENDOUS opposition from the Evangelical community because of Obama's pro-choice position.
*He is an influential Evangelical leader who he believes Christianity is about more than same sex marriage and abortion. It is also about feeding the poor, helping the sick, caring for our environment,etc.
Obama choice of Rick Warren is NOT about making a statement against same sex marriage. It is about uniting a country torn apart by a culture war. It is about providing an example of positive focus and unity. It is about saying, as he said many times during his campaign, we must move beyond our differences and work together to create change. I say Bravo, Obama. Bravo!
Another comment came through e-mail:
At the risk of being considered a wild-eyed idealist (difficult when you've come of age in the 60's) I feel no trepidation at Barack's selection of Rick Warren. Why? This campaign was so carefully thought out that, with the possible exception of the "clinging to their guns and religion" comment, there have been almost no mistakes. I don't have any idea what the strategy is behind this choice, maybe nothing more than an attempt to curry favor with the evangelicals, but I can't believe choosing Rick Warren was not well considered.
Tim Howland
Post a Comment