Transcendental Invocation: Surprise Me, Rick Warren!

Nearly two weeks after Barack Obama stunned his most passionate supporters by announcing his choice of Rev. Rick Warren to make the invocation at Obama's inauguration, you'd expect the thing to have blown over. That it has not says as much about the American people as does our election of Barack Obama, of which we like to think as the expression of the better angels of our nature.

Count me among those who felt stung, yea, smitten, by the announcement. As you've no doubt heard countless times by now, Warren didn't simply support Proposition 8, the ballot measure that overturned same-sex marriage in California -- he grouped same-sex unions in a category of unacceptable institutions that includes polygamy and marriage between an adult and a child. Perhaps you heard, as well, that Warren compares abortion to the Holocaust, and describes pro-choice advocates as "Holocaust deniers." For many of us who supported Obama vociferously during the campaign, this all feels a bit personal. Still, I know that simmering in this stew leaves me no path to redemption. And a sense of redemption, deserved or not, is part of what made election night so glorious for so many of us.

I'm just not quite there yet. "I don't even want to go to this inauguration now," I told one friend. Trust me, reader, that's a sentiment of extreme deflation, so excited have I been, so looking forward to a transcendent moment on the Mall with hundreds of thousands of pilgrims, straining for a glimpse at a Jumbotron amid children and grandmas as they jockey for position. And still a bitter taste laces my tongue when I imagine Warren at the microphone, calling for the blessing of a God he believes sanctions bigotry against queer folk, a God who would deny a woman her bodily integrity, a God who demands that Jews and other non-Christians burn in Hell. Not my God, thank God.

It's the God thing that really gets me. Invite Warren to the ceremony, fine. Have him do a reading of some sort, even -- a verse of universal truth from the Book of Proverbs or something. But elevate him to the stature of holy man -- the priest empowered to call down the spirit? Barack, you ask so much.

For more than 10 days, I have tried to figure out just what Obama might be up to with his pick of Warren. The simple and obvious answer doesn't quite sit right -- that he intended this to be a unifying gesture, a sweep of the olive branch to the people who did not vote for him. But, as Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said, the selection of Warren is "socially disruptive". If anything, the howl sent up from the LGBT community, along with the objections voiced by feminists Katha Pollitt, Linda Hirshman and Sarah Posner, have emboldened the right. As soon as gay groups registered, via statements and press releases, their opposition to the Warren pick, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins sent out a missive to followers citing one gay leader's opposition to the Warren pick as proof positive of "the homosexual desire to silence the Church."

In fact, the predictable back-and-forth between left and right around this issue leads me in moments when my worser angels -- you know, the less-than-angelic angels -- of my nature have my ear to wonder whether or not we just got Souljahed out. Would Obama step on our tails to make us squeal so that he might look "normal" to the pro-America parts of the country?

Let's consider another alternative -- please. Like any council of chiefs, the leadership of the religious right is often riven with jealousy and competition, as well as ideological differences between purists and pragmatists. Mainstream media have latched onto Warren's AIDS-fighting work in Africa and his preaching on environmental responsibility as evidence of his ostensibly kinder, gentler biblical Christianity though, by his own admission, the difference between Warren and authoritarian right-wing media mogul James Dobson is merely one of "tone". Yet Warren isn't really *of* the clique of religious-right leaders as we've come to know them: the Dobson mob, the Robertson cabal, the Falwell gang. (These form the syndicate that holds the rights to the GOP's electoral ground game; it is through their churches and associations that grass roots activists and voters are turned out.)

With his 25 million books sold and four megachurches with congregations in the tens of thousands, there's likely a bit of resentment against Warren among the council of elder pooh-bahs. (In his e-mail to followers, Tony Perkins snipes, "Let's hope that Rick Warren will use his channel of communication to the new President to press him for more pro-family policies-rather than simply being used by Mr. Obama to make political inroads with evangelicals.")

If the campaign revealed anything about the president-elect, it is his use of existing dynamics to his own advantage, knowing when to get out of the way of -- or lend a hand to -- Nature as she takes her course. The leaders of the religious right are far less dangerous to the rest of us when sniping among themselves. Could it be that, in elevating Warren so high above the rest, Obama has tossed an apple of discord over the right fence, a clever bait of distraction?

Perhaps I think too wishfully as I look to find a reason to believe.

Over the days since Obama announced the honor he conferred on Rick Warren, I have engaged at least a dozen friends and colleagues in discussions where I vent my fury, listen carefully, vent some more -- all in the hope of ultimately letting go. After all, like just about everybody, I really want this Obama thing to work.

The sage Todd Gitlin urges us to voice our complaint and move on. But moving on doesn't move me. I want my transcendent moment. First, it seems, I'll have to transcend my damn self.

In an otherwise critical post, Guardian America editor Michael Tomasky warily suggests an outside chance that Warren's stance might change through the experience of calling the blessing on the Obama presidency:

Maybe having given this "Holocaust denier" [Obama] his high-profile blessing will require over time that Warren moderate his views and his public posture, and maybe that would lead some portion of his flock to do the same.

Jim Toevs of the Seattle Gay News suggests that Warren's increased contact, due to the controversy, with gay people may even transform him into a gay ally.

An artist friend who wished not to be named ("Call me Wes and keep me out of that mess!") took it one step further. "How do you know, Adele, that that moment, when that man is on that stage, lookin' out on all those people -- how do you know that will not be his transcendent moment? Think of all the people he could move."

From your lips, Wes, to the ears of all that is Divine. Divisions -- especially over what God wants us to do -- are rarely overcome with an argument or a handshake. That's why our better angels have wings; to help us rise above. Here's to transcendence all around.

For solid suggestions for what the LGBT community might ask of the Obama administration in light of the honor granted Rick Warren, check out Joan Garry's post, "Constructive Impatience".

Follow Adele Stan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/addiestan

Comments

[pons1595]

The failure of the MSM and particularly this site to adequately delineate the essential nonsense of the statement that Rick Warren has done great work in Africa regarding AIDS is tantamount to total hypocrisy.

Check out Kathryn Joyce 's words from: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/12/19/untold-consequences-rick-warrens-aids-activism

"Faith-based AIDS groups brought a faith-based, rather than evidence-based, agenda to HIV prevention work. In Kay Warren's HIV/AIDS Initiative at Saddleback Church, that includes the core argument that "healthy choices" require faithfulness to the principle of abstinence, and "faithfulness requires faith": an evangelical priority that echoes her husband's reassurance to the far-right World Net Daily that his number one priority in his AIDS work was the salvation of non-Christians. Warren has made clear that his collaboration with non-evangelical AIDS activists wouldn't lead him to compromise on his biblical conviction­s...the prevention approach that Rick Warren promotes is riddled with hyper-moralistic dictates," says Ariana Childs Graham, international policy advocate at SIECUS. "According to Warren, churches have a 'moral obligation' to promote abstinence and faithfulness as the only health behavior, ignoring the full range of prevention strategies that evidence has demonstrated needs to be part of successful HIV-prevention interventi­ons."

[oafishcad]

It isn't just gay people who are saddened by Warren's choice. Any progressive who cares about civil rights, or a woman's right to choose, or the idea that people of all other religious beliefs will burn in hell, is also concerned with this "outreach". Is Obama going to "outreach" to the bankrupt economic ideas of the GOP to solve our economic mess? Is he going to "Outreach" to failed foreign policy makers to solve our International mess? Even so, I wish Obama the best, because I want America fixed. It's just too broken. I just wish he didn't feel the need to give voice to the bigots among us in the name of "outreach". I can support Obama and be disappointed with him at the same time.

[MaineMike]

If anyone is interested in a little levity, watch how gay marriage destroyed Massachusetts:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=156320

[HesDanTheMan]

MaineMike - Thank you so much for that. LMAO! That was priceless!

[Naturemedicinewoman]

I just recieved an email from the Obama camp for more money for the inauguration. I unsubcribed with my reason...I have lost faith for a change; Money from an LGBT, Rick Warren... ..perhaps we can get the message out - he is looking for the wrong votes. If you still obtain emails from Obama - vote your thought peacefully and unsubcribe.

[HesDanTheMan]

I had 2 accounts with change.gov and I unsubscribed both the day after Rick Warren was announced.

[JimR]

Gonna remove yourself from the debate entirely, huh?

[Naturemedicinewoman]

Would a burning bush or voice from heaven help Rick Warren, President-Elect Obama and others see the truth? They say there is healing in prayer....­.Pray.

[Elderlady]

All these church going folks, who castigate people in the gay community.

Find me chapter and verse in your Bible, where any of the prophets, or Jesus, or God, condemns people who are lesbians.

Find me chapter and verse in your Bible where "homosexuals" are condemned.
(You can't. The word didn't come into existence until the late 1800's early 1900's.)

Two people who are supposed to know what God was thinking talked about "men lying with men."
And, THEY call it an "abominati­on."

One was Leviticus in the Old Testament. The other was Paul in the New Testament. Some Biblical scholars questions Paul's own sexuality --- and wonder if he did also.

So, all this uproar is about something that God (whoever He or She may be) didn't even think was important enough to issue a Commandment against..

He thought killing was. He thought Adultery was. He thought Lying was. He thought worshiping " other gods before him (Rick Warren types) was.

So, all you folks who think that Rick Warren is reaching across the aisle to you, or is going to give you a new perspective on anything, or is somehow, somebody you should be reaching out to... you have my deepest sympathy.

Mr. Obama and Mr. Warren share the same points of view as far as the gay community is concerned.

Mr. Warren delivering the invocation for Mr. Obama, at his inauguration, will be Mr. Warren preaching to the choir.

Hallelujah! and Amen.

[HesDanTheMan]

Are you sure??? I could have sworn that the 11th Commandment was "Thou shalt not marry thy same sex partner"!

I could be wrong. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!!!

[caterpol]

Enjoyed the article, but I wished you'd said:

"Some" of his most ardent supporters.

This Californian and her family (whites and Hispanics) are anti-Prop 8, hetero, pro-gay marriage, and pro-choice.

And I've said it before, but if it were up to me, there wouldn't be a holy-man speaking. Any holy-man is bound to insult somebody, and honor somebody else.

Anyway, kudos on the optimism. Obama couldn't have chosen a worse time to prove that progressives can get things done to uplift and honor the lives of each and every citizen.

[oafishcad]

One problem is the gay community thought Obama would be a champion on their side. The community will have to be their own champion. Obama will give token crumbs to them, but any real advances towards equality cannot depend on his support, nor, it's clear from the posts here, on the support of many liberals. Bigotry is not just a conservative affair. Let's hope Obama's work on the economy and foreign affairs is successful and not all "outreach" to bankrupt and outmoded ideas.

[AguynamedWayne]

Does anyone know the number of gay people that are violently attacked each year in America as part of a brutal hate crime? I mentioned this in an earlier post, but it bears repeating. In just this last week in California a lesbian woman was targeted and savagely gang raped just because she was a lesbian. Recently in NY two Ecuardorian brothers were attacked and one was beaten to death with a baseball bat simply because their attackers thought they might be gay!

How can anyone think it's a good thing for Obama to honor a man who compares gay people to pedophiles?

[diogenes1967]

OK, I follow you.

But does it matter whether she was married or unmarried?

By the way, I have been gay bashed a few times, so I have personal experience with this.

[AguynamedWayne]

Who said anything about "married or unmarried"?

[JimR]

I thought Obama was the one being honored that day. Is Rick Warren going to be sworn in as president instead?

[AguynamedWayne]

Ask any leader if being given a prime speaking spot at the innauguration is an honor? And they will tell you it is.

[NCYvonne]

Warren raped the woman in CA? He attacked the brothers in NY?

He is responsible for those tragedies? Quick. Somebody arrest this guy and keep him in jail until after the inauguration!

[AguynamedWayne]

Warren is demeaning gay people as pedophiles at a time when brutal and violent acts against gay people are on the rise. The savage attacks against the woman in California and the brothers in New York attest to that sad fact. Warren's hateful and bigotted words are indeed adding to the danger for gay Americans.

[diogenes1967]

Is it that Huff refuse to post some of my devil's advocate comments..­..sheesh

I agree with you, Wayne. Here is my question, and I say this as someone who has been gay bashed.

Does it matter that the lesbian woman that was gang raped married or unmarried? (Now I will say that gay civil marriage could make a big difference as far as forms of medical treatment that she would receive, etc.) I am asking for this reason and you can disagree with me. I could argue that further hate crimes legislation (which both the black and the Latino communities support) should be a higher prority civil rights issue than gay civil marriage at this time. A gang will not care whether anyone is married or unmarried, they will not stop to ask.

[diogenes1967]

I repeat myself. My apologies to all. But...I do believe that there is a moment of transcedence her. Or at least it is for me.

[caterpol]

I think Aguynamedwayne is arguing that Warren being "honored" appears to condone hate-crimes; a completely separate issue from any legislation.

[oafishcad]

There's no reason why gays can't be protected from bashing and have equal rights at the same time.

[oafishcad]

Obama did insult the gay community. That's just a fact. It just shows that, no matter how enlightened we think he is, he's a flawed human being. We know he would never invite someone who had actively worked to remove civil rights from blacks, women or other minorities. Never. He clearly has a problem with gays. He also clearly tries to rise above himself when it comes to the gay issue. He has appointed openly gay persons to positions in his new administration. I still have high hopes for his administration helping to solve the vast, horrible mess left behind by too many years of listening to conservative "experts" on the economy and foreign affairs. I hope that not just the language has changed, and that we haven't traded the "Decider" for the "Outreacher" doin some outreachin.

[Producer1]

We all worked hard in Orlando to win the election for Obama, and we did by 85,000 votes in Orange County. Why? because we were organized. I blogged about it in Off The Bus every week. What we didn't do is change the county or state landscape for Democrats, nor did we defeat Amendment 2 because we were going after a bigger prize. I'm actively engaged in forming Democratic clubs in Orange County so that in the next several elections we get our choices for local officials elected and turn the state around. In order to counter the effects of a man like Rick Warren we all must be organized with specific attainable goals. We can't depend on Barack Obama (or any other politician) to do it by himself-his coat tails didn't help us here and they won't anywhere else. Unless a politician's political future is in jeopardy from within their own party, they have no reason to act.

It's easy to post our frustrations here, but if we're not willing to spend a little time in the community changing attitudes we are just spinning our wheels. My advice is to stop complaining, join your local political clubs, donate money to the organizations that do fight and get involved in organizing your community. Grass roots is the only way we're going to change things, and it is the only way that any of our elected officials are going to listen.

[Adele Stan - Huffpost Blogger]

Thank you, Producer1, for this helpful comment -- especially this:
>>In order to counter the effects of a man like Rick Warren we all must be organized with specific attainable goals.

[NCYvonne]

I don't see anyone in the gay community talking about attainable goals. All I hear is how hurt their feelings are and how many parties they canceling and how Corretta Scott King didn't like homophobia.

We need to make sure that Obama keeps his promises to the gay community. I intend to raise a ruckus if he backs away from commitments to gay equality. But Sorry. I'm not going to waste one ounce of my effort over this when there are real battles to be fought--battles that impact the LIVES of gays and lesbians, not just their FEELINGS.

You can go to the "demand" well too many times.

[Adele Stan - Huffpost Blogger]

Correction: Try this link for Joan Garry's post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joan-garry-/constructive-impatience_b_154229.html

[diogenes1967]

Thank you, Ms. Stan

Per #2, I am not even opposed to that inclusiveness in the major policy debates going into the foriegn policy arena. For example, the violence against gays in other countries is a human rights issue. We do have to pick our battles carefully but I don't see why we can't work with, say, al-Maliki or even with Medvedev/Putin.

[LiteSleeper]

At the heart of this is that this was a needlessly provocative act bordering on betrayal. Betrayal in the sense of honoring someone who seriously hurt a family member. Gays and Lesbians are part of the Democratic family. You don't put a stranger, especially one who did harm to your family member, above family. This is the principle that so inflames many on our side. We would not deign to think of having some Holocaust denier or unreformed racist at the inauguration because it would harm other members of this family. Maybe that will help some of you to understand why we're so upset by this and some of your responses.

[diogenes1967]

36% of that Democratic family in California voted for Propisition 8. Remember that.1/3 of all California Democrats. Yes, I am upset about it but it also involves understanding why 36% of that family would do this. If it was 31% of that Democratic family, we would not be talking about this.

[LiteSleeper]

But isn't that the point? Why is it that Democrats won't stand for one group whoever they may be but expects that group to stand for whatever they want?

[NCYvonne]

The Warren invite is no more a betrayal to the gay members of the Democratic family than it is to the pro-choice members of the Democratic family. Yet, gays insist that this is ALL ABOUT THEM. Get over yourselves.

[LiteSleeper]

The only people insisting this is all about them are people like you, the practitioners of "new politics".

[SamX]

I really don't like to engage the trolls, but who is it that needs to "get over yourselves?"

NCYvonne you have a couple hundred posts on this subject, you need to take your own advice.

[SamX]

Good post LiteSleeper. While some post ad-nauseum trying to make this about gay marriage, the ones hurt by this decision know that the issue is much much deeper.

I was hoping that the wound would have started to heal by know, but it hasn't.

I hear you on some of the responses too. "Hissy fit" is one particularly line heard often. "Get over it," "hysterical"

Thank you Huffington Post for the opportunity you have given us to express our feelings on the subject.

[JimR]

So Obama is just the president of the Democrats?

[LiteSleeper]

I don't understand why you want Warren at this inauguration so badly but I do know that this was unwarranted and unnecessary. You can make a statement without trying to insult your supporters.

[AguynamedWayne]

President Obama will be president of all Americans. It's just sad that he chooses to honor a man who preaches bigotry and divisiveness against gay Americans. It's especially worrisome now at a time when violent hate crimes against gay people are on the rise. In CA last week a lesbian woman was targeted and savagely gang raped just because she was a lesbian. Recently in NY two Ecuardorian brothers were attacked and one was beaten to death with a baseball bat simply because their attackers thought they might be gay!

For Obama to honor a man who compares gays to men who molest children in this type of hateful climate, it is beyond an insult to gay people, it's dangerous.

[LiteSleeper]

Also, I'll say this, no one said he couldn't have dialogue with Warren. But the inauguration was not the time or the place. It did not have to be so public a forum, so soon after the passage of Prop 8. That is reckless, thoughtless, and indifferent. You can debate the merits of dialogue with me all you want and try to take something positive out of this, but that doesn't change the fact that this was unnecessary. And you know that.

[caterpol]

This Californian "Obamabot" empathizes with much of what you've said on this thread. Although, obviously, I'm a tad insulted by the characterization. (It won't stop me from voting with you, or actively fighting for equal rights though; nor will it stop me from celebrating the inauguration of a President whom I think most closely represents progressives of all stripes).

Right or wrong, I do fear that the outrage over Warren will dull and diminish in importance what I see as the more important fights-----pending legislation----as in, overturning Prop 8 and negating the new HHS ruling. I worrry about voter/citizen fatigue. I worry that this current debate is eroding Obama's ability to reverse current Bush policy and get things done.

We have so much to do, and so little time to prove to the majority of voters that we're up for the task. I fear that if we keep arguing amongst ourselves, our thin majority will fragment and we'll be stuck with a Palin or another Bush in 2012.

Just my two cents.

[LiteSleeper]

The argument is between those of us who see this as an unwarranted and unnecessary slight and insult and others who feel we shouldn't complain about it. Although I sympathize with your concern over fragile majorities, I can't help but think if you are so concerned over that why would you sanction this insult when you know we are going to be outraged over it? This is where I've been fighting Obamabots (those reflexively for anything Obama says, not necessarily you) all along. Why cause a controversy and then be mad when it doesn't die down on your timetable? I go back to my earlier comment about family because I think its the easiest to understand. Why do something you know is going to cause a scene and then make it worse by not correcting it? Why elevate someone who attacks members of your family and then are shocked when they don't accept that? This is no brilliant act, no audacious strategy.T­his is Obama's folly. He needs to admit that for everyone to move on.

[diogenes1967]

To bump up the Syria issue for a minute, why was Rick Warren being photographed with Assad 2 months after the end of the Israel-Lebanon war? Didn't Miss Christan, herself, Sarah Palin, say that we must never question Israel?

Granted there are perfectly legitimate reason for a Christian pastor to be in Syria, what was Rick Warren doing discussing "US-Syrian" relations with Assad? Nancy Pelosi was excoriated for even talking about the possibility.

[HesDanTheMan]

THANK YOU!

[AguynamedWayne]

Many people seem to be forgetting that this is not Obama's first time at this particular rodeo. During the S.C. primary against Clinton, Obama outraged the gay community by having a virulent anti-gay bigot named Donnie McClurkin shill for Obama's first faith tour. Obama REFUSED to remove McClurkin even after gay activists had made Obama well aware of McClurkins long history of bigotry towards gays (McClurkin, like Rick Warren, has also compared gays to pedophiles, and claims he himself was temporarily "made" gay by being raped by gays. He also preaches that gays can be "cured").

Obama is using the gay community as a wedge issue to further his political desires. Rick Warren is just the latest example.

[JimR]

And what did McClurkin do at that event? He sang gospel songs. What an OUTRAGE!

[NCYvonne]

JimR, it is an outrage to people like Wayne. They think they are entitled to a veto on anybody and everybody who does anything with or for Obama. That shows you how deluded they are.

If Obama had a dinner party for 10. It wouldn't be enough if 4 of them are pro-gay and 5 of them are gay. They'd rant and rave and demand that he get rid of the one guest who is neither. And if he doesn't, they'll call him a bigot and a homophobe.

They actually think they are entitled to 100% control of him.

[AguynamedWayne]

You should check your sources. McClurkin went on a rant while on stage about how his views were not homophobic. His performance was a disgrace. His "views" are not only filled with bigotry but are considered dangerous by medical experts. Gays cannot be "cured" because we are not sick.

[bernie12]

hey, what's the big deal inviting rick warren? it's only a symbol, it's not policy. like Lee Atwater's Willie Horton ad. it wasn't policy, it was just symbolic "reaching out" to the lowest fears in all of us. what's the harm there as long as it isn't policy? surely symbols have no bearing or influence on the thinking of the country.

the views of the guy chosen as a representative of god at the most historic event of the century is no big deal right? why all the fuss?