Pastor and Servants?

I greatly respect both Barack Obama's genuine desire to ensure that Americans of every stripe have a voice in our new government and his political savvy in reaching out to his ideological adversaries. But none of that makes me feel any better about the fact that Pastor Rick Warren -- he of those silly Purpose Driven Life books and the Saddleback Mega-Church in Southern California -- has been picked to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration.

That Warren's hyper-conservative beliefs stand in such stark social and cultural contrast to Obama's own worldview would be reason enough to question the choice. It's easy to understand why some Obama supporters -- particularly gay voters, who see Warren and his flock as having been instrumental in the passing of California's Prop 8 -- feel like it's a very personal betrayal.

My discomfort, though, has less to do with any one issue than it does with the idea of the highest office in the free world once again cozying up to the lowest common denominator among America's faithful -- validating that group's absurd, irrational and often aggressively divisive belief system. While having someone like Rick Warren -- the Oprah of pop-Christianity -- up there next to our new president on inauguration day does send a clear message that all views will be given consideration from this point forward, it may also send a signal to those who happen to hold the one view that's been allowed to dominate the discourse for the past eight years that they'll continue to be deferred to.

It's not so much that Pastor Rick is getting an audience with the new president of the United States -- it's that he'll be seated at his right hand on day one.

This could very well be part of a smart strategy, showing even those who stood against Obama during the campaign that, as president, he wants to take immediate steps toward healing the nation -- or it could just be that since Obama and Warren are reportedly friends, the choice makes a certain amount of sense. Regardless though, and as much as I trust Barack Obama's judgment, it ties my stomach in knots to watch another political administration treating the Rick Warrens of the world as if they're anything more than simply the CEOs of Jesus Inc. -- carnival barking purveyors of "Evangelitainment," with ostentatious, monolithic temples and excellent PR firms.

Warren's undeniably overpowering presence on inauguration day makes it seems as if God -- specifically the Pentecostal, Southern Baptist version of God -- will continue to be granted ascendancy within our government.

And after what this country has endured the past eight years -- the heinous sins committed by those who claim to be acting on God's behalf and who seek the unconditional allegiance of those who worship him -- this should be the last thing any clear-thinking, rational American wants to see.

Follow Chez Pazienza on Twitter: www.twitter.com/chezpazienza

Comments

[RCRoss]

Mr. Pazienza, I realize that the internet lives on rumor and hearsay, but do us all a favor, and if you're going to post, learn about your subject first.

Comparing Rick Warren to the televangelists of yesteryear (or even to those Christian forces that have aligned themselves squarely with the Republican party like Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council), is apples and oranges. Warren is neither part of the SBC nor is he a Pentacostal. His writings are seen as a fairly liberal voice, especially his concerns on social justice and giving back when we are the wealthiest Christians in the world. If Warren is "hyper-con­servative" I would hate to see where Tony Perkins or Jim Dobson fall. At what point would "Stalinist" become the epithet of choice?

[RTMilner]

I hope this isn't "cozying up" to the Un-Christian Right, but rather a very Christian act on Barack's part - loving your neighbor (and your enemy) and trying to tear down the divisions between us by modelling that behavior he wants to see in others. Reading all the vitriol being hurled at the President Elect makes me despair that such civic reconciliation is possible, but I will keep hoping. Meanwhile, Chez, learn a bit more about the religions you criticize: Southern Baptists and Pentecostals are completely different socially and theologically.

[CindyMc]

RTMilner makes a great point about Southern Baptists versus Pentecostals. A few years back, the denomination barred from enlistment those missionaries who admitted to praying (privately!) in tongues, which is a Pentacostal form of expression. This was reported in the religious press (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/february/1.21.html) and secular press (http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-04-05-baptists_x.htm) alike.

Chaz, you said:

"That Warren's hyper-conservative beliefs stand in such stark social and cultural contrast to Obama's own worldview would be reason enough to question the choice."

I don't deny Warren is conservative (and I'm decidedly not conservative). I don't believe Warren would deny he is conservative. How though, are his views hyper-conservative? Your post is more filled with rhetoric than meaning.

[cactusgal]

Thank you for an excellent article. It's hard enough to wade through the Democratic platform, trying to decide which points and policies I agree with. When they inject religious beliefs into the mix, I'm inclined to pull the cord and get off at the next stop.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

This disturbs me as well. A LOT of what he his choices show is disturbing.... like putting a guy who grows corn for ethanol in Indiana, in charge of "energy" decisions. THAT is very disturbing.

Having this guy, who I've never seen before or heard of because I squirm every time I mistakenly click on a "religious" channel, makes me sick. What's next? Joel Osteen?

NOT the change I was "hoping" for.

[michiganfan]

", it ties my stomach in knots to watch another political administration treating the Rick Warrens of the world as if they're anything more than simply the CEOs of Jesus Inc. -- carnival barking purveyors of "Evangelitainment," with ostentatious, monolithic temples and excellent PR firms."

THANK YOU!!!

Well said. Although, you might want to re-emphasize the massive amounts personal wealth these con artists are raking in too next time...

[bioluminescence]

I believe it was the late Robert Kennedy who said that the greatest threat to democracy wasn't Communism. It was the growth of special interest groups. He was right. Special interests on the right appeared to run the Bush presidency. Now it seems special interests on the left are saying, hey, it's our turn now.

Obama said repeatedly that his administration would be characterized by inclusion not exclusion. Wasn't anyone listening?

[hlhicks]

You know many of us posted comments about the Rev. Wright controversy and we stated how unfair it was to tar Obama with the "sins" of Jeremiah Wright. Many of us argued that just because Obama was a member of that church doesn't mean that he shared Rev. Wright's viewpoint. We defended Rev. Wright's right to his worldview yet we are labeling Warren a bigot and Obama a bigot by extension. What pray tell is the difference?

[michiganfan]

The difference is that he is choosing to give this bigot a position of honor on INAUGURATION DAY!!!

[RGMc]

Actually, it is a double ceremony. Obama is to be inaugurated as President and Pope Rick I is being invested as the sucessor to his Holiness Billy the Graham.

The Constitution says that "there shall be no religious test for office" but we ceased paying attention to that useless scrap of parchment a long time ago. Just as George II did away with the Bill of Rights and laughed at the idea of separation of church and state, the O continues the tradition.

O's only claim to place is as an alternative to the unthinkable McCain-Palin. I rather suspect that Obama will play a role in the US similar to the role played by Gorbachev in the USSR. Both may eventually may be seen as trying to save an ancien regime that is too rotten to survive.

[IndianaConservative]

Well, at least I see an attempt at honesty here. Beyond the name-calling and reminding conservative Christians of their true place in society, at least Mr. Pazienza seems to provide some genuine explanation behind the antipathy of people like Rev. Warren. It's a wonderful thing to understand the real thoughts and feelings behind a world-view that preaches inclusion and tolerance, only to relegate a entire group of people as being "the lowest common denominator." Nice! Now if you would just be a little more truthful and follow your thinking to the next logical step: if we could just somehow ensure these fundi Christians never again have a say in the market-place of ideas. How many people reading these comments would agree with the notion that conservative Christians need to be forced out of the public square? Just grab your snakes and go back to your back-woods churches and stay!!

You know, I really question if there would have been the same level of outrage if Obama had invited Louis Farrakhan or his former pastor, Rev. Wright. Interesting that there is such selective criticism by certain groups. I wonder how many on the Left would be comfortable calling them "absurd and irrational?" How about labeling them the "least common denominator" in their respective faiths?

Then again, I guess it would be so much easier if people like me would mind their P's & Q's and not post here.

[whateverlolawants]

Nice, except the religious right has gotten much more than their fair market space in the marketplace of ideas during the last 8 years... maybe the last 28 years.

[IndianaConservative]

Evangelicals have been more vocal and politically involved in recent years, but the hostility and animus towards Evangelical Christians, I believe, is ubiquitous and incredibly "in your face." You say they've had more than their fair market space in the marketplace of ideas....tell me the last time you've seen a "mainstream" media outlet or Hollywood production that has portrayed Evangelical Christians in a favorable manner? With few exceptions the news media & political pundits will only showcase them when there's a scandal or controversy. Hollywood excludes them or lampoons them. Evangelical Christian's faith is mocked, their beliefs labeled as ignorant, and unflattering adjectives overflow like Guiness at an Irish pub when people like Rick Warren are "allowed" to have a place at the table (even evident here at the ole' Huffington Post!). How magnanimous!

[benman]

Amen. Why not pick some cleric who isn't overtly political, like the Greek Orthodox?

[blue ocean55]

Rick Warren's god is a rectangular piece of paper with a picture of George Washington on it.

[MizLiz]

More like Ben Franklin, if you ask me.

[mrsdonrod]

You clearly don't know ANYTHING about Rick Warren- he does not work for money- he accepts no salary at all from his church and gives away 90% of everything else he makes. You are the narrow minded person here- making judgements on something you obviously don't know anything about. You people call Rick Warren divisive and hateful, but there is more hatred being spewed here than anything- uneducated and uninformed hatred, at that!

[blue ocean55]

AFTER he made his fortune off of the name of Christ, it's easy and convenient to brag about his giving ablility, even if the bible warns against doing so. He is a MONEY CHANGER IN THE TEMPLE who instead of quietly helping the vulnerable behaves like a Pharisee by being noisily pious and seeking to interfere with the private lives of people who aren't members of his church.

Until you know something about being tortured with shouts of f*gg^t while growing up, spare me the lecture about being intolerant to a large and active movement who dehumanize gay Americans on a daily basis.

[tcagle]

I hope Obama is just giving the God Squad enough rope to hang themselves. The contrast with rational pragmatism will be both dramatic and unflattering.

[rudyinbama]

The choice is an insult to the thousands of preachers, priests, rabbis and nuns who do God's work and do not commit the sin of dehumanizing others.
"Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection." - Corretta Scott King, 2004,
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-24-king-marriage_x.htm"

[Davwbaird]

it is time, the snow is here, it is deep, and all i hear is madness, my business lost, 65, the snow is cold, i no longer feel my feet and i have miles to go. i welcome the snows sweet embrace.

[desiderus]

Agree totally. BUT NOW WHAT?
The Big O has bombastically blown off all thinking people and adopted the corporatist christianist Bob Roberts agenda (Vilsack? Warren? LaHood? What is this, North Carolina?) He is obviously crapping with delight on the progressive agenda, as well as smarmily ditching anything approaching ethical standards or accountability. And the 'christian' right is neither christian nor right -- they are corporate enablers.

You know a person by their associates - and these are baaadd people.
So, Obama is obviously also a hypocrite and a charlatan. Now what? Do we have enough troops for a civil war INSIDE the walls? Can we get a progressive caucus AGAINST OBAMA? (not if he gave people their jobs - including suckups like Edolphus Towns, my old rep - what a shill. ). Any ideas out there?

[Donkslayer]

If you're completely against any Christianity whatsoever, you should just type that as a caveat before we waste time reading the rest of your post. If you can't be happy with a green, civil-unio­n-supporti­ng, proponent-of-peace pastor involved in the nomination, you can't be happy, period.

[whateverlolawants]

You know a person by their associates? How did you feel about his associations with progressive leaders, then? He certainly has some.

[texanna]

Where were you this summer when Mr. Obama was busy telling evangelical groups that he intended to enlarge the role of faith-based initiatives in his government? Still too much in a swoon at the time to notice? Mr. Obama has been forthright about his beliefs and putting Rev. Warren on the dais on the day we're heralding a new administration seems completely in line with the beliefs he's publicly espoused. If you're upset, maybe you should revisit Mr. Obama's suggestion from last summer when he voted for the FISA bill he promised to not only vote against but also to filibuster. That suggestion was that he wasn't responsible for whatever people might project onto him. Now, I could accept that, if he hadn't encouraged those projections in his efforts to get the most votes.