Obama, Rick Warren and Me
Rick Warren is one the most likable people I've ever met. We traveled to Rwanda together back in 2005, and spent time at Saddleback Church. I came away impressed with his big heart, his passion, his smarts and his long-running effort to broaden the political agenda of evangelical Christians to include the issues of global poverty, AIDS and the environment.
But Barack Obama made a mistake by selecting Warren, the nation's most influential religious leader, to give the invocation at his inaugural. The choice has rightfully angered gay and lesbian Americans. People who care deeply about abortion rights are pleased either.
As it happens, I don't think Rick's views on abortion should disqualify him from speaking at the inaugural. As Obama said, while defending the choice at a press conference earlier today, "it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues." Fair enough -- we can agree to disagree respectfully about abortion, as much as our views are strongly held. (You can read Obama's full answer here.)
The gay rights issue is different. Having Rick Warren give the invocation, at an event that should be a celebration for all Americans, is an insult to tens of millions of LGBT people. I don't believe that Rick is a bigot, or that he holds any personal animus towards gay people. But his interpretation of the Bible, which he believes to be the word of God, has led him to believe that gay and lesbian relationships are fundamentally wrong.
I quoted him to that effect in my Fortune story, Will Success Spoil Rick Warren?, as John Cloud of Time noted in an excellent column published today:
About three years ago, a reporter at Fortune asked Rick Warren -- the successful pastor whom the President-elect has asked to pray at his inauguration -- about homosexuality. "I'm no homophobic guy," Warren said. His proof? He had dined with gays; he has a church "full of people who are caring for gays who are dying of AIDS"; he believes that "in the hierarchy of evil... homosexuality is not the worst sin." So gays get to eat -- sometimes even with Rick Warren! Then they get to die of AIDS -- possibly under the care of Rick Warren's congregants. And when they go to hell, they won't be quite as far down in Satan's pit as other evildoers.But Warren did have a message of hope for gays: they can magically become heterosexuals. (He didn't explain how, but I suspect he thinks praying really hard would do it, as though most of us who grew up gay and evangelical hadn't tried that every night as teenagers.) Homosexuality, Pastor Warren explained in the virtually content-free language of the dogmatist, is "not the natural way." And then he went right for the ick factor, the way middle-school boys do: "Certain body parts are meant to fit together."
When Rick and I discussed the issue -- always at my request -- I never felt he was mean-spirited. But I told him that his position provided cover for bigots, even for those commit acts of violence against gays. He replied by reminding me, accurately, that he has argued for years that evangelical Christians should talk a lot less about the hot-button social issues and a lot more about problems around which all Americans can unite, like poverty or the environment. "I'm a bridge builder, not a divider," he likes to say.
The trouble is, religious differences can't easily be bridged. The world's religions "totally contradict each other" and are "mutually exclusive" is how Rick put it to me back then. When we explored this further, he told me, cheerfully, that he thinks I'm going to hell because I haven't accepted Jesus Christ as my savior (I'm Jewish), but that doesn't mean we can't be friends. Trust me that he's a hard guy not to like.
The controversy over Obama's choice got me wondering: Is there any religious figure in America today who could give the invocation at an inaugural without making some people unhappy? I called my friend Donna Schaper to ask her. Donna's the senior minister of Judson Memorial Church in Greenwich Village, a liberal Protestant, progressive in her politics, and a gifted writer, speaker, gardener and mother. (I know this because she's married to my friend and college roommate, Warren Goldstein, a historian and the biographer of the Rev. William Sloane Coffin.) Donna said that it's possible to construct an ecumenical invocation, but very hard to find a single person to deliver the prayer who could appeal to all Americans.
When Donna leads prayers at public occasions, she talks about
God, whose name we do not and cannot know, whom some call Allah and some Spirit, whom some call Ruach and others Yahweh or Adonai, some call Jesus and some call Christ, others know only as Breath or Ruach, still others understand as energy or force, Thou who are nameless and properly so, draw near...
Rick, if you're reading this, there's an idea for you.
Donna has also been to events where four religious leaders -- Catholic, Protestant, Jewish and Muslim -- deliver prayers. "Then, of course, the Buddhists and Sikhs and others would be left out," she says.
Because she's an Obama fan, I asked Donna what she thought of the choice of Rick Warren. She admitted disappointment. "I'm still very pro-Obama, and he must have his reasons, but in addition to insulting women and gays, he missed a big opportunity," she told me. "He lost the chance to do something positive, and imaginative."
I agree. It's fine for Obama to invite Rick Warren to the White House, to enlist his help dealing with AIDS and to honor his work in Africa. Just don't put him on the podium on Inauguration Day, a day that is supposed to belong to all Americans.
Follow Marc Gunther on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MarcGunther
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
In the event of hate monger Rick Warren speaking at the Inauguration we will boycott the following musicians and actors:
Cyndi Lauper
Melissa Etheridge
Beyonce
Jamie Foxx
Halle Berry
Ron Howard
Samuel Jackson
Sharon Stone
Robert Zemeckis
Susan Sarandon
Marcia Cross
Tim Robbins
Seal
Adrian Grenier
Ashley Judd
Rachael Leigh Cook
Blair Underwood
Spike Lee
Please add any more confirmed celebs that support this anti gay administration. Do not buy their music, watch their television shows or see their movies. Send a message that if you "pal" around with hate mongers then you support their message!!!
You should know this is really stupid.
Obama's administration is probably going to be more gay friendly any other administration. It certainly won't target the gay community.
I believe Billy Graham gave the inaugural invocation at one or both of Clinton's inaugurations and he has said he is against gay marriage. There was no flak about his giving an invocation. Isn't it a sign of progress that we are now talking about this issue?
Rick Warren's views on gays do make me uncomfortable, but really no more so than his idea that Jews and all other non-Christians are going to hell. But then again, it is unlikely that you would find many traditional Christians who would not share Warren's views with you if pressed. And given the political realities in this country, it would be almost impossible for Obama to choose anyone other than a *traditional Christian" to give the invocation, at least not without causing some kind of major fuss by some religious or non-religious group that feels deliberately insulted or otherwise ignored or demeaned.
In America, with all our history, we are more or less stuck with this dilemma now and for the foreseeable future, so we may as well accept it. Obama's choice of Rick Warren, though bad, was probably a choice of what he saw as the lesser of two evils ... in other words, it was a political choice by a very sharp political tactician. This is not meant as an excuse. It's simply an observation of the world we live in.
why have an invocation at all....i have no particular interest in hearing from any one who believes in supernatural omnipotent beings existing in some other worldly mystical existence unless they are featured on the SCI-FI channel or at the Multi-Plex.
Millions do, if that's OK with you.
In November, Pesident-elect Barack Obama invited the Lesbian and Gay Band Association to march in the Inaugural Parade. Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery, a staunch supporter of gay marriage, has been invited to give the Benediction at the inauguration.
Yet, the only thing you and other columnists have focused on is the inclusion of Warren to deliver the invocation.
You just brought up a GREAT point:
Let's remove ALL the religious trappings from this very CIVIL ceremony.
He's not "wedding" the country, for goodness sakes - IT'S A JOB.
Take that "oath" standing straight forward with your hand over you heart and speak directly to the people.
We need to get "over" religion just like we need to get over 'monarchy' trappings in this country to move forward.
It's the best thing we could do for our kids and the country's future.
I absolutely agree.
While the invocation has been a part of the Inaugural tradition for decades, this election has proven that old traditions and habits can change, and the public can be quite open to it.
If we simply removed the opening and closing prayer, and instead had the President-elect, or even another notable guest speaker, deliver an uplifting speech directed at the American public, it would be much more inclusive and less controversial.
Why must ANYONE give a religious invocation at a secular government ritual, especially at the inauguration of the president of ALL U.S. citizens, non-religious as well as religious? "Tradition" is a lazy rationalization, not an explanation.
If Obama truly wanted change from the start, he should have invited a Constitutional scholar to give a "civil invocation" about the dire need to restore our tattered Constitution after eight years of its being shredded.
You think gays are outraged at the selection of Warren? The howls of protest that would follow ditching the religious component would dwarf that.
Why did we have to pick ONE person -- one man -- anyway? Why couldn't there have been a decisive break with the Billy-Graham past by choosing an ecumenical group to do a prayer together in a sign of religious unity?
Therein lies the problem of combining religion with government. Better to not have a prayer, perhaps a moment of silence and meditation where everyone in the Nation can offer their own "prayer" or not. You know, everyone is free to pray, but evidently at certain events, we're not free to not pray.
I am a Christian and I don't need someone else to offer a generalized prayer, in public, to carry my, um, whatever, to God. I do appreciate all who offer prayers on my behalf, but would rather they do so in private.
Isn't there another pastor other than Warren participating in the ceremony. Why has no one mentioned him?
It goes against the agenda that has been set since Warren was announced.
Exactly. It has barely been mentioned that Rev. Joseph Lowry will be doing the benediction and he is in favor of gay marriage. This is a question to the Gay & Lesbian community.
Because people are stubborn.
"Just don't put him on the podium on Inauguration Day, a day that is supposed to belong to all Americans.
I got your argument until that last line. Rick Warren represents a lot of Americans. A lot of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who voted for Obama haven't come around to gay marriage. Maybe it is a part of America that you and many people here don't like, but they are indeed Americans.
I'm a feminist and Rick Warren's wacky views on women and that abortion is a holocaust are stupid. But, you know what, it doesn't bother me that he is giving a prayer because he holds those views. The fact is that Rick Warren did win on Prop 8 but he also lost because he did not support Obama. Rick Warren is on the defense for his views which many more people find offensive. We are winning this fight--why else would Warren agree to pray at the inauguration? He knows which way the wind is blowing.
I can see why gays are hurt, but I think a lot of this has more to do with Prop 8 than it does with Obama or Rick Warren. Obama rubbed salt in an open wound. And I checked, Rick Warren gave no money to pass Prop 8.
Obama can't have Muslims or Jews give an invocation because there are a lot of dummies who think he is a Muslim.
Rick Warren gave no money to Prop 8? Excuse me, but Warren made and starred in a television commercial promoting Prop 8 during the election season, which goes a little beyond sending anyone a $5 check.
Good column, but could we please drop the line of reasoning that says someone isn't a bigot because they get their beliefs out of the bible? Slave owners and their supporters also claimed they were right because they could point to places in the bible like Leviticus chapter 25 and the writings of Paul and point out verses that, indeed, state that God supports human slavery. So do you feel that these slave owners and the pro-slavery forces should have been similarly immune from accusations that they were "bigots?" They were, after all, able to point to specific bible verses that supported their claims.
Somehow I doubt you'd make that argument, so why, exactly, is there a "gay exception" that we must not consider people "bigots" who use the bible to target gays? There are many more verses in the bible that support human slavery than there are that criticize homosexuality (there are two, maybe three verses, tops, in the entire bible that reference homosexuality, while there are quite a few that discuss at length what kinds of slavery God approves: the book of Leviticus, for example, spends only a sentence on homosexuality, but at least an entire chapter on who is allowed to own whom). And-- gee, what a coincidence-- it's precisely the same books- Leviticus and the writings of Paul- that slave owners most often used to support that vile institution and that the current anti-gay forces cite to make their argument.
Thank you BobbyJoe!
The gay community needs to decide how serious they are in confronting the issue of gay equality because right now you're blowing it. You don't win by calling names and you don't win by equating biblical defenses of slavery with the denial of gay rights based on religious dogma. You just don't. All you do is alienate the very people that you will need to change minds. There are many straight black and brown progressives who sympathize but these constant racial references are a bit much and come across as a cooptation of someone else's struggle. If you don't want to understand why people feel the way they do, then barring a constitutional amendment legalizing gay marriage, you are always going to be subject to the whims of the masses. If you are serious about changing minds then you will find it imperative to understand the religious and cultural reasons that people voted for Prop 8 and similar measures. It is simple to sit at a computer and call people bigoted and intolerant but if you want real change, you need to reach those very people that Warren speaks to weekly.
Good post. This is also why those who take the Bible literally are so often so wrong!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
