Monday, December 22nd, 2008...9:25 am
My Trouble With the Warren Thing
I wrote an extremely short post about Rick Warren speaking at the innauguration (three words!), and a couple of you responded that this is an sign that Barack Obama wants to reach out to the Evangelical community.
Okay, granted, this is important. Obama will be president of the whole country after all.
However, I wonder if picking Warren legitimizes something I’ve found particularly galling about the discussion about politics and religion in this country over the last few decades.
I need to give Warren credit for one thing: his “reverse tithing” is something that some of his well heeled collegues should adopt rather than buying more planes and remodeling their vacation homes. I have serious reservations about this guy though. It isn’t just about his using his considerable power to pass Proposition 8, it is also about where he isn’t willing to use it. He pressed Barack Obama on abortion, which couldn’t have been comfortable for Obama but well within Warren’s role. However, when he had the chance, Warren did not press George Bush on torture, even though Warren finds torture abhorrent. To me, this smacks not of a religious figure who speaks truth to power, but another in a long line of leaders on the religious right who double as partisan political hacks.
By giving this guy a pulpit (literally) and acting like it is the only way to reach out to the evangelical community, we are buying into the worst argument that has been given by folks on the religious right for years: that truly religious people have to have a certain narrow set of views on social issues, oh yes, and they have to support Republicans. Why would we want to further legitimize that message by saying that this guy is the best representative of the evangelical community?
10 Comments
December 22nd, 2008 at 9:42 am
I agree 100%!
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:34 am
Rick Warren has given back all of the salary he’s earned as a pastor since he began his church in about 1980 or so. That’s in addition to his reverse tithing. He has spoke against having a TV and radio ministry (the only time he’s on TV is as a guest and he has no “preacher tape ministry”) and no one has ever brought an allegation of impropriety against him. He seems to walk the talk.
Warren has also chastised evangelicals for not caring enough about poverty in the world and he has dedicated huge financial resources and his own time to highlighting the problem of AIDS in Africa.
He’s working on three major areas:
1. Attacking poverty worldwide
2. The African AIDS pandemic
3. His ministry at church and as a writer
Yes, he has not addressed the issue of torture; an important matter. But I would hope you would agree that Pastor Warren has picked a few worthy battles that many have ignored.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:30 am
Doug, all of those “good” things you mention are overshadowed by the fact that the man is a bigot.
December 22nd, 2008 at 11:37 am
Warren’s “Saddleback” church doesn’t allow open gays and lesbians as members. He has equivocated same-sex marriage to pedophilia and incest. He has done nothing for the AIDS epidemic in this country (since 15-24 year olds are now the most likely to become HIV positive) and the list goes on and on.
I understand why this was done. I don’t agree with the choice, especially as a gay man, I am no mood to be “kicked” around after the b.s. that went down with Prop. 102 here in Arizona.
Ted you are right and Doug, do your homework before buying the corporate media b.s.
December 22nd, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Rick Warren has positioned himself as the new Billy Graham. Same benign persona coupled with rigid evangelical beliefs. Anti-choice, anti-gay, civic religionist.
However, this is no time for any of us to walk away in a snit. My hope is that someone waves a rainbow flag when he speaks.
December 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Perhaps someone on the stage will wear a rainbow tie in solidarity.
December 22nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
People need to pick their fights, and I am not sure if raising hell about Warren is the right fight. Raising a ruckus during the invocation as some have suggested would probably do more to hurt the cause than help it. Keep the talk focused on the issue as an EQUAL RIGHTS one, go after ending the POLICIES such as ‘don’t ask-don’t tell’ and stay away from making it an issue of personalities.
Those pissed about this to the point of wishing they hadn’t voted for Obama need to think about what things would be like if Palin/McCain were elected!
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
AGAIN, open your eyes people. Barack is sending a message to one of the ONLY groups that Barack won less votes than John Kerry did.
You guys forget Barack is a poltician, and sure, a little shout out to 55 million McCain voters isn’t a bad idea – but you can forget-in-holy-hell any kind of ENDA if the GLBT community doesn’t “get the message” real soon.
December 22nd, 2008 at 4:20 pm
azw88 — I wouldn’t want a ruckus either; but I would like to see some kind of dignified gesture.
December 22nd, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Nothing wrong with having serious reservations about the guy. But if Obama is going to get us to full equal rights, he has to figure out a way to co-opt, go around, or run over Rick Warren. Since Warren’s side actually won the three state-level elections this cycle, running over or going around doesn’t seem like such a good bet. So why not give “co-opt” a chance?