No need to fret, Mimi - the Obama folks are including a gay marching band in the parade! As Joe Solomonese remarks in the Washington Post, "You know how the gays love a parade".
Warren's support is one of the reasons Proposition 8 passed in California.
I was very edified today to find out how many (non-evangelical)Christian pastors and church members are equally appalled at the choice of Warren. Not just because of his anti-gay, anti-woman stances, but because he sneers at and refers to as "Marxist" the efforts of said Christians to feed the hungry, house and clothe the homeless, and otherwise engage in the actual ministry of Christ. Apparently Warren believes that the only salvation is through *his* definition of salvation--and good works never enter into it (but being rich does!)
saintlywife-I was just getting to a "suck it up and get on with it" attitude and you had to go and say that! Surely not, I know evangelicals are more into, "spreading the word", than the stuff the rest of us do, but he's actually said that? Mad all over again! I maintain, Obama's success depends on his ability to chose people of intelligence, honor and integrity to advise him, this is a bit disturbing.
My S-t-P calls him the Ronald MacDonald of religion. Fast food, easy to swallow, no work involved on the part of the consumer... just pay at window #2.
I'm disheartened by this,but there's a pretty good conversation going on over at Andrew Sullivan's blog, which gives me a little (small l) hope. He's really trying to give Obama as much as he can.
We'll see.
The Purpose Driven Life is very popular among Christians of all stripes. People in my church have read it. So he is probably the best known evangelical right now, kind of like Billy Graham. Many people have read his book and respect him, but don't know that he is so conservative SOOOOO conservative on social issues. That may be why Obama chose him.
Fran--that's exactly what it is: a political choice. Obama is a politician, after all.
If y'all take a deep breath and think for a moment, you'll realize that this is exactly why you voted for Obama. Can you imagine John McCain inviting a certain bishop from New Hampshire to give the invocation?
And remember that for an enormous number of people, the fact that Leviticus places homosexuality in the same category as incest and bestiality is something to be taken at face value; and that the recognition of same sex marriage involves a deep and profound change in how society has looked at marriage compared to the last couple of millenia (as a relationship focused on the love between the partners, instead of the old model of a household raising the next generation of the clan) is a step that just as many people are not yet prepared to take. Are you prepared to say that none of those people have a right to be heard on any issue because of their attitude to homosexuality and same sex marriage? That being a fundamentalist/evangelical is so bad you don't want to ever deal with them? You are objecting to Rick Warren's presence because of his views; there are plenty of evangelicals who are unhappy with Warren because of Obama's views on abortion; you're both reacting in the same kneejerk fashion. Obama picking Warren is a signal that we need to focus American politics on finding shelter, food and jobs for the people in this country, and making this country a champion of peace and not war, instead of trying to ostracize each other--a country where people who tried to get Prop. 8 on the ballot would be laughed off the field for trying to use politics to attain something that politics shouldn't be used for.
I still think he's afraid of spooking the white people.
Counterlight, I do, too. The specter of the "angry black man" hangs over him.
Mimi-tell me it's going to be okay?
Sara, I wish I could.
Kishnevi, I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair to call the response to Warren knee-jerk. When does Obama throw a bone to the progressives in the country?
I say go for a twofer and have +Gene Robinson do the benediction. Piss off the left at one end and the right at the other; perfect political equilibrium.
The choice of Warren is only another instance of the Democratic Party leadership's inevitable tone-deafness to the feelings of its most inconvenient and reliable constituency; Queers.
To quote Rich Little's ancient impersonation of the late Hubert Horatio Humphrey, I'm still "punched as pleased" that Barack Hussein Obama will be the 44th President of the United States of America.
I am choosing to be optimistic but the Warren choice is just plain disappointing. Especially in light of the recent Newsweek article 'our Mutual Joy' James Martin, SJ would have been a nice choice, I think. I have to admit that I like the Gene Robinson suggestion too.
It's funny - if I didn't read biblioblogs I would never even have heard of Rick Warren. While Obama is always in our news, Warren never is at all. We wouldn't know who he was. Today it was all about Obama's latest appointments - but nothing about Warren. I think we would be shocked if we knew - not just because Warren is a gay hating Christian right evangelical nut job, but because the president has this religious ceremony anyway.
Have you played the new game? I found it on Doug Chaplin's blog. http://www.sockandawe.com/
Chere Mimi if Mr. Obama had really wanted to send a message that change was on the way he didn't have to reach too far.
++ Katherine as the first woman Presiding Bishop for the benediction
and you want to send a real message of the hope for real change, how about the blessed Bishop of New Hampshire for the invocation.
alright, call me a dreaming Canuck with no real appreciation for the import of the inauguration, but then I thought the gentleman promised REAL change.
To be fair, and I am one of those very upset about Warren being given prominence, Obama did choose an excellent person for the benediction - a long-time civil rights leader who is LGBT-friendly (something one does not always find in the black churches).
Kishnevi, I grew up among people who take selected passages of the Bible literally (but have no problem with shellfish and cotton-poly blends, also forbidden in the same part of Leviticus). It is a very deliberate form of ignorance that has been drummed into them to preserve the patriarchy and they are extremely fear-driven. This is sad, and it has cruel consequences, like gay bashing, teen suicide, and the Matthew Shephards of this world.
Given Warren's active role in Prop 8, I find placing someone who works to take away other people's rights in the spotlight to be an unwise and deeply offensive choice - political clearly but really not well thought out. If Obama wants an evangelical he could have found one that was not out there pushing Prop H8. At this point he cannot back down and I don't expect him to but I am and will remain pissed off about it.
It is the equivalent of inviting someone into such a public spotlight who has worked passionately to take away the rights of people of color. Except that you can still verbally bash gays and it's deemed acceptable discourse. But some of us no longer buy that premise.
You are free to hold your opinion and to express your opinion. Calling your opinion ignorant and hateful does not remove your right to free speech and does not make you a martyr. It is using our right of free speech too. You may call me a willful sinner and I will call you a willful bigot. We can be civil toward each other.
But don't try to take my rights as a citizen away and not expect me to fight back, hard.
I think Obama's explanation in the video is excellent. His first point mentions his stance on equality which is in disagreement with Warren. He goes on to explain his choice, and mentions that Warren invited him to speak at his church, despite Obama's differing views on certain issues that Warren holds dear.
I'm worried that we're making too big a deal of this. It is fine to communicate our concern over Warren't theology, but some are painting this as Obama embracing Warren's theology and anti-GLBT beliefs, and I just don't think that is what Obama is doing. I don't like Warren any more than I like any other mega-church evangelical preacher, but I think our response needs to be careful and measured. I understand feelings are raw right now -- mine certainly have been -- but the civil rights movement didn't happen overnight, and neither will GLBT equality happen in the relatively short span of 30 years. It seems like a long time, when you're living it, but it took many generations to achieve what MLK, Jr. did, and we need to keep that in mind as we continue the struggle for equality.
The choice seems crass and political to me. If, as Rmj said, Obama and Warren are friends, that might help explain the choice. I have not yet recovered from my disdain for the one half that I read of Warren's book, "The Purpose Driven Life".
I don't attribute Warren's theology to Obama, and I never meant to do that in my criticism of his choice. Obama is trying to neutralize the opposition of the religious right, but he will not succeed. They will never be on his side. As I said elsewhere, he's beginning to remind me of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Still, although I'm quite disappointed in this choice, I believe that Obama will not withdraw the invitation. As symbolism, his choosing Warren stinks. Yet, I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and wait to see if his actions show that he's "a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans".
I did not like the way Obama disposed of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as his pastor, either. I know that it was a political move, and that it probably had to be done, or we'd still be talking about "that angry, black minister". As Counterlight said, "Never fall in love with a politician".
Granted, a better choice would have been ++Katherine or Brian McLaren for that matter, but I'm personally not getting that worked up over it. President-Elect Obama is free to choose who he wishes to speak at his innaguration, it is his innaguration, after all.
The way I see it, Mr. Obama is showing that he is open to all sides, which is what he promised in the election. Just because you disagree with someone on some issues does not mean they don't have something good to say on others. Even Titus One Nine has some grain of goodness once in a while.
So let's all take a breath, mutter a prayer, and give him a chance. Worst case, Pastor Ricky sticks his foot in his mouth...
Arkansas Hillbilly, Obama has made much of his inauguration as a people's inauguration. The truth is that it IS our presidential inauguration, and not simply his.
Exactly, and so everyone should have a voice in it, or it is only one side that is represented. We who preach inclusivity have to remember that everyone is welcome means, "EVERYONE" is welcome. Obama is setting an example of reaching out to those who disagree with him in order for us all to work together to fix what is broken. Let's face it, folks, we all had a hand in the mess we're in, so it's going to take all of us to fix it. I see this as a wonderful example. Of course I'm just a bumpkin from the backwoods, I could be mistaken.
Suzer, Pastor Warren may have invited P.E. Obama to his church, but this is an invitation to stand on the steps of the United States Capitol with the entire world watching. They are not the same thing. Had he been invited to a presidential forum on HIV/Aids or hunger or some other issue, there would not have been this type of backlash. In addition to all of the reasons that have so far been mentionned, the fact the he has called for the assasination of the President of Iran should have disqalified him both from the inauguration and, in my opinion, preaching from the pulpit of any church that calls itself Christian.
I think tempted. You can be such a wonderful muse sometimes. But I am going to remain true to my word and wait until my vacation in January to blog again. I should be the proud owner of an associates degree by then, Woo hoo! One step closer to my goal!
Renz, I'm straight and an Obama fan and I am horrified by this choice. It is crassly political and I am furious about it.
I don't agree with Steph that Warren is an unknown. Until a few years ago he was better known than Obama, with his mega-best-seller (I couldn't make it past chapter one, Mimi) and his face on the cover of Time, Newsweek, etc. When that woman read his book to her would-be rapist/murderer a few years ago and it was all over the papers for weeks, Warren was, of course, all over the papers, too.
However ... and I absolutely cannot believe that I'm in the position of defending Warren ... he does have a very strong stance on feeding the poor and serving the sick, etc. Personally, I find his approach typically arrogant, patriarchal and patronizing, but he does at least know that it is one's Christian duty to take care of the least of these. (Well, maybe not all of the least of these ...). His work on AIDS in Africa may not be the approach I would take, but at least he is doing something.
Warren has worked to shift the evangelical movement away from a narrow focus on social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, to a broader social agenda. His five-point plan for global action calls for church-led efforts to tackle global poverty and disease, including the spread of HIV/AIDS, and to support literacy and education efforts around the world. In February 2006, he signed a statement backing a major initiative to combat global warming, thus breaking with some of the U.S.'s high-profile evangelical leaders, such as James Dobson, who had opposed such a move.[2] Warren has been invited to speak at national and international forums including the United Nations, the World Economic Forum in Davos, the African Union, the Council on Foreign Relations, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, TED, and Time’s Global Health Summit. Warren was named one of "America's Top 25 Leaders" in the October 31, 2005 issue of U.S. News and World Report.[3] Warren was elected by TIME magazine as one of 15 World Leaders Who Mattered Most in 2004 and one of the "100 Most Influential People in the World" (2005).[4] Newsweek magazine called him one of "15 People Who Make America Great", an award given to people who, through bravery or generosity, genius or passion, devote themselves to helping others.[5]
OK, that said, let me reiterate: don't like him; hate this choice with a passion.
Oh and David of Montreal--Katharine Jefferts Schori is NOT the first female presiding bishop of a major denomination in the United States. That honor goes to Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, who was elected as the head of the AME Council of Bishops in 2005. The AME church numbers approximately 2.5 million American members---200,000 more than TEC.
Bishop McKenzie is a hell of a preacher and has done HIV work in Africa too. She would have been a better choice than Rick Warren, for sure---and as a Black woman who broke down the historic barriers for women in the African American church community, she would have symbolized both true inclusion and just how far we've come in this nation.
The passing of the Bush administration is a joyful occasion in and of itself, but having Warren front and center in the inauguration ceremony will spoil my pleasure in the day.
"Unrepentant" gay folks may attend, but they can't become members of Saddleback Church. I'll wager the church will take their filthy lucre, too.
Renz, no, no, no! I'm trying to get all my frustration out before the big day. I pray nothing like that will happen. We are of one mind and one spirit in our joy at seeing the Bush administration come to an end. And we could have had McCain.
Yes, Mimi. I wrote a letter to one of the persons Paul pointed to and told him that I was heart broken at the Warren choice. Here I was so happy for Obama, and sad for the passing of Prop 8, but I would have never have guessed that the President Elect would ask Weenie Warren to pray. I wasn't going to watch it, but I think that I will just leave the room while he does. Is that alright?
Yes. Just close your teeth tight against each other and snarl! That's as curled as you can get. I will be in Illinois to see my boy be instituted as the Rector on Saturday and will be flying back on Tuesday, but we will, I think be able to watch some of it before we leave for the airport to come back to California.
And remember that for an enormous number of people, the fact that Leviticus places homosexuality in the same category as incest and bestiality is something to be taken at face value
Kishnevi,
This isn't a "face value" question. The above is JUST PLAIN WRONG.
Leviticus does NOT, in fact, say the above. (Whether it condemns anal sex between men IS a question of "face value")
Differing opinions of interpretation are one thing. Flat-out errors are another, and need saying so! (Beginning w/ Biblical illiterates---willfully or unwillingly---like Rick Warren. Just another reason HE, of all people, is unqualified to give an Inaugural Invocation: you don't need to be Christian, but you OUGHT to be half-way competant at your religious job!)
No need to fret, Mimi - the Obama folks are including a gay marching band in the parade! As Joe Solomonese remarks in the Washington Post, "You know how the gays love a parade".
ReplyDeleteWarren's support is one of the reasons Proposition 8 passed in California.
"...Noisy, opinionated..." and might I add bigoted?
ReplyDeleteI still think he's afraid of spooking the white people.
ReplyDeleteI was very edified today to find out how many (non-evangelical)Christian pastors and church members are equally appalled at the choice of Warren. Not just because of his anti-gay, anti-woman stances, but because he sneers at and refers to as "Marxist" the efforts of said Christians to feed the hungry, house and clothe the homeless, and otherwise engage in the actual ministry of Christ. Apparently Warren believes that the only salvation is through *his* definition of salvation--and good works never enter into it (but being rich does!)
ReplyDeletesaintlywife-I was just getting to a "suck it up and get on with it" attitude and you had to go and say that! Surely not, I know evangelicals are more into, "spreading the word", than the stuff the rest of us do, but he's actually said that? Mad all over again! I maintain, Obama's success depends on his ability to chose people of intelligence, honor and integrity to advise him, this is a bit disturbing.
ReplyDeleteMimi-tell me it's going to be okay?
My S-t-P calls him the Ronald MacDonald of religion. Fast food, easy to swallow, no work involved on the part of the consumer... just pay at window #2.
ReplyDeleteI'm disheartened by this,but there's a pretty good conversation going on over at Andrew Sullivan's blog, which gives me a little (small l) hope. He's really trying to give Obama as much as he can.
ReplyDeleteWe'll see.
The Purpose Driven Life is very popular among Christians of all stripes. People in my church have read it. So he is probably the best known evangelical right now, kind of like Billy Graham. Many people have read his book and respect him, but don't know that he is so conservative SOOOOO conservative on social issues. That may be why Obama chose him.
I need to go deal with the comments at my own blog, but I had to say something.
ReplyDeleteI can't really find a silver lining here. It seems a cynical or political choice no matter what.
Someone in the comments at my place mentioned how conservatives freaked out over +Gene and that this was the same thing in reverse.
I disagree - +Gene preaches peace, understanding, bridge building.
Obama made a bad choice.
Fran--that's exactly what it is: a political choice. Obama is a politician, after all.
ReplyDeleteIf y'all take a deep breath and think for a moment, you'll realize that this is exactly why you voted for Obama. Can you imagine John McCain inviting a certain bishop from New Hampshire to give the invocation?
And remember that for an enormous number of people, the fact that Leviticus places homosexuality in the same category as incest and bestiality is something to be taken at face value; and that the recognition of same sex marriage involves a deep and profound change in how society has looked at marriage compared to the last couple of millenia (as a relationship focused on the love between the partners, instead of the old model of a household raising the next generation of the clan) is a step that just as many people are not yet prepared to take. Are you prepared to say that none of those people have a right to be heard on any issue because of their attitude to homosexuality and same sex marriage? That being a fundamentalist/evangelical is so bad you don't want to ever deal with them?
You are objecting to Rick Warren's presence because of his views; there are plenty of evangelicals who are unhappy with Warren because of Obama's views on abortion; you're both reacting in the same kneejerk fashion.
Obama picking Warren is a signal that we need to focus American politics on finding shelter, food and jobs for the people in this country, and making this country a champion of peace and not war, instead of trying to ostracize each other--a country where people who tried to get Prop. 8 on the ballot would be laughed off the field for trying to use politics to attain something that politics shouldn't be used for.
I still think he's afraid of spooking the white people.
ReplyDeleteCounterlight, I do, too. The specter of the "angry black man" hangs over him.
Mimi-tell me it's going to be okay?
Sara, I wish I could.
Kishnevi, I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair to call the response to Warren knee-jerk. When does Obama throw a bone to the progressives in the country?
I say go for a twofer and have +Gene Robinson do the benediction. Piss off the left at one end and the right at the other; perfect political equilibrium.
ReplyDeleteThe choice of Warren is only another instance of the Democratic Party leadership's inevitable tone-deafness to the feelings of its most inconvenient and reliable constituency; Queers.
To quote Rich Little's ancient impersonation of the late Hubert Horatio Humphrey, I'm still "punched as pleased" that Barack Hussein Obama will be the 44th President of the United States of America.
I've got an even better idea.
ReplyDeleteHow about Margaret Cho giving the benediction! Yes, she really is a Christian, and she used to teach Sunday school.
CL, I read your post about Margaret Cho being a Christian. If we move into wishes, why the sky is the limit. We can soar.
ReplyDeleteDid you see Olbermann tonight?
ReplyDeleteSusan, I did. He and Rachel Maddow both covered Obama's choice of Warren thoroughly.
ReplyDeleteI am choosing to be optimistic but the Warren choice is just plain disappointing. Especially in light of the recent Newsweek article 'our Mutual Joy' James Martin, SJ would have been a nice choice, I think. I have to admit that I like the Gene Robinson suggestion too.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny - if I didn't read biblioblogs I would never even have heard of Rick Warren. While Obama is always in our news, Warren never is at all. We wouldn't know who he was. Today it was all about Obama's latest appointments - but nothing about Warren. I think we would be shocked if we knew - not just because Warren is a gay hating Christian right evangelical nut job, but because the president has this religious ceremony anyway.
ReplyDeleteHave you played the new game? I found it on Doug Chaplin's blog.
http://www.sockandawe.com/
Chere Mimi
ReplyDeleteif Mr. Obama had really wanted to send a message that change was on the way he didn't have to reach too far.
++ Katherine as the first woman Presiding Bishop for the benediction
and you want to send a real message of the hope for real change, how about the blessed Bishop of New Hampshire for the invocation.
alright, call me a dreaming Canuck with no real appreciation for the import of the inauguration, but then I thought the gentleman promised REAL change.
David@Montreal
Basically, what Steph said.
ReplyDeleteI keep thinking that, of all the branches on the tree of Evil, this isn't even a twig.
It's barely a leaf, in fact.
NPR noted that Obama and Warren are friends, even if they disagree on some topics. Which goes a long way to explaining the invitation.
To be fair, and I am one of those very upset about Warren being given prominence, Obama did choose an excellent person for the benediction - a long-time civil rights leader who is LGBT-friendly (something one does not always find in the black churches).
ReplyDeleteKishnevi, I grew up among people who take selected passages of the Bible literally (but have no problem with shellfish and cotton-poly blends, also forbidden in the same part of Leviticus). It is a very deliberate form of ignorance that has been drummed into them to preserve the patriarchy and they are extremely fear-driven. This is sad, and it has cruel consequences, like gay bashing, teen suicide, and the Matthew Shephards of this world.
Given Warren's active role in Prop 8, I find placing someone who works to take away other people's rights in the spotlight to be an unwise and deeply offensive choice - political clearly but really not well thought out. If Obama wants an evangelical he could have found one that was not out there pushing Prop H8. At this point he cannot back down and I don't expect him to but I am and will remain pissed off about it.
It is the equivalent of inviting someone into such a public spotlight who has worked passionately to take away the rights of people of color. Except that you can still verbally bash gays and it's deemed acceptable discourse. But some of us no longer buy that premise.
Shorter version of my conclusion above:
ReplyDeleteYou are free to hold your opinion and to express your opinion. Calling your opinion ignorant and hateful does not remove your right to free speech and does not make you a martyr. It is using our right of free speech too. You may call me a willful sinner and I will call you a willful bigot. We can be civil toward each other.
But don't try to take my rights as a citizen away and not expect me to fight back, hard.
I think Obama's explanation in the video is excellent. His first point mentions his stance on equality which is in disagreement with Warren. He goes on to explain his choice, and mentions that Warren invited him to speak at his church, despite Obama's differing views on certain issues that Warren holds dear.
ReplyDeleteI'm worried that we're making too big a deal of this. It is fine to communicate our concern over Warren't theology, but some are painting this as Obama embracing Warren's theology and anti-GLBT beliefs, and I just don't think that is what Obama is doing. I don't like Warren any more than I like any other mega-church evangelical preacher, but I think our response needs to be careful and measured. I understand feelings are raw right now -- mine certainly have been -- but the civil rights movement didn't happen overnight, and neither will GLBT equality happen in the relatively short span of 30 years. It seems like a long time, when you're living it, but it took many generations to achieve what MLK, Jr. did, and we need to keep that in mind as we continue the struggle for equality.
The choice seems crass and political to me. If, as Rmj said, Obama and Warren are friends, that might help explain the choice. I have not yet recovered from my disdain for the one half that I read of Warren's book, "The Purpose Driven Life".
ReplyDeleteI don't attribute Warren's theology to Obama, and I never meant to do that in my criticism of his choice. Obama is trying to neutralize the opposition of the religious right, but he will not succeed. They will never be on his side. As I said elsewhere, he's beginning to remind me of the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Still, although I'm quite disappointed in this choice, I believe that Obama will not withdraw the invitation. As symbolism, his choosing Warren stinks. Yet, I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and wait to see if his actions show that he's "a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans".
More's the pity that Obama didn't check in with Mimi before making his decision. I mean, really! You're more famous than Rick Warren!
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, more's the pity. I'da told 'im.
ReplyDeleteI did not like the way Obama disposed of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as his pastor, either. I know that it was a political move, and that it probably had to be done, or we'd still be talking about "that angry, black minister". As Counterlight said, "Never fall in love with a politician".
Politicians are not there to be loved. They are there to be used. So use 'em or lose 'em. They work for US. Never let them forget that.
ReplyDeleteGranted, a better choice would have been ++Katherine or Brian McLaren for that matter, but I'm personally not getting that worked up over it. President-Elect Obama is free to choose who he wishes to speak at his innaguration, it is his innaguration, after all.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, Mr. Obama is showing that he is open to all sides, which is what he promised in the election. Just because you disagree with someone on some issues does not mean they don't have something good to say on others. Even Titus One Nine has some grain of goodness once in a while.
So let's all take a breath, mutter a prayer, and give him a chance. Worst case, Pastor Ricky sticks his foot in his mouth...
Worst case, Pastor Ricky sticks his foot in his mouth...
ReplyDelete:oD
Not that I'm wishing for it or anything.
...it is his innaguration, after all.
ReplyDeleteArkansas Hillbilly, Obama has made much of his inauguration as a people's inauguration. The truth is that it IS our presidential inauguration, and not simply his.
Exactly, and so everyone should have a voice in it, or it is only one side that is represented. We who preach inclusivity have to remember that everyone is welcome means, "EVERYONE" is welcome. Obama is setting an example of reaching out to those who disagree with him in order for us all to work together to fix what is broken. Let's face it, folks, we all had a hand in the mess we're in, so it's going to take all of us to fix it. I see this as a wonderful example. Of course I'm just a bumpkin from the backwoods, I could be mistaken.
ReplyDeleteAh, Mimi, you may have inspired me to break my Advent Sabatical. I may have to write about this later.
ReplyDeleteSuzer, Pastor Warren may have invited P.E. Obama to his church, but this is an invitation to stand on the steps of the United States Capitol with the entire world watching. They are not the same thing. Had he been invited to a presidential forum on HIV/Aids or hunger or some other issue, there would not have been this type of backlash. In addition to all of the reasons that have so far been mentionned, the fact the he has called for the assasination of the President of Iran should have disqalified him both from the inauguration and, in my opinion, preaching from the pulpit of any church that calls itself Christian.
ReplyDeleteAh, Mimi, you may have inspired me to break my Advent Sabatical.
ReplyDeleteAH, inspired or tempted?
I think tempted. You can be such a wonderful muse sometimes. But I am going to remain true to my word and wait until my vacation in January to blog again. I should be the proud owner of an associates degree by then, Woo hoo! One step closer to my goal!
ReplyDeleteWoo hoo! indeed!! AB. Great work
ReplyDeleteAH, congratulations! Get your degree. I won't tempt you further.
ReplyDeleteRenz, would you say that I let it pass, excused it, justified it? Just curious.
Renz, I took it very hard when Obama disassociated himself from the Rev. Wright. I watched the sermon, too, and, in context, the words were right.
ReplyDeleteObama said that he would be "a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans". We'll have to hold him to that.
With a stroke of the pen, he can end the ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military.
Renz, I'm straight and an Obama fan and I am horrified by this choice. It is crassly political and I am furious about it.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with Steph that Warren is an unknown. Until a few years ago he was better known than Obama, with his mega-best-seller (I couldn't make it past chapter one, Mimi) and his face on the cover of Time, Newsweek, etc. When that woman read his book to her would-be rapist/murderer a few years ago and it was all over the papers for weeks, Warren was, of course, all over the papers, too.
However ... and I absolutely cannot believe that I'm in the position of defending Warren ... he does have a very strong stance on feeding the poor and serving the sick, etc. Personally, I find his approach typically arrogant, patriarchal and patronizing, but he does at least know that it is one's Christian duty to take care of the least of these. (Well, maybe not all of the least of these ...). His work on AIDS in Africa may not be the approach I would take, but at least he is doing something.
From Wikipedia on Warren's fame and focus:
ReplyDeleteWarren has worked to shift the evangelical movement away from a narrow focus on social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, to a broader social agenda. His five-point plan for global action calls for church-led efforts to tackle global poverty and disease, including the spread of HIV/AIDS, and to support literacy and education efforts around the world. In February 2006, he signed a statement backing a major initiative to combat global warming, thus breaking with some of the U.S.'s high-profile evangelical leaders, such as James Dobson, who had opposed such a move.[2]
Warren has been invited to speak at national and international forums including the United Nations, the World Economic Forum in Davos, the African Union, the Council on Foreign Relations, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, TED, and Time’s Global Health Summit.
Warren was named one of "America's Top 25 Leaders" in the October 31, 2005 issue of U.S. News and World Report.[3] Warren was elected by TIME magazine as one of 15 World Leaders Who Mattered Most in 2004 and one of the "100 Most Influential People in the World" (2005).[4] Newsweek magazine called him one of "15 People Who Make America Great", an award given to people who, through bravery or generosity, genius or passion, devote themselves to helping others.[5]
OK, that said, let me reiterate: don't like him; hate this choice with a passion.
Renzmqt---I'm straight, female, and disgusted and sickened. No caveats from here.
ReplyDeleteJust FYI.
Doxy
Oh and David of Montreal--Katharine Jefferts Schori is NOT the first female presiding bishop of a major denomination in the United States. That honor goes to Bishop Vashti Murphy McKenzie of the African Methodist Episcopal Church, who was elected as the head of the AME Council of Bishops in 2005. The AME church numbers approximately 2.5 million American members---200,000 more than TEC.
ReplyDeleteBishop McKenzie is a hell of a preacher and has done HIV work in Africa too. She would have been a better choice than Rick Warren, for sure---and as a Black woman who broke down the historic barriers for women in the African American church community, she would have symbolized both true inclusion and just how far we've come in this nation.
(I would have loved +Katharine too, of course!)
Pax,
Doxy
The passing of the Bush administration is a joyful occasion in and of itself, but having Warren front and center in the inauguration ceremony will spoil my pleasure in the day.
ReplyDelete"Unrepentant" gay folks may attend, but they can't become members of Saddleback Church. I'll wager the church will take their filthy lucre, too.
Doxy is so right on (as usual). Bishop McKenzie would be the PERFECT choice. Too late.
ReplyDeleteLJ, I can't let Warren go. I posted yet again.
ReplyDeleteHow about a nice rabbi?
Renz, no, no, no! I'm trying to get all my frustration out before the big day. I pray nothing like that will happen. We are of one mind and one spirit in our joy at seeing the Bush administration come to an end. And we could have had McCain.
ReplyDeleteYes, Mimi. I wrote a letter to one of the persons Paul pointed to and told him that I was heart broken at the Warren choice. Here I was so happy for Obama, and sad for the passing of Prop 8, but I would have never have guessed that the President Elect would ask Weenie Warren to pray. I wasn't going to watch it, but I think that I will just leave the room while he does. Is that alright?
ReplyDeleteSusan, I'll probably torture myself and watch with my lip curled, gritting my teeth. Is that even possible, anatomically speaking?
ReplyDeleteYes. Just close your teeth tight against each other and snarl! That's as curled as you can get. I will be in Illinois to see my boy be instituted as the Rector on Saturday and will be flying back on Tuesday, but we will, I think be able to watch some of it before we leave for the airport to come back to California.
ReplyDeleteSusan, how lovely that you can be with your son on that joyful occasion. What a proud mama you will be.
ReplyDeleteAnd remember that for an enormous number of people, the fact that Leviticus places homosexuality in the same category as incest and bestiality is something to be taken at face value
ReplyDeleteKishnevi,
This isn't a "face value" question. The above is JUST PLAIN WRONG.
Leviticus does NOT, in fact, say the above. (Whether it condemns anal sex between men IS a question of "face value")
Differing opinions of interpretation are one thing. Flat-out errors are another, and need saying so! (Beginning w/ Biblical illiterates---willfully or unwillingly---like Rick Warren. Just another reason HE, of all people, is unqualified to give an Inaugural Invocation: you don't need to be Christian, but you OUGHT to be half-way competant at your religious job!)