For the better part of a day, since the announcement was made about pastor Rick Warren participating in the inaguration, Andrew Sullivan has been hemming and hawing over his reaction to this development. Now, at last, he’s come to a decision: he’s okay with it. Key quote:
I know the arguments against this, and if Obama delivers nothing on gay equality, the critics will have every reason to complain loudly, as they should. But I’m not going there yet. And the truth is: if we cannot engage a Rick Warren on the question of our equality, we may secure a narrow and bitter victory in some states (just as the Christianists won a narrow and bitter victory in California in November). But we will not win the bigger argument and our victories will lack the moral legitimacy they deserve.
Arguments like that are why I read his blog so…religiously (for lack of a better word).
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Interesting rationale. The truth really is though that “we” cannot engage a Rick Warren on the question of equality. That’s a false expectation, as he is dogmatic on how to treat gay people (like they don’t exist) and borderline dumb on his reasons (e.g. “5,000 years” of marriage being the same? Sure Rick, and divorce, polygamy, child selling and the treatment of women as property have all been exactly the same too.) Tough to engage with someone who doesn’t see you.
So I think Andrew just really threw in the towel on this one, as his own rationale falls apart – he punted. The idea though makes sense – although someone as ignorant and extreme as Warren isn’t going to change, there are many younger, more reality-based people out there who are open to this type of engagement. Going to be an interesting journey.
Open letter to Rick Warren
> Dear Pastor:
> It was with great anticipation that I watched your interview on
> Dateline NBC tonight. As a pastor of an open and affirming church I
> was anxious to hear what you would have to say.
> Since this is an open letter which my congregation and fellow
> ministers will see, I too no doubt will take some heat for this
> stand. However I feel if you are willing to take heat for yours,
> I’ll be willing to take some for mine.
> Several years ago our church pulled together enough money to send two
> of our congregation members to your AIDS conference. They came back
> ready to turn Tulsa upside down. To some degree we have made a
> difference but not just due to your conference.
> We have used your materials for small groups, I have purchased many of
> your books myself and given them as gifts and I have no remorse for
> doing so.
> I remember in an interview you did several years ago someone asked you
> if you were left wing or right wing and you replied “We are the whole
> bird”.
> Tonight I felt as if your bird has lost one of it wings.
> You are a very smart and well educated man and I do not consider
> myself someone who is on a level to change your mind about anything.
> However I do feel there are things that need to be said. Although
> you may hear them from others, I can’t let this go with voicing these
> things myself.
> 1. Tonight in your interview you said “I have many gay friends who say
> , I don’t understand why I can’t have multiple partners.” I think
> you need to find some new gay friends. There are MANY gay and
> lesbian people who are not looking for multiple partners, who are in
> monogamous long term relationships. To lump all gay and lesbian
> people with promiscuity is like lumping all evangelicals with loud
> colored shirts. 2. You then said that you are prone to want to have
> sex with every good looking woman you see. Have you thought about
> getting help for that? The same bible you quoted tonight also says
> “As a man thinketh in his heart so is he.” and “out of the abundance
> of the heart the mouth speaks.”
> 3. You then linked gay and lesbian people to pedolphelia and incest.
> I do understand there are three laws of the Bible “civil, ceremonial
> and moral” however we are to rightly divide the Word of God and
> lumping gay and lesbian people into these categories is not rightly
> dividing this Word. Paul said “there is neither Jew, nor greek, male
> or female , bond or free”.
> Now let me close this with a personal story. I myself am HIV
> positive, as a matter of fact according to the facts (not the truth
> just the facts) I have AIDS.
> Last year I became very ill and went into the hospital for 3 weeks,
> 11 of those days on a ventilator. It was purely because of prayer
> that I came out of it. Today I am back working full time.
> Our ministry is called “Help to Hope”. Our goal is to help people
> understand that you don’t have to die of this disease, that it is in
> reality a chronic illness but one that can be overcome.
> While your opinions and views tonight will greatly distance much of
> the gay and lesbian community from you that you have desired to
> reach, my prayers are with you.
> It saddens me and others that the love you profess has limits. That
> should I want to be a member of your church I wouldn’t be allowed to
> because I have a same sex partner, and yet those who are straight
> could be lusting after every woman in your church and be welcomed
> into membership.
> Kenneth Hagin taught something that I choose to live by…chew the
> hay and spit out the stubble. I will continue to use some of your
> teachings as will others in our community because the truth always
> trust, always protects and always perseveres.
> In Christ Jesus
> Pastor Chuck Breckenridge
> Diversity Christian Fellowship International
Bravo Chuck – keep chewing the hay !
Wasn’t it civil rights activist Bayard Rustin who said that the idea wasn’t to convert the bigots, but to make the most bigoted expression unacceptable for public discourse?
Warren’s church bans gays (except for members of the ex-gay movement) and that Warren himself considers gay marriage the equivalent of pedophilia and incest. That’s what I would consider a “most bigoted expression”.
And Obama is putting the guy who said this front and center at his inauguration.
At some point people have to realize that this isn’t some peripheral issue or abstract idea for the gay community; this is their lives we’re talking about.
Can you please cite the reference to that “fact”. With the little I know about his church I would be surprised if it “bans” gays.
c3: This is being discussed on some other blogs (Huffpo, I think) with a link to Warren’s church’s website. Basically it appears that the site explains that everyone is welcome to attend the church, but homosexuality is considered sinful so anyone who is openly involved in a homosexual relationship wouldn’t be admitted as a member of the church- and it also states that similarly, heteros who are openly involved in a sexual, nonmarried relationship would not be permitted to be members of the church (though can still attend.)
Not sure why any of this should be controversial or a sign of bigotry, since anyone who chooses to define sin by his/her own conscience rather than deferring to church leadership and interpretation is free to live according to his/her own conscience, but not free to define what the church believes. Becoming a member of any congregation is a public statement that one believes what that church teaches, and thus anyone who disagrees would be wrong to ask to become a member under those circumstances.
If the LGBT community has a problem with Warren’s political stance (on Prop 8, for example) then I can understand taking issue with Obama over this pick (though even that’s a bit over the top- he’s not putting Warren in charge of any policy, he’s simply invited him to give a blessing.) Basically he’s doing the same as what he said he did in regard to Rev. Wright- choosing to associate with someone whose views in some cases are different than his own, but in whom he sees a lot of good (from what I have read, for instance, Warren reverse tithes, donating 90% if his income to charity- how can anyone argue that there isn’t a lot of good there?)
Yet somehow it made sense to many people on the left when Obama stayed in Wright’s church for decades even though he has some very questionable and controversial views, but now the same principle shouldn’t be applied when the controversial views hit closer to home.
And this most recent discussion point about whether or not Warren’s church “admits” homosexuals puts lie to the often made claim that gays aren’t going too far in expecting churches to refrain from criticizing homosexuality. If their entire argument centered on civil rights, then they need to refrain from expecting religious people to accept homosexuality as a moral equivalent to heterosexuality. If they don’t draw the line at fighting for civil rights, then they will continue to alienate public opinion and defeat their own purpose.
And the irony here is that Warren has publicly stated he supports civil unions. That’s still very “controversial” among Evangelicals and would have been considered very liberal just 5 years ago. And as alluded to he feels divorce is the greater challenge to marriage in America.
And yet, before any argument between Sullivan and Warren takes place, Sullivan knows he’s right with the same moral certitude and conviction that any religious person has.
I expect the culture wars to continue another few decades at least.
Robo;
Why just decades when they’ve been going on for millenia?