RSS Feed
Choosing Warren: Obama at His Best
Whether one is a fan of the next President or not, any fan of faith should be cheered by President-elect Obama's choice of Rick Warren to offer the inaugural invocation. Once again the President-elect shows that he will confound ideologues time after time. And especially in matter of faith and politics, nothing could be more important given the sharply polarizing power of each. Obama's choice affirms that faith matters and that it should be bigger than any one dogma, doctrine or creed.
He demonstrates once again that he will confound ideologues time after time. His choice affirms that faith matters and that it should be bigger than any one dogma, doctrine or creed. Ironically, even if Rick Warren doesn't share that belief, his willingness to bless this presidency places him at the center of a spiritual-political moment that celebrates precisely that kind of post- ideological thinking. So for those who really cannot stand Rev. Warren, sit back and imagine that the joke is on him!
But Obama's choice in this matter is far more than a joke. It is a leadership lesson in how one stands for particular policies while celebrating an entire nation that differs about those very issues. Rather than opting for a theological mirror of himself when choosing who will give the invocation, as President Bush did when he chose Franklin Graham, Obama challenges us to remember that blessing can be found with all people - even those with whom we may differ sharply.
While we all have our limits people ought not to focus exclusively on Rev. Warren's position on gay marriage and his advocacy for Proposition 8 as an excuse to push past theirs. After all the good works that Rick Warren has done for so many poor and disenfranchised Americans should provide some balance on the scales when we judge his views on gay marriage, abortion, and other issues to which so many Obama supporters object.
Having supported a candidate who was all about change, we have to ask ourselves if we plan to make any changes ourselves. Or was "change" simply code for throw the bums out? Should conservatives, both theological and political, now be treated as many have felt theological and political liberals have been treated for the past eight years? If so, then where is the change?
Real change should affect all of us. It redefines relationships and attitudes. And the first changes must always be made by those taking power. That's what it means to wield power ethically and even more important in this case, civilly. So however we feel about Rick Warren, and especially if we care about securing a place for faith in the American public square, we should cheer Obama's choice.
Admittedly, I am not gay and I am sure that fact shapes my opinion. I wonder how many gay people admit how being gay shapes theirs, instead of hiding behind axiomatic claims about justice as if they had a corner on the proper understanding of the term? Either way, the fact that I am Jewish provides some interesting parallels to being gay, as far as Warren is concerned.
Rick Warren has the same stance on Jews that he has on gay people i.e. we are living in sin, falling short of God's will and cannot get into Heaven. Actually, Rev. Warren may not believe the later about Gays, but he certainly does about Jews. I was in the room with him when he said it!
And for those who will argue that I should object to Rev. Warren's positions on both gayness and Jewishness because they are both rooted in the kind of ugly hatred which drove all classical anti-Semitism, I would have to disagree. I accept that some Christians relate to my Jewishness as "missing the boat" on God's word, just as they think that gay people have. I don't agree with them, but I hardly think that they are motivated by the kind of enduring hatred which defines genuine anti-Semitism.
People in our society confuse disagreement with hatred. They are simply not the same. And as wrong as I believe Rick Warren was in dealing with Proposition 8, assuming he was motivated by hatred is actually a hateful act - one, that no matter how much inclusivity it dresses itself up in, is as absolutist in its demands of the theological right as they are of the left.
And for those who will get out their Bible's to "prove" that Warren is wrong, let me suggst that is not really helpful, respectful or productive. People of faith should certainly uses scripture to ground their decision-making processes, but to assume that the conclusions we reach are the only one's which are "authentic" or "genuinely rooted in the text" is just wrong.
To imagine that our interpretation of scripture is exhaustive of what the Bible might mean, is precisely the objection many of us make against Rick Warren and those who share his Biblical reading style! And that's precisely why they should not be excluded from having a place, an honored place, at the theological/political table. I know it's hard, which is why every faith traditions must keep teaching it, but let's try not to do to others what we feel they have done to us.
The concerns about Rick Warren offering the inaugural invocation are an American thing and we all have a right to an opinion. And you certainly don't have to be gay to care about how social policy affects gay people! We are all in this together. This is a human thing about which good people can disagree. That, I think, is what Obama's decision is all about.
By
Brad Hirschfield
|
December 27, 2008; 12:15 PM ET
| Category:
Religion & Politics
Share This: 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Strange Bedfellows: Rick Warren, Melissa Etheridge and MPAC |
Next: Obama's Choice, Not Ours
Posted by: tbarksdl | December 29, 2008 7:54 AM
Report Offensive Comment
What will it take to get gay people their civil rights, one of which Rick Warren doesn't want them to have?
What will it take to have all the Rick Warrens, indeed, the majority of Christians, to leave Jews alone, and not feel they must confine us to hell because we don't think as they do?
What will it take for the AmeriChristians to start singing with the Afhani Muslims? The Iraqi Muslims? Singing instead of dismembering? That would be nice, wouldn't it?
Posted by: observer12 | December 27, 2008 10:49 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Rabbi,
I appreciate your take on this.
I think that what happens when we marginalize people is that we either radicalize them or we make them victims, or both.
President Elect Obama calls us to serve our country and our common needs as Americans. Marginalizing any group of Americans is contrary to that goal and it doesn't suit the occasion.
We all need to look at our prejudices.
I'm so surprised as a liberal Christian to find myself having to consider my prejudice against conservative Christians because of this choice.
Who is change for?
Who is the President for?
Who's country is this?
It's a simple as a song.
This land is my land
This land is your land
This land was made for you and me.
Imagine if Palestinians and Jews could sing together? What will it take to get us there?
Probably a million little challenges like this one.
Posted by: JohnQuimby | December 27, 2008 8:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Rabbi Hirschfield
Happy Hannukah!
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia
Posted by: s_j_thaikattil | December 24, 2008 6:48 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Rabbi,
With all due respect, you don't have to reply to every question Quinn raises. You would have done better to have let this one go.
But not this. From today's L.A. Times. We await your analysis.
From today's LA Times:
But on the signal issues of the religious right he is, as he himself has said, as orthodox as James Dobson.
And as inflammatory. Warren doesn't just oppose gay marriage, he's compared it to incest and pedophilia. He doesn't just want to ban abortion, he's compared women who terminate pregnancies to Nazis and the pro-choice position to Holocaust denial. (Hmmm ... If a fertilized egg is as precious as a born Jewish human being, does that mean a born Jewish human being is only as valuable as a fertilized egg?)
Speaking of Jews, Warren has publicly stated his belief that they will burn in hell, presumably along with everyone else who hasn't accepted his particular brand of Christianity (i.e., the vast majority of people in the world). And forget about evolution -- the existence of homosexuals, he's argued, disproves Darwin. And while we may not know how old the Earth is, the Saddleback website assures us that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-pollitt22-2008dec22,0,6597471.story
Posted by: Farnaz2 | December 22, 2008 7:47 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
What a curious argument. Let's see now. Inviting the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan to Lyndon Johnson’s inauguration in 1964 would have helped unite Americans, overcome the divisions created by the civil rights struggle, encouraged white racist bigots to moderate their bigotry, and pointed the way to a better America. The type of people who murdered peaceful civil rights workers, beat the Selma demonstrators to a bloody pulp, set loose the police dogs on black protesters, and bombed black churches would have seen the light and changed for the better if only mainstream America had simply showed them more tolerance.
You truly have to be deaf, blind, and dumb to believe that giving an evangelical preacher like Warren a seat at the table serves the cause of inclusiveness and dialogue. You undermine, not reinforce, the cause of inclusiveness by conveying legitimacy to the voices of exclusiveness. The civil rights battle was not won by inviting racist bigots into the tent. On the contrary. The civil rights battle was won by kicking the racists out of the tent and telling them never to return.
The mentalities of the Rick Warrens of the world are even more set in concrete than the mentalities of the worst of the white racist bigots. God, remember, instructs Rev. Warren what to do and what to say. God cannot be right today and wrong tomorrow. Human dialogue does not change God’s policies. Therefore, Rick Warren cannot be wrong yesterday and right tomorrow. Human dialogue will not change his policies.
That’s the only way to deal with the current crop of religious-inspired bigots who preach discrimination against some classes of our fellow Americans. Relegate them to the margins of this society—just like we did with the once powerful KKK and its ilk.
I ask Barack Obama and all those who support his choice of Warren two questions:
1. What is the difference between Warren's insulting and inflammatory depiction of gays and a white racist bigot's depiction of blacks who led the civil rights movement as "just a bunch of trouble-making N-words?" I don't see it.
2. Using the "big tent" reasoning, tell me why that rationale could not be used to invite Louis Farrakhan to say a prayer at the inauguration?