I have a great deal of respect for Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California. I would even go so far as to count him as a friend, and I suspect that he might say the same about me. Warren has done a great deal to recast the social agenda of evangelicals to bring it more into line with the teachings of Jesus as well as the noble precedent of nineteenth-century evangelical activism, which invariably took the part of those on the margins of society. Warren is no fan of the Religious Right, and he recognizes that it is inappropriate for people of faith in a pluralistic society to impose their will on others simply by majoritarian fiat.
So that is why I found his announcement on October 23 that he supports California's Proposition 8 so disturbing. Proposition 8, a ballot initiative, seeks to overturn the California supreme court's ruling that gay marriage is constitutionally permissible.
Warren has every right to his views on the definition of marriage, which he insists (not without foundation) is mandated in the Bible. Millions of Americans - a majority, I'm sure - agree with him. "If you believe what the Bible says about marriage," he declared on his website, "you need to support Proposition 8."
Warren goes on to note that, by his reckoning, gays and lesbians make up only 2 percent of the population in the United States. "We should not let 2 percent of the population change the definition of marriage."
Warren, a Baptist, knows better. The cornerstones of the Baptist tradition are adult baptism (as opposed to infant baptism) and the principle of liberty of conscience and the separation of church and state. Baptists inherited these ideas from Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptist tradition in America. And, at least until the conservative takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention in 1979, Baptists have always been watchmen on that wall of separation and fierce guardians of liberty of conscience. Thankfully, Williams's ideas were incorporated into the United States Constitution, both in the First Amendment, which forbade a religious establishment, and in the recurring principle of respect for the rights of minorities.
These have been the guiding touchstones of American life for more than two centuries. We Americans have sought, at times better than others, to live up to the principles articulated in our charter documents, especially in safeguarding the rights and the interests of minorities - though not perfectly, by any means. The scourge of slavery and segregation and discrimination remains an indelible blot, and our treatment of women has been cavalier. But we Americans eventually rise to our better selves and come around to recognize the claims of legal equality for those who, for reasons of gender or race or religion or sexual orientation, cannot number themselves part of the majority.
And if we needed further warrant for this, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under law" codified that into the Constitution itself.
Many Americans, myself included, understand the California supreme court's decision (and similar rulings in other jurisdictions) as an expression of that principle, an expansion of civil rights to those who have been denied equality for a very long time. It's not at all at odds with fundamental Baptist principles of liberty and protection from a majoritarian ethic that imposes its standards on the minority.
I challenge Rick Warren, my friend and fellow evangelical, to reconsider his support for Proposition 8. Warren and all people of faith have every right to hold to their religious views about homosexuality. But to insist that those standards must be observed by everyone in a pluralistic society is - well, it's not Baptist.
Rick Warren knows better.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Rick Warren was right. Plain and simple. The word of God teaches that Homosexuality is wrong.
"Hold on Nelly Belle" Pastor Warren has a right to speak up for a religious definition of marriage if his faith holds that "civil marriage" (secular marriage) is indeed marriage. A faith system that does NOT so hold has no "dog in the fight", of Prop. 8 and gay marriage, although they might put one in anyway. For example, the Roman Catholic Church invalidates all marriages not performed in the R.C. rite, at least in withholding spiritual validation, although recognizing civil marriage as socially accepted and legally binding. So the question is: Would a Baptist (or substitute faith system here) minister recognize a civil-union ceremony as marriage? If so, the minister is obligated to speak up about his or her religion's definition of marriage and support the side closest to that position. If, to a Baptist, a justice-of-the-peace ceremony, a Vegas wedding if you will, is NOT a true marriage, then Pastor Warren can (and should?) hold his peace along with the couple who are sailing off into a shared life without a religious sanction and send-off. The separation of Church and State was narrowly defined, constitutionally, more from the State's side, than that of the Churches. There were already wars among the Pilgrims and Assoc. as to the "correct" creed, which is how Rhode Island got started...Roger Williams and friends got the boot out of Massachusetts for being apostate according to the predominating Puritans. The State, according to the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." People here are saying Pastor Warren should be denied the free exercise of his religion? What the heck is that based on? That they don't agree with him? That's not the same as charging him with violating American principles of law and custom.
Bridgid MacDonnell said "Rick Warren was right. Plain and simple. The word of God teaches that Homosexuality is wrong."
Nobody contests that. The biblical postion is clear. And if you are a Christian, by all means, live your life in accordance with biblical law.
However, that does NOT give Christians the right to force non-Christians to live the way you might want them to. That's called Theocracy, and it's wrong.
The Preamble to the Constitution of the USA
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
The words "form, establish, insure, provide, promte, and secure" have to be based on a "we" and a "common" foundation together. That is what our fore-fathers struggled to do...and based that commonality with "Providence" and prayers in front and behind them.
To insure and secure the blessings of Liberty, there comes a time when the forces of tyranny must be thrown off--those of the Satanic regime! And as a citizen of the USA secondarily, but mostly as a citizen of THAT eternal kingdom eternally and primarily, we must stand on what UNITES! ANd only UNDER GOD can we be united.
These discussion about the rights of people to do 'whatever they will' and calling it 'freedom' is insane! America must see that the balance of liberty and justice be stabilized! And that can only happen when we give up certain so called 'freedoms' for the sacrifice of the greater good...and those crossroads must be met where God says they need to be.
Personally, I believe our country must establish laws for the greater good--in this case, if you want to exercise your freedoms to marry the same sex, ok, but do it in another country. The greater (moral) good must be maintained if society is to survive as well as this great country.
This writer mentions discrimination based on "race"... there's only one human race. Skin color doesn't separate us into "races".
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.