Rich and Rick: A Post-Partisan Parable

Jeff,

That's the nature of parables--they bear a variety of possible endings, morals, lessons, insights, and wisdom. It is up to us--the hearers--to complete the story by asking good questions and acting in a way that embodies the justice of God.

I actually think that Rich Cizik is in a better space, "Blessed are you who are persecuted for righteousness sake, for yours is the kingdom of heaven." I greatly admire his honesty and his willingness to lose his job over his own personal struggle to love his gay and lesbian neighbors. There's an integrity and authenticity to his actions that is missing in Rick Warren.

Diane, Thanks for your comments. Indeed, the body of Christ is a big tent, but I'm not sure that Rick Warren represents many of the beliefs of most Americans, which is an even bigger tent. It may be big of liberals to be tolerant of people who are intolerant, but Germans were tolerant of Hitler too... just because we've had 8 years of Bush and the religious Right, doesn't mean we need to have more of the same. I am an admirer and supporter of Obama for most things, but I think he has shown several times now that his judgement about clergy people has not always been stellar. I would have liked it more if he could have had the Dalai Lama or a Native American do the invocation; then we would have known that he was serious about inclusion, and not just pandering to those who didn't vote for him. Afterall, when issues like whether or not national healthcare is going to pay for abortions or birth control, is Obama going to choose to align himself with the religious right for the sake of including those who are intolerant? We voted for someone who will make a difference; not for someone who will bring us more of the same... peace and best wishes for a blessed holiday season, e

I support Obama's choice for the inaugural prayer. No thinking person's theology is ever static and maybe Warren can change. Keeping the fundys marginalized is a bad, counter productive strategy, no matter how good it makes you feel. And in about 15 years enough homophobes will have died to end that debate. When the atheists weigh in, having any prayer will be offensive. When it comes to reconciling the peoples of the world, three-fourts of them will be offended by the arrogant, bedrock Christian claim that Jesus is God and the only way to salvation. How will you come down on that issue? Is open-mindedness a virtue? For me, I'm with Jesus whatever his celestial rank. We're drawing a circle to take everybody in.

Wow! the man (Rick Warren) is only going to pray at Obama's inaurgaration. Is there any two people who think exactly the same?
I love my church and pastor, but I don't always agree with either. Gays you all need to get a grip. You are never going to get the majority to agree with your view of human sexuality. For those who are so relentless in accusing others of intolerance, have become as intolerant as those they accuse.

This is out of place. Isn't it inconstitutional to have CHRISTIAN prayer at the inauguration? My understanding is that the US Constitution says that the state WILL NOT ENDORSE any one particular religion. If they do have prayer, it should be non denominational, or have at least a Buddhist, a Wiccan, and Hindu also praying so that several groups are represented and it won't look like the gov't is endorsing Christianity. But in reality, the ideal is a secular government and a secular ceremony of inauguration.

During the election, I was horrified when the Republican vice-presidential candidate continued to imply that there were "real Americans" who agreed with her, and other people who didn't agree with her who were not "real Americans." Aren't those who are demanding that Rick Warren be dis-invited from praying at the inauguration saying the same thing? That unless you agree with us, all the way, on this issue, you shouldn't even be allowed to pray at the inauguration of the American president? This is why I like Pres.-elect Obama - he is able to see past this stuff and stay calm.

I am starting to believe that Americans in general have lost the ability to reason.

First of all, Christians left or right, liberal religious groups, fundamentalists, evangelical, progressive religious, spiritual, conservative dogmatics, or any other name Christain groups want to call themselves, are they not all instructed by God, Christ and the Holy Spirit to Pray for and with others? Whether they agree or disagree about someone's life choices, their views, sacred, secular, sinfilled, or any other combination of thought, each is deserving of prayer. Christians are supposed to PRAY for sinners. We are to PRAY for those in need. Remember the words, "Nothing will stand against my Prayers." Prayer when heard is All Powerful.

Right now in All of the World we are to Pray for Our Leaders. Whether we agree with them or not. God is in control and as Christians, Jews, Muslums, or Others walking a million other Paths, we all have instructions to PRAY for EVERYONE regardless of our personal views. We are not their Judges. PRAY for Leaders, Political, Spiritual, Religious, to have discernment so they can teach their followers Tolerance and Respect for each other.

Obama just wants someone to pray with. Whether it is Rick Warren or any one else shouldn't matter. What matters is whether God hears the Prayer. Remember the simple words, "Where two or more are gathered in MY NAME, there I AM also."

There is not one person on Earth that would please All people. One does the best one can and lives with the choices one makes.

Are you People not going to Pray with whomever leads the Prayer? Won't all the Intent in everyones hearts, minds and souls be heard? The last I heard, All have fallen short of the Glory of God. So it really doesn't matter who Obama chooses does it?

On that day Pray with fervor as the American People are on the same Path together! Americans need to PRAY from whatever cultural understanding, religious understanding, spiritual understanding with One Voice for God's Guidance for your Country's future and that of your new elected President.

Pray hard; as you are going to need all the help you can get for tough times are ahead of you.

Love Always and Live Forever. Peace.

WBB,

Except that we don't have a secular government. We have a religiously neutral government. There is a difference. Until very recently, religious expression has been an integral part of American government. How could it be otherwise? American government is supposed to be government of the people, and if the people are a religious people, then that religious expression will find its way in government.

What American government is, is religiously neutral. In other words, the state shall not show legislative preference for one religious denomination over another. The original intent of the First Amendment was to prevent 1) religious persecution, and 2), the establishment of a state denomination (like Lutheranism in Germany or Anglicism in Britain).

The idea that all religious expression must be stamped out of government is a radical concept introduced in the mid 1950s that gained real traction near the end of the 1960s. In other words, point 2 of the first amendment has been re-interpreted to mean religious faith rather than denomination, and point 1 has been determined as completely invalidated by the re-interpretation of point 2. Rather than being religiously neutral, the state has now become actively anti-religious in the public square.

What Rick Warren is is the modernized religious version of the McCarthyites of the 50's. His attack on the social gospel is really an attack on Christianity a Christianity without the bigotry and racism of the medieval past or the recent Jim Crow past. It was Christians from the main line Churches and the Evangelicals who not only turned in resistance fighters against Nazi occupied and Jews in hiding to the Nazi occupation authorities but they as Christians committed killings and murder of these people while still claiming to be Christians. The same happened in lynching and killing of Blacks in the Jim crow era and then attend the following Sunday service with no remorse or guilt. Of course times have changed and today Rick Warren's type of Evangelical ministers have becoming savy and rich. What about Jesus overturning the moneylenders' tables. Money and Mamon are the true God of these phisitines. Progressive ministers and congrigations should be more assertive and pro-active to unmask these hypocrites and promote the true gospel of Jesus of love to fellow humans whatever their origins and nationality or race. They must become militantly forceful and assertive in their opinions and views in order to be heard above the chatter and fireworks of these self-seriving manipulators of the word of God and Christ. Tom Tsuka

For Rick Warren to compare gay marriage and civil unions to insest is a disgusting lie and totally unChristian,in my view. He is a disgrace and Obama made a big mistake (although it was probably a politically astute move)in inviting him to make the opening prayer.
Just more cultural warfare, in my opinion.
I look forward to the day when gays will have the same respect that we give to women and blacks today as compared to the days of slavery and when women were denied the right to vote.
It is within my lifetime that blacks were kept in their "place" by not being allowed to marry outside their race in the south.
I am not gay and probably not even a good Christian because I find my moral compass comes from within myself and not something that is imposed by so-called Christians like the Pope or Rick Warren at al.

Thank you, Diana, for the best post so far (and I've read many) on this subject - at least, the best calling for acceptance of Obama's apparently political choice of Rick Warren to lead the nation in prayer at an inauguration that had promised to be a new day. I admire your work and know your heart is in the right place.

Unfortunately, no one has addressed the question: Would any other minority be accused of intolerance if they had been similarly degraded and insulted by a religious leader who was then asked to lead the nation in prayer?

Warren is on record - on tape - equating committed, loving gay relationships with incest, polygamy, and pedophilia. I don't know if he's joined his evangelical colleagues on including bestiality in that list, but please consider how gay folks feel when repeatedly hearing those words from so many "Christian" people. As a pastor, I know how much anguish has been caused by such Christians. I've seen the damage they've done, and I fear the possibilities if they gain more and more strength in this country. (For example, why didn't the US sign the UN agreement making homosexuality NOT a capital crime?)

My straight, married son is disgusted by this choice - and he was a big Obama supporter. He blames religion in general, and I'm having a hard time figuring out how to convince him otherwise. Obama is not the church, but well-meaning religious people who tell him and his mother to be tolerant in this situation represent religion to him.

Why should we strengthen the voice of conservative evangelicals who have a strong political agenda? Why should we continue the long line of evangelical voices appearing to act as the spiritual leaders of our country? Why NOT a woman rabbi? Why NOT the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, who reaches out to many people of faith?

Let Obama hold religious conferences to find common ground in the spirit of Jim Wallis and Brian McLaren and Marcus Borg. (Any of them would have been an excellent choice, and a powerful sign of unity.) Inviting Rick Warren to such a gathering would be a much better way to reach across disagreements.

In any case, it is deeply hurtful for anyone to criticize gay people as intolerant for walking away from this party (one that gay folks worked very hard to make possible, and one that Rick Warren worked hard to prevent). Would you say the same to any other minority who had been similarly insulted, right in the midst of their own struggle for justice? I assure you that I would be just as outraged if he had chosen a racist or anti-Semitic religious leader. Thank you for your thoughtful post.

i find it hard to be "open and accepting" of hate and intolerance.
Rick Warren's use of religion as a political tool isn't "just another" viewpoint. its judgmental and hypocritical and hurtful.
so yeah, my tolerance draws the line when your wrong.
and all those who disagree with the choice of rick warren should make their voice heard, everywhere.

You might want to view this video of Rick Warren for some clarification of his views on the sanctity of heterosexual monogamy. Of course, I agree with him. I also agree that he has the freedom of speech to state his beliefs. What is glaringly absent here (and in much of the heat coming from gays and liberals) is a discussion of the real issue, civil rights. Warren says he loves gays, so his problem is not "homophobia." It is a civil problem. The pressing issue is the question: Do gays have the right to the same civil protections and advantages governing and given to monogamous hetero couples?

Most evangelicals say no, because they are afraid we are redefining marriage and giving state sanction to it, thus offending God. But no state can redefine what God has set in place. The problem we have here is our concept of equality under the law. "Equality" doesn't favor Christians or anybody else, in the civil sense. If people are law-abiding and commit no obvious crimes, they can do what they want under constitutional protection, and should enjoy the rights given them in our secular, pluralist society. That's where the real debate is here. It is not theological, it is political and social.

I don't know if Rick Warren has thoroughly vetted this angle of the debate. It wouldn't seem so. I think many evangelicals entertain the myth that we live in a Christianized society and all laws should be dictated by theological principles. Warren says he loves everybody. I'm sure he does. But actions speak louder than words, and, in this case, the problem is about justice more than biblical morality. Can you have true justice in this world when you create a legally mandated caste system of preferred people and pariahs? Aren't you saying, "I love them, but I don't want to give them any rights?" Isn't that an Old Testament system of sequestering people? Maybe God says, "I don't agree with this, but under the present systems, treat one another with fairness." Is the way to attract gays to Christ to persecute them and place them in leper colonies?

The other problem here is the evidence of science. Christians have branded homosexuality as purely a behavioral problem (free will). Science seems to be finding that they tend to be born that way (predestination). The argument then is resolved, for many, by saying you are genetically predispositioned to have gay preferences and can't help it. Thus, you are a minority that enjoys all civil rights afforded anyone in a democratic/pluralistic society. Theology, in our society, generally fails to trump science, since science is objective (hopefully) and theology is more subjective. We can believe something, but we can't force that belief on everyone else. We Christians need to "deal with it" and focus our attentions on doing the business we are commissioned to do: love our neighbor as ourself.

Everyone wants to be politically correct. Only a few want to heed GODS word.

We claim the BIBLE is the word of God, then ignore that parts that OFFEND us.

Most Americans today, Christian or otherwise, see FORNICATION as nothing. It's OK. It is normal and if you are not Fornicating, you are almost Abnormal

Then Divorce and Adultery are fast gaining acceptance as the NORM. Americans boast of having 50% divorce rates. Its ok, the woman got fat, or the man lost his job, or his mother is interfering, or her parents are sick...so DIVORCE.

Now the gays are trying to join the list of sinners who sin with impunity and without consideration for GOD's word.

Those who speak like Christians are far too much caught up in Doubtful Disputations of which Paul spoke.

Everyone wants to sound "intelligent" and worthy. However, everyone needs to speak the words of GOD.

GOD would like to spue out of his mouth all the following:
Fornicators
Adulterers
Those who practise witchcraft
Homosexuals (male and female)
Those who practise incest
Those who practise bestiality

Where are we as Christians going to draw the line? If someone is born gay, does this mean they have a RIGHT to indulge in sexual perversion?

As Pastor Warren said - he is born with the tendency to want to have sex with every beautiful woman he sees - does he have the RIGHT to do that? MORALLY?

Now if Religion or Morals are not the issue, then anything goes. But for Christians to be preaching "inclusiveness" as a means of soothing their own guilt about betraying laws against fornication and adultery and divorce and incest and witchcraft, is not being "thoughtful" or "tolerant" or "correct", but merely giving in to your sinfulness and covering your shame by pretending to accept an abnormal abomination.

This article illustrates what the kingdom of God is about.

You know this is a Christian country no matter how you choose to look at it. And, we speak English, no matter how you wish to change it. We need to get together, and stand for God, the God of Abraham, like our ancestors, and PRAY FOR THIS COUNTRY AND THE MAN WE ELECTED TO HELP US THROUGH OUR OWN GARBAGE.
Do you understand?

I am no fan of Rick Warren, either. And just to give you an idea of MY perspective, at first I misread the word 'parable' in the title as 'babble', which is perfectly fitting!

It is extremely irrational of the GLBT 'community' to complain about choosing Warren. Obama was doing a good thing when he chose Warren. For the GLBT people to whine about it shows what spoiled brats they are, a liability to their allies, not a benefit at all.