Over at Progressive Revival, there's some fascinating (and wise) disagreement breaking out over the Rick Warren selection:
Marianne Williamson is sharply critical:
"The person who leads the nation in prayer on January 20th should be someone asking God to forgive us our sins, not someone who dresses up one of our baser national instincts in pseudo-religious packaging."
Brian McLaren, a liberal evangelical who'se taken his lumps from his conservative brethren, refers to Warren, Rich Cizik and Obama as "ideologically homeless:"
"As we near Christmas, let's remember that the one whose birthday we're celebrating was homeless, wandered around, couldn't be tamed or contained by conventional categories, accepted and extended invitations to the wrong people, and had a boatload of critics."
And, most interestingly, Diana Butler Bass describes this as a spiritual challenge:
"I don't really want to pray with Rick Warren. But being the post-partisan progressive pilgrim that I am, I am willing to accept President-elect Obama's challenge that it may be good for the nation's soul if I--if we--do. It is a much better option than casting those with whom we disagree into the darkness. We've had too much of that in the last eight years."
UDPATE: And this powerful statement from Renita Weems:
Rick Warren's smiling, right wing, socially conservative, anti-gay, anti-women's rights biblical preaching has been deemed to be not as divisive as the blistering prophetic denunciations of American imperalism by his former pastor Jeremiah Wright. Reaching out to Warren reaps more political capital for Obama than does reaching out to Wright. The pro-gay rights man whose fiery preaching nurtured Obama into becoming the community organizer he is at heart remains a pariah, banished from the inaugural platform and the American public. The man whose anti-gay message is overshadowed by the fact that he represents the face of millions of conservative voters gets to pray for the country.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
President-Elect Obama is delivering on a promise: inclusion.
Inclusion is not limited to those with whom we agree, it is inclusive of us all. I am not gay and I am not a fundamentalist Christian, but welcome to them both.
And, inclusion accomplishes a most critical societal task of enabling dialogue, discussion and change. Obama can accelerate this natural, cultural and social evolution by focusing attention and creating "teachable moments."
A long time ago, I stood up for equal rights for blacks. And, at the same time, I was not comfortable with interracial dating or marriage (I was just a teenager.) In the dialogue that was opened in the 1960s, I experienced my own "teachable moments" and evolved to my present view that the more everyone intermarries, the better for us all. "... content of character, not color..." and so forth.
With gay people, I have been experiencing a similar evolution, mostly at the proding of my kids. I presume to say that we all are moving in the right direction, equality, though such cultural and social changes sometimes seem to be glacial in their pace.
Obama's inclusion of Rick Warren and those who follow Warren is a good step in the right direction. Inclusion and focus will bring inevitable progress.
I fail to see what all the uproar is about. Christianity, Islam and Judaism says about the same thing about homosexual practice. I understand the point of view of those who do not believe in God; but from those who call themselves Christians, specifically the clergy, how do you interpret the scriptures pertaining to homosexuality and why? I would like to have where you are coming from as it pertains to scripture included with your opinion. This pertains to preachers and teachers. And to Renita Weems, sometimes it is the tone of the speech that detracts from the message.
I personally don't see what the big deal is. If I'm not mistaken, it is up to Obama to choose exactly who he wants to perform his inauguration. Frankly, as someone who is both pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, I don't understand why these groups are wasting precious energy worrying about some pastor! Does the pro-choice community not realize that Bush has just made it legal for pro-life health practitioners not to provide information to pregnant women about abortion? Not only that, but they can extend the definition of abortion to include birth control - and refuse to distribute it or even refer a patient to someone who can provide them with birth control! Does the pro-gay marriage community not realize that there are people trying to annull legal gay marriages in California? And we're worried about some pastor we don't agree with? Obama ran on the premise of uniting America. His pick shouldn't shock anyone.
There are bigger things to worry about than who Obama chooses to do his inauguration. Just sayin'.
After all the smoke clears you either hold to what scripture says about homosexual behavior or you reject it and take guidance from your own moral compass.
Just remember "A human heart is more dishonest than anything else. It can't be healed. Who can understand it?
Where is your moral compass?
Hey, I personally think that Pastor Rick Warren is the greatest choice of spritual blessing that anyone could pick. I went to his church for years and have the highest respect for his wisdom, his fellowship and his relationship to God.
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.