Why Rick Warren's Controversial Words on Gay Marriage Are Entirely My Fault

For giveness is a two way street!! you can do all the good in the world but you can't bye your stairway to heaven!! yes I am an angery person! by him useing his political do gooding and promoting hate is wrong because not all see or read the same!!! So even though we live togeather we don't all practice the same! people are killed for lease!! No one person is perfect yet I never told him he could not worship how he chooses! thank you kim

Times are changing!!! All need be accoutable for all they do and say
to promote any hate is wrong and none can say in the name of GOD thier not! I an American an I won't be put in a closet to please some judgemental jerk! kim

edit..."for you" should be "for him"

mea culpa

Rick Warren is not only dishonest, he is misinformed. He refers to the one-man, one-woman model as a "5,000 year old definition of marriage." The fact is, for most of those 5,000 years, the predominant form of marriage was polygyny (one man, more than one wife). Monogamy is relatively newer to the scene. Also, I distrusted Warren when he claimed to have gay friends and have visited in "gay homes." I distrust him now when he says he is working with gay organizations on other issues. I want to know who these friends are, and which organizations he's working with.

It is so amazing to me that all these people don't realize that everything they say is on record and can be put out there in seconds. I hope they never realize this. To bad their followers don't pay any attention.

Steve

You give Rick Warren way too much credit for his work in Africa. He has funded and lobbied on behalf of homophobic evangelical preachers in Uganda, who have launched campaigns denouncing use of condoms (actually burning them), and undermining Uganda's successful anti-HIV/AIDs campaign, previously based on an ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, using Condoms) to an "abstinence-only" approach. Uganda's HIV infection rates are rising again, and peope are needlessly dieing.

On top of that -- Uganda's LGBT activists are being hounded by the government, at the behest of the evangelicals (who count the First Lady of Uganda in their number).

To be forgiven, to be redeemed, one needs first to acknowledge the wrong that was done, and take action to make amends. Rick Warren hasn't done that and shows know sign of doing so. He is a sorry, bigoted, little man, and deserves only our scorn

Panthera,

I'm saying that if someone is going to claim to the name of Jesus then they need to start being about G-d's agenda. Not their own. Truth is still Truth and what was true from the beginning is still true today and will be true tomorrow and until the end. Not trying to split hairs here just merely stating my view based on what I believe from the Book that brings life. That's all.

I didn't say anything about gay or transgendered, me hating them or G-d hating them. However, I'm sure I don't need to state what the Bible says regarding the topic because I'm sure it's been battled out before.

I said that it's time for Christians to get about G-d's business and not their own. If that is wrong then I'm not sure what to tell you or anyone else. Again, not trying to split hairs.

Rick Warren flip-flopping while being in the position he is in has hurt the body more than he knows. Is one not allowed to have boundaries against a lifesytle they do not agree with because G-d doesn't like it without having all the "then you hate those people" mantra thrown at them do they?

Anyway, again, I wasn't trying to split hairs I was just stating that people need to start being what they say they are and quit flip-flopping. I didn't realize that would mean that a Conservative or Fundamentalist could do or say what they pleased and when they wanted. That is not the case because we will all be accountable.

Nobody's under any obligation to forgive Pastor Warren for anything he hasn't asked to be forgiven for. Instead of saying sorry for what he really _did_ say, he tried to blame Steven for distorting words he clearly did not distort. It's clear that Warren is trying to have his cake and eat it too: he still wants progressives to see him as "not one of _those_ kind" of evangelicals, so he tells Larry King that he's definitely down with the gays, etc. On the other hand, he can't outright disavow his statement that homosexuality is a perversion like incest or polygamy because that's what a lot of his followers and fans really do believe.

Warren also continues to avoid -- while denying that his does -- open invitations from both Soulforce and Andrew Sullivan to debate Christianity and homosexuality. Either own your homophobia, or kindly STFU.

I really fail to see what the difference is between "endorsing" proposition 8 and "campaigning" for it. I mean, I'll grant the subtle difference, but I think to try to use that as an excuse for Pastor Rick's statements is a bit...silly. The difference is so semantically nuanced as to be virtually negligible.

When you're a prominent figure, whether religious or political, a statement of support or opposition is significant and matters. Furthermore, the video in which Pastor Rick endorses Proposition 8 also includes an injunction towards his flock to support Proposition 8, and I quote him directly, "if you believe what the Bible says about marriage."

That's campaign rhetoric -- it is the kind of language you use when you want to impact a political outcome at the ballot box. To explain it away as merely an "endorsement" and not "campaigning" is so much semantic you-know-what.

Madison:

You're right about splitting hairs, but remember: that's what Rick Warren does best. In magnifying a difference between "endorsing" and "campaigning," Warren plays on the ignorance of the populace.

Steve W.: I wish I could agree with your last statement of forgiveness, but I can't in all conscience give the man any more rope than to hang himself with.

Two very important issues here:

1. It's personal: while I was privileged to volunteer for the AIDS Emergency Fund in San Francisco, I witnessed first hand the results of the Christian Right's rhetoric. People were cast out of their homes (mostly from Southern Baptist states)WHILE THEY WERE SICK AND DYING! Warren and his ilk have never voice one tiny mea culpa (The Southern Baptist Convention does sponsor AIDS relief programs - but only in Africa)
2. Warren's work in Africa is a bit disingenuous: he's there to convert nations more than minister to the sick. If you study his relationships with the presidents of Rwanda and Uganda you will notice that he has not once chastised them for criminalizing homosexuality. And Warren now has enough influence to change policy! In fact, Uganda (which sentences people having gay sex to life imprisonment, is on the brink of making just BEING gay illegal). Also, his largesse in Africa comes with a condition: no needle exchange programs, no condom distribution - prevention programs are to preach "abstinence only." And his kind of "prevention programs" have met with either limited success or INCREASE in the number of AIDS cases and deaths.He has declared Rwanda and Uganda "Purpose Driven Nations" (to their presidents' delight).

There are over 30 countries in Africa where homosexuality is illegal.

We only have to wonder which country Warren will focus on next.

BTW: Kay Warren's liason for all AIDS programs is Elizabeth Styffe. Ask her for names and locales of Saddleback's southern California AIDS agencies and which ones she thinks are ministering to gays. I hope you get a satisfactory answer. But don't bet on it.

Rick Warren's words are his own. He did not ask forgiveness, so none should be granted.

Instead of forgiving Rick Warren, I would like to give a huge thank you Steven for being the catalyst for exposing the truth.

RW and folks like him deserve no respect. He is nothing more than a very astute politician who now can see that being an outrageous bigot will not help keep him in the good graces of the body politic nor flush with cash. He is smart and sly. Unfortunately for RW, this is the You Tube era, and all lies will be told again in endless video loops.

You reap what you sow. RW has seen nothing yet.

Steve,

Thank you for providing a 'reprint' of your exchange with Pastor Warren. It clears up some of my concerns about his sincerity in his stated opinions about gay marriage. I can't condemn the man, but I am disappointed with his statements in the 'reprint' and his statement on Larry King's show.

Some years back, after hearing about the deaths of strong hearted and well known christian leaders, I became tearful as I wondered, 'who's going to replace them?'. It seemed that few leaders remained who would stand for righteousness even if they would lose popularity or would be ridiculed. After thinking a bit more about it I was reminded that God always has strong people representing righteousness, even when it seems that the more popular leaders are weakening or bending to the pressure of the world. Let's pray for Pastor Warren, that the Lord will strengthen him to stand for Christ, see the world with the eyes of Christ, and avoid getting caught up in the trap of worldly popularity.

Regardless of Warren's position, I bet you didn't intend for your article comes across as so self serving.

And what does "forgiveness" mean?

Does it mean that Warren's words -- and his subsequent squirming under the spotlight -- don't really matter? Why not? Because they're HIS words, or because they don't actually mean anything?

Does "forgiveness" mean that a public figure may say anything -- and risk nothing?

Or does "forgiveness" mean that those who teach that everyone is a wretched sinner deserving of eternal torture may not be held to account -- because they're "Reverend"?

Expletive that, on this weekend and every other day in the calendar.

"If married couples can use birth control, then why the ban on condoms? It doesn't make sense to me."

If condoms were freely/easily available, there would be no punishment for sinful sex. Sex should ONLY lead to pregnancy (hetero and within marriage) or disease and death (homo and/or outside of marriage).

"I'm saying that if someone is going to claim to the name of Jesus then they need to start being about G-d's agenda. Not their own. Truth is still Truth and what was true from the beginning is still true today and will be true tomorrow and until the end. Not trying to split hairs here just merely stating my view based on what I believe from the Book that brings life."

You have every right to believe anything you want; you have absolutely NO right to force all Americans to live according to your view of Christianity (or any other religion, FWIW). So, while theological discussions are interesting and can potentially be enlightening, they have NO place in political policy discussions. If you can't argue for your position without invoking theology, then you should take that as a sign that you have a weak (public policy) argument.

Also, "the Book that brings life"? Seriously? So, there was no LIFE before the "Book" was written? Seriously?

Buddhism does no such thing. Buddhism does not define marriage in any such way, it merely warns against sexual misconduct and the possiblity of causing harm to others in sexual relationships. It prohibits rape, sexual harrassment, pedophilia and cheating on a partner; anything that would cause pain or harm to others. It does not say anything about sexual orientation.

Chris,
You have to understand. I know it is hard, but please listen to my words and open your heart.

We must accept all of God's creation. Yes, even male heterosexuals are part of God's plan.

Someday, perhaps, medical science will offer us the cure for male pattern heterosexuality. Failing that, we should consider lifting our restrictions on abortion for those unhappy couples who discover that the unborn life growing in the (married) woman's body is going to grow up to be a Republican voting, Bible-thumping, woman-beating, beer-guzzling, ultra-nationalist heterosexual with bad taste and a preference for polyester.

But until that happy day, yes, I quite agree. We must love them.

When Steven Waldman originally posted this, his closing remarks in defense of Rick Warren included a false characterization of Warren's statements on Larry King, and a gentle criticism of the bloggers that had identified his King interview as another example of his inability to tell the truth. See the comment below by Matt Algren for the details.

Late last night, I emailed Mr. Waldman, and told him that unless he corrected his post, its' entire premise would be undermined. Apparently, either Mr. Algren's comment or my email convinced Mr. Waldman to make the necessary correction. Unfortunately, he did it in a most cowardly fashion. He edited his post, but he did not include a correction in the body of the post or in the comments. He just deleted the untruthful statements, pretending that they were never there.

This is hardly the way to address errors, especially in a post that is critical of another for the way in which they fail to acknowledge their own mistakes.

Chris I am heterosexual and haven't done any of those things to any homosexual in my whole life. If someone made general statements like that about homosexuals you would be up in arms. So, your comments was not good because it's prejudiced against all heterosexuals, who are NOT all the same which you imply.

I'm really glad to have read this. I'm a atheist - not the militant kind, just the "no, thank you" kind. Unfortunately this means that my view of people of faith is often skewed. People like Rick Warren make headlines when they denigrate gay people - I'm one of those, too. I needed this reminder that not everybody uses their faith as a club.

It just irks me when people make general staements like that. If you're not referring to all please make that clear. Arigatou gozaimasu. Also, yes there are Christians with gay freinds out there. really! Heh. My brother is gay and my closest male friend from college is also gay. My Bible study partner is a lesbian, so not all Christians hate homosexuals or believe God hates them. Considering that He sent his only begotten son to die for them, to think that He hates them is utterly ridiculous to me.

As for gay marriage, I see that more as a legal issue and I believe that they should have the legal right to marry. And before anyone claims this will undermine marriage...it's already been undermined with the high divorce rate. Personally I think it's so high because in order to be a trully good spouse you must be respectful and unselfish. People are just so selfish these days and don't respect other people's feelings and sensibilities.

I apologize in advance is my English and spelling are not that good.

Ja ne.

Just who is discriminating against gay people when it comes to marriage? If anyone applies for a marriage license, they have to meet the qualifications set forth by the state in which they apply.
You can not marry your brother or sister, or other close relative. You can not marry one who is already married, you must be of a certain age to marry. And up until recent court rulings, you can not marry a person of the same sex.
So what gay people really want is to change the rules. It is not discrimination when it is against the rules.
If that is the case a 20 year old is discriminated against because he/she can not be president of the US.
Another point that gay people make concerning the right to marry is the phrase how much they are in love. When a person applies for a marriage license, the clerk does not ask for proof of love or give a test to determine the level of love. That question is not part of being married.

"Your Name",

One of the underlying concepts of our system is that laws have to be fair and rational.

In other words, you couldn't make a law saying that left-handed people couldn't marry. There's no rational basis for that. It serves no public good.

The main problem with your argument is that you're not advocating for sibling marriage or plural marriage, or any of that. You and I would probably be in agreement that stopping people from taking a second spouse actually furthers the public interest. I suspect the number of siblings who would marry if permitted is only slightly above zero; nevertheless, forbidding them also furthers public interest.

You name three cases, two of which actually involve illegal sex. How are you any different from Reverend Warren? Why is there this compulsion to compare homosexuality to sexual acts where the evidence is solid that they cause harm?

Over the fifty years, there's been plenty of evidence that homosexuality is neither a cause nor sign of emotional harm. The same cannot be said of incest or sex with children; these damage people. It's an invalid comparison, though certainly many people who comment on Beliefnet share Warren's enthusiasm for making it (and are less likely to retract it).

You're right that the clerk doesn't have to ask the couple if they love each other. It's not relevant to whether or not they are fit for marriage. There's no question if children are being planned for. It's not relevant.

This issue at hand is two people who wish to become each other's closest kin. Ones spouse, though not related by blood, is considered closer than ones parents, siblings, or children. Since this is a government act, the government must have a rational reason for insisting the couple be of the opposite sex.

Opponents to same-sex marriage, Reverend Warren included, don't actually come up with these reasons. They make claims based on their religion, ignoring that other religions (like mine) may view things differently.

Your comments do show one thing. Steve Waldman needn't blame himself for Warren's comments. Rick Warren's comments are not Steve Waldman's fault.

Comment comparing same-sex couples to bigamy, incest, or child rape just seem to come naturally from the mouths of the opponents of same-sex marriage. Thanks for helping take Steve off the hook.

"So what gay people really want is to change the rules. It is not discrimination when it is against the rules."

So it wasn't discrimination when the Lovings were told by Virginia that they could not apply for a license to be married there, nor live there as a married couple, because their relationship was against the rules?

To start I would like to say for every sin there is a consequence thats why AIDS in America is a Gay disease(MSM). Its unateral and not what God intended for us When he created Eve in the Garden of Eaden. And further more God will deal with this sin.

I hate the fact that Rick Warren is being persecuted like this. I may not agree with everything he preaches or his style but he is just a man and he will make mistakes. One thing I know is he loves God and needs prayer! I just pray he remembers what Jesus preached in Matthew 6:24

No one can serve two masters; for either he will either hate the one or love the other,or he will be devoted to one and dispise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon.

Rick needs to serve God and stop back paddeling for his beliefs. Grace and Peace Darcey

There is a lot that irks me about the gay marriage debate. Not from the pro side, but from the anti-gay side. Well there is one from the pro-side - lots of money going into it, but the organisations not using it properly, but i digress.

With the anti-gay side, Particularly those who are themselves married, If they're so adamant that a loving, committed, monogamous couple, for life, should not be getting married, because of one "flaw", What the hell are they doing being married?