Steve Waldman: December 2008 Archives

Barack Obama has just asked Rick Warren to do the invocation at the inauguration.

This will no doubt cause serious consternation among many Obama supporters. After the Beliefnet/Wall Street Journal interview with him, Warren has been sharply criticized for his views on gay rights, torture and other issues. Andrew Sullivan picked apart Warren's claim that he'd supported Prop 8 in California (banning gay marriage) as a free speech issue. Paul Raushenbush took issue with Warren's claim that "social gospel" Christians were closet Marxists.

I myself have described areas where I think Warren skirted issues or lacked self-awareness. He has, for instance, talked about the need for civil discussion on culture war issues but in our chat he equated gay marriage to incest and pedophilia. His claim that he opposed torture but never tried to influence President Bush because the he'd never had the opportunity, seemed like a stretch.

Now, I'd like to explain why -- despite some areas of disagreement -- I respect Warren and believe he has earned his status at the top of the evangelical heap, and why it was a smart move for Obama to ask him to deliver the invocation at the inauguration.

First, Warren has used his fame and fortune primarily to help the most destitute people in the world. He reverse tithes, giving away 90% and keeping 10%. Please contemplate all the religious figures who have gotten rich off their flock and pocketed the money. Who among you reverse tithe or would if you were rich? I know I don't, and every time I think about what Warren has done it makes me question whether I'm giving enough. That is a Christ-like example.

Second, he's worked hard to get other conservative evangelicals to care more about poverty. Some on the left had hopes that Warren would somehow move evangelicals to the left on social issues. They were confusing temperamental with political moderation. Just because Warren is a nice guy, greets you with a hug, used to wear Hawaiian shirts, and cares about the poor, doesn't mean he's a political liberal or even moderate. He's not. But it's in part because he's conservative on everything else that his views on poverty carry such weight in the evangelical community.

Third, he has voiced his own spiritual doubts. This is hugely important. So many religious leaders view expressions of doubt as signs of weakness at best and heresy at worst. By admitting his own doubts, and explaining how he worked through them, Warren gives permission to the rest of us to have an intellectually honest spiritual journey.

Finally, he's mostly about God. Yes, he says things that are controversial and, I believe, is sometimes ill-informed and insensitive. But the Purpose Driven Life and The Purpose of Christmas barely mention the hot-botton culture war issues. He has his views on those issues but really believes that getting right with God is most important thing.

For Obama, picking Warren for the inauguration is a smart move. George W. Bush chose Franklin Graham, a hard-right evangelical to do his prayer. Instead of retaliating by choosing a liberal preacher, Obama opted for spiritual bipartisanship. The move helps to depoliticize prayer -- which, of course, is very politically shrewd.

Click here for the full transcript of the Warren interview
Click here for video of the interview

UPDATE: Angry reaction from Andrew Sullivan ("Ugh"), People for the American Way ("A grave disappointment"), Right Wing Watch ("just a friendlier version of James Dobson") and Atrios ("[Obama] Wanker of the Day"

The following is the controversial portion of the interview with Rick Warren focused on gay marriage, civil unions and divorce. In brackets are clarifications that Warren asked to include after reading a transcript of the original interview:

BELIEFNET: Which do you think is a greater threat to the American family - divorce or gay marriage?

WARREN: [laughs] That's a no brainer. Divorce. There's no doubt about it.

Here's an interesting thing. The divorce statistics are quite bandied around. People say half the marriages end in divorce. That's just not true. 40% of first time marriages end in divorce. About 61% of second time marriages end in divorce and 75% of third time marriages end in divorce. So the odds get worse and what's balancing this out...when you hear 50% end in divorce, that's just not true. The majority of marriages do last....

BELIEFNET: So why do we hear so much more - especially from religious conservatives - about gay marriage than about divorce?

Oh we always love to talk about other sins more than ours. Why do we hear more about drug use than about being overweight? Why do we hear more about anything else than about wasting time or gossip? We want to point that my sins are perfectly acceptable. Your sins are hideous and evil.

BELIEFNET: One controversial moment for you in the last election was your support for proposition 8 in California. ... Just to clarify, do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?

WARREN: I don't know if I'd use the term there but I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles so I fully support equal rights.

[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I now see you asked about civil UNIONS -and I responded by talking about civil RIGHTS. Sorry. They are two different issues. No American should ever be discriminated against because of their beliefs. Period. But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the "right" to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It's just not there. ]

BELIEFNET: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?

WARREN: You know, not a problem with me.

[Clarification from Pastor Warren 12/15: I favor anyone being able to make anyone else the beneficiary of their health or life insurance coverage. If I am willing to pay for it, I should be able to put a friend, partner, relative, or stranger on my coverage. No one should be turned away from seeing a friend in the hospital. But visiting rights are a non-issue in California! Since 1999, California has had a domestic partnership law that grants gay couples visiting rights and all the other rights. Prop 8 had no -zero -effect on those rights.]

The issue to me, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Oh , I do. For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion - this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews - historically, marriage is a man and a woman. And the reason I supported Proposition 8, is really a free speech issue. Because first the court overrode the will of the people, but second there were all kinds of threats that if that did not pass then any pastor could be considered doing hate speech if he shared his views that he didn't think homosexuality was the most natural way for relationships, and that would be hate speech. We should have freedom of speech, ok? And you should be able to have freedom of speech to make your position and I should be able to have freedom of speech to make my position, and can't we do this in a civil way.

Most people know I have many gay friends. I've eaten dinner in gay homes. No church has probably done more for people with AIDS than Saddleback Church. Kay and I have given millions of dollars out of Purpose Driven Life helping people who got AIDS through gay relationships. So they can't accuse me of homophobia. I just don't believe in the redefinition of marriage.

[Clarification/addition from Pastor Warren 12:15:

BOTTOM LINE:

1. God, who always acts out of love and does what is best for us, thought up sex. Sex was God's idea, not ours. Like fire, and many other things God gave us, sex can be used for good, or abused in ways that harm. The Designer of sex has clearly and repeatedly said that he created sex exclusively for husbands and wives in marriage. Whenever God's parameters are violated, it causes broken hearts, broken families, emotional hurt and shame, painful memories, and many other destructive consequences. There would be so STDs in our world if we all played by the rules.

2. God gives me the free choice to follow his commands or willfully disobey them so I must allow others to have that same free choice. Loving, trusting, and obeying God cannot be forced. In America, people already have the civil right to live as they wish.

3. If anyone, whether unfaithful spouses, or unmarried couples, or homosexuals or anyone else think they are smarter than God and chooses to disobey God's sexual instructions, it is not the US government's role to take away their choice. But neither is it the government's role to classify just any "loving" relationship as a marriage. A committed boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is not a marriage. Two lovers living together is a not a marriage. Incest is not marriage. A domestic partnership or even a civil union is still not marriage.

4. Much of this debate is not really about civil rights, but a desire for approval. The fact that 70% of blacks supported Prop 8 shows they don't believe it is a civil rights issue. Gays in California already have their rights. What they desire is approval and validation from those who disagree with them, and they are willing to force it by law if necessary. Any disapproval is quickly labeled "hate speech. Imagine if we held that standard in every other disagreement Americans have? There would be no free speech. That's why, on the traditional marriage side, many saw Prop 8 as a free speech issue: Don't force me to validate a lifestyle I disagree with. It is not the same as marriage." And many saw the Teacher's Union contribution of $3 million against Prop 8, as a effort to insure that children would be taught to approve what most parents disapprove of.]

The religious conservative and pro-life groups have made blocking the Freedom of Choice Act one of their top priorities. FOCA, as its called, would potentially overturn state laws restricting abortion, and Barack Obama told Planned Parenthood during the campaign that he would sign the law.

Apparently, the pro-life groups can declare victory already.

According to the Wall Street Journal, women's groups submitted a list of top 15 priorities -- and the Freedom of Choice Act wasn't on the list. Given that supporters don't have the votes, and the law would alienate Obama's pro-life liberal supporters, it's extremely unlikely that Obama is going to put any muscle behind this right now. In all likelihood, FOCA is dead for the foreseeable future.

That won't necessarily stop pro-life groups from campaigning against it. Sometimes groups oppose ideas less because they have to and more because it's an issue that revs up their constituents.

Beyond Blue Blogger Therese Borchard recognizes that for those battling addiction or depression, the holidays are a time of bad tidings.

Her Holiday Depression Busters (#2 being "Expect the Worst") are wise and funny -- as with her phobia of a particular shopping mall Santa whom, Therese is convinced, spreads less good cheer than toxic viruses.

A recent missive from the Family Research Council bore the headline, "The Gloves Come Off." What major moral values issue were they referring to, I wondered. Was the Obama administration planning an aggressive effort to promote abortion or gay marriage?

Actually, the Family Research Council issued a call to arms over Obama's plan to push expanded health care early in the administration. "Among other things, Obama's plan would increase Medicaid spending, expand anti-parental features of the State Children's health Insurance Program (SCHIP), and overhaul medical records technology," FRC warned.

A couple of weeks ago, Jill Stanek, an influential pro-life activist, wrote an article listing the pro-choice activists working for Obama. About Tom Daschle, the health care czar, she wrote:. "Daschle is a rabid pro-abort who also detests abstinence education and supports nationalized health care, i.e. taxpayer-funded abortions."

Stay tuned to see if opposition to national health care becomes a new Pro-Family issue.

UPDATE: Jill Stanek elaborates in an email:

"As a pro-lifer I oppose nationalized health care because of the liberal insistence on abortion coverage. Hillary wanted it, Obama wants it, and Daschle wants it, to name three.

Further and as a related aside, pro-lifers are part of a group pushing for
the free market offering of privatized interstate health insurance of one's
choice - not tied to one's employer if one desires, and not regulated so one
can only purchase from a company within one's own state.

This would allow pro-lifers to choose health insurance companies that do not
cover abortion and/or birth control. That is the real "pro-choice" position
on health insurance coverage. Of course, the other side opposes this. "