Pastor Rick Warren defends invite to inauguration

I guess the moderators could move it. However, there is more than just one or two issues that arise from this invitation to the Obama inauguration.



Here is an <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1565076,00.html">article </a>of over two years ago: ~Snip~~



<em>This week two very smart Christian believers ? one by extending an invitation, the other by accepting it ? have helped the fight against AIDS and burnished their respective reputations. But in the process, they also created a defining dilemma for the Religious Right.



Some time ago, Rick Warren, megapastor of the Saddleback Church in Orange County and author of the mega-seller The Purpose-Driven Life, along with his wife Kay, invited Democratic Sen. Barack Obama to speak today at the second annual AIDS conference at Warren's church. Other politicians were to participate, notably Sen. Sam Brownback, a born-again Christian turned conservative Catholic who, like Obama, may have presidential ambitions. But while Brownback was to speak to his natural constituency, Obama's participation is a divisive issue for one overriding reason: he is pro-choice.



That Warren should lend him a lectern has infuriated the pro-life activists and general hard-liners on the religious right. Conservative talk radio host Kevin McCullough wrote on his blog, "Why would Warren marry the moral equivalency of his pulpit ? a sacred piece of honor in evangelical traditions ? to the inhumane, sick and sinister evil that Obama has worked for as a legislator?" An open letter signed by Phyllis Schlafly, head of the conservative Eagle Forum, and 17 other less prominent figures, most from anti-abortion groups, contended "If Senator Obama cannot defend the most helpless citizens in our country, he has nothing to say to the AIDS crisis. You cannot fight one evil while justifying another." The din became sufficiently loud that Saddleback posted a response stressing Warren's disagreement with Obama on abortion but noting that "Obama was invited to share his views on AIDS, not abortion or any other issue."



When I called Richard Land, head of the denomination's influential Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and its principal Washington strategist, he agreed with Warren. "Rick is having a summit on AIDS, and Barack Obama has said some compelling things about the issue. I work all the time in coalition with people to the right and left of me, when we're in agreement on a specific issue. One of the markers of Evangelicals is the ability to walk and chew gum at the same time."



So if two leaders of the Southern Baptists have different views of the debate, which way will the rest of the Right jump? It's not clear yet, but they would be wise to follow Land, or risk becoming the only losers in a fascinating cultural transaction.



Obama, Warren and Brownback all took an AIDS test. And Warren, responding to the controversy, said "I've got two friends here, a Republican and a Democrat, why?" Warren asked. "Because you've got to have two wings to fly."</em>
 
I disagree with Mr. Warren over sexual orientation issues.



I agree with Mr. Warren on his approach to AIDS.



Yet.........................I don't feel conflicted and don't hate his guts.



Am I a bad guy?



(I am not trolling and frankly feel that the world is ruled in absolutes of black and white. Some users may get the reference of the next picture. Kubrick was a genius.)



<img src="http://www.moviegoods.com/Assets/product_images/1020/222079.1020.A.jpg" alt="" />
 
<em>His opinion are his own and he has never told his congregation to take one stance or another.</em>



Sorry IC, but If you'll kindly read the following statement, you'll see that you are incorrect.



- snip -



<em>Warren, author of The Purpose Driven Life, has made a name for himself by moving away from much of the rhetoric of the far right to focus on issues such as poverty. Alas, when it comes to gay issues, Warren doesn't rate.



Said Warren recently about gay marriage and Prop 8:



For 5,000 years, EVERY culture and EVERY religion -- not just Christianity -- has defined marriage as a contract between men and women. There is no reason to change the universal, historical definition of marriage to appease 2% of our population. This is one issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have publicly opposed the redefinition of marriage to include so-called 'gay marriage.' Even some gay leaders, like Al Rantel of KABC oppose watering down the definition of marriage...Of course, my longtime opposition is well known. <strong>This is not a political issue, it is a moral issue that God has spoken clearly about. There is no doubt where we should stand on this issue...This will be a close contest, maybe even decided by a few thousand votes. I urge you to VOTE YES on Proposition 8 -- to preserve the biblical definition of marriage. Don't forget to vote!"</strong></em>



I'd say that's telling his flock how to vote.
 
Warren looks to be a flat-earther type, if this were the olden days. With more discussions and information he MAY alter his viewpoint. However what is really important is to neutralize his viewpoint enough for him to tell his congregation to vote their conscience on the issue. The main objective is to get him to stop actively discriminating against gays by telling his parishioners how to vote, and for him to take a neutral stance. And even that may not make any difference to GLBT rights.... California's Attorney General, Jerry Brown has said he is going to work to get the whole thing overturned. This is where the fight needs to be fought - in the political/legal arena.



People are being "won" over to the side of treating everyone equally by keeping the discussion front and center.
 
Troop,



Let me start of by saying I voted no on prop 8. I have no problem with gay marriage.



Warren is a Christian Pastor, nothing more nothing less. In the history of organized religion (christianity included) making change to scriputure is not something done on a willy nilly basis. As a Pastor, IMHO, Warren has a Duty to use the Bible as his first resource for right and wrong. Pastors don't have the right to pick and choose the parts of the Bible they like and believe. Pastors, priests etc must align their beliefs with those of the bible and truly believe the bible is ALWAYS right.



I understand how that effects you but Warren cannot choose to ignore the bible when it comes to homosexuality. Just like he can't ignore what the bible says about infidelity, coveting your neighbors wife etc.



I mean can you imagine if Warren came out and said "Hey we live in the OC, a lot of these wives and moms are pretty hot . That makes it is pretty hard not to covet your neighbors wife. So I am good with coveting your neighbors wife."



Although I don't agree with Warren he is defending his faith and what he believes in. He chose to be a Pastor and by doing so he chose to defend what he believes the bible says.



A pastor cannot take a neutral stance when it comes to the bible.



I agree with Noway though that educating the congregations is the way to go. Most people know and like someone that is gay, they may not know that person is gay, and if you made that the message it would probably work better.



You may not know that your best friend, favorite teacher, favorite basketball player, favorite pastor etc etc etc is gay but imagine if they were. Would you want them discriminated against?
 
<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-pollitt22-2008dec22,0,6935483.story">Here's why</a> Rick Warren isn't the best choice for Obama's invocation. Along with his other ridiculous views that have already been brought up in previous posts, he says that Jews will burn in hell and believes (and preaches) in wifely submission, which is about as backwards as you can get in this day and age.
 
Anon,



I voted against 8, and really didn't think it would pass. However, I was also unaware of the HUGE religious presence that has been silent and growing and which was decidedly responsible for the passage of 8. Rick Warren and Obama have had a "friendship" since 2002 when they joined hands to combat AIDS. It sort of makes more sense now, to know that. Warren invited McCain and Obama to his Saddleback Church for some debates - which was also something that drew a lot of criticism from all sides. Recently, Warren gave Bush a medal of "Peace" (!!!WTF!??!! Peace??!! WTF, Bush????!!!) for his contributions in fighting AIDS. Now he'll be at Obama's Inauguration. He also made the <a href="http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101050207/index.html">Time Magazine's 25 </a>most influential Evangelicals. Ok, those are just some facts about the current situation.



Another set of facts is to look at what some of the Bush-backing type Christians have been saying about the hotbutton issues like abortion, gays, war, race etc.... I did a little poking around, and I have to say that I got a head full of really disturbing stuff. Here, look at this site, <a href="http://www.fstdt.com/default.aspx">Fundies Say the Darndest Things!</a> It's got a cute title, but if you actually look at what some of the fundamental churches, fundamental leaders, fundamental websites and fundamental followers are saying, it's a mess. Rick Warren looks like Baby Jesus AND Santa Claus in the flesh, compared to violent messages that are coming out of other so-called Christian factions.



Here's a little slice for you:



[<em>in response to the question "what would you consider religious discrimination"]



The fact that I can get fired for calling gay people derogatory names is religious discrimination in my eyes. I should be able to practice my Christianity in peace and without fear. It's a sad state when we favour sexuality over God. <a href="http://www.fstdt.com/fundies/Default.aspx?archive=1">Link.</a> </em>



Like it or not, "Christians" ( and apparently there is a wide swath of factions and wide iideals swath of what they believe in) make up the overwhelming majority of US citizens. MOST of them believe in the "sanctity of marriage", "Pro Life", and "Christian America". George W. Bush won TWO EIGHT YEAR TERMS and the Christian leadership will tell you that they overwhelmingly supported the effort to elect and reelect him and that they also thought McCain was the best choice for President. Gays and Lesbians make up a much small portion of our society. Athiests are even a tinier fraction. That's where we are at.
 
oh yes, and in case you're not in touch with "reality", here's just one "predicition" of the Obama Inauguration:



<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-moment13-2008dec13,0,2231803.story">Prophet predicts disaster </a>will prevent Obama from taking office.]



'He will not be the next president,' Leland Freeborn warns those who will listen. He and his followers expect nuclear explosions this Christmas season.



"I think that you should hear what my opinion about the Obama election is: that he will not be the next president. I said on my home page in August that if he lost to expect to see the 'riots' that 2 Peter 2:13 tells us about. He didn't lose. But the story is not finished yet. I still think they may begin the riots before Christmas 2008, as I said."



These riots, according to his prophecy, will encourage the "old, hard-line Soviet guard" to seize the moment and rain down nukes on the United States, killing at least 100 million of us.



"Prepare now," Freeborn's letter concluded. "We are downwind from Las Vegas. I hope you can survive."



Leland Freeborn, Latimes.com [2008-Dec-22]
 
[quote author="Anon." date=1229997065]<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-pollitt22-2008dec22,0,6935483.story">Here's why</a> Rick Warren isn't the best choice for Obama's invocation. Along with his other ridiculous views that have already been brought up in previous posts, he says that Jews will burn in hell and believes (and preaches) in wifely submission, which is about as backwards as you can get in this day and age.</blockquote>


Oh come on now, those are really wicked twists on Christian beliefs.



Wifely submission means anything you want it to mean and often shows more about the person interpreting than the stmt itself. I know plenty of Christian women who believe in that, and to them it means, stand by your man. Quite frankly I am more bothered by people, like the LA times op-ed writer, who would automatically assume these women are geishas to their husbands than I am about the concept of "wifely submission" itself.



And yes the official doctrine is that Jews do not belief Christ is the messiah therefore are not saved in the sense that Christians/Catholics believe. Similarly, Jews don't follow Buddhist doctrines and as such, aren't going to the nirvana that Buddhists believe in. Does that make Buddhists hateful? You can twist it any way you want to make it sound awful but that doesn't make it true. Like if someone agrees with the embargo on Iran, you might imply they are ok with starving the people of another country.



Lastly, don't think that Christians aren't struggling with these very issues all the time. From the outside it might appear that things are black and white in the church but there is an ever-present debate about the grey areas. Every five yr old that attends Sunday school eventually asks their teacher a question like: "my friend/father/aunt/grandpa/neighbor/whoever... is good person but he doesn't go to church. Is he going to hell?" And we struggle our entire lives trying to reconcile that answer in our minds and hearts.



There are hundreds of thousands of church members like me in the growing megachurches of America like Saddleback, Willowcreek in Chicago, NewSong in Irvine and LA. Young adults who are growing up and living in a diverse world with diverse groups of friends, peers, coworkers, neighbors, and family members are exactly the type of people these churches cater to and trust me when I say that these are the type of Christians that the left wants on their side. We talk about issues like gay marriage in our small groups and sometimes even as the main topic of a Sunday service; and don't assume just in a negative way. The churches are forced to address these issues because these are the issues the next generation of all Americans, including Christians, care about. They can and will adapt, even soften their interpretations, or find their members tuned out -- it just takes time. Just because Rick Warren can't go on CNN yet and outright make an unprecedented stmt that counters all previous teachings doesn't mean his church, and those of the same mold, aren't actively talking about how we reconcile our beliefs with the ever-changing world.



Here's a personal story... a few yrs ago I rented a spare bedroom out on Craigslist. I thought about renting to a friend but decided I wanted to rent to a stranger as odd as that sounds. With a friend it would be harder to play the role of landlord, and I didn't want to risk the broken friendships that sometimes occurs when living together. You really haven't seen the world of humanity until you've tried to rent a room out on CL. Oh I saw it all -- folks of all genders, races, personalities, occupations, smells (ugh), and of course, sexual orientation. I'm sure you all know where this is leading; the best candidate turned out to be a fella who is gay. I happen to be a regular church-goer, and most of my social life and friends outside work are in some way related to my church. So I've never been around gays or known anyone who was gay personally and quite frankly always assumed I would be uncomfortable around gays. But at the end of the day when I had to consider what I really cared about in my day-to-day life in respects to this roomate. Do I care about the chainsmoker guy who smells? Or the hot girl whom my SO is going to have a problem with, and also has an umemployed boyfriend that I'm sure will be hanging around all the time? Or the several realtors who I wondered whether their income would be consistent and stable? Or what about the guy who happens to be attracted to other men?



Once I thought about it in those terms, sexual orientation was the least of my worries. Why do I even care? I just always assumed I would, but surprisingly realized it didn't bother me one bit. That guy turned out to be a great roommate and great caretaker of my home. He's since moved out to live closer to work but to this day he is still a great friend. I have no problem saying I miss having him around -- certainly my dog misses his fun uncle.



So it just happens he thinks Christian Bale is hot and somehow that conflicts with my religious beliefs... oh well. If asked a loaded question like, "Do you think your friend will be in heaven or hell?" Well, we all know what my answer would/should be based on a strict interpretation of my beliefs. But don't believe for a second that I'm not completely torn up inside by how I have to answer the question.
 
[quote author="Anon." date=1229997065]<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-pollitt22-2008dec22,0,6935483.story">Here's why</a> Rick Warren isn't the best choice for Obama's invocation. Along with his other ridiculous views that have already been brought up in previous posts, he says that Jews will burn in hell and believes (and preaches) in wifely submission, which is about as backwards as you can get in this day and age.</blockquote>


There is nothing backwards about having mutual love and respect in a marriage, which is what that is all about. "Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting to the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them."... "Husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies". Wives should be willing... not coerced... to respect their husband's role as the headship of the family. In return, the husband is to be a loving leader (not manipulative) who is to take responsibility for what goes on in the home and be accountable to God and his family. The emphasis is not on power and control but personal accountability and mutual respect. These are instructions to put each other's needs before your own. If anything, our society today needs more personal accountability, selflessness, and respect - not less.
 
Rick Warren's critics include other evangelicals

Many feel he's not conservative enough, even as gays call him prejudiced



<a href="http:// http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28354114/">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28354114/</a>



can't please everyone...
 
acpme,



Thank you very much for the personal story. I appreciate hearing your side of things.... it does help somewhat knowing that the discussions are occurring, but of course the vote was in 2008. I already lost my right. Now what ? I wonder if the church realizes how many religious gay people have been driven away (from religion) over the years because of this stance. How many gays have been beaten, thrown out of their house, fired from their job, dismissed as a friend....etc. All in a round about way, in the "name of god." Because it's the backing of the bible that "justifies" this type of behavior. That's what gets me the most. It's doing harm. I personally don't believe in god because of how I've been treated as a result of people's interpretation of the bible. I don't think I can be a better example ! I got outed when I was in Catholic HS and had every priest and nun coming up to me "couseling" me...the rest of my senior year was an absolute disaster. For one, everyone in my school stopped talking to me, for two my parents kicked me out of the house. Don't you see that it's all because of the perpetuation of these bible verses ? That was their justification of the treatment.



I also think the best thing we gays can do is be open about our orientation and let people get to know us better. This hiding in the closet has got to stop.



One last thought before I head off to work. Do you think Rick would be giving this inaugural honor if he had said the same thing about any other community of people ? sigh.
 
[quote author="Trooper" date=1230014447]

I also think the best thing we gays can do is be open about our orientation and let people get to know us better. This hiding in the closet has got to stop. </blockquote>


Agreed... although it's easy for me to say this since I'm not the one that has to step out and face possible discrimination like you did.
 
Awkward!!!!!!



<object width="325" height="250"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/youtube" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="325" height="250"></embed></object>
 
<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-01-12-obamagay_N.htm">Yay!</a>





<strong>WASHINGTON ? Barack Obama's decision to have a prominent gay bishop open his inaugural festivities Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial is the latest in a series of moves that have heartened gay rights advocates smarting over evangelical pastor Rick Warren's prime spot at the swearing-in ceremony next week.

The families accompanying Obama on a train ride here from Philadelphia on Sunday include a lesbian couple. Nancy Sutley, a Los Angeles deputy mayor who is gay, has been named to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Gay advocates say they believe more gay appointments are in the offing.



Incoming White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, though he didn't give a time frame, recently told a questioner at www.change.gov that Obama plans to end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that requires gay members of the military to hide their sexual orientation.



The Rev. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, an early Obama supporter who advises him on gay issues, said he was invited more than two weeks ago to appear at the Lincoln Memorial. The Episcopal bishop said he was not asked in reaction to the furor over Warren, who has compared gay marriage to incest, pedophilia and polygamy.



"They made it very clear with me, and I certainly do believe them, that this was in the works for some time," </strong>
 
In other news:



<a href="http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gay-protesters-saddleback-2284709-church-tyler">Evangelicals are protesting Pastor Warrren for participating in the Obama inaguration.</a>



If the Evangelicals are pissed and the Gay population is pissed, kudos to Obama for getting it right - right out of the gate. The only thing better than having everyone happy is everyone who has an interest pissed.



This is a positive change from the past eight years where half the population was elated and the other half was fumed.
 
Yes, these are the same people who have egg on their face for believing that George W. Bush believed in the Bible literally. Of course, anyone who believes in the Bible literally could never make a mistake and must have a direct line to God. I've listened to this crap for years and now they have a President who also claims to be a Protestant Christian, but guess what? He doesn't believe in all of their crap and is willing to say it out loud. They will just never learn and I could care a less what they do. They are becoming less and less relevant with every passing day, thank GOD.
 
Did I miss where someone explained why Warren, and not Obama, was defending his invite?
 
[quote author="Oscar" date=1232379279]Did I miss where someone explained why Warren, and not Obama, was defending his invite?</blockquote>


You rang?



<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_us/warren_speech">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_us/warren_speech</a>



(I think this has already been posted.)
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1232380992][quote author="Oscar" date=1232379279]Did I miss where someone explained why Warren, and not Obama, was defending his invite?</blockquote>


You rang?



<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_us/warren_speech">http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081221/ap_on_re_us/warren_speech</a>



(I think this has already been posted.)</blockquote>
Meh, 'twas being rhetorical, but thanks for the link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top