I guess I am surprised at the anger still being expressed over the choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. I left a comment over at Elizabeth Keaton’s blog, Telling Secrets a few days ago. It represented my belief that although I despise a good deal of the garbage that Warren spouts, I thought it was a valuable lesson in Obama’s determination to reach out to those we disagree with vehemently and seek cooperation in areas where we are not so torn.
In all, my argument was that although we don’t like Warren and his venomous crap, it was important to reach out to the evangelical right which he represents. Hopefully some of the more moderate voices would be suitably affected.
Apparently, I have seriously misjudged the level of anger this decision has caused. I say that because I was just at American Street and found out that our very own Quaker Agitator has started a new site for alternative invocations! It is called the Alternative Invocation, and welcomes anyone who wishes to write their own invocation in place of that of Mr. Warren’s.
I’ll be excited to see what is produced by the progressive blogosphere to counter the rhetoric of Mr. Warren. As I said, I still don’t feel the anger that is being expressed here. Perhaps I am not being sensitive enough, I’m not sure.
One of the issues that is present in much of the interfaith ecumenical movement is the insistence by some that they cannot work with folks whose theology they don’t agree with. To them, that is “condoning” beliefs and behaviors they deem sinful. I argue rather severely that this is not the case. One need not condone any belief that another has simply by working with them on other issues which in and of themselves are worthwhile and not controversial.
Additionally, it is this kind of interaction which can lead to learning and listening to other points of view which can in the end lead to real changes in thinking. I often think that the reason why some are so vociferous in their objection to this, is the very fear that their notions won’t hold water in the ensuing discussions. My response would be that if you are scared of that, your beliefs are pretty flimsy in the first place. All truth stands the test of time and debate it seems to me.
I feel bad in some sense that I seem to be at some difference of opinion with some of you. But I feel that that is not a bad thing. We should not always agree with everyone else who is in the general group progressive. We should have differences. And the joy of blogging is that we can disagree and discuss without great animus being expressed. I certainly welcome your thoughts and opinions, and I respect our differences in thinking. We are, after all, after the same basic ends, though we may not always agree on the most useful means of achieving them.
I, for one, will be eager to read the invocations that are posted. I may even offer one myself if I feel so moved. My deepest respect to Dave for pushing us to think again on this subject, and more deeply. My only concern is that anyone might think that I don’t care as deeply as I actually do about GLBT issues. That is simply not true. I am simply unsure that Mr. Obama has erred here. I am more convinced that, like a good teacher, he is pushing us beyond our comfort zone and asking us to examine what it really means to love one’s enemies.
I know that I am thinking again, and questioning my conclusions. Whether I come to a different result this time around, remains to be seen. I wish all of you well in this endeavor of re-examination.
Existential Ennui 
I agree with you. Completely. It disappoints me when people who are supposed to represent progressiveness, openness to other ideas and dialogue whine like a bunch of babies when they’re pressed to actually do it.
A lot of the stuff Rick Warren says is nonsense. In my opinion. That doesn’t mean it has no value to others. Inclusion is important in a true democracy. (Not that I claim the US is a true democracy.. but at least Obama is making some moves in that direction.)
My new motto for the new year: Take the best and leave the rest.
~*
Since I’m already a “baby,” I’ll disagree.
This isn’t about being open to new ideas. Mr. Warrens compared gay marriage to rape, incest, and polygamy. He has called for the criminalization of reproductive choice, and for the assassination of world leaders who oppose the U.S.
His ideas are OLD ideas. They are regressive and repressive ideas. They have no value, at best.
And at worst, as far as his views of LGBTG folks goes, they are ideas that get people killed. Just ask Matthew Shepard’s mom.
I am not especially interested in a dialogue with the likes of Mr. Warren. He makes a fortune spewing what he does, and he doesn’t seem to want to debate anything. The response to the anger over his choice for the invocation is to accuse his attackers of being anti Christian.
Not hardly.
At some point, people just get tired of all the hate.
I have to go: my bottle’s ready…
Sherry: Thanks for the link.
I too think that Obama was just tipping his hat to the more Evangelical spectrum and hoping for some bridge building…..
But that said, I think he made a very poor choice in how and through whom to do this, ie Rick Warren for the Invocation at the inaguration. sigh.
I am really tired of that old rhetoric being held up as THE CHristian perspective in America. WHen Obama gave this role to Warren he is said, for all intents and purposes, that THIS is the Christian perspective of America….the voice of Rick Warren….
and it simply is not.
I want leaders in this country to uphold a richer and deeper CHristian perspective than just the religious right – one that says we can be Christian and still embrace gay marriage, the ordination of GLBT people, and support people of all perspectives in their pursuit of faith, be it Christian or otherwise.
Rick Warren was a bad choice…and leaves me wondering just what our president-elect thinks about faith, church, God….
I’m not sure he really does.
sigh.
I am in the same camp as you are, Sherry. While I deplore the opinions Warren has expressed about the LGBT community and his ideas on reproductive issues, etc., I believe Obama chose him because he believes we can work with people with whom we disagree on the issues where we DO agree – in the case of Warren, it’s things like AIDS and other causes that, as you put it so well, “in and of themselves are worthwhile and not controversial.”
Like you, I don’t want anyone to think I am not upset and offended by Warren’s statements about the gay community. I try to put myself in the place of a gay person who sees Warren giving the invocation, and wonder how I would feel.
I can’t help but admit I probably would be angry. And there has been a history of broken promises already from a previous Democrat – Bill Clinton got the support of the LGBT community and then never followed up on what he said he’d do. He wimped out on the military by agreeing to the infamous “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. So I don’t blame the gay community for their anger and feeling of betrayal.
However, I think for the greater good, we must continue to support Obama and understand that his intentions were good here – I think he truly believes we can find common ground with people like Warren and work together. Whether he’s right or not we don’t yet know. But, as I always like to use an aphorism whenever possible, we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater here! Obama isn’t even president yet and already people on his own side are condemning him. I think we all have to remember we didn’t just elect him to get civil rights for gay people. He has a lot of other things on his agenda that I thought all of us were in favor of. He is probably going to be appointing Supreme Court justices. He has to fix the economy and help the poor who are struggling thanks to the GOP’s policies. It goes on and on.
I am closer to your belief, Sherry, but if I were gay or lesbian I would be a lot angrier. I agree with mompriest about the richness of Christianity, but the truth is, right now there isn’t one progressive Christian leader that I know of that has the visibility that Rick Warren has. He has written a boo, Purpose-Driven Life, which I don’t especially like, but which has been used by people in many different faith traditions. I think this is a wake-up call for progressive Christians to stop talking just to ourselves and start talking in a voice that reaches out to others.
If there is a progressive Christian out there that I don’t know about, I apologize.
I’m not happy about the Warren choice, but I think we need to work to make progressive Christian voices as accessible as Warren’s is.
book
I have such mixed feelings. At first, I agreed that it was good to reach out to Evangelicals. But I didn’t know that much about Warren, except that he was the one who wrote that book. The more I’ve read, the more I think it was a mistake. But I don’t think Obama is going to back down now.
I’ve agreed to do one of the alternate invocations for Dave, because I think it’s a better way to handle the situation than outrage.
I understand the outrage of the GLBT progressives, but wonder how we as progressives will be able to influence opinion in areas of disagreement with conservatives unless we engage them in some form of discourse. Warren is not who I would have chosen to do the invocation, but I’m hoping that Obama has some as yet unrevealed plan to move our nation toward more inclusiveness of our disparate groups.
I also feel that we need to keep our eyes on the long term goals of our collective efforts, and I agree with Ruth that other ways to handle the outrage of Warren to give the invocation should be pursued.
I’m with QuakerDave. Being a cynic, I always assume the worst from people until proven otherwise and Hawaiian Shir Guy, I already know his views rank among that worst. Let ’em wander as pariahs for a few decades, then they can sit at the adults’ table.
I see that we have many differences among us here. I am happy that everyone has been able to state their position without rancor or meanness. I agree with much that has been said on both sides of the issue.
Perhaps my real point is that Jesus said again and again, that when we do no better than those who oppose us, well, as he said, even tax collectors do as much for each other. If we cannot find ways to bridge the gap between us I don’t know what is the answer.
I guess another post is in order.
Well, I hope I am proven wrong. I truly do.
Just show me where you see any indication that Mr. Warren is open to engaging in any sort of dialogue that might lead to his opening of his own heart and mind. NOT a public display of his openess, like those campaign forums, which were 1) stacked in McCain’s favor and 2) designed to cement his self-designed image as “America’s pastor.”
Show me that there’s something there. Please.
Until then, I will continue to complain. There are plenty of conservative evangelicals who would’ve been a better choice. And I engage with folks like that every day. So I know it can be done, and I do it, every chance I get.
Warren, to me, isn’t one of them.
Dave, the point to me is not whether Warren responds in some sort of ecumenical offering of a truce. I suspect he will not. But some of his followers who think of him as moderate, may see the light in his refusal, and thus he may lose adherents. The softer evangelical type may be persuaded that OBama’s position is the correct one and reject the likes of Warren. That is my hope. You cannot make that case without first extending the olive branch. When it is rejected, you have assumed the moral high ground it seems to me.