With the holidays and all I sort of missed making much of a fuss over the whole Rick Warren-as-invocation-speaker-for-Obama's-inauguration thing. Part of this was laziness and part of it was not being entirely sure where I stand. My heart said that this was a dumbass move, one that not only showed disrespect to the gays and feminists who had supported Obama, but one that also disproportionately kowtowed to the religious right. But then my head (with a loud supporting chorus from the spouse) suggested laying off, it was only the invocation speaker, really not that big a deal and was merely representative of Obama's trying to reach across the so-called aisle, as politicians simply LOVE to say and occasionally actually do.Then last night I read this week's Newsweek and its religious column by Jonathan Darman espousing the belief that Rick Warren is no Billy Graham (duh, a thousand times duh, not that Graham is totally without issues, either in my book) and that this was what made the decision ok. Or at least that is my takeaway. But then Darman said this:
With the Inaugural invitation, and the subsequent controversy, Obama has assured conservatives that he respects their point of view.
Which pretty much set me off again, down the road my heart had initially wanted me to take. Why, oh why, should anyone show respect to the views of uber conservatives? It isn't like they respect liberals' views on abortion or equal pay or gay marriage. Believe in any of those three and you are surely doomed to hell in their eyes. As I see it, aside from the pay equity thing, these issues really have no affect on conservatives. Abortions matter to the people getting abortions, gay marriage matters to the gays or lesbians entering into those unions, neither one affects my family, my lifestyle or my marriage. Then you have equal pay, something that could actually raise the standard of living for many Americans, both liberal and conservative, although it could admittedly cost companies and businesses more.
I know this opinion isn't very open minded of me, but I just have a hard time reconciling the idea of a man of God being so unforgiving as Warren is on the idea of gays. So many of the views that modern evangelicals take seem to be the antithesis of what Jesus himself taught—loving your neighbor, caring for those less fortunate than you, refusing to judge. God knows I am far from a Biblical scholar, but aren't these some of the basic tenets of Christianity??
Salon reported back in December about some changes to Warren's Saddleback Church's Web site. (Can we just take a moment gentle readers and discuss the ludicrousness of that name? All I can think about is Brokeback Mountain of which I am certain they do not want people to think of, or the cowboy-ish feel of the name and the fact that their is nothing about Orange County, California where the church is located that strikes me as particularly John Wayne-esque.)
The removed language? "Someone unwilling to repent of their homosexual lifestyle would not be accepted at [sic] a member of Saddleback." The site also described homosexuality as "an enormous sin." Lovely showing of tolerance there folks, is that what Jesus would do?
Regardless, Warren will speak, feathers will get ruffled and most likely a day later it will all be forgotten, as our country and Obama gets down to the serious business of fixing what Bush has broken. And for that, Obama will most certainly need Jesus, God and the whole chorus of heavenly host, because the U.S. is in the most unholiest of messes—something my heart and head are in total agreement on.
