I understand the magnitude of the moment. I recognize the opportunity given. I am relieved as an American to see the beliefs and efforts of Martin Luther King and others realized. But I just can’t understand why Rick Warren would identify himself so publicly with policies he openly opposes.
Tuesday, history was made in the United States. The inauguration of Barack Obama as the nation’s 44th president is the first of an African-American. In the midst of a flurry of preparations for the event, Obama made an interesting decision; he invited Rick Warren, a popular author and California evangelical pastor, to perform the invocation. Given the left-leaning tendencies of the Obama campaign, outcry from the homosexual community against the more conservative Warren came quickly and angrily.
The Obama camp then brought in V. Eugene Robinson, an equally polemical religious figure within the Episcopal Church, to deliver an invocation during the celebration at the Lincoln Memorial. He is the first open homosexual accepted into the Episcopal bishopric in the U.S., and a controversial figure himself. In an attempt to reach out to differing groups, the Obama camp angered many on both sides of the political fence.
As for Warren, his identification with Obama and rise to even greater fame in the U.S. begs the question: with his positions on hot-button topics morally and politically, coupled with his belief statements about the Bible and its authority, how could he conscientiously agree to this?
Abortion and homosexuality are understandably emotion-evoking and intense moral issues, especially in a nation in which government and law are based largely on Judeo-Christian morals. Blood typically boils when I have conversations about both issues. How to define human life and human marriage are historically two vital questions to be asked of any culture. The dichotomy of the perceived “progressive” ideas and the more traditional and conservative viewpoints creates this tension and often miscommunication among Americans who disagree.
The stance of President Obama on each issue is unavoidably clear. His liberal voting record as a senator marks him as staunchly supportive of abortion and homosexual rights. He has publicly stated his intentions of advocating the Freedom of Choice Act, legislation that would allow partial-birth abortions and expand federal funding for abortion. He openly opposed Proposition 8 in California, legislation which mandated marriage as between a man and a woman.
Including Bishop Robinson, a mainline liberal Christian minister who rejects the inerrancy and authority of the Bible, seems to be a consistent move for Obama. Including Warren, an outspokenly-conservative public evangelical figure, is another matter entirely. In bringing both in for a token spiritual reference, it seems that the new president hopes to ally himself with both polemics in the moral/political debate.
A fascinating element for me in this topic is the fact that Warren and Obama have discussed both of these matters publicly in an interview format. In August, when Warren hosted a presidential forum in which Obama and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., were questioned on their policies, Warren quizzed Obama on his beliefs in both areas. To his credit, Obama was consistent, combining political spin with assertions which were pro-choice and pro-homosexual. Likewise, Warren is to be lauded for his willingness to press the issue when it came to abortion; Obama’s response to a question about when life begins was pretty weak, as he stated that “answering that question with specificity…is above my pay grade.”
Trying to get elected into the position known as “leader of the free world” should make a person be specific on such controversial and important issues. This makes Obama’s selection of Warren as a visible spiritual ally at his inauguration all the more perplexing, but also raises eyebrows as to Warren’s credibility as a conservative evangelical.
As a Christian, I agree with Warren in believing strongly that the Bible is the ultimate authority on all areas of human existence. In fact, Saddleback Church (where Warren is pastor) identifies itself on its website with classical Christian doctrine when it states that it believes the Bible to be “truth without any mixture of error.” As such, I heartily agree with Warren’s position on the value and sanctity of human life. We both agree that human existence biologically and personally begins at conception. His opposition to abortion has been both strong and public. He also agrees with the Bible in its clear definition of marriage as between a man and a woman, supporting and promoting Proposition 8 in public statements.
However, in accepting this invitation to perform the invocation, Warren ignored these foundational issues which are relevant to him both as a pastor and as an American. Identifying himself with Obama in such a public way may promote increased discussion of these topics. In fact, Warren’s press asserts that “Hopefully individuals passionately expressing opinions from the left and the right will recognize that both of us have shown a commitment to model civility in America.” This desire is to be commended. However, taking part in this historical day undermines Warren’s theological and moral convictions as a Christian.
Connecting himself with the convoluted political liberalism of Obama is, I would assert, below Rick Warren’s pay grade.
Jon Malone is an English education graduate student. His column appears every other Wednesday.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
Charles 3 years, 4 months ago
Rick Warren is first and formost about Rick Warren. Like most of the charismatic mega pastors he's a charlatan. A flim flam artist who'll say or do anything in order to promote himself. How else to explain his traveling to Syria, posing with Bashar al Assad and saying "Syria is a moderate country and the official government position is to not allow extremism of any kind."
Really Rick? I think there may be a few family members of Lebanese journalists who would disagree with you about the lack of extremity in Syria's policies.
It was an embarassment to have someone like Warren speaking on such a historic day.
tbgalileo 3 years, 4 months ago
"Connecting himself with the convoluted political liberalism of Obama is, I would assert, below Rick Warren’s pay grade."
It is exactly this type of evangelical arrogance and overbearing religious ego that is relegating neocons to the margins of government influence. If you want to live your life in constant protest of everything you disagree with, so be it, but don't be surprised when nobody wants to be around you.
I would assert that Malone is in no position to pass judgement on either the President or on Warren. Of course these two do not see eye-to-eye on all issues, but the point of Warren being there was to demonstrate that in spite of the differences, we can have a common dialogue and fellowship as Americans.
But, I suppose in Malone's world, we shouldn't even associate with each other (or rather, Christians are too good to associate with those they disagree with).
alaskaairborne 3 years, 4 months ago
This column is quite a bit off the mark . . . .
Whether the author likes it or not, Barrack Obama is the President of the United States. The American People have spoken in a free, open general election. And, everyone needs to respect that.
The Presidential Inauguration is about the office as much as it is about the person -- the idea that, as a nation and as a people, you can have a peaceful transition of power determined by the outcome of a popular election. And, you saw that during the ceremonies when people from both parties (close friends and bitter rivals) all came together to participate and to celebrate the occasion.
There used to be a time where everyone shared a commitment to model civility. An invitation from the White House was tantamount to a command and it was refused only in the case of death or serious illness. Yet, ever since Newt Gingrich put the President on hold after the midterm elections, you're seeing less and less of that.
Everyone wants to boil everything down to politics -- some uncompromising commitment to their own personal principles which somehow trumps the idea of showing basic courtesy and respect to anyone else.
You can have strong principles. Indeed, you should always fight and stand up for what you believe in. But, there are times when you should also show a little basic courtesy and respect -- particularly for the Office of the President of the United States, the elected leader of our nation. The Inauguration is one of those times.
I would assert that it is still an honor to be asked to give the invocation at any President's inauguration. It is really in poor taste to refuse such a request. And, if one can't see how a person can honor the office, honor the historic occasion, and honor another person's accomplishments without irrevocably abandoning all of his principles, I think one really needs to lighten up.
impatient_with_ignorance 3 years, 4 months ago
One wonders if Mr. Malone realizes that so-called "biblical inerrancy" is a relatively recent doctrine, developed less than 200 years ago. What are Mr. Malone's views about translation errors, grammatical errors, and copying errors in the many different versions of the Bible? This is a document that not only went through several centuries of being transmitted by the arduous task of making copies by hand, prior to that it seems to have been transmitted orally for at least the first two or three generations after the death of Jesus. Are all versions "inerrant" ? All translations? Only some ? Which ones? Who decides ?
I agree with the comment made by Charles. Rick Warren like most of the mega pastors including John Hagee is transparently running a business. That there are some people who think men like this are actually speaking for God is astonishing.
As for same-sex marriage, when President Obama's parents were married in 1961, their inter-racial marriage was ILLEGAL in 21 states, including of course Oklahoma. There will come a time (it is rapidly on its way) when we will look back on the prohibition of same-sex marriage with the same bewilderment.
In the meantime, perhaps Mr. Malone might take a geology course.