Controversy over Rick Warren and the Inauguration

For my first post after the welcome, I felt I should jump right into the deep end! So, I will discuss the controversy of Rick Warren and gay marriage. This will be only the first post on this topic, since I don’t think the debate will subside any time soon – as it shouldn’t!

Many Americans just don’t see the big deal with Barack Obama inviting Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church - plus, author of The Purpose-Driven Life and strong supporter of California’s Proposition 8, as well as AIDS and global warming activist – banning same-gender marriage, to give the invocation at his inauguration on January 20th. Most folks are either homophobic, or they simply don’t care. In fact, with Warren equating gay marriage to incest, polygamy and pedophilia, he has simply thrown fuel on the fire:



The outrage over this invitation was not only vocal, but heated – from both the left and the right. The right felt Warren sold out both himself and conservative values to the enemy. How could an evangelical preacher pray at the inauguration of “that one,” someone who had been accused during the campaign of being a socialist?

The left, especially the LGBT community, felt betrayed. They had give Obama their support in many ways. And then they felt totally dumped on. No, rather they felt hurt once again, with one more leader turning his back on them. They felt that, once again, they were told their rights were insignificant.

Rachel Maddow, a commentator on Air America Radio (http://airamerica.com/maddow) and MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ ), has been very outspoken concerning this decision. While listening to her I could viscerally feel her pain, anger and indignation. She, too, felt sold out by someone the gay community had supported. She has made it very clear this issue will not go away and the LGBT community will no longer remain silent. She has also wondered aloud if Obama might rescind his invitation. (This I very much doubt...)

Obama quickly stated during a news conference that first he was basically being polite in returning the invitation, since Warren had invited him to Saddleback. He also said that America is all about difference of opinion and that he and Warren do no agree on many issues. But, he wanted Warren there to represent the variety of thought and opinion – a symbol of his administration.

With all the vocal opposition to his upcoming role, Warren attempted to clarify his position, basically stating that the entire ruckus is a tempest in a teapot by stating that it’s not news that an evangelical preacher would oppose gay marriage and it’s not news that the gay community would not support his position. Indeed he tries to back away from the above comments:



So, what is my position on gay marriage? Do I believe that Barack Obama should have invited Warren to give the invocation?

Before answering these questions, I would first like to point out that the relationship between these two men could become a slippery political slope. If, for example, Warren were to become a sort of spiritual advisor to Obama in the White House, such influence could overflow into the president’s political decisions. Are there others who might be good spiritual guides for President Obama? Yes, and I will share some of the names in a future posting.

As a Quaker, I may have a fairly open/liberal stance on gay marriage. This does not mean that Quakers have found clarity easily on this issue. Nonetheless, many Quaker meetings and churches have approved same-gender marriage within their congregations. In my home meeting, we reached agreement for same-gender marriage a few years ago. It was a long, arduous process, but after much thought, discussion and prayer, we found that, if we were to be a loving community before God, the only decision was to open ourselves to gay couples and their desire to be total, complete, fully-spiritual members in our congregation. So, LGBT folk can both be members and marry in my Quaker meeting...

So, I do support gay marriage - I was opposed to Proposition 8. I found it to be a crude rejection of a civil right recently determined by the courts. As a Christian myself, I find the biblical injunction to homosexuality a convenient means to justify and legalize homophobia.

And the invitation? I'm not one of the people who says that this decision will either lead to the downfall of Obama or be indicative of how he will govern. I do believe that it is a clear political decision - not a spiritual one. Yes, Warren and Obama do not agree on many things, and politically that can be a strong suit for Obama - especially since he is such a strong believer in the proverbial "Team of Rivals."

However, is not the invocation meant to be a symbolic spiritual part of the inauguration? What does this symbol, therefore, symbolize? It should represent our significance in God's presence, all of us, united. Here is where Obama misread the power of his decision and the potentially negative impact it could have on America. He has shared so frequently a message of unity, but with this decision, he has sown division.

It's just a shame that Obama, who felt the pulse of America so sensitively over such a long period of time, decided to feel his own, personal, individual pulse instead - and in so doing laid a lot of hurt and separation on many, many people.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(If you wish to comment, please click the tiny word "comments" just below here and a comment box will appear.)