Rick Warren to give invocation at Obama’s inauguration
8 Responses | Leave a Comment »
It’s all over the news that Obama has picked Rick Warren, the evangelical pastor of the southern California megachurch Saddleback, to give the invocation when he takes office in January.
Those few members who are familiar with my thinking (specifically, the “integral” developmental perspective) probably wouldn’t be surprised that I think this is fantastic news. It gives a strong indication that Obama is thinking at a level few liberal elites currently appreciate.
(The standard pre-emptive defense: no, I am not anti-gay, I support gay rights and gay marriage, I support a woman’s right to control her own body and have an abortion — at least for the first two trimesters of pregnancy — and I am socially liberal, but I take these positions in the context of political, techno-economic, cultural, and moral development.)
As I read more about Obama’s decisions, his methodical nature, and how his mind works, I am becoming more and more convinced that he is an integral thinker (not necessarily explicitly, but I wouldn’t be surprised, given the familiarity of Clinton, Gore, and Jeb Bush with integral theory). He understands the value of conservative thought, and he seems to be the type of person capable of finding common ground with people throughout the political (and developmental) spectrum. He also understands that to disagree with a few of someone’s positions does not require rejecting the person, or rejecting their positions in their entirety, and his willingness to make politically risky choices in the face of an often viciously-critical liberal base is refreshing and encouraging. January 20th is going to be an interesting day.
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
nskripchun
1:44 am | Dec 19, 2008I think all the hub-bub over Rick Warren is interesting, but on the scale of “conservative Christianity”, Rick Warren is more moderate compared to say, James Dobson or Chuck Colson or Cal Thomas.
King4aDay
1:30 pm | Dec 19, 2008I don’t know, I think that perhaps Obama is right on this one. I don’t think that a “blacklist” approach is going to work, for this issue, and at this time.
If evangelical Christians were the ONLY ones who opposed gay marriage, then maybe… but as it stands, you’d have to go after most Christian denominations, all the Mormons in the world, all Muslim sects, etc. And that doesn’t even count all the people who still oppose gay marriage for non-religious reasons. Some of those are even Democrats!
That seems like just too many people’s feet to hold to the proverbial fire. Gay mariage (as an absolute right) is still a minority viewpoint, and until it becomes more mainstream, I think that it would be a mistake to “go to war” with every pastor/politician/celebrity who opposes it.
Obama is going to have to make a lot of compromises if he’s going to to govern successfully. Or he can just FAIL valiantly.
jaehwan
3:16 pm | Dec 19, 2008Also–Obama himself opposes gay marriage (he supports civil unions), as does Biden.
nottyboy
4:10 pm | Dec 19, 2008On another forum, someone made the point that Obama could have “also reached out to one of the more friendly/PC white supremacist organizations. And it might get more white racists to support him. But it would also be a thumb in the eye of many of his non-racist supporters, particularly the African American ones.”
Do you think this is somewhat equivalent or on the same footing?
Dialectic
9:26 pm | Dec 19, 2008No, requesting the attendance of the KKK is not equivalent at all. This is a common fallacy in the modern American liberal mind: they see someone who doesn’t have the same idea of “inclusion” that they do and automatically equate them with the worst humanity has to offer. They’re all or nothing: Bush is Hitler, his administration is fascist, Rick Warren is a Klan leader, etc. It’s complete bullshit. Those are, obviously, extremely sick versions of ethnocentrism: they advocate for the violent extermination and rejection of massive groups of people. Bush and his cronies, and these megachurches, do not get close to what those other people and groups have done.
A traditional Christian position in southern America wants to preserve “traditional Christian” values, including, I might add, universal love and compassion. They, in fact, comprise the largest group to contribute to charity in the country. It’s just that they have an idea of what is “good” and “natural” which we consider archaic; that life from conception is sacred, and that marriage should only occur between a man and woman. No, I don’t agree with those positions, but yes, I strongly believe that they deserve a seat at the table. These people are not evil; they’re following beliefs and practices which people have been following for centuries, they comprise a large portion of the population, and they have a right to be heard.
Finally, so what if he’s giving an invocation? Obama has not given him any actual power or authority, merely a brief ceremonial role. I would also be outraged if Warren were actually made head of a Department of Multiculturalism or Religion or Education or some other crap, but that is far, far from the case.
Xian
8:51 am | Dec 20, 2008I see your point of view, D, but it’d be nice if you could get through a post about inclusivity without stereotyping “liberals”. Sometimes your diatribes remind me of that Simpsons episode where Homer watches too much Fox News.
President-elect Obama has just appointed a horrendously bad choice for Secretary of Education who does indeed employee facist policies to control the Chicago media around education and has ruined thousands of kids lives in order to push his privatization and gentrification agenda.
The “representation” argument from the right strikes me as fallacious. There are large tracts of the population whose viewpoints are never heard in the mainstream. The megapastor can make himself heard at any time. Why not use the presidential platform to elevate unheard voices?
Furthermore, obviously I would love to see more Christian values highlighted. However, the mainstream churches don’t usually use the ample airtime they receive to support such values. Surely you can understand how frustrating it is to hear anti-Christian values such as bigotry paraded around as Christian values while the centerpieces of the faith are neglected. (Incidentally, bearing false witness is pretty the worst one can do.)
Lastly, talk of American “traditional Christian values” from the reactionary end of the scale is not comforting to most Christians of color. Even those of us who oppose gay marriage tend to get images of slavery and lynchings in our heads when we hear such language.
minorTruths
12:53 pm | Dec 21, 2008^what Xian said
Obama is still more of a symbolic figure than anything else at this point. We’ll see how it goes, but it seems to me that he is not setting up a clear direction or ideology for how his administration will govern or what he stands for. Some see this ‘bringing everyone to the table’ style as bipartisan and good. Others see this as more of the same old policies, politics, and failures.
Personally, I really hope to see Obama shake things up a bit and be the force behind a real paradigm shift in America’s ideology that will some day distill itself down to the way we operate business, implement social policies and programs, view and value our pop culture and false idols, and measure and uphold the American dream. Yes, I hope he will say (and do) some ‘crazy’, off the wall shit from time to time that will either scare the ‘majority’ out of their 40 acres and a mule or reaffirm their worst inner fears and prejudices to begin with. It should be a real shocker to a good deal of idiot ‘liberals’ too. What those ‘crazy’, off the wall shit would be, I don’t know. All I want Obama to do is to keep it real. But I doubt that will happen. Afterall, he’s just a man despite his symbolic stature for so many. Ah, the audacity of hope.
nottyboy
2:14 pm | Dec 22, 2008I agree, but I interpreted that comment differently. My take on it was that he was comparing people who oppose same-sex marriage with those who would oppose interracial marriage.
I realize it might not be a completely “apples to apples” comparisons, because I am not aware of anyone who vehemently opposes the concept of interracial relationships who is not also more extreme in other ways. Still, now, to me, they seem to be pretty close in principle.
Very true. Still, I guess that the connection some people draw is that were this a preacher who was against interracial marriage, inviting him to give an invocation would most likely not fly. Yet discrimination based on sexual orientation is perhaps seen as not so evil.