Rick Warren: An Open Letter to Progressives

December 19, 2008 · Posted in Barack Obama 

Progressives, you’re missing the point and the boat. Didn’t you hear anything Barack Obama said during his campaign?

In the Bush years, all was dogma, rigid, unbending (among other things). Barack Obama spent 11 months telling us that change is coming, change we can believe in, change we NEED.

Change isn’t something that happens with the stroke of a pen. It emerges out of need, dialogue, and consensus.

I understand the anger over Rick Warren’s selection to give the invocation at the inaugural. But what you aren’t getting is that Warren represents a large chunk of our country — evangelical Christians who believe that the Bible prohibits gay marriage.

I disagree with them. You disagree with them. I wrote extensively about how hurt I was to see the hateful speech coming from them during the Proposition 8 campaign. That hurt hasn’t gone anywhere, but it seems unproductive and useless to shout Warren down, call for him to be disinvited, and in the process, alienate that segment of the population YOU all need to move the agenda forward.

I want you to consider Lee Stranahan’s viewpoint here. It’s worth thinking about.

Rick Warren has laid out arguments and views that you may not agree with but they are actually shared by millions of people. The majority of people, really. They’ve been quoted all over the place and that’s part of the gift.

There are weeks to listen to his arguments and not just quote them but actually refute them in an organized way. You could try out your counter-arguements on people who disagree with you, rather than just nodding in agreement at the people who you already agree with. You can try to answer the arguments with civil discourse and without the use of any broad generalizations meant to obscure the other side’s position. You could answer without insults. I mean – without a single one.

It’s harder, no doubt. It’s easy to wave your own team’s flag while sitting comfortably in your own team’s bleachers. But Barack Obama has been argued for doing the easy thing. The challenge is to do the right thing and that means actually trying to win by fighting well and fairly in the marketplace of ideas.

Barack Obama is handing the country the gift of civil discourse on difficult and emotional subjects. Happy holidays.

If you want change, start by changing the tone of discourse. I agree with Lee. We’re not used to it, but Barack Obama is offering an opportunity for an exchange of ideas in a civil tone. We don’t have to shout at each other anymore. That’s a hallmark of the past. We don’t have to suffer rallies shouting down opposing views, but can come together and try to get a clear understanding of what exactly the issues are.

It takes one voice in a room. Are we going to use that voice to try to persuade, or alienate?

As an aside, I have met Rick Warren and talked with him. He is not a raving homophobe nor is he a dogmatic type who has to be right. He is thoughtful, bases his beliefs on what he understands the Bible to say, but is open to discussion and debate. Further, he is a man with heart for all people, gay, straight, rich, poor, and otherwise. He is not a hellfire and brimstone preacher and has angered the diehards on the side of the Religious Right far more than he has you.

The man is saying a prayer. He is not shaping policy, nor is he running for office. Let him pray. And listen. And talk. But do it with the goal of persuasion and openness, not exclusion and anger. Please. Let’s be the change we believe in and voted for.

Sphere: Related Content

Tags: , , ,

Comments

  • mobilejones
    Brava Dani! Your comment is dead on. Funny running into you here. :-)

    Warren isn't merely getting a seat at the table. He's being offered an honored seat.

    In an interview just last week, Warren compared reproductive choice to the Holocaust and compared same-sex marriage to incest and pedophilia, and he called Christians who work to advance social justice gospel "Marxism in Christian clothing." He's also stated that there are five issues that all candidates should be evaluated on -- the top three are reproductive choice, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research.

    These are extreme positions not merely differing positions. Religious extremism whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish doesn't recognize the rights of "all the people". I'm sure that Warren is charming and charismatic in person which is why he attracts a large audience. Many unsavory actors on the world stage have been charming and charismatic, while also spreading hate and intolerance.

    Simply put: this decision by Obama and/or his team is a gaff. If Warren needs a seat at the table, then use him as an adviser for how Christian extremism can be minimized in the USA.

    I often agree with you, Karoli on policy and political positions. This time you picked the unfortunate and wrong side.
  • Both of you make valid points. I'm frankly at a loss to understand Warren's
    comments in the beliefnet interview, particularly in light of the
    clarifications, though he does at least make a Biblical case for his views
    in the clarifying statements.

    I will probably be making another post on this as soon as I sort out what
    the heck is going on here. I still think disinviting or being shrill is a
    bad idea.
  • mobilejones
    The strongest Biblical case is for Christian conservatives to focus on God's Top Ten before focusing on corner cases. Biblical cases were made in the 1950s and 1960s that interracial marriage was "an abomination" and against God's law.

    Give me a topic and I can make a Biblical case for multiple sides of the issue. The Religious Right would accrue more credibility if their fervor was as strong on solving issues of lying, cheating, stealing, coveting, and killing. But those are liberal issues - anti war and all that jazz.

    It is their hypocrisy on choosing which issues count that strip them of their credibility. There's a book called "Jesus Wants To Save Christians" that Warren and his ilk should read. In addition, let's not forget the heavy-handed judgment in Warren's agenda when the Biblical Case forbades judgment - "Judge not, least ye be judged" and warning that "He who is without sin - cast the first stone."

    Warren and the whole of the Christian Right who seek to shape our political discourse build their Biblical Cases in direct conflict with what Jesus said, did and taught. Therein lies the rub.

    Finally, being loud and vocal does not equal being shrill. That's coded language and I'm sure you don't truly mean it as it sounds. The offering of an honored seat to someone with Warren's public and political aims is a slap in the face of the Gay community which supported Obama. Truly following on the many attacks directed at Gay's today there must be a line somewhere. There must be a time to say - Enough!

    Anyone who supports equal rights for all people gets this. And frankly, the fact that Obama has placed Warren in this honored position scares the hell out of those of us who have been made promises by Democrats including the Clintons and continually watch as equal rights that should be "inalienable" become political fodder for trade and political theater.

    Warren is a divisive voice. It's not okay to give him a bigger platform unless you agree with him. That's scary.
  • I don't agree with him. Nearly every voice with regard to this issue is
    divisive. When I use the word "shrill" I am specifically referring to the
    calls to disinvite him, to condemn his participation. Like it or not,
    Warren represents the beliefs of a big chunk of the people in this country
    who do espouse hypocritical and contradictory views. I'm married to one of
    them. I've done my share of shouting about it.

    We have spent the last eight years *not* talking about this stuff. It's
    been shouted, it's been shoved down our throats, but we haven't had a
    dialogue. Now we have a chance to aim at reconciliation.

    Do I agree with Warren's views? No. Do I endorse them? No. Do I wish beyond all that he had simply said that he endorsed civil unions and left it at that? You betcha. But he didn't, and now he's the center of the first
    controversy around Obama.

    I do note that the larger role in the inauguration ceremony has been given
    to Joseph Lowery, who is also a pastor and who will give the closing speech.
    Yet there is no talk of that choice as one being divisive. If Warren is a
    slap to the GLBT community (and I certainly believe he is perceived that
    way), then Lowery is a slap to evangelicals. So we've all been slapped. Now what?
  • mobilejones
    Sorry equivocation isn't possible here. Seeking it is flawed logic.

    Would you advocate equivocation for women's right to vote? For heterosexuals to marry across race? For a woman's right to choose? For any individual's right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

    Of course not! Warren's presence is a stain on Obama's inauguration.
  • Okay. it's a stain. So we all go to our corners and condemn each other and
    spend another four years getting nowhere until the next election when once
    again the hateful many descend to defeat equality and rights once again.

    That's the choice. It sounds like it's the one most will make.
  • mobilejones
    The supposition that allowing a hate monger to deliver a prayer will naturally result in dialogue or magical understanding is more flawed logic. I'm confident that you already know this.

    There's a canyon between inviting someone to participate in an honored position during the inauguration and entertaining a dialogue or exchange of ideas. The mistake has been made. It's up to the Obama team to correct or allow the decision to cast the stain on the promise of his presidency and progressive ideals.

    Enough is enough. My rights are not negotiable.
  • As one of the progressives to whom this open letter is written, I feel compelled to respond. :-)

    I absolutely understand what is trying to be achieved here. But you have to draw the line somewhere. It's one thing to have a preacher or minister simply say homosexuality is wrong because of religious beliefs or what the Bible says. It's another to say hateful things like equating homosexuality with incest or pedophilia. How does that make Warren a "man with heart for all people"? That to me is an example of a raging homophobe, even if he did not come off that way when you met him.

    Obama is approaching civil discourse the wrong way here, in my opinion. He is in essence saying that it's ok to be public in saying these sorts of things. While you can't stop people from believing what they do, you shouldn't reward them for their hate and bigotry either.

    By allowing Warren to give his blessing to this new Presidency, Obama is in essence saying it's ok to be open with your hatred as Warren is. That it's acceptable to say the things he has said. This move is dividing us even more, and that is not the fault of progressives.

    My two pennies on the matter. :-)
  • Okay, I've now found the full clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... and watched it twice. To summarize, what he says is: a) divorce is the biggest threat to the family; b) civil unions are the way past discriminating against any member of society; and c) he does not support a redefinition of marriage.

    In support of his third point, he cites incest and pedophilia (though it's not pedophilia as much as it is marriage between older man; younger woman, which is not necessarily pedophilia) as two other instances where marriage has not been redefined to be inclusive.

    And then he is asked by the interviewer whether he equates incest and pedophilia with gay marriage, which is where he makes the fatal mistake, which is to say "yes, absolutely".

    While I understood the 'yes, absolutely' to relate to the marriage definition (which he sort of qualifies with his next sentence), it was clearly open to lots of interpretation, and he should definitely clarify what he meant by that.

    I can understand how anyone would feel outraged by the comparison. I was taken aback by it too. However, I don't believe he meant it as a statement that gays were the same as pedophiles and those committing incest. I think what he was saying is that they all fall into an area that has not been covered by 'traditional marriage' as defined by the Bible.

    With that said, it was an ill-advised and ambiguous response to a pretty clear question. I would love to hear him explain his response.
  • Yeah, I would love to hear an explanation too. Anyway, I definitely see where you are coming from by bringing all views together, and am totally for that. Thanks for hearing me out. :-)

  • I haven't been able to find the complete record of those remarks. I'm looking for them, and want to see them in context, because they fly in the face of what he's said in the past. I will say this: There are many, many pastors out there that I view as haters. Warren is not one of them, which is why I'd like to see the full context of the remarks before going on about it. Warren is a guy that stood in front of an uber-conservative congregation a few years back and called for repentance over what the church has done to AIDS/HIV sufferers by ostracizing them. That doesn't square with the remarks you're quoting above.

    More after I find the full context.
  • I sent this to you in Twitter DM, but here is a clip from Rachel Maddow's show last night discussing Warren. In it she plays a clip of an interview Warren in which he makes the comparison:

    http://is.gd/cA1v
  • Thank God you write for me, Karoli. I was thinking the same thing this morning as I was listening to NPR. We can't just say "screw you because you don't believe what I believe" or we are just as bad as they are. Either we believe in Obama's vision of uniting the country and being post-partisan, or we don't. Post partisan doesn't mean converting everyone to our opinions.

    And you are right. Warren will be praying, not making policy. As a Jew, I listen to people pray to Jesus all the time and just ignore it and understand that I am not the majority.

    "Disagree without being disagreeable" -- he said that yesterday.
  • Great post Karoli - nothing is gained from the extremes digging in their heels and refusing to agree that they disagree - and yet remain civil and united where there is opportunity for agreement.

    Obama's change was never about denouncing conservatism and excluding them from the conversation. It was never about going all progressive/liberal all the time and vilifying those who disagree.
    It was - and continues to be - about changing the tone, inclusiveness and goal of the conversation. In the absence of conversation hate flourishes.
blog comments powered by Disqus