In (limited) defense of Rick Warren

    By Ripper on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 4:45pm | Politics

    I am no less a liberal for being a Christian. So I was somewhat dismayed that Rev. Rick Warren has come under fire for what some bloggers have called his "inappropriate" invocation at President Obama's inauguration.

    Now understand, I am no particular fan of Warren, especially in light of his support for California's gay marriage ban. I disagree with Warren's view of gay rights. And while I still wrestle with the issue of abortion, I support the notion that such decisions are deeply personal and that Roe v Wade must remain the somewhat awkward standard for guaranteeing women the right to control their bodies.

    Yet whatever oratorical and political sins Warren may be guilty of, his prayer before Obama's oath of office is not among them. I found Warren's invocation not merely unremarkable but profoundly in keeping with the theme of diversity and equality that uniquely underscores the elevation of our 44th president.

    If Warren's invocation can be criticized as wrongheaded or politically incorrect, surely it isn't because Warren said a prayer. It would be incongruous of liberal critics to condemn Warren's words merely for being a prayer while simultaneously praising the Rev. Joseph Lowery's soulful, playful prayer of benediction. True, Warren's invocation was more solemn, less artful, but such is the nature of an opening act before a mighty event.

    Some atheists might have been offended Warren was praying at all, but this can hardly be cited as Warren's failure. Any cleric would have provided similar grounds for such offense. No, it would be ridiculous to criticize Warren for saying a prayer. By definition, an invocation calls on God to bestow a blessing.

    Was Warren's prayer disrespectful of some people or groups? Hardly, unless one overlooks his gratitude for the occasion, his appreciation for Dr. King's groundbreaking movement and the need for mutual respect. Not a chance, unless one can read exclusion into "Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but by our commitment to freedom and justice for all."

    Perhaps Warren can be faulted for offering the Lord's Prayer at the conclusion of his benediction. After all, it's a Christian prayer, the only prayer recorded as being verbatim from the lips of Jesus. Shouldn't Warren have mentioned Allah, Je__vah, or Rama, too?

    The answer is no. Christian pastors can hardly be expected to invoke the name of Rama anymore than a Jew would be expected to recognize the divinity of Christ. The fact that Warren spoke to his God alone only indicates his conviction about God's identity. It doesn't mean Warren was harboring malice or lack of concern for others with different theologies.

    Could Warren have been more inclusive by dispensing with Christian Scripture altogether? Possibly, if Christian references are the grounds for criticism. But this was a Christian minister invoking the blessing of his God upon his Christian president, that president's family, administration and all elected leaders who serve Americans. No one in this country stood outside Warren's plea for the divine umbrella. Moreover, Rev. Lowery's references to "Lord" and "Amen" have incurred no similar cyber-wrath, though they are part of the same Christian vernacular -- though less explicit -- from which Warren drew his words. And even had Warren been similarly less explicit, atheists and agnostics could still be left aggrieved.

    I suspect the real impetus for complaining about Warren's invocation are the same issues on which I and other progressives disagree with him: gay rights and abortion. In these matters, I have no wish to defend Warren. But his invocation at the dawn of the Obama era has little to do with these issues, which should not be obscured by generalized sniping at Christians.

    Text of Rev. Rick Warren's invocation:

    Let us pray.

    Almighty God, our father, everything we see and everything we can't see exists because of you alone. It all comes from you, it all belongs to you. It all exists for your glory. History is your story.

    The Scripture tells us Hear, oh Israel, the Lord is our God; the Lord is one. And you are the compassionate and merciful one. And you are loving to everyone you have made.

    Now today we rejoice not only in America's peaceful transfer of power for the 44th time. We celebrate a hinge-point of history with the inauguration of our first African-American president of the United States.

    We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where the son of an African immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership.

    And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in Heaven.

    Give to our new president, Barack Obama, the wisdom to lead us with humility, the courage to lead us with integrity, the compassion to lead us with generosity. Bless and protect him, his family, Vice President Biden, the Cabinet, and every one of our freely elected leaders.

    Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but by our commitment to freedom and justice for all.

    When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us. When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us.

    And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches, and civility in our attitudes, even when we differ.

    Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all.

    May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day all nations and all people will stand accountable before you.

    We now commit our new president and his wife, Michelle, and his daughters, Malia and Sasha, into your loving care.

    I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, Jesus (hay-SOOS), who taught us to pray, 'Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on Earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever.'

    Amen.

    Topics: 
    Politics

    Comments

    Thanks for posting, Ripper. I can't speak for the bloggers you refer to, and I'm sure that Orlando will defend her view, but I don't think that "inappropriate" = "disrespectful" or "malicious." There was nothing disrespectful or malicious in Warren's recitation of the Lord's Prayer. He was not trying to hurt anyone. But it was still inappropriate. The inauguration is a public event for all Americans. The Lord's Prayer is a religious prayer for some Americans. It was inappropriate because it made many Americans feel uncomfortable and excluded at the inauguration of their own president. No one is suggesting that Warren should have misrepresented his beliefs for the invocation, but he didn't have to use that moment to promote them. The world didn't stop, people still enjoyed the inauguration, but that doesn't make the prayer appropriate.

    That said, I don't entirely disagree with you in that those mushy unitarian prayers seem like a facade to me. Whether or not Jesus is mentioned, the invocation always invokes Christian theology for Christian believers. I feel excluded either way. At least Warren was up front about it.


    by Michael Wolraich on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 5:07pm

    I understand your point that many Americans (Orlando among them), felt somewhat excluded by Warren's invocation. I reget this is so. Yet I think one should not expect a duck to walk like an elephant. Warren was bound by his theology to give an invocation of this sort.

    Obama surely knew this and asked Warren to deliver the invocation anyway. I won't say this was done for purely plitical reasons, because Obama and Warren enjoy a good relationship. But it surely figured into Obama's decision that reaching out to evangelicals might help him govern more easily.


    by Ripper on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 5:25pm

    Forgot to say "thanks" for letting me post here. Very kind of you all.


    by Ripper on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 5:44pm

    i respect your views, and i agree that the reverend shouldn't be required to list the name of all the world's revered deities (a nearly impossible task if one were to be totally comprehensive). That's why it would have been so much more appropriate had he just stuck to a generic, all-encompassing term like god, the divine, etc. even lord is probably sufficiently generic. the fact that he repeated the word Jesus in various other languages is even more offensive - it was as if he was saying the divinity of Jesus is - or should be - recognized around the world by all people (tho i grant that there was at least a chance he did that little exercise with a higher-minded purpose of trying to make his prayer more inclusive).

    but the fact remains he talked about all people being equal, and yet he does not believe the words with his opinion on gays and gay marriage.

    I have no problem with most of his prayer. I thought there were some very nice lines. But given his stance on homosexuality, they also rang rather hallow to my ears.


    by Deadman on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 5:07pm

    The problem with Warrren is that he does not view gay rights as an issue of equality. That alone, however, should not taint the divine generosity his invocation sought to achieve. His views on gay rights is another matter that should be addressed squarely on its own lack of merit.

    That said, I was not always a Christian, but even when I was a staunch atheist, I never considered religious expression particularly offensiveto my ears -- at least not in most instances. I understand and agree that Warren should have been more sensitive to the needs of non-Christian citizens, but I disagree that it was, in Orlando's words "wildly inappropriate." No offense, O. Personally, I wouldn't do anything to shove religion down someone's throat. Having a faith healer lay hands on you without soliciting it (as has happened to me) will turn you off of that very quickly.


    by Ripper on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 5:43pm

    I dont get so worked up about religious expression, either. I know we live in a god-fearing nation, and a mostly christian one, and I'm totally fine with that. But there is something about the missionary aspect of evangelical christianity that rubs me the wrong way. i know most people's hearts are in the right place - they are convinced they've found the path to salvation and just want to spread the gospel to others. but there's such a fine line between missionary zeal and intolerance that i feel being a bit defensive and on guard is probably a wise thing. which i think led to the heightened sensitivity to Warren's speech you noticed.

    plus, i know there were some republicans who weren't so into it, but it just felt like yesterday was a glorious moment for all Americans, and the mere presence of Warren I'm sure put a damper on the day for some people, particularly homosexuals. Warren should have been happy enough to receive the invocation honor and gone overboard to try and not to offend. but my guess is he wanted to throw his own flock a Jesus bone.

    i thought orlando had it almost right. If she turned the W in 'wildly inappropriate' upside down, that's how i would describe the prayer.

    btw, thanks for posting, ripper! we need diversity of views here, especially when they're well-expressed ...


    by Deadman on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 8:09pm

    Standing on the mall, among two million of my new best friends, I had a visceral reaction to Warren's speech. I was entirely willing to work with the inclusive symbolism of incorporating an icon of the Christian Right into the proceedings, but it hadn't occurred to me that his actual utterances would be so, well, Christian. Perhaps it was everything an invocation ought to be, and I am simply unfamiliar with the practice. At the time, all I could think was: nevermind my own beliefs (or non-beliefs), why isn't he trying to make this accessible to members of all the monotheistic religions?

    Now that I've had a chance to recover from the shock, I've realized that I would have been perfectly happy with the lack of inclusiveness if he had simply added some form of acknowledgement that not everyone standing there in the cold believed as he did. I wonder, too, if the experience of listening to Warren was different at home. I suspect, had I not been surrounded by so many people and at the mercy of the elements, I would have simply ignored the man on the TV screen. But being there, being contained, having nowhere to redirect my attention, the speech seemed more official. (And that, of course, is the core of my issues with government-sponsored prayer: its tendency to seem to express the view of the government.)

    Anyway, like I said, this was an emotional reaction, rather than an analytical one. And maybe I don't know enough about how invocations are supposed to work, but yesterday when I heard that the President had attended an interfaith service, I thought: now why didn't they do *that* at the Inauguration? Warren's words alone would not have bothered me had they been accompanied by words from other religious traditions, delivered by leaders in those belief systems.


    by CaliforniaPaige on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 9:57am

    A valid point, Paige.


    by Ripper on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 11:07am

    Calpaige, thank you for posting.  I was listening at home and also had a very strong reaction to Warren.  I was rather angry but didn't realize it was because of the feeling of EXCLUSION until I read your post.  I was willing to listen to him with an open mind because Obama had picked him but I was very dissapointed.  I am glad Ripper started this thread so I can see what other people are thinking about the prayer.   

     


    by Bluesplashy on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 7:28pm

    Latest Comments