There was a recent decision by President-elect Barack Obama to have Rick Warren lead the invocation at the inauguration of Barack Obama. I was very happy with the decision, but many people are not, particularly because of his stance on homosexuality. Does he lean too far toward the religious right? Yes. Is he to the point where I lose all respect of him? No. Rick went to seminary and was taught in the school of the religious right, and it is probably very hard to escape that. However, he has, to a great degree.
For a long time, American Christians have been on the forefront of wrong thinking. It has followed the lead of the churches from Nazi Germany and bowed to the will of their country. There have been a few Dietrich Bonheoffer’s along the way, but their voices were soft compared to the blaring voice of the Fundamentalist Christians. At the same time, it has attempted to take the country for God through the voting booth rather than through the Gospel. At the same time, the Gospel of Christ has been, in the words of Tony Compolo, “neutered.” Derek Webb said while introducing his song “Wedding Dress” that you can’t preach the Gospel and not get in trouble. He brought up C.S. Lewis’ The Chronicles of Narnia and the description within of Aslan the Lion. In it, he is described as not being a tame lion. However, he is good, and he is the king. As we all know, Aslan was the Christ figure, describing Jesus. You can’t contain Jesus, but there have been people who have tried, a majority of whom are Christians. This had led to a Gospel not worth following, and one that has changed no one because of it being stripped of either its beauty or its offensiveness. This has led religious leaders to believe the culture had been taking away their followers, even though it had been them all along. Around the Reagan era, they became empowered to grow into a movement and take back the country. They sided with the Republican party, and made a vast majority of Christians come to their side. Today, we have a Church body who believes that if they advocate for two issues (most of you know what those are) then they are being good Christians. They also believe that if a Christian is in office, everything will be okay. Biblically, this is crap, and if we look at the past eight years, we can say this is practically crap, too (some might say the Old Testament makes this statement false, but that is not necessarily true, but that’s another conversation). Jesus called us to live more devoted lives than this, but we have decided to follow “lovers less wild.” Even in our Christian majority, those who are truly born-gain are a minority, and that has always been the case. Once politics touches Christianity, things go sour. If you compare the Christians in the first and second centuries to the Christians of the fourth century (after the Roman government mandated Christianity) there is a vast difference. This is why I am not a fan of Christians being involved in politics. Rick Warren, however, has changed my mind.
I recently read a book called Just Peacemaking by Glen Stassen. He said that Christians have been against human rights generally because it was a concept that had secular roots. If you look at the Gospels, as well as early Mennonite writings, you see human rights have a far different origin, but still the perception is there. Also, man has sinful tendencies. That is how we are born. We are infused with the desire to disobey God, and this includes the desire for power. When a church puts man as part of its authority, bad things are bound to happen. Human rights suffered because of this. However, the church in modern times is beginning to get its act together in the human rights department. They are finally starting to see the words of Jesus and realize that it is possible to love people without accepting their points of view as correct or their sin as okay. Jesus said to an adulterous woman “go and sin no more” right after he told the religious leaders “whomever is without sin, cast the first stone.” We are all loved by God. That is why He sent His son in the first place, to save those He loved. Even those who hate Him, He loves. As His representatives on earth, Jesus asks us to do likewise, while at the same time being discerning.
Rick Warren has been a leading proponent on this point of view. He has led AIDS summits all around the country and has been a leading force in the fight to end poverty. He has given about 90% of the revenue from The Purpose Driven Life to charity. I have a very specific example that I heard from a podcast I listen to. Cameron Strang, son of Christian publishing mogul Steve Strang and owner of RELEVANT magazine (fantastic magazine by the way, so go subscribe now), was invited to a summit headed by Saddleback Church and Rick Warren in Rwanda. While there, he heard of an organization called PEPFAR which is empowering young people to take control of their country and make it better. This is a vast improvement on previous attitudes toward Africa, which has been focus on giving money to the country. Over the years, over a trillion dollars has been given to Africa, and yet the standard of living has gone down. This is because African dictators and militia armies take all the money for themselves. PEPFAR takes aid in a different direction. They teach people to fend for themselves and bring their country into the 21st century. President Bush actually tripled the aid to this organization, an act he deserves a huge pat on the back for. This is how Africa will be shaped to be a really player in the world economy. It also calls the American people to give something they cannot seem to give up: their time. Writing a check is easy. REALLY making an effort is hard. That is why an organization like this is so new. We seem to be just figuring this out. This is partially thanks to evangelical leaders like Rick Warren, who tout this organization.
These next few paragraphs might be offensive to some, and I hope that is not the case. I do not mean any harm, I am just stating the way things are. At the same time, I am attempting not to make a judgment call on it until the end. It might seem cruel in some spots, but I assure you , I do not mean it to be that way. I urge you to read all the way through, because I am leading up to a point.
Homosexuality is a touchy issue for Christians. Not everyone knows how to deal with it, so they just go crazy and reject it completely. The simple facts are that man and woman are made a certain way, and reproduce in a certain way. This is a simple fact of biology. From an evolutionary standpoint, this means that a species survives based on reproduction, and anything that does not promote this is only contributing to the species’ downfall (this is NOT a view I ascribe to, by the way). This is a good case for why some of the “less civilized” people try and go after homosexuals and oppress them. I’m not saying its right, but this has been an explanation for why this happens. Under the Christian view, homosexuality is a deviation from what God says is his will (one man and one woman together and being fruitful and multiplying). I actually read a book called Like Father Like Son which makes the case that the Trinity is imaged in various aspects of our humanity, including the sexual relationship (Man=Father, Woman=Son, Child=Holy Spirit). This is made clear in the Bible, but not crystal clear. Jesus did not really have to deal with this issue, mostly because the Jews already knew homosexuality was wrong. The fact that Jesus did not correct them on that is telling. In fact, Jesus did not say that anything in their law was incorrect (with the exception of divorce and “eye for an eye”). Paul did deal with this because of the homosexuality in the Greco-Roman world where he was ministering. Contrary to popular belief, the Romans had a similar view of homosexuality as we do today (at least according to several historians I have read; I cannot remember their names I’m afraid; this is a blog entry, not a research paper). This puts the verses in the New Testament which decry homosexuality in a far different context than some people are putting them in, but this is another conversation. The only view in which homosexuality makes practical sense is the humanistic view, which gained prominence in the sixties. This is the view that humans should reach fulfillment in any way possible, and that they should be who they are and do whatever makes them happy. In this context, there is no reason for homosexuals to be oppressed. After all, they can’t help it. They are not hurting anybody. They should be able to pursue their own destiny. This is a very Western view. A version of this view is prominent today, which is where the gay rights debate comes from.
This brings us to the $6 million question: Can homosexuals help it? The research says yes and no. The APA has recently amended their stance on homosexuality and said that it comes from a variety of sources. This conclusion comes from a vast array of research that indicates homosexuality stems from aspects of both nature and nurture. There is no way I can get into this research now. A pithy sum of the research can be found at www.homosexuality101.com. The woman in the video is a professor at my school named Dr. Julie Harren-Hamilton, and she has been hailed as one of the leading experts on this issue. She leads a chapel once a semester about homosexuality and always urges us, first and foremost, to treat this population with love. She also advocates that it is possible for homosexuals to seek therapy BUT ONLY IF THEIR URGES ARE UNWANTED!!! In other words, happy homosexuals need not apply. I was at first skeptical of her claims, but her stance is well-founded. In fact, she is the president of an organization (again, I forget the name) that submitted an 800-page document of research saying that homosexuality is not only multi-faceted in its cause, but also able to be addressed in therapy. This has been seen as one factor in the change of wording from the APA. One person that the homosexual community clings to as a counter to this is Kinsey and his research. While he was revolutionary, his research was flawed and has never been duplicated. This entire spiel basically means that any denial of this research and the conclusions it brings would be as bad as Christians completely throwing out the theory of evolution because it does not fit into their worldview. It also means that denying the genetic nature of homosexuality is not bigotry. It’s speaking the truth. This is the view, at least to my understanding, that Rick Warren believes.
People I have talked to are reluctant to accept this view, both Christians and homosexuals alike. Christians hate that homosexuality is not choice, and the gay community does not like that it is not genetic. The research does not put homosexuality in the same category as being, for example, African American. In fact, it’s cause is identical to many psychological disorders in the DSM (by the way, I do NOT believe that homosexuality is a psychological disorder; I do believe the gay rights debate has no place alongside the civil rights movement, but that’s a conversation for another time). This also makes Christians mad because they do feel their entire Biblical worldview is being thwarted. This is actually more illusion than fact, but they have had the concept of homosexuality being a choice drilled into their head for so long, that they are regarding it as equal to the Gospel. If anything, this development gives us more a reason to act out of love than any other. However, it also gives homosexual people a choice. All of the inspirational messages we hear about humans being able to choose their own destiny are now extended to homosexuals (whom pop culture is constantly saying is trapped in what they are). Some will take this choice, and some will not. God convicts different people of different things. There are Christians out there who are stuck in far worse sins. I believe there will be homosexuals in heaven, even though I also believe that God will set them straight (no pun intended; Jesus said there will be NO sex in heaven) when they get there.
Now we are back to Rick Warren. I do believe he does love on gay people. I have seen evidence of it. He loves on everybody else after all, including those with AIDS. Also, Obama would not have picked him for this speech if he were an overt homophobe (by the way, someone who is homophobic is one who hate, disrespects, or looks down on gay people; or is afraid of being perceived as gay; the above view I presented is NOT homophobia or bigotry). As far as I know, Warren supports civil unions (which I also support) which would make the only real civil rights issue a change in wording from domestic partnership to marriage. It is the denial of civil unions which is the true showing of bigotry (the love shown between homosexuals is, without a doubt, genuine, which is why they deserve these legal rights; it is, however, human love, but that is a different issue). From this perspective, being against gay marriage is a non-issue (at least compared to other civil rights issues). Calling Warren a bigot and decrying Obama for this is absurd, especially if you consider all of the good things Warren has done for the Christians community, the country, and the world. I was watching Rachel Maddow’s show last night, and she had San Francisco’s mayor Gavin Newsom on. In the latter part of the interview, Newsom said he admired Warren as a person and listed off about ten things Warren had done in the humanitarian world, but then he went on to say he should not pray at the inaugural because he was “against homosexuality”. It is for this one issue that he is being demeaned and torn apart in internet communities. This is unfair, and the people perpetuating this should take a good long look at their own lives. To say that Rick Warren has a “lesser” opinion is wrong and defeats the purpose of the open-minded liberalism that Democrats are portraying. People justify this by comparing his views to racism, but this is not the case. Racists believe that those who are not white are lesser human beings. They supported the segregation in the sixties that inflicted horrible oppression onto the African American community, far worse things than denial of marriage. To compare the two issues is like comparing a gecko and a dinosaur. This is not even including the difference between race and sexuality. Should hate crime legislation be extended to homosexuals? Absolutely. I am not sure of Warren’s stance on this. If he was against this, though, I could forgive him because of all of the good things he has done.
The beautiful thing about America is that we have many different points of view. That’s what makes us diverse. The Christian community is very diverse, even though it does not look like it sometimes. People disagree on this issue, and that’s okay. It would be suspect if we all agreed on everything. This is why I do not deny Obama’s Christianity (at least at this juncture), and why I am glad he is reaching out to all points of view. I have never doubted Obama would reach out to us, and that makes me glad. We have as much say in the country’s future as anybody else. That being said, I am very glad Obama is welcoming other opinions as well. I do not agree with his politics or theology at all, but I do respect him. That is a pretty bold proclamation for a moderate conservative, but I am going to make it. I do have several friends who are gay, and I am semi-obsessed with the DIS Unplugged podcast (a crew with several gay folks). I am actually very eager to meet them because they seem like great people to get to know. That said, I have not changed my view. These people I love just like everybody else because they are God’s children. Those people who say “love the sinner, hate the sin” is not good enough are misguided. This is the attitude Jesus took. His main dining companions were sinners, and his main victims were the religious establishment. However, to the woman at the well (a member of a cult) he said that “salvation comes from the Jews.” To the paralyzed man, he said “you sins are forgiven.” I already told you the story of the woman caught in adultery earlier in the entry. These were people he treated with love rather than contempt. However, as evidenced by the Sermon on the Mount, the Rich Young Ruler story, and his tale of giving pearls to swine, that we must also exercise discernment and a life of godliness. This is the unsafe side of Jesus. He asks us to give up a great deal to follow him. This is something he helps us do when we become Christians, and a decision that we must make, not one that should be made for others. This is why neither side of the debate should feel like they should legislate morality. Whatever happens happens. One thing Christians need to understand is that we have never been the minority, but that should not mean anything. Our citizenship is in heaven.
The moral of the story? Let Warren speak at the inauguration. After all, he isn’t hurting anybody either.
I Just Have to Say... 