Rick Warren, Obama, & a Big Mess!

I'm a day late. Yesterday, my friend Adele (Existential Punk) posted an e-mail she sent to Parag Mehta, Barack Obama's Lesbian Gay Bisexual & Transgender (LGBT) liaison, regarding the president-elect's recent announcement of inviting Rick Warren to give the prayer invocation at his inauguration.

Adele writes:

Dear Parag,
As an Obama supporter who donated time, money and energy to help him get elected, and a queer Christian woman, I am appalled by the choice of Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at Obama's inauguration. It is one thing to pick people from the other team to build coalitions and bring reconciliation, but quite another to allow a homophobic man to participate in this historic event. Warren has been quoted saying only Christians should run for public office, marriage historically has been between a man and a woman, and why should we change laws to appease 2 percent of the population.

WTF is Obama thinking?

I am so very disturbed and disappointed in this decision.
Best regards,
Adele Sakler


I have some conflicting thoughts about it (which is easy, safe, and comfortable for me as a heterosexual). So I want to first-off acknowledge and affirm the frustration Adele and many from the gay community must be feeling over this recent announcement.

When I first heard the announcement, my initial response was: "Smart. Very smart. He's reaching out to the Evangelical base and showing them he cares and can relate to them." Then I thought, "Hmmm... Warren is pretty conservative, I wonder if that's going to piss anyone off." Then I thought, "You know, he is awfully progressive when it comes to AIDS and HIV issues, and Global Warming, maybe it will be ok..." and then I remembered: "Oh yeah, he was pretty much in favor of Proposition 8." And then I thought: "This is going to be a shit storm."

And so it goes.

I caught myself saying to Jen (my wife) when I first heard the news, "Well, he's conservative, but if conservative Christians in general were more like Rick Warren, there wouldn't be much of a problem with the American Christian Culture Wars of the past few decades." And Jen raised her eyebrows at me, which generally means: I might be wrong. And I was. Because supporting politics like Prop. 8, legislating morality, in my opinion, IS engaging in Culture Wars; the last thing the Christian church should be doing. Christianity was not meant to be a religion aligned with political (or military, for that matter) power. Forgive me for saying this: I have little personal interest in trying to change people's opinions about issues like homosexuality - I believe there will always be faithful Christians on both sides of that fence, who can be faithful on both sides of that fence. But I have a HUGE interest in changing people's opinions about how they should treat others. Missional Christianity (I don't use that term much, but I love it) is about the active outworking of the Kingdom of God. That is not a kingdom of rules, bullet-point-legality, or socio-political attacks - it is a Kindom of love, of justice, of freedom, of transcendence, good fruit and good news!

On one hand, I think Obama's pick was politically daring and even savvy. Perhaps he can prove himself to some of the naysayers calling him a "Secret Muslim." But do those paranoid folks deserve to be placated?

I also think Obama's pick is an important reflection of his own character: Obama doesn't see the world in black-and-white, and he is tirelessly committed to building bridges and finding common ground. I can always get behind that!

But I do understand why my friend Adele is hurt by this move. And so I am wounded with her. Warren's political stance on homosexuality (apart from his theological stance, which could be manifested much differently) is inappropriate for a so-called progressive, 21st Century evangelical who claims to care about human rights.

Let James Dobson and Pat Robertson fight their culture wars. I wish Warren had emerged as a clear alternative for conservative-leaning Christians, looking for a kinder way.

Instead, this is becoming the wrong kind of political fodder, at a time when American needs hope, unity and grace the most.

26 comments:

Existential Punk said...

An honest post, Pete, and i respect you even more thsn ever. You remind me a lot of what i believe Obama's true heart is, and that is to not look at things in binary components and to try and see the good of all.

i heard someone on Olbermann say Warren is really Dobson in a hawaiian shirt or something like that. For the most part, he is very conservative and comes across mildly moderate and progressive because of his work with AIDS/Poverty and the environment. Relevant Magazine cares about these things too but they are DEFINITELY conservative. NOT that that is ALL bad. It's just when they try politicizing religion and faith is when i get my feathers ruffled.

i am going to post some of your post on my blog.

Thanks for your thoughtful inner dialogue!

Adele

mcdaniel clan said...

interesting to see what Warren's selection has done; the outrage it has stirred. i kind of see Warren as a representative of old school, white bread evangelicalism with an updated look. the dude wrote "Purpose Driven Life" for crying out loud. in my mind he is "like so 5 years ago," but i guess he still has a voice. where have i been?!

David Henson said...

I think what I don't like about this is that it seems like pure political gamemanship, picking a white, suburban megachurch pastor isn't a bad thing; it just feels inauthentic from a guy who spent most of his church going years in a black liberation theology focused UCC.

But, I may not agree with Rick on everything, but I really what respect what he's done with AIDS ministries and such. So, maybe it'll be a nice olive branch to stitch some of those cultural divides.

That said, Obama might just agree with Warren's position on gay marriage. I don't remember him ever supporting the idea in public.

Chris Brundage said...

I disagree with Rick Warren on gay marriage/unions, but he has the right like anyone else to seek to apply his values and beliefs in the public sphere. Liberal Christians have been doing that for decades -- to deny Warren that right seems most illiberal to me.

And actually, the reaction to Warren's choice has reminded me there is a difference between being liberal and just being on the left. The truly liberal stance would be to welcome him, even if disagreeing with his social views.

I voted for Obama, and this choice actually raises him in my view. There is an openness to it that I appreciate. I think pairing Warren with Lowery was also good.

Thanks for your post, Peter. I can tell you've really struggled with this. Peace to you.

Sue V S said...

Hey, Peter, I like to stop by here once in awhile, and I just feel like adding my two cents today. Please forgive the length of this post:

Some of what I am going to say may upset some feelings, but I am going to ask that you either set those feelings aside or work through them so that we can get to some good, hard, reasoned thinking.

First, I totally recognize that the religious community needs to recognize (and some have) that their actions toward the LGBT community have been reprehensible. The religious community needs to get rid of hateful speech and hateful actions.

But second, it sounds a lot like whining when the gay community responds in the way they have to Rick Warren. It also doesn’t sound very inclusive. In fact, it makes the gay community look downright hypocritical. The gay community wants tolerance for their view but isn’t ready to offer the same to someone who disagrees with them? Christians may be known for hypocrisy, but apparently they don’t own the monopoly on it.

I have compassion for gay couples who want to have the same civic rights as their heterosexual counterparts, and I also think they should have them; but I also would like to see the gay community recognize that a very large and diverse world-wide religious community has thousands of years of theological reasons of why they oppose calling those civic rights “marriage.” And none of it has to do with being bigoted or hateful or even reading Leviticus. In fact, you could take out all the supposed references to homosexuality in the Bible and still come up with a strong theological case for “marriage” being reserved for a man and a woman. If the gay community could at least recognize that, maybe even respect that, then perhaps the conversation could move forward.

Third, while I disagree with the “culture war” tactics of James Dobson and the like, we need to remember that slavery was a part of culture (and still is) and the subjugation of women was a part of culture (and still is) and that the Big C Church, if it is doing it’s job, may have a prophetic voice to bring to the conversation when it comes to culture. (And using that voice ought to be linked to the movement of the Holy Spirit and not to other cultural preferences—which will involve prayer, humility and discernment on the Big C Church’s part.)

All that being said, Rick Warren is getting slammed lately from all sides, it seems, from the right and from the left; I wonder what that means?

And from my point of view, Barack Obama is simply acting like a good leader. He is acting like no one OWNS him; and that is exactly and only the kind of leader we are going to need for the next few years.

Peter said...

Sue! So glad you posted, and I hope you know that I cherish your friendship and certainly am not angered by your stance. You and I and Adele all shared that first McLaren class at GFS together, happy reunion!

I agree with a lot of the outlook you have here. And I really like what Chris Brundage said above, and you echoed: it's not very liberal to devalue an entire viewpoint.

You're also very right: the "traditional" view of marriage doesn't need fear or hate to hold it. There are Biblical vantages that transcend Leviticus rationale.

You also said:
while I disagree with the “culture war” tactics of James Dobson and the like, we need to remember that slavery was a part of culture (and still is) and the subjugation of women was a part of culture (and still is) and that the Big C Church, if it is doing it’s job, may have a prophetic voice to bring to the conversation when it comes to culture. (And using that voice ought to be linked to the movement of the Holy Spirit and not to other cultural preferences—which will involve prayer, humility and discernment on the Big C Church’s part.)

I absolutely agree that the Church can and MUST have a prophetic voice in the world (which includes culture). However, there are issues which relate to "others" and have tangible impact on others, where the results of particular actions have much more direct consequences to others. These would be things like violence, theft, harrassment, drunk driving, possibly drug use (I'm not a user, but I'm not sold on the evils of marijuana as more destructive than alcohol - sorry, different topic) and going to Star Trek fan conventions.

Gay marriage involves two consenting adults. I'm not sure that this issue can really be justified as validating aggressive social intervention, even by conservative theological standpoints - unless one still believes the Old Testament God who occasionally demanded ethnic cleansing, still makes such decrees to and through the Body of Christ today.

I really appreciate everyone's comments. The trick to getting lots of comments is just posting about homosexuality every one in awhile!

Peter said...

Adele, I loved where you said:
I heard someone on Olbermann say Warren is really Dobson in a hawaiian shirt, or something like that. For the most part, he is very conservative and comes across mildly moderate and progressive because of his work with AIDS/Poverty and the environment. Relevant Magazine cares about these things too but they are DEFINITELY conservative.

Great comment. And I appreciate you saying that's not necessarily bad - but we SHOULD recognize it for what it is. The old managing editor of Relevant Magazine once told me: "You've got to remember, most of our readers are fundamentalists in liberal clothing."

Peter said...

mcdaniel clan - ha! That's funny, and totally true. I remember the first time I heard about Purpose Driven Life. I was JUST coming out of my conservatism (2002) and looking at it on the bookshelf, I said, "Great, a sequel to The Prayer of Jabez." Which meant: more prosperity gospel. More "God wants you to be successful, happy and comfortable."

In fairness, that's not REALLY what's at the heart of Purpose, Len Sweet said in class, "Rick Warren is the best thing that's happened to the conservative Evangelical Church." It was sort of a double-sided compliment, but I think it's true. He has broadened the conservative Christian ethic... but there's a LONG way to go.

Anonymous said...

Peter your ignorance on Biblical theology concerning homosexuality shows by your use of philosophy over Scripture. Outside salvation, Everyone is subject to the full extent of the law. Every jot and tiddle. As someone saved in Christ the law no longer applies, but due to an apparent relationship with Christ a certain behavior should be apparent. Living your life in a way that shouldn't offend Christ. How was marriage modeled for us in the Bible? Through Adam an Eve. Are there exceptions evidenced in the Bible? Sure, but the are not the model.
Think of your relationship with Christ as your relationship with your wife. Are there rules or are there certain things you don't do out of respect for that relationship. You don't sleep with other women because it's a law, though you may be tempted and even fail. You do it because of your relationship in love. Same with Christ, there are no laws, but there are things we don't do because we know He doesn't like them. What are the these things? The models of behavior and thought we see in the Bible. A christian we should strive to have God's standards lifted up in all aspects of life. This isn't a conservative idea, but a general rule of all humans. Everyone out there wants their opinion recognized. The gay community perfers their agenda, the muslim theirs. We as christians should desire God's agenda to be first.
I know we can't be perfect, but the basics of Scripture should be recognizable. That is why we generally recognize the ten commandments. These laws in public politics are useful to help govern christians and non-christian.
I could go on and explain more, but I think you get the idea. I encourage you to get back to the basics. I think this is a simple enough principle that you can live by that anyone can understand. Hope this will clarify things -Nate-

Peter said...

Nate, I'm sorry to say that you've clarified nothing. Restating knee-jerk, overly politicized "theological-soundbytes" is not helpful or insightful.

I am not ignorant, by any means, of Biblical theology. I simply allow for Biblical theologIES to inform me along with personal conviction, cultural insights, lfe experience, and yes, philophical approaches.

None of us live in a vacuum, least of all God or Scripture.

If the "basics" of salvation were so easily recognizable, we'd have far fewer denominations. I'm not willing to damn my brothers and sisters from other Christian traditions for seeing through a glass darkly, because I have my own darkened glass. So do you.

I can appreciate your passion and faith, but I'm continually amazed at how angry this particular subject makes many Christians. Start building a culture war against gluttons or arrogant pastors. The plank in your eye and the planks in mine keep us from seeing things clearly - and that won't change this side of the grave.

Existential Punk said...

Sue, when you say, "But second, it sounds a lot like whining when the gay community responds in the way they have to Rick Warren. It also doesn’t sound very inclusive. In fact, it makes the gay community look downright hypocritical. The gay community wants tolerance for their view but isn’t ready to offer the same to someone who disagrees with them? Christians may be known for hypocrisy, but apparently they don’t own the monopoly on it."

1. i just want to say that our side can be intolerant at times including myself. You are right about this. Yet, we have been 'beaten' down so much by homophobic and hurtful remarks and actions that sometimes we feel pushed to a breaking point.

2. It's really not whining the way we have reacted to the Warren pick. Warren was a fierce advocate for Prop * and its passage. He is even unwelcoming to what he calls 'unrepentant homosexuals' in membership to his church. http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509#q_49
So, the pick of Warren, for our community, is just another kick in the teeth when we were already kicked in the teeth with the passage of Prop 8. So, yes, we are RAW. So some perspective to help you see this!

3. No one owns the monopoly on being a hypocrite. i just believe we are tired of being pegged as child molesters and being held as perverts when we are NOT!

EP

Anonymous said...

If there is no sin then there is no need of salvation! You have to judge what is sin. Otherwise all truth is relative and Christ's death is pointless. I don't dislike Homosexuals, but that behavior is a sin. We should be able to recognize those basics! If you can't pin point the law nothing condemns you and you need no salvation. You can't be redeemed from if you are indebted to something else. What is that you are a slave to? What is sin therefore? Using denominationalism is a pitiful argument, of course people will never agree on anything. But that does not change the truth of Christ. Paul and Peter didn't agree on everything. In good conscience you have no reason to be christian if you can not identify the difference between law and sin. Only in ignorance can you say that homosexuality is ok Scripturally. That does not mean you are condemned, it just means as you mature in Christ someday the veil may be lifted from your eyes.
Law is given to convict, without it you are lost. With it we see the need for Christ.

Anonymous said...

Gluttony is a sin also. That is why we have certain public laws against drunkeness. Yes certain arrogance is a sin also, but a lot harder to police publicly. There are many subtle things that escape the public eye, but the state is required to police that which is in the best interest of the public. We as christians should promote those interests that would be Chrisy honoring, like modesty in alcohol.

Peter said...

Nate, I never said anything about not believing in sin, or feeling convicted of sin. I absolutely do! But I'm not going to cast stones over what the Holy Spirit is convicting in others.

If my sister Adele is not convicted of homosexuality, then I pray the same for her that I pray for anyone else: That she may seek first the kingdom of God, that she may know Christ abundantly, and that she may hear and respond to the Holy Spirit.

It is the farthest thing from my personal responsibility to determine what the Holy Spirit is speaking in her life.

Personally, I am in DESPERATE need of salvation. I thank God for grace, as I'm sure you do. Read my recent post: "Liberal Salvation? What's that?" Please don't try to take a single post like this and create a personal theology for me. None of this conversation exists in a vacuum - this entire website is a growing collective of questions, ideas and inklings.

And to your second post: "police publicly"??! Is that what Christ's commission is for us?

You're talking WAY down to a Christian brother, brother. Be careful where that path leads you.

Anonymous said...

If the state is a necessary evil, we should want it to reflect as closely the Biblical theology as possible. If we write off state, we close off part of Christ's commission of going out into all the world. We can affect others positively through government, because Christ's power in the Holy Spirit permeates all things. All things are redeemable.
The areas the state governs and polices in this country are largely determined by the people, and if we can help determine those areas we should. Wanting the country to hold biblical values is Christ honoring. Is that the goal of Christ's commission? Not entirely, first is salvation, but following is redemption. Of time, relationships, jobs, even state.

Anonymous said...

“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.” (NIV)

2 Tim. 4:3-4

Bret

Peter said...

Matthew 23:13
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.”

Peter said...

And for the TKO:

“Once every three years [the ship] returned, carrying gold, silver and ivory, and apes and baboons.”
1 Kings 10:22

Boo-yah! I love using Scripture as cannon-fodder!

Anonymous said...

Maybe you should use scripture for something other than cannon fodder...

The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Period.

Did Christ accept sin? Did he not tell the woman at the well to go and sin no more....isnt scripture useful for rebuking?? Social gospelists, such as yourself, love to leave out words like wrath, judgement and repentence. You love to sermonize on how we shouldnt legislate morality....hmmm...maybe rape and murder shouldnt be outlawed...after all, some people dont have a moral issue with commiting it. You would argue that gay marriage and abortion are only immoral based on religious ideals...therefore it shouldnt be legislated. Thats called moral relativism. You are a moral relativist.

I guess those who commit jihad in Allahs name and behead innocents shouldnt be punished...nor should those who commit honor killings on young women...what about vaginal mutilation (circumsision), thats based on religous idealogy as well...maybe we shouldnt legislate against it...after all, we dont want to legislate morality AND the church especially shouldnt be involved with it....right?

How does a moral relativist answer questions like that? Where do you draw the line...maybe Hitler, who felt he was doing the right thing, should have been allowed to commit genocide unimpeded....I mean, if yhou think there are all these gray areas...then Hitler would have beleived that as well...whose to say his gray area was no more viable than your gray area??

So, Id suggest looking straight to scripture, not earthly philosophies:


Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals1, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

With such clear statements against homosexuality, it is difficult to see how different groups can say the Bible supports homosexuality. But they try by redefining love, marriage, sex, homosexuality, etc. in order to accomplish their goal. But the truth is that God created man and woman, not man and man, or woman and woman.

Nevertheless, the Bible is a powerful book, and because it is the homosexuals often try and make the Bible agree with its agenda. But it doesn't work. The Bible does not support homosexuality as we have seen from the scriptures above.

Unlike other sins, this sexual sin has a judgment administered by God Himself: He gives them over to their passions (Rom. 1:26-28). This means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance. Without repentance, there will be no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.

As for your boyyahs and TKO's...maybe this will help:

"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross!" Phil 2:5-8

Bret

Anonymous said...

"We lost Truth in this period/and proof is so mysterious/losing absolutes is so serious/how we think we gon' live when everything's relative/is anybody curious?//without a standard of Truth society's deranged/that's why I'm up in your ear begging for change."

Spare Change:

http://www.crossmovementrecords.com/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=35602&columnid=3809

Peter said...

Good Lord, Bret. That was called "sarcasm." All you "anonymous" posters do is google issues that you feel pissed off (or sexually threatened) by, and then hurl a bunch of out-of-context Scriptures at your "enemies" with no compassion, no love, no grace, and only a desire to "win."

Christ died for his enemies, but you won't even give up an argument for yours.

Anonymous said...

I've been reading this blog for a while now, mostly out of morbid curiosity.

Your last comment- not high caliber.

Bravo to the anons. Very well said.

Aaron said...

Wow, Peter, bless you! You are in deep! It gets sticky in here so keep moving gracefully and with great love and compassion. You are more than capable. You are demonstrative.

Thank you for addressing these concerns. Ticking off the 28th year of life, I still live with these questions in a sphere close to my soul and it is (to say the least) excruciating. Like growing pains.

You can bet that anything homo on a christian site is going to get a lot of hits. (I've the bruises to vouch for it)

Being non-heterosexual and divinely inclined is a birthright few will look at without fear, disgust and fatal threats.

When a person is ostracized from a spiritual community while their heart is still in the service of God, it is a test greater than Bible Parrots could ever fathom or have the Divine Pleasure of transcending.

I have learned something in this short time. In order to properly apply spiritual concepts, we must know the spirit by which events occurred historically. We must ask "why" and, further, we must use heartful and prayerful discernment to assess if someone is in the heart of God or if they are merely twisting God through a crooked heart. Or have, perhaps, been lied to through an institution which suffers from such a dis-ease.

Here is some Truth. ADMITTEDLY, the Catholic Church compiled, edited, deleted, adjusted and altered the original ancient quotations, records, texts and words of not only the prophets but of Christ himself in order to serve the purpose of unifying church and state under a Grand Order beneath the Roman Government, a Militarist Empire.

This had both it's noble and insidious elements but it did, however result in the Inquisition (shortly followed by the Crusades) which goal was to kill anything that would not say both Caesar (aka God among man) and Christ (aka God among man) were the boss and got to take home all the booty.

This Public Manipulation was mirrored in the Societies of the Pharisees and Sadducees whom Christ so openly condemned as a wicked and evil generation, hypocrites, and generally not-very-nice, power hungry, misogynist bastards. Except they did not claim they were God. They just acted like it... and very badly.

Horrifically, trends are looking the same today. In other words, people are using God to say and do awful things that God is now very busy balancing and repairing. Like crashing into notable financial and military institutions, seeking world and religious dominance, spreading bigotry, killing fags and pretending they are more worthy to life and its riches than everyone else. All of us are guilty (before the fingers start pointing.)

I know we would like to believe that the Bible is a pure source of Holy Knowledge but I must impress that it is not. We have been divorced from the source of our connection with God through a number of devious and tactful illusions instilled by (and I bet you think I'm going to say Satan, here) OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

The throne of God is in the Heart. Between mind and sex is the power to feel and pray. She is the mediator. Put the book down and TALK to your God. God will tell you to chill the fuck out and repair yourself before you drive yourself into misery instead of grace.

Largely, I feel that the deduction one might make from these illuminations are a moot point.

If you are arguing that you are better and others must be condemned and you must be glorified cause you are "right" you are missing Christ's message fully. He didn't say believe what I say and leave all the dirty work to me while you perpetuate your pathetic ego. What he was saying was BE LIKE ME.

I do recall record that he married the whore by the well who actually tantricly contributed to his ministry. (He could not have been Rabbi without that marriage) He blessed the homo Roman Soldier and healed his effete lover who waited for him at home. And he studied the mysteries of Eastern Religions to reform the tyrannies of the corrupt dominant paradigm. (The three kings of Orient had their bid in with gold frankincense and myrrh)

So, please, unleash your judgments so they might run away and become wild again and undomesticated. And take some time out to really listen to what God has to say to you. You won't find it outside until you expose your own heart.

Lastly, I would like to address that anonymous posting brings the questions to mind, "Is this person avoiding accountability for their statements, utilizing the secretive nature of their identity to feign safety, hiding from their own fear of judgment as they judge others, or just a douche-sparkle?"

Jesus didn't say that... but there weren't computers around back then.

Aaron Phoenix
1519 S Arbors LN
Bloomington IN 47401

812 272 0806

reach.u.venation@gmail.com

www.myspace.com/netstyleaaron

sarah said...

I recently came accross your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I dont know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.



Sarah

http://www.thetreadmillguide.com

rjlight said...

Well, the first thought that came to my mind after reading about Obama's pick was --oh, no, prop 8. I didn't like Warren's stand on prop 8 and ignorantly expected a more moderate voice on the issue. I should know better. I don't think this changes my opinion about Obama though. Billy Graham did how many of these and didn't get that much attention. Prop 8 was just such a hot issue -- because religious people made it one. Okay, I don't know if I am making any sense, but it felt good to say it all!

Peter said...

RJ, Billy Graham is an interesting example. I can't think of a single friend, liberal or conservative, homosexual or straight, Christian or non-Christian, who has ever bashed Billy Graham. Was it because he was lukewarm about his faith? Certainly not. And I sincerely doubt anyone questions his opinion on homosexuality. But Graham never got political about that issue, in particular. When asked what he'd do if he had a gay child, he told Oprah Winfrey, "Well I think I would love that one even more!"

I think Warren made a mistake when he got into the politics of gay marriage. I could go on... suffice to say, you DO make sense, well said, and I'm trackin' with ya.

Popular Posts