Rick Warren and the Smart Man’s Burden
President-elect Barack Obama has ignited a firestorm over his invitation of Pastor Rick Warren to deliver the invocation prayer at his inauguration on January 20. Many pro-gay rights Obama supporters feel disgusted and betrayed by this choice, viewing Obama’s invitation as a tacit endorsement of Warren’s anti-homosexual views. Protest groups are popping up on Facebook, and gay bloggers such as Dan Savage, John Aravosis, Pam Spaulding, and Rachel Maddow are up in arms.
It’s not that I can’t relate. People concerned with equality and civil liberties have every right to take Warren to task for his views. However, I think the degree of despair and outrage is perhaps somewhat overblown, and the people who feel that Obama has betrayed his gay and gay-friendly supporters by this invitation might want to take a second look before jumping back into the comfortable rut of knee-jerk cynicism.
Rick Warren has many faults. A conservative Christian and bestselling author of The Purpose-Drive Life, Warren has a huge national audience and has been a key supporter in mobilizing his California-based church community to turn out for Proposition 8, which cheapened marriage by tearing apart loving families and adult soulmates who just want a quiet domestic life like normal people. (Arguments against gay marriage that equate it with incest or pedophilia are deeply flawed. Gay marriage does not grant new rights to anyone who could not get married already, it simply permits anyone who could get married already to marry anyone else who could also get married already. Marriage remains the domain of consenting adult humans. When it comes down to it, it’s just not as radical a change as some make it out to be.) Besides being a homophobe, Rick Warren is anti-woman and a young-earth Creationist with a problematic relationship to science.
But there’s more to this picture than the cookie-cutter battle between right-wing bigots and the people they oppress. I’m afraid people on both sides have oversimplified this controversy by failing to see the complexity inherent in the situation. And so, I think some additional information that often gets overlooked might help to put this in perspective.
First of all, Warren’s role at the inauguration has been greatly exaggerated. He’s been called “the prime-time player”. While Warren is indeed giving the opening prayer, he’s not the only one praying at the ceremony. Arguably more important is the role given to civil rights legend (and fierce gay-rights supporter) Rev. Joe Lowery, who is giving the benediction: the closing blessing, the prayer that truly sets the tone for the new administration, which bookends Warren’s mainstream conservative views. How do you think Rick Warren will feel going on after the San Francisco Boys’ Chorus, or when Aretha Franklin takes the stage immediately after him? Take a look at the event schedule for the day, and you’ll quickly see that Warren’s voice is merely one of many, a voice representing the formidable constituency of conservative Christianity in this country. No matter how much we disagree with them, excluding them doesn’t make them go away; they’re a part of this country too, and this invitation says that Obama won’t treat them the way they treated us when they were in power.
Moreover, unlike traditional right-wing asshats such as James Dobson, Jerry Fallwell, and Pat Robertson, Rick Warren is a great choice to represent conservative Christians. He has shown an openness to dialogue and a willingness to both listen to and work with people who disagree with him. Not only has he drawn fire from the Left, he has been harshly criticized by many on the Right. In a 2006 article titled “Why is Obama’s evil in Rick Warren’s pulpit?”, WorldNetDaily commentator Kevin McCollough criticized Warren for inviting Obama to speak at his church, saying:
…Warren is ready to turn over the spiritual mantle to a man [Obama] who represents the views of Satan at worst or progressive anti-God liberals at best in most of his public positions on the greatest moral tests of our time.
Contrast that with a current screed against Rick Warren, coming from People for the American Way’s Kathryn Kolbert:
…The sad truth is that this decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans.
Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books and media appearances. He doesn’t need or deserve this position of honor. There is no shortage of religious leaders who reflect the values on which President-elect Obama campaigned and who are working to advance the common good.
Though Kolbert’s rhetoric is much milder in tone (for instance, she’s not associating anyone with Satan), there’s an astonishing similarity in the fundamentalist rhetoric on the Left and on the Right. That’s because there’s a deep psychological similarity to all mindsets that shut out dissenting viewpoints. These disagreements are not rational, they are emotional, and these reactions are indicative of people letting their emotions get the best of them.
Obama’s own response to this controversy has frequently been dismissed out-of-hand, but I think it’s worth taking a minute to parse:
I think that it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans. It is something that I have been consistent on, and something that I intend to continue to be consistent on during my presidency.
What I’ve also said is that it is important for America to come together, even though we may have disagreements on certain social issues. And I would note that a couple of years ago, I was invited to Rick Warren’s church to speak, despite his awareness that I held views that were entirely contrary to his when it came to gay and lesbian rights, when it came to issues like abortion. Nevertheless, I had an opportunity to speak. And that dialogue, I think, is part of what my campaign’s been all about; that we’re not going to agree on every single issue, but what we have to do is to be able to create an atmosphere when we — where we can disagree without being disagreeable and then focus on those things that we hold in common as Americans.
So Rick Warren has been invited to speak. Dr. Joseph Lowery, who has deeply contrasting views to Rick Warren on a whole host of issues, is also speaking. During the course of the entire inaugural festivities, there are going to be a wide range of viewpoints that are presented. And that’s how it should be, because that’s what America’s about. That’s part of the magic of this country, is that we are diverse and noisy and opinionated. And so, you know, that’s the spirit in which, you know, we have put together what I think will be a terrific inauguration. And that’s, hopefully, going to be a spirit that carries over into my administration.
Read what he said: giving people an opportunity to speak, listening to their concerns. Because, like it or not, agree with them or not, opponents to gay rights have deep-seated emotional concerns that are only going to get worse by yelling at them, telling them they’re wrong and they need to shut up. Nobody reacts positively to that. It feels good, but it’s completely unproductive. Do what you’re going to do. Live your life as you see fit, and don’t let them tell you what to do, don’t apologize for yourself for a second or let them hold dominion over you. But at the same time, see them with pity, not with malice: these are deeply unhappy people, warped by emotional forces beyond their control, clinging to an ideology they don’t entirely understand, shaped by evolutionary pressures they don’t even vaguely grasp. View them as you would have them view Palestinian extremists.
Remember, the force holding us back from equality and civil rights is not an evil corporation. It is not a political faction. It is not a corrupt politician or a fringe radical group. It is a built-in element of the human psyche that has been overstimulated by a traditional fundamentalist ideology. The problem is deeper than gay rights or any other political cause. This problem is itself the very deep rift in our society, and the solution calls for healing the American propensity toward fundamentalism of all stripes. Have you taken the plank out of your own eye first?
In the fundamentalist mindset, those who disagree with us are evil. But evil is not an explanatory concept. It helps us feel good about our right(eous)ness, but it does nothing to address the concerns of the Other or the root causes of their sometimes violent distress; as we have seen in right-wing American rhetoric around Iraq and 9/11, it dangerously oversimplifies. There will be some individuals who are unreachable, who are so calloused and so cowed by fear and hatred that they may never come around. The work of love and compassion always takes longer than we want it to; it demands more of us - more understanding, more patience, more kindness, more self-sacrifice - than yelling and picketing. This is not a war that is won by fighting, because it is a war that has gone on for centuries, for millenia. As our economy is on the brink of a collapse, we risk seeing our society lose a lot of its hard-earned civil rights gains to the emergency of the moment, to a despairing public heading back to church in bad times.
And so it is incumbent on us - and on smart, post-partisan people like Obama - to reach out to those we disagree with with love and compassion, even as they lash out against us. (It’s a lot more fun to get outraged at people who fight back, and this is why it’s helpful to turn the other cheek.) Of course, we should still hold Obama’s feet to the fire to move legislation where it counts; we can’t take for granted that he will in fact carry through on his promises. While Obama sadly does not support marriage equality, his plans for LGBT rights are more ambitious and detailed than any national candidate’s before him. So if you were surprised by Obama’s choice of someone you don’t agree with, if you wish you could take back your vote, if this action is inconsistent with the Obama you thought you were getting, then you haven’t been paying attention to what he’s been saying all along. This is what it looks like to sit down with your enemies without preconditions. This is what it looks like to set an example for the path forward: not to give in to people who would do you harm, but to understand them, and hopefully speak to their fears and concerns. This is not about compromise. This is not giving in. This is about persuasion.
…The truth is: if we cannot engage a Rick Warren on the question of our equality, we may secure a narrow and bitter victory in some states (just as the Christianists won a narrow and bitter victory in California in November). But we will not win the bigger argument and our victories will lack the moral legitimacy they deserve.
Only we can do this. We cannot expect people given over to small-minded ideology to be able to figure out how to heal this country, or understand the causes of their own discontent. Only we - not trapped by ideological constraints, viewing the world through the eyes of our enemies, availing ourselves of the full spectrum of human experience, knowledge, and expression - can figure out how to build a bridge for these frightened, trapped people, and lead them to the other side.
January 4th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Excellent post, David. The outrage on this issue from so many on the left has been very ill-conceived and counterproductive. Yes, there is such a thing as righteous indignation, and yes, thinking people have every reason to despise Rick Warren for his views (which I’LL go ahead and call Satanic!), but the bottom line is that we don’t change hearts and minds by reducing ourselves to their level.
This reminds me a great deal of what my dad (as a family therapist with a cognitive behaviorist leaning) used to say to people whose children were out of control. “You are an ADULT, he is a CHILD.” Children yell and scream to get attention. But when adults do it, it just makes their children lose respect for them. It effectively hands over all the control to the misbehaving child.
Luckily, as the ADULTS in this situation, we have more tools in our toolbox than just yelling and screaming. We have the power to be intelligent and calculating in our actions, and we even have the power to separate our emotions from doing what needs to be done. You are right: turning the other cheek is an excellent tactic. It’s what separates Gandhi and Martin Luther King from Hamas. That doesn’t mean we don’t fight back; it just means that our “fighting back” needs to be sneakier and better conceived than it has been. The intelligent, thoughtful members of society are the adults, the fundamentalists are the children. If we can’t get them under control, it’s no one’s fault but ours.
January 5th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I enjoyed this post as well, and I feel like you’re definitely on the right track. I think Emily’s analogy is a good one as well, when comparing open-minded people to fundamentalists in the general sense.
There is a problem with this kind of response, however. Assuming that the person on the other side of the table is “small-minded,” a “child,” and not a “thinking person” closes the conversation just as effectively as screaming and attacking. Trying to open up a conversation with someone whose views we have already dismissed is a waste of time. We are not trying to talk, we are trying to teach. That makes us at least as bigoted and self-righteous as the people we deign to instruct.
Like you, I believe gay marriage isn’t a big deal. But I’m willing to be proved wrong. You’d be surprised how people open up to you when you open up to them. And while I’m swapping philosophies and biblical axioms and scientific research with the Prop 8 guy (swapping, mind you, not pushing), if there is an absolute right, and if I’m on the side of the absolute right, then it will come out in that conversation if we are both truly open to one another. Unless we’re willing to risk being proved wrong, we’ll never be proved right.
As you both often mention, there are fundamentalists on both sides. (Believe me, I’ve met plenty of them.) But there are also thinking adults on both sides. I have yet to see any evidence that Rick Warren isn’t a thinking adult just because he espouses a worldview that is not my own. (It’s easy to believe Gandhi or King would have been on our side because we’ve idealized them to be everything we want them to be. If King were still alive and he had voted for Prop 8–didn’t even campaign for it, just voted–would you still consider him a hero?)
Some people are not acting or reacting out of fear. They are simply acting on a different set of assumptions. Sometimes they are thinking adults–just as much as you or I. Maybe more than you or I.
January 5th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Paul, I would agree with you in many situations, especially ones where there is a statement of “fact” or “absolute truth” which may be uncovered. Gay marriage, unfortunately, is a value that is entirely subjective. All it reflects is how we view ourselves, each other, and the institution of marriage, all of which are culturally dependent.
That said, there is one side in this issue that routinely espouses that they have “absolute truth” in this issue. This perceived truth, by and large, stems from (1) a deep-seated traditional definition of marriage which excludes homosexual unions and (2) a narrow and specific reading of a Bible which is believed to be literally true. Right and wrong aside, the problem with this kind of worldview is that there is no room for new information to enter and inform its adherents’ opinions. Ultimately, it is the worldview itself that will suffer the most, as it has neglected to build into itself a mechanism for continual growth and evolution in an ever-changing world.
Like David, it troubles me to see gays and gay supporters in my community form an equal and opposite “fundamentalism” in response to this whole Rick Warren shitstorm. By demanding that Rick Warren be silenced or ignored because he represents an opposing set of cultural values, they are effectively allowing themselves to become a simulacrum of the fundamentalists they so vehemently abhor. Hatred, hostility, and all of these other emotional responses (and their corresponding fundamentalisms) are what I *meant* to connect with the “child” in my admittedly flawed analogy.
For me, being an adult means being able to cut oneself loose from reactionary emotions and other egocentric responses in forming opinions, when such measures are called for. My comment was mostly directed at the people I relate to in my community on a regular basis, who (for better or worse) invariably view themselves as both “liberal” and “smarter than” people who are (perceived by many on the left to be) primarily motivated by things like fear and mistrust of the unknown.
As for MLK and Gandhi, I didn’t mean to imply that either of them would or would not support gay marriage today. Those who knew them could probably guess, but obviously we can never know for sure. I meant only to extol them as good examples of freedom fighters who earned the (for lack of a better term!) “moral high ground” by never letting themselves become mirrors of their opponents.
Anyway, thanks for keeping me on my toes. I hope I’ve tidied my position somewhat in response.
January 6th, 2009 at 9:13 am
I really enjoyed reading this (a breath of fresh, sane air) and agree on many points. I’ve been a bit surprised how much upset this issue has caused, considering how many other really awful, super-duper-fundamentalist ministers could have been selected to represent the Religious Right.
February 27th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
I’m appalled by this post. I see no difference between this armchair philosophizing and telling slaves to patiently wait for their masters to free them. The gay rights movement exists because obnoxious drag queens threw bricks at the cops at Stonewall, not because anybody tried to open a dialog with those who wish to destroy them. This kind of apologist propaganda is a slap in the face to those who have really put their lives on the line to foment social change.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Aynsley,
The difference here is substantial. To be clear, I’m not urging people to be satisfied with the status quo. There’s a difference between picking a fight and defending yourself, and I urge everyone in the face of oppression to defend themselves against violence and to live their lives as they see fit regardless of the status quo. The Stonewall riots were a good example of that. But guess what? Harvey Milk is a good example of what I’m talking about. He was a guy who was appalled by the system and worked within it to change it. He didn’t have to physically fight his opponents; he was happy to humiliate their arguments in reasonable debate whilst also befriending them and keeping the door open should they decide to change their mind. That’s what I’m talking about.