The New Republic

What is so tough about disarming one's opponent by conceeding as much when they are in the right? Basics of decency aside, what better way to make progress on an issue than to not argue on topics where there is agreement?

And I think the Warren issue has more to do with people's feelings regarding what he has said and done contra GLBT than with their sexual orientation; I admit a strong correlation exists, but it is not the true cause of the controversy.

- GSpinks

December 23, 2008 at 1:13pm

Hmm, in my view, the true cause of the controversy is that Warren is anti-gay (homosexuality is a sinful lifestyle choice disqualifying you from Saddleback memebrship), anti-science (rejects evolution), adheres to conservative evangelical priorities (in 04, he provided a checklist of non-negotiable issue items for the election that consisted of abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, cloning, and euthanasia; helping the sick and needy was apparently negotiable), adheres to the belief that the Bible is the literal, inerrant word of God, which leads to division and irrationality, is on the wrong side of church-state matters (e.g., Prop. 8 and Terri Schaivo), and still buys hell and end times.  He is not the best of America or the best of Christianity, and providing this general honor -- holding him out as a figure of reverence -- suggests that he is.  His ministry is, at best, insipid and vulgar, and, at worst, insidious.  Obama didn't need to do this, and I wish he hadn't.  I don't hate him for it, and I'm not generally disillusioned or anything like that.  Indeed, I heartily endorse his instincts in favor of reaching out to traditional opponents to find common ground.  But this wasn't the right way to do that.

- jhildner

December 23, 2008 at 2:27pm

I saw this on the comment section of that thread:

As the pastor of a small Protestant church what I find interesting are the churches that want to name the sin that is exclusionary for membership! Are there any other sins that are named on the Saddelback website or was it just homosexuality that was specifically named?

He is completely right, as a Catholic I can attend church no matter the offense, I am just not supposed to take communion unless I go to confession first. There is nothing in the church that says one is not allowed to attend chuch (unless one is excommunicated but that requires a repudiation of the church)

The only thing annoying about this is the right wing is amused by the fuss and is not willing to give Obama any credit but more willing to rip those who oppose it.

- blackton

December 23, 2008 at 2:32pm

jhildner, insidious is a bit strong. Insipid, yeah, but I feel that way about most American protestant religions. I am opposed to abortion, stem cell research, and euthanasia. Cloning I find to be silly, we have had twins forever and their existence should have rid us of needless superstition about clones. I have only lately come around on gay marriage since I thought civil was enough (in china where I married that is all there is). I do not think my positions make me insipid and certainly not insidious.

And I supported the parents of Terry Schiavo, the husband was a complete ass who was motivated by greed alone, he had been living with another woman, had children with her and was not willing to wait for the money from her settlement to be gone, and he was not willing to divorce her because he would have lost that money. If it had been my wife and if my parents in law wanted her to stay alive I would have done so for their sake.

- blackton

December 23, 2008 at 2:45pm

Blackie, you miss the point of my bringing attention to Warren's '04 deal-breakers.  It's not that these positions are inadmissible.  It's that they are, in fact, Warren's deal-breakers, his priorities.  He is widely seen as a help-the-poor sort of guy, and the media establishment gets a hard-on when they hear that -- eager as they seem to be to find an evangelical Christian they can like so that they can congratulate themselves on how open-minded they are.  It's truly a ludicrous spectacle.  But, we shouldn't be fooled.  As I suggested, helping the sick and needy was not a deal-breaker in '04; it was not even a factor for judging political candidates, in Warren's view.  That says to me that Warren is a bit more conservative in his beliefs than many seem to assume.

In Chicago, we had an excellent archbishop for a long while -- Joseph Cardinal Berardin.  He, of course was pro-life, and espoused the traditional Catholic views on such  issues, views I tend to disagree with both as a moral matter and as a legal matter.  But he was pro-life all the way down the line, and that meant war and capital punishment too.  He preached love when it was hard, and I respected him a great deal for that.  He was a mild man who never uttered a word of exclusion or soft cruelty, and was known for steadfastly seeking interfaith dialogue.  His mission was, quite literally, peace, love, and understanding, and not that condescending love-the-sinner-who's-probably-going-to-hell-anyway shit (i.e., "soft cruelty").

Now, of course, I am not religious, and find all religions objectionable in their assertions of facts about which, quite obviously, nobody knows anything.  But, not all religions, and not all preachers are equally troubling.  Some really do honor all of humanity and offer genuine and serious moral instruction that is not exclusively tied to a narrow, literal understanding of some ancient superstitions but also to more universal understandings of human perfection.  Bernardin was such a guy.  I know there others, including, yes, intellectually and morally serious mainline Protestants.  I wish Obama had chosen one of them.

Warren, of course, rubs me the wrong way.  I find these megachurches creepy and cult-like, and for good reason.  They are the most rigorous in their studied rejection of rationality.  When these guys preach the Good News, I want to throw up.  ("You were built for a purpose!")  It's similar to my reaction to Christian "rock" music.  Some of that is intellectual snobbery, which may not be attractive but, having lived through eight years of one of theirs running my country, I'm past caring.  Anyway, it goes beyond that, and also beyond Warren's selective adoption of New Agey crap.  I think "insidious" is more than justified.  He appears kind and friendly amd even hip, and yet, when it comes to many issues, he's a wolf in a Hawaiian shrit.  He is powerful, and, if you buy his message, you are apt to buy his homophobia too.  If you buy his message, you are apt to reject evolution -- an outrageous position that ought to be disreputable.  If you buy his message, you are apt to buy his fundamental intolerance -- good guys go to heaven, bad guys go to hell, but, just so we won't seem like an asshole about it, let's describe hell as eternally "separated from God," and, by the way, "good" doesn't necessarily mean good and "bad" means Europe.  (In other words, the ministry is more about Christ than about goodness.)  If you buy his message, you are apt to support missionary good works, but only those bound up spreading just this narrow, exclusionary, and tediously literal spiritual belief system, not a good thing.  Indeed, if you buy his message, you are apt to view your life and everyone's life as all about that system which, on every level -- intellectually, morally, spiritually -- is, well, let's say very limited.

I have no problem working with Warren on, say, climate change.  But this is like, "Hey, Barack Obama, who is a preacher-man you like generally?"  For him to answer Rick Warren is disappointing, sorry.

- jhildner

December 23, 2008 at 4:51pm

jhildner, would you mind if I reprinted your first comment on my blog?  I think it was fantastic.

- drdannyu

December 23, 2008 at 5:27pm

drdannyu, not at all!

- jhildner

December 23, 2008 at 6:15pm

Thanks.  If you're inclined to read what I wrote, I think you can get there by clicking on my user name.

(To the TNR gods, I promise not to make a habit of doing this.)

- drdannyu

December 23, 2008 at 6:48pm

dan:  Thanks for the republication!  I should have added sexist to the list.  On Rachel Maddow tonight, Katha Pollitt (sp?) points out the expected nonsense in the Saddleback belief system about serving the man in marriage and that abuse is not a justification for divorce.

- jhildner

December 23, 2008 at 10:19pm

This all reminds me of Obama's speech on race, when he talked about family members he loved who nevertheless had made racist statements at times.  Because he knew and loved them, he couldn't just dismiss them as racists, and had to consider their comments in light of their experiences.  He seemed to have come to understand that progress in racial and social attitudes comes slowly and unevenly, and he doesn't dismiss or demonize people who hold some repellent attitudes.  Then he invites someone like Warren to the table, where he can't just preach to the choir, but is put in a position where he has to be inclusive.    And now Warren's statements get examined in the general media, which takes them out of the protected setting of the church and gets everyone thinking about how it looks when his brand of religious dogma meets a pluralist society out in the open.  But in this new role Warren really has to address everyone with respect.  

When schools were first being integrated here in Durham NC, a black woman community activist and a white KKK member, a mill worker I think, both served on a task force to help integration happen peacefully.  If I remember correctly, the committee decided to focus on their common concern for their children, and the two became friends and alllies.  The white man quit the Klan and changed his views.  I wonder if Obama thinks he can shake things up in the same sort of way.  I want to say go for it, but on the other hand it makes me wonder about his ego...after the last 16 years I am very wary of hubris.

- strabka

December 23, 2008 at 11:57pm

Doesn't the fact that he scrubbed the language from the website indicate what might be good about all this? That they might ease up a bit on demagoguery on the issue if brought a bit more into the mainstream?

- epicciuto

December 24, 2008 at 10:16am

BTW, the FABULOUS blog at which you can find jhildner's comment is: bleakonomy.blogspot.com

- epicciuto

December 24, 2008 at 10:17am

blackon:  "And I supported the parents of Terry Schiavo, the husband was a complete ass who was motivated by greed alone"

That may be, blackie, but that's your reading of it and not what the law said.  The husband went through every legitimate court instance and every appeal and at no point (to the best of my knowledge) did any court suggest that what he wanted to do was wrong and/or wrong because motivated by gain.  It was clear that the parents' investment in believing that Terri could be "alive" in any real sense was a mystical rather than a rational one.  Understandable, yes, but her husband's desire to have a life was that also.  It was imo neither criminal nor evil.

Indeed, the judge in Florida -- a Republican who was also of an evangelical faith -- who finally found for the husband was subject to a wave of attacks from "Christians" ranging from general hatred to actual death threats.

President Bush, who will be remembered for his clueless passivity during Katrina and a general unwillingness to get down to work to solve our major national problems, flew back to DC from his vacation in order to sign a special law designed to undermine the legal proceedings and pull the case into federal jurisdiction (whose business it wasn't), a project that lasted precisely a day until the Supreme Court refused to hear all petitions.

The oh-so-Christian Florida GOP planned to use the Schiavo case to unseat Florida Dem Senator Bill Nelson, who honorably refused to sign onto the Save-Terri-At-All-Costs parade -- an idea which didn't pan out in the end, as Nelson won re-election in '06.

Surveys at the time showed that a majority of Americans thought that the way the Schiavo case became a national media event was an unwarranted intrusion of politics into a matter that was ultimately for the family, and in which disagreements are decided by the courts, and not political grandstanders like the now thankfully unpresent Bill Frist.

- ironyroad

December 25, 2008 at 4:19pm