Sunday, December 21, 2008

purpose-driven inauguration?

Apparently I'm in the mood to be a socio-religio-political commentator these days. I wrote about shoe-throwing, and now I'm writing about Obama's choice for giving the inaugural prayer of blessing, the purpose-driven man himself, Rick Warren.

The controversy centers around Warren's support of Proposition 8, the California ballot proposition that eliminated the right of same-sex couples to marry in the state of California, and provided that only a marriage between a man and a woman was recognized in that state.

People of influence and education are chiming in from all over the place on this one, to which the most recent politico.com's "Arena" section testifies (don't know how long that link will be good... if it's a different subject by the time you read this post, sorry bout that). Guess I'm going to throw my own two cents in.

Maybe three cents. Or maybe just one, depending on your perspective, and the economy.

Here you go:

I'm struck at just how controversial this choice is in the eyes of so many Americans.

I'm struck at how many of our educated leaders view Obama so negatively for making this choice.

I'm struck at the level of disdain people have for Rick Warren.

And I'm struck at how personally disconnected we are from all of these people, yet how confident we are of our opinions about them, about what they do, and about what we believe they stand for.

Now, I'm not an all-out disciple of Rick Warren. I do think it's apparent that God has blessed him and his ministry. I'm glad that God has used his book and his influence to make the Christian life more accessible and clear for many people. But, systematizing life with God through Jesus into predictable purposes has its drawbacks, to be sure.

And I don't think that Obama is America's savior, in any sense of that word. Many self-proclaimed "progressives" are already using the term "transformational" to describe him and his pending presidential term. While I understand how and why they use the term to describe the president-elect, I also am keenly aware that transformation at its purest and deepest level happens only through interacting with the One Triune God. I, for one, will endeavor not to conflate the two usages.

But it's just not as easy for me to come to the same conclusions as others have about this decision and about these men. Commentators, bloggers, professors, and writers of all kinds are supremely confident of a few things. Apparently:

1. This is Obama being a politician, pure and simple--pandering to the disenchanted social and political right by choosing one of their own to pray at his inauguration.

Really? We're sure that's what this is?

2. This Rick Warren guy hates and oppresses homosexuals, because he supported Proposition 8.

Really? It's that simple?

Let me tell you what inspired me about Barack Obama. He never boiled complicated issues down to anything less than being complicated, no matter how controversial the issue was, and no matter how much people from the left or right baited him into doing so. This man always was able to articulate why things are so complex and what the differing sides of the issues were, without the use of straw-man arguments, judgment, condemnation, hate, or one-ups-manship. That takes character.

And while I certainly don't agree with where he stands on some of our most hotly debated moral issues, I always appreciated his treatment of those issues--how he talked about them, answered questions about them, and dialogued about them.

Now, for some of you, you may think that is insignificant. Perhaps you would respond with something like: "Yeah, but the bottom line is... _______."

If you're on the right in this whole inauguration thing, the bottom line is that Obama is just trying to placate you by choosing Rick Warren to pray. And perhaps you even think that Rick is in sin for accepting the invitation (depends on how far to the right you sit, I guess).

If you're on the left, the bottom line is that Obama is undercutting your fight for justice and equality by inviting an oppressor to oppress in God's name.

But I just don't think things are that simple (and apparently Barack Obama doesn't think think things are that simple, either).

Now, if my writing above makes you wonder where I stand on the issue behind this controversy, let me be clear--for your benefit, not for mine: I believe that God defines marriage clearly in his written Word, the Bible, and that He defines it as being exclusively between a man and a woman, wherein all sexual intimacy is not only permitted but gifted and encouraged.

But maybe it doesn't matter what I believe, at least as it relates to how I am perceived--both by my peers and by my culture. Because what I am (rather fearfully, but faithfully) becoming aware of is this:

If I don't provide an adequate amount of religio-political zeal for a ballot measure like Proposition 8, I'll probably be labeled by some of my peers as "doctrinally weak", "waffling", or "afraid to take a stand."

But I am much more passionate about knowing people who are homosexual, loving them, and, Spirit-permitting, sharing with them what I believe. If they are going to be changed, it will be the Spirit that does so, and does so through me and others. Which makes me much less zealous bout a ballot measure. Why can't those things go together like peanut butter and jelly, you ask? Try holding up a pro-Proposition 8 sign while you're sitting at Starbucks trying to have a spiritual conversation with your gay friend. Doesn't really mix, does it?

But if I don't define justice as supporting state-recognized same-sex marriages, I'll be labeled by many influential cultural communities as an "oppressor", or as "hateful", or (dare I say it?) "non-progressive."

But I am not content to remain silent on what I believe, nor am I willing to be labeled an oppressor because I am unwilling to define justice according to someone else's moral convictions.

And so I find myself in what I am sure was a very, very familiar place to Jesus:

I wonder who will crucify me first.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey Jesse,

Here's my penny back:

First of all, I don't think you're the one up for crucifixion. Maybe you feel like that old saying, "Damned if I do; damned if I don't." -- but it's more than one person's opinion that's killing the civil rights of thousands of loving couples.

I'm pasting some links again, to other posts--this one is Seda's first post discussing Warren: http://silknvoice.blogspot.com/2008/12/warren-at-inauguration.html

I thought her points were insightful, especially coming from someone such as herself.

She then, re-responded with another post later: http://silknvoice.blogspot.com/2008/12/questions-of-sex-and-gender.html

I agree with some of your points--like taking extreme sides on this "issue" [if it can even be labeled as an issue.] I think taking extreme sides just separates us all further. To be angry about Rick Warren from the left side or the right side only perpetuates distance, when what we really need is a closer understanding.

I did catch something else...

[side note: sometimes I find it unfair that I'm able to pick apart words that you typed, but, alas, I've discovered that is the draw-back of typing your thoughts to the world.]

You talked about how people are using the word "transformational" when describing Obama and his future presidency. You then stated, "transformation at its purest and deepest level happens only through interacting with the One Triune God."

I wondered about this. My first thought went to the Civil Rights movement with Martin Luther King. I think most people would agree [especially those people of color] that the movement was incredibly transformational. [Strangely, people of "faith" protested this movement, using Scripture to back themselves up.]

Now, I don't think that YOU think the Civil Rights movement was NOT transformational, I'm just wondering where the BOUNDS of what's Godly transformation extend? I'm thinking that you would agree that EQUALITY amongst the races is indeed Godly transformation.

My point here is that Obama's presidency has the potential to be VERY transformational, it may just depend on where YOU see that "transformational force" coming from.......

Finally-- your quote, "This Rick Warren guy hates and oppresses homosexuals, because he supported Proposition 8. ...Really? It's that simple?"

Actually, I'm sure if you get to know the people behind proposition 8 [such as Mr. Warren] or take the time to get to know the people that proposition 8 is oppressing, I'm sure it's ANYTHING but simple.

Is Rick Warren a gay-hater? I don't know, he might be, but he might be just another pastor doing his best to stay true to his God, while facing encounters with a people-group that seem beyond his reach.

The point of Proposition 8, is that denies basic civil rights. It's one thing to tell a gay Christian that the rules of marriage that are outlined in the Bible [which, by the way, are HARDLY a picture of anything we have in establishment today,] are the rules that should be followed. It's another situation ENTIRELY when that gay man or woman is Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostic, Scientologist, etc. Why should they obey what's in our Christian Bible? Something they may or may not even believe in at all?

Our government should not be allowed to place or keep laws according to any one religion, when our religious makeup in the United States is so incredibly diverse.

I know you feel jammed in that place, being progressive, and being a pastor and part of a much larger institution. I know you feel strongly about what you believe to be true, but I just don't see how that constitutes denying people of equal rights.

I don't believe the Westboro Baptist Church should be allowed to exist, let alone protest funerals, but I would never dream of taking away their rights to freedom of religion, and freedom of speech. Those are part of what make America the FREE-est country in the world.

Just some thoughts I guess...

Jesse said...

AJ,

Sorry for how late this reply is. My world has been the Christmas Eve services until, well... yesterday, as it turns out.

Let me work through your note here:

-Of course, I am using the term "crucify" metaphorically. And if you followed the link to NPR's Arena page, it's pretty clear that a lot of metaphorical crucifixions were taking place. I shudder to think of some of the labels that were used to describe Rick Warren and those who supported Proposition 8... much like you shudder to think of the labels that are put on people who opposed it. But make no mistake about it: opposing marital rights for homosexual people will earn you a (metaphorical) cross.

-To where do the BOUNDS of God's transformation extend? Well, I'd have to drive back on that question. The question is not one of bounds for me. I can clearly see God working through the tremendous faith and courage of Dr. King during the civil rights movement. So, in that sense, it is not as though God's transformation was limited to the bounds of churches, or something like that. It most certainly extended into society.

So, the question isn't one of bounds. It is one of quality. As godly as the civil rights movement was, it was and is qualitatively different than the transformation of an individual who encounters Christ and believes.

Sometimes, the two can overlap: an encounter with Christ can lead to a greater awareness of justice in society.

Other times, the two have nothing to do with one another, as it relates to the will of a particular person. Someone could have been extremely passionate about equality of the races and professed zero faith in Jesus. This isn't unprecedented or odd. God has always used people--even his enemies--for his purposes.

My entire point here is this: while everything that is good comes from God, not every good deed flows from a heart that is submitted to God.

Why is this qualitative distinction important? Well, for several reasons. First, it keeps what is most real and most needed at the forefront: an encounter with the living God to bring life to what is dead. Second, it keeps our definitions of what is good and right closely anchored to what has been revealed to us as good and right.

And keep in mind: while it's true that there were people of "faith" who used Scripture to oppose the civil rights movement, there were people who used authentic faith to fuel it--like Dr. King himself. Please be careful how you label church and faith. Sometimes you seem to throw it all into one bucket of ignorance or detachment. But you might be throwing more in there than you realize.

-Your last few paragraphs seem to deal with the relationship between church and state. On a very real level, I fiercely agree with you. Our government should not be allowed to keep laws according to any one religion.

But, try as you might to separate them, there will always be an unbreakable bond between church and state, between government and faith. It's because justice proceeds from God. And God can only be personally treated within the realm of faith.

So the question isn't whether the two should be completely separate. They can't be separated, really. Rather, it's where to draw the boundaries--and really, where to draw them before Jesus returns and governs perfectly.

Now, would I use the Bible as a way to persuade people of other faiths that my view is correct and should be adopted by all who are governed by the U.S.? Like, go up to them with chapter and verse, and walk away like I had done my duty? Of course not.

But do I believe that the principles behind what the Bible says about men, women, sexuality, and marriage hold true across both time and culture? Yes.

But, there's only one way to actually find out of that's true, beyond guessing, predicting, pontificating, or condemning in God's name. Life and practice will prove it, like it always does. I like that God designed it that way.

Anonymous said...

Jesse,

Love your blog. I found it through a comment you had made on Willoroots.

If you haven't done so already, come visit us at Eclectic Christian. Perhaps from time to time you might be interested in doing a guest post, or having us repost one of your own.

We do seem to be somewhat kindred spirits.

Mike Bell - Eclectic Christian