In The Blogs
- ‹ previous
- 1886 of 8831
- next ›
One (Really, Really) Cool Thing About Rick Warren
I have serious disagreements with the man, but I respect Rick Warren for living out some values that he shares with me and that he likely shares with many readers of this blog. For example:
He reverse tithes, giving away 90% and keeping 10%.
Of course, when Warren publicly preaches against Prop 8, he's living out values that he doesn't share with me. But that little factoid is still pretty awesome. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do the same if I made what he makes. That's from the Huffington Post, where you'll find a progressive defense of Warren.
Update: Man, this ruins the mood. Gays "unwilling to repent" are banned from Warren's church.
In the prop 8 discussion, I've noticed a tendency to mince words between religion and politics. It goes like this: Churches told congregations to support Prop 8. Churchgoers voted against gay marriage. Ergo, churchgoers are against gay marriage. Gay marriage is categorically denied because religious convictions are the basis of political beliefs ? according to the fundamentalists.
Rick Warren is a fundamentalist, but of the fundamentalists that have emerged on the political radar over the past 10 years I submit that he is the most reasonable. He is also very similar to Obama in that his megachurch ? like Obama's megacampaign ? succeeded because of consumer-driven populist appeals and a firm grasp on modern usage of the English language. Toward Obama's ultimate obstacle as president ? the religious right ? Rick Warren is the olive branch. An obvious choice because Obama owes a share of his swing votes to that fractured political body. In order to be a candidate who "reaches across the aisle" he had to pick a real conservative Christian to give this speech. That being said, an invitation to give the inaugural invocation is still a reach across and not any sort of reach around.
That's all political. Religiously speaking, Obama sat in Reverend Wright's church, listened to those sermons and worked with congregants on local issues. That is the person and the religious persona we elected to office ? not Rick Warren again. Thank God.
And politically speaking, Prop 8 passage is no reason to feel discouraged about the Gay Rights Movement. If it really was the "black vote" that damned gay marriage, wait two years for another. Obama's presidency isn't about "change" in the sense that Che Guevara or Mary Harris were about change. If we hold him accountable for furthering this movement in which he has had no previous leadership, we openly discredit Obama and implicitly discredit the actual leader's of the movement by denying them press. He's more of a Pope than a revolutionary in terms of his following and his feet will probably be held to the fire on every issue more than any other president. The identity politics of the left will once again disorganize us if we are not careful. We ought not let what Rick Warren says on the 20th of January affect the reception our first black president receives.
Obama had to find a religious figure to speak to the country who embodies
Well, come on, what do you expect? Fundamentalists are all the same. They pick and choose the parts of the bible that they like and cling to them desperately. Apparently the bible I read left out the part where Jesus ranked the importance of each sin.
No, I did see that part "Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbour as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matt 22:37-40
Hmm... didn't see anything about "no homos" in there. Maybe my bible is broken.
Ah, to be privileged enough to give away 90%. How nice.
Chill, Godless heathen.
Gays can't be members of his church because membership means you promise to hold yourself to a certain set of principles. yes, one of those principles is to live a faithful heterosexual lifestyle. Gays are still welcome to come worship at his church and are in fact encouraged to do so. I think it's a fair point to not offer membership to people who don't turn from what Saddleback feels is a sin. Even Christ only forgave those who asked for it and confessed their sins- in Saddleback's POV, homosexual living is a sin, and not turning from it is to not confess that sin, thus its grounds for exclusion. It's not some kind of novel thing really. The debate really resides on whether or not christian theology decries homosexuality as a sin, and that's a much trickier issue.
As for loving one another, when gay rights activists came to protest (angrily, I might add) outside of Saddleback after Prop 8 failed, the church footed the bill to serve them all donuts and drinks as a show of love for their neighbor. I would argue that Warren does a good job of loving his enemies.
GH: Judge not, lest ye be judged- for with whatever measure one uses, so too will he be measured. I don't judge you, but I also don't really think how you've judged Warren is fair.
To Ben Messina: you sound so bitter! Do you have a problem with Obama being so privileged? Because he isn't taking the step to reverse tithe his book royalties like Warren has. And Biden gives the least to charity of any sitting senator! I feel like your umbrage at "privilege" is a thinly veiled attack at a man's beliefs, not his means.
Homosexuals suffer because their particular "sin" is more easily identifiable than those of the rest of the congregation. I can almost understand the restrictions against homosexuality amongst the clergy, but I've been through the whole "mega church" process before. It's a continual cycle of sin, feel guilty for a service, repent so you stop feeling guilty, return to sin, ad infinitum. How many in that church are greedy, or liars, or lustful in their hearts?
This is why I wish they would put up my post in that other thread about Warren. The gist of it is this: you can think what you want about his beliefs on homosexuality, but in this article which he had the chance to go back and amend his statements, he said this: " I'm opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
BELIEFNET: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?
Oh , I do."
That's an exact quote from this page:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/12/rick-warrens-controversi...
Hopefully, they'll eventually put up my post in the other thread, as a lot more time went into it.
50 years ago, interracial marriage was rejected by most churches. Some day we will look back and see this for what it really is: depriving humans beings for a chance at equality when their only "mistake" is being different.
At the end of the day, we are going to have to agree to disagree, but I think that when certain sins are treated as more abhorrent than others, the bible is being twisted by those who actually believe it's more than an extended morality play.
To worry about the man is to submit to the division from which he gains his power.
Serious...play your game and don't worry about scum like this. To do so is to give them strength.
In the prop 8 discussion, I've noticed a tendency to mince words between religion and politics. It goes like this: Churches told congregations to support Prop 8. Churchgoers voted against gay marriage. Ergo, churchgoers are against gay marriage. Gay marriage is categorically denied because religious convictions are the basis of political beliefs according to the fundamentalists.
Rick Warren is a fundamentalist, but of the fundamentalists that have emerged on the political radar over the past 10 years I submit that he is the most reasonable. He is also very similar to Obama in that his megachurch like Obama's megacampaign succeeded because of consumer-driven populist appeals and a firm grasp on modern usage of the English language. Toward Obama's ultimate obstacle as president the religious right Rick Warren is the olive branch. An obvious choice because Obama owes a share of his swing votes to that fractured political body. In order to be a candidate who "reaches across the aisle" he had to pick a real conservative Christian to give this speech. That being said, an invitation to give the inaugural invocation is still a reach across and not any sort of reach around.
That's all political. Religiously speaking, Obama sat in Reverend Wright's church, listened to those sermons and worked with congregants on local issues. That is the person and the religious persona we elected to office not Rick Warren again. Thank God.
And politically speaking, Prop 8 passage is no reason to feel discouraged about the Gay Rights Movement. If it really was the "black vote" that damned gay marriage, wait two years for another. Obama's presidency isn't about "change" in the sense that Che Guevara or Mary Harris were about change. If we hold him accountable for furthering this movement in which he has had no previous leadership, we openly discredit Obama and implicitly discredit the actual leader's of the movement by denying them press. He's more of a Pope than a revolutionary in terms of his following and his feet will probably be held to the fire on every issue more than any other president. The identity politics of the left will once again disorganize us if we are not careful. We ought not let what Rick Warren says on the 20th of January affect the reception our first black president receives.
Obama had to find a religious figure to speak to the country who embodies
So where does Warren give that money? What does the money do? Given his beliefs, it's extremely likely it's used to preach divisiness, against condom use (therefore for an increase in AIDS), against civil rights, etc. That's not good, that's bad. When you give like that the more you give the worse it is. When you give like that, someone who doesn't give at all is far far better than someone who gives a lot.
Where do you think Warren gives, and for what? Do you consider that good?
Democrats throw GLBT people under the bus, the same way they throw progressives and other minoriteis udner theu bus.
They do not see them as a large enought voting bloc to give a damn about them.
You cannot build your freedom on someone else's opprssion. It will fail.
Man, this ruins the mood. Gays "unwilling to repent" are banned from Warren's church.
Why don't gays form their own "church"?
Any National Business that makes a 10% profit is doing pretty well. Non-tax status for these churches is most generally a charade!
Why don't gays form their own "church"?
Would that make Rick Warren a decent caring human being?
Of course gays have churches they can go to, churches where they are accepted; the existence of those churches hasn't made Rick Warren a decent caring person so far, which is the point. Rick Warren is not a decent caring person.
I have noticed throughout this whole Rick Warren thing that not one person has denied that the Bible is being questioned as he is a minister who follows the teachings of the Bible-That's his calling and his job. If the Gay Community can get around Romans, Chapter 1 and other verses that are very specific about unnatural use of the body and human depravity, I would suggest they do so but to judge a Pastor for following the tenets of his faith are ridiculous!
I agree. Who he lets into his church or what he believes personally is his own business and more power to him. It's just that when he (and others) begin to propel those beliefs into public (secular) policy is when we all run afoul.
Other Christians do not find those tenets to be sacrosanct, just as I would hope Warren doesn't agree with the clear Biblical guide to the acceptability of slavery, selling your child, etc.
These are issues where Christians, lay and clergy, have decided over the years to disagree with the Bible. Warren has decided to take the interpretation of bigotry and hate, which is his right. But I can't give him credit for it, just as I can't give him credit for giving money to further his hate-filled bigotry.
"Of course gays have churches they can go to, churches where they are accepted;..."
Then why don't they go to them?
"Would that make Rick Warren a decent caring human being?"
So? There are plenty of people who do believe Warren is a decent, caring human being. Just not by the standards of those who don't believe that he is. If the people of Warren's church don't believe he is a decent, caring human being, they would go somewhere else.
Conversely, there is nothing forcing gays to go to Warren's church or forcing them not to go to church at all. They are free to choose, just as we all are. That is what freedom is all about.
And Obama is free, like every other American, to invite whom he likes for the inauguration. So get over it.
Every other American is free to invite whom he likes for the inauguration? Boy are you confused. :) The question about the invite is of course that not every American is free to invite who they wish, and that Oabama should try to express the wishes of those who voted for him and those who want to embrace diversity and wlecome others rather than the wishes of hate-filled bigots who want a hate-filled bigot to speak for them at this historic event.
Yes, there are those who think that hate-filled bigots like Rick Warren are decent human beings... I would imagine, for instance, that many hate-filled bigots think so. It doesn't mean they're correct. And to reiterate the point about this particular blog post, Warren's giving to promote hatered and bigotry is not a plus, and the more he gives toward those goals the less admirable his giving is.
Except, of course, to other hate-filled bigots. So get over it.
Rick is in good company. VATICAN CITY: Pope Benedict said Monday that saving humanity from homosexual or transsexual behaviour was just as important as saving the rainforest from destruction.
The Church "should also protect man from the destruction of himself. A sort of ecology of man is needed," the pontiff said in a holiday address to the Curia, the Vatican's central administration.
"The tropical forests do deserve our protection. But man, as a creature, does not deserve any less."
The Catholic Church teaches that while homosexuality is not sinful, homosexual acts are. It opposes gay marriage and, in October, a leading Vatican official called homosexuality "a deviation, an irregularity, a wound."
The pope said humanity needed to "listen to the language of creation" to understand the intended roles of man and woman. He compared behavior beyond traditional heterosexual relations as "a destruction of God's work."
He also defended the Church's right to "speak of human nature as man and woman, and ask that this order of creation be respected."
FYI- Rick Warren is not a fundamentalist. I don't even consider him to be a truely conservative Christian. By his own admission in an interview, he is an Evangelical and he doesn't like it when people consider call him a fundamentalist or when people consider fundamentalists and Evangelicals to be the same.(see the interview by a Philadelphia Newspaper in 2006)
www.NeedGod.com