In an article from U.S. News online, Dan Gilgoff analyzes a recent interview between T.V. and radio host, Larry King and evangelical minister, Rick Warren. With the controversy following President Barack Obama's decision to choose Warren to deliver the invocation at the 2009 Presidential inauguration, Warren has been in the political and religious spotlight as of late. In the article, Gilgoff relays the exchange between King and Warren when the subject of same-sex marriage was brought up in the interview. Warren states that he is “not an anti-gay or anti-gay-marriage activist” and claims that the public has a misconception of his views on the issue. This misconception, he admits, is not that he supports same-sex marriage; it is merely that he doesn’t “campaign” for or “endorse” it. When King proceeds to ask Warren what his thoughts were on the recent Iowa court decision permitting gay marriage, Warren dismisses the subject as something that is “not even [his] agenda”.
Throughout the rest of the interview, Warren changes the subject to center on issues that he is an activist for: rebuilding Rwanda and fighting against AIDS.
By adamantly stating that the subject of same-sex-marriage is “very low on his to-do list”, Rick Warren attempts to avoid a religiously-driven political debate. However, most people see this avoidance as dismissal. In recent years, evangelicals have been at the forefront of the discussion concerning gay-rights, especially marriage. To shy away from those beliefs that were so heavily supported in the past seems as if Warren believes that equal rights for same-sex couples are no longer important enough to be at the top of his “to-do list”. Is it right for such a prominent evangelical leader to blatantly circumvent the issue of legalizing same-sex-marriage, when millions of people are fighting so hard for it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I agree that gay rights are a very important issue that should not be ignored. Yet although gay marriage is “not even on [Warren’s] agenda”, I still think Warren is positively redirecting the evangelical movement. Since the rise of the Christian Right, evangelical groups have focused on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and stem-cell research. By focusing on these polarizing social issues, these churches have neglected many of the social welfare programs that Christians used to perceive as their Christian responsibility. Warren is reintroducing social issues like poverty, development, and health into the evangelical community’s discourse. Obama also sees this new evangelical focus as a positive shift, as evidenced by the fact that he chose Warren to deliver his invocation. I think evangelical groups can better impact society by working on these issues than on the more polarizing issues. Here, they can use their religion to benefit others without alienating a large segment of the society. I think we should not criticize Warren too heavily for his stance on gay marriage and recognize the positive potential of his focus, especially in comparison with the views of other evangelical leaders.
Katie brings up a good point about the Christian Right attempting to avoid dwelling on polarizing social issues like same-sex marriage by focusing more on welfare programs. I think it is a good idea for the Christian Right to change in this way, however, I don't see this change as being entirely realistic. With the stubborn nature of most evangelicals, it is hard to believe that they will be able to refrain from voicing their (ultra-conservative) opinions on these social issues. Therefore, I do applaud Warren for attempting to break the "Christian stereotype" by not addressing the same-sex marriage issue in his interview with Larry King, if that was his true intention.
To back up what Katie said, Rick Warren calling the Christian Right to action in another direction seems like something a good leader trying to achieve something constructive would do - I certainly don't think his avoidance of discussing gay rights on Larry King should be seen as him betraying his followers by not publicly advocating their cause. Obama clearly asked Warren to speak at his invocation in order to promote unity and cooperation; perhaps Warren agrees that it is time to create a true dialogue between the Christian Right and the liberal left instead of only pursuing old battles of attrition.
It would be great for the Christian Right to be known just as much for promoting social welfare as they are for their conservative views on polarizing social issues. That doesn't make it probable, but we should also remember that these types of things tend to come through history in phases. Eventually we will reach consensus and move on to debate different issues, whereas a commitment to civic engagement is more permanent.
Just like in David's post on Evangelical Inclusiveness, it's great to see another facet of Evangelicals to remind us that shallow labels cannot define an entire group of people. I think Warren knows it's important for the public to see this other side in order to encourage outreach from both sides, and ultimately progress.
I do not see it as a problem that Rick Warren has other priorities than gay politics. There are many important issues and everyone can not be forced to have a profound stand on all of them. Even if the religious group he associates with places a high importance on anti-gay legislation, his beliefs don't. Of course, this could simply be a political move meant to garner more support for his other actions. However, I do not think the man should be pressured into fighting for something he does not care about. Our society is filled with small groups that support or oppose something adamantly and then everyone else in the middle. This is how our government works with these people voicing their concerns to the government. I also don't think this is a shot to evangelicals. Maybe it is just a sign that there are other issues that benefit people which need to be discussed just as much if not more.
Post a Comment