The Power Of Prayer

Chris Crain: I don't doubt the sincerity of the pain you describe feeling because of Warren's selection, Leah, but I do see it as a sad example of what can happen when we focus on what divides us. We are so ready to find offense that we transform Warren's role at the inauguration, which most folks would characterize as "the guy they picked to say a prayer," into somehow being "the spiritual representative of the nation." Obama picked black civil rights hero Joseph Lowery, a gay marriage advocate, to give the benediction. Why is Warren's inauguration role more meaningful than Lowery's?

By highlighting writ large our disagreement with Warren on marriage, you also manage to transform a difference over theology and policy into "an act of spiritual violence" against us ... by Barack Obama! Are we really that sensitive? Should we be? The selection of any religious representative could by virtue of his or her creed or past sermons give rise to a multitude of perceived insults. I would wager that Pastor Warren does, in fact, view Muslims—not to mention agnostics and atheists—as unbelievers destined for hell. He may even feel likewise about Jews. Should these groups be joining you in crying "spiritual violence"? Had Obama picked a pro-choice minister to give the invocation, the pro-lifers could claim "an act of spiritual violence" against millions of "murdered" fetuses. That's how quickly things go nuclear when we focus on division, and not on common ground.

Take Warren's views on gay marriage. You and many other gay folk find deep offense in how Warren supposedly "equated our marital relationships with the abusive perversions of incest and pedophilia." What he actually said, in fact, was that he had "no problem" with marriage or civil unions for gay couples, but did oppose "the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage" because we'd be forced to recognize an incestuous marriage or polygamy as well. You and I would agree, Leah, that he is flat wrong on the history of marriage. NEWSWEEK's wonderful cover story on gay marriage pointed out that marriage included polygamy for a lot more of those 5,000 years than it excluded it. We would also agree that Warren is simply silly to assume the gay marriage door somehow opens Pandora's marriage box. But he was not "equating" gay marriage with incest and polygamy. He was making a classic "slippery slope" argument: If you allow "x," which we have "no problem" with, you will be also be allowing "y" and "z," which we all agree are "abusive perversions," to use your words, Leah. The whole point behind the parade of horribles in a slippery slope argument is that "y" and "z" (polygamy and incest) are not the same, but much worse, than "x" (gay marriage and civil unions).

Now look at what happens if we focus on common ground instead. For one thing, we would see that Warren sees gay relationships very differently than polygamy and incest because he has no problem with some domestic partnership benefits and he leaves the door open for other forms of legal recognition for same-sex couples—something he obviously would not support for polygamists and the like. How ironic and unfortunate, then, that instead of reaching out to an enormously influential megapastor who is open to legal recognition of our relationships, we are publicly pillorying him as a "homophobe."

Leah McElrath Renna: Assuming you are including lesbian and gay people of faith and our allies within "most folks," I beg to differ with you that they would see the person delivering the invocation as simply "the guy who said a prayer." Yes, that might be the perspective of a secular person, but it is not that of a person of faith. The inauguration exists as a symbolic event by definition—a ritual. Whether you see it as a stretch or not, the person charged with invoking God's presence at the beginning of the ceremony is serving as the spiritual representative of our nation as a whole. That's just a fact.

I am not highlighting our disagreement with Warren on same-sex marriage rights. I am highlighting Warren's denial of our sexual orientation as an authentic and god-given aspect of our humanity.

In terms of your interpretation of Warren's comments about civil unions and domestic partnerships, you are mistakenly reading into them perhaps what you want to hear. These are Warren's own words when responding to a question about whether or not he supports unions and partnerships for same-sex couples: "But a civil union is not a civil right. Nowhere in the constitution can you find the 'right' to claim that any loving relationship identical to marriage. It's just not there." Now, the good news is that Warren appears to recognize that civil unions and domestic partnerships are civil efforts to legally recognize relationships "identical to marriage." But the bad news is that, contrary to your interpretation, he does not support them. With all due respect, I am not going to get into the issue of his equating our marital relationships with sexually abusive ones again. Warren's words are clear, and he has said them on a number of different occasions and in different forums.

In Warren's defense, he is an evangelical Christian who has actively reached out to both Muslims and Jewish people and recognized them as worshiping the same God as Christians. He differs in this sense from many fundamentalist Christian leaders. In fact, Warren draws a distinction between evangelical and fundamentalist Christians and claims not to be a fundamentalist. The only area of belief in which he uses the fundamentalist tool of Biblical literalism is to justify and defend his perspective on lesbians and gay people.