'Tis the season, so....
I was on Rachel Maddow's show on Friday night, discussing the Rick Warren wrangle. What a surprise, we agreed--mostly. But she seemed to think that the Warren controversy could remain the story of the inauguration from now until January 20. I noted that it was clear to me that the Obama crew had calculated that the current dustup is not nearly as big as the holy war that would ensue should the president-elect rescind his invitation to the super-pastor. Unless the present outrage widens, I observed, the controversy could fade.
But before it does, I'd like to take one more (polite) shot at Warren. I do find him an intriguing fundamentalist, given his interest in climate change and poverty alleviation. And he has certainly tried to oppose gay marriage without appearing like a hate-monger. I suppose that's worth something. But while campaigning fervently against gay marriage, he recently said:
The issue to me is, I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000-year definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister be together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that a marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.
Warren's critics have pointed to this quote as evidence that he equates gays and lesbians with incest-lovers and pedophiles. (Indeed, when asked if he thought these other examples are "equivalent to having gays getting married," he said, "Oh, I do.") But I'd like to note Warren's adherence to this 5000-year definition of marriage.
Why doesn't Warren know his Bible better?
I'm no biblical scholar. But I can use Google. And I found BibleGateway.com, a searchable version of the Bible. I plugged "wives" into the search box and came up with the following results:
* Genesis 4:23. Lamech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, listen to me.
* Genesis 28:9. So he went to Ishmael and married Mahalath, the sister of Nebaioth and daughter of Ishmael son of Abraham, in addition to the wives he already had.
* Genesis 30:26. Give me my wives and children, for whom I have served you, and I will be on my way.
* Genesis 31:17. Then Jacob put his children and his wives on camels.
* Genesis 32:22. That night Jacob got up and took his two wives, his two maidservants and his eleven sons and crossed the ford of the Jabbok.
* Genesis 36:2. Esau took his wives from the women of Canaan: Adah daughter of Elon the Hittite, and Oholibamah daughter of Anah and granddaughter of Zibeon the Hivite.
* Genesis 36:6. Esau took his wives and sons and daughters and all the members of his household, as well as his livestock and all his other animals and all the goods he had acquired in Canaan, and moved to a land some distance from his brother Jacob.
* Genesis 37:2. Joseph, a young man of seventeen, was tending the flocks with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his father's wives, and he brought their father a bad report about them.
* Judges 8:29-31. Jerub-Baal son of Joash...had seventy sons of his own, for he had many wives. His concubine, who lived in Shechem, also bore him a son, whom he named Abimelech.
* Samuel 25:42. David had also married Ahinoam of Jezreel, and they both were his wives.
You get the picture. There are other examples. And Deuteronomy lays out how a man is to handle inheritance issues when he has two wives:
If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.
There's plenty of wild and crazy polygamists in the Bible that Warren believes is "inerrant." In a 2007 face-off with atheism advocate Sam Harris, Warren said, "I do believe Genesis is literal."
So if Jacob, Esau, David and other leading men of the Bible were swingers--we know because the Bible tells us so--how can Warren oppose gay marriage today by claiming the one man/one woman rule has always been the standard?
I know that selective interpretation of the Bible is hardly shocking news. But given the time of year, I thought it would be appropriate to reaffirm what the Bible does tell us about the arguments used these days by those who speak in God's name.
You can follow me on Twitter and receive word of my latest postings, articles and media appearances by clicking here.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
DC,
Whether or not Warren was/is invited for anything, the really sad thing is he has a following of well intentioned but misinformed.
Of course some of these folks think the world is 6,000 years old and Jesus rode on dinosaurs. What can one do with intentional ignorance?
Thanks and a very Happy Holidays to the Corn family.
Posted by: capt
| December 22, 2008 12:55 PM
Rick Warren pulls anti-gay language from his Web site
Deny me three times, Rick?
So Rick Warren pulled the anti-gay language from his church Web site. The site used to explicitly ban gays from membership in the church.
Now the offending language is gone, but you can still find the anti-gay language via Google's cache.
So does Rick Warren now welcome gays, all gays, as members of his church? Or is he simply embarrassed of his views - embarrassed of God's views, per Warren's own admission? And if Warren is embarrassed of God's views, then what is he doing as a public spokesman on religion?
And whose idea was it to remove the anti-gay language? Warren's, or Obama's?
http://tinyurl.com/a8mbfu
Posted by: capt
| December 22, 2008 3:38 PM
Controversial Rev. Rick Warren to Speak at King Memorial Service
(APN) ATLANTA – Controversial pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, who at least once has compared homosexuality to incest, has been booked to be the keynote speaker at Martin Luther King, Jr. Annual Commemorative Service, according to a copy of the program obtained by Atlanta Progressive News.
The service is scheduled for January 19, 2009, at 10am, at the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church and is included in the official program of the ten-day King Center’s Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration which begins on January 10.
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0416.html
Posted by: capt
| December 22, 2008 3:44 PM
You're right as_if! I meant actively campaigned against gay marriage.
Posted by: ontheverge
| December 22, 2008 8:33 PM
http://ariah.tumblr.com/post/60574427/traditional-marriage-a-timeline
Posted by: capt
| December 22, 2008 8:44 PM
""The Last Word on Rick Warren?""
the last word?
as if!
this topic will be milked for all it is worth, thus distracting from much more serious issues.
-------
Obama & Biden To Protect Bush Administration Criminals
It’s par for the course for Obama and Biden, the men who promised “change” but in every step of their preparations for assuming office have pursued nothing but continuity, to acknowledge that they will protect criminals in the Bush administration from prosecution for authorizing torture, a complete violation of both the U.S. constitution and the Geneva Conventions.
http://tinyurl.com/85wl3r
Posted by: as_if!
| December 22, 2008 8:45 PM
'Cept that Obama and Biden said no such thing. That part of the transcript with Biden is here in an article titled "Not Ruling it Out".
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/21/biden-on-prosecution-of-b_n_152662.html
Posted by: Alan
| December 23, 2008 1:05 AM
I meant the words in the title "Obama & Biden To Protect Bush Administration Criminals " were never said. The prison planet article cuts and pastes some the correct words, but out of context and order.
Posted by: Alan
| December 23, 2008 1:10 AM
I guess the President-elect chose Warren for political reasons, or perhaps for some slightly better reason, such as getting Warren's help on some worthwhile anti-poverty efforts. But it's still galling to have him chose a homophone, and doubly so in that there are any number of fine, very progressive United Church of Christ ministers (his old denomination) he could have chosen, and lots of fine reform rabbis, and dozens of fantastic Unitarian Universalist ministers out there. He had so many better choices, from a social and theological standpoint.
Posted by: Unitarian Patriot
| December 23, 2008 1:15 AM
obama/biden will either continue the game of *business as usual* or they will step up and do the right things leading to real change that matters.
follow the money!
Posted by: as_if!
| December 23, 2008 1:37 AM
WASHINGTON – President George W. Bush's foreign policies may be unpopular in the Middle East, but Arab leaders showered his top diplomat with jewelry worth far more than a quarter of a million dollars last year.
While Bush himself didn't fare nearly as well, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raked in at least $316,000 in gem-encrusted baubles from the kings of Jordan and Saudi Arabia alone, making her one of top recipients among U.S. officials of gifts from foreign heads of state and government and their aides in 2007.
http://tinyurl.com/7de7bc
Posted by: as_if!
| December 23, 2008 1:49 AM
Let's grant that Rick Warren doesn't seem to know the OT as much as he thinks. Or, perhaps, his own notion of literalism gets into the way of his ideology. But, isn't all that really beside the point. Isn't it now the time to separate "marriage" from the practice of "civil unions." Let the religious organizations define "marriage" any way they prefer. That definition would govern the individuals in their relationship with that particular religious organization. But for all of us in civil society, the default would be a "civil union." And it would be up to civil society to define what is a "civil union." At the least, it would be a union consenting adults. Not children, not animals, not inanimate objects. But consenting adults.
Posted by: Jerry Stephens
| December 23, 2008 9:28 AM
Few Americans who profess belief in Christianity know much of anything about the bible or the history within it.
Fundamentalists seem to be the most willfully ignorant of its contents.
Lately I have been walking around witha copy of Constatine's sword. I keep being asked if it is a bible and when I tell them it is a bok about Christianity, they seem to be totally ignorant of who Constantine was and his effect on Christianity.
All they seem to know is what they were taught as children and what they remember from the most recent sermon they were vaguely paying attention to.
They believe what they are told to believe and have no idea why they were led to believe it.
Posted by: kalpal
| December 23, 2008 11:01 AM
Just because the Bible mentions a behavior or action of an individual that doesn't mean that it endorses the behavior. For example, Noah was drunk and exposed himself yet this doesn't mean the Bible endorses this behavior. So simply finding refrences to a behavior doesn't prove anything. Here are a few things that might be helpful to know.
Christians believe that the first marriage and "ideal" was between Adam and Eve, one man, one woman not multiple wives with one husband. It is believed that God tolerated this polygamy for these tribal people in Old Testament times and now this has changed. (Acts 17:30) The same would be said for divorce, God never intended for man to divorce but he allowed it because of the hardness of man's heart.
Polygamy is clearly denounced for church leaders in the New Testament. (I Timothy 3) Also, there are no refrences in the New Testament to the approval of polygamy but many refer to the ideal of one man and one woman. It seems that the New Testament has restored God's ideal for marriage, one man, one woman.
Posted by: robketterling
| December 25, 2008 11:04 AM
Post A Comment