The comments to yesterday’s post supporting President-elect Obama’s choice of Rev. Rick Warren to offer the inaugural invocation have been fascinating. Some go so far as to suggest that my position is a function of my being a Jew.
A commenter identified as Rob the Rev writes: “Gee Rabbi, would you be so happy about the choice of Warren if he had made anti-semetic remarks about Jewish people? Hmmmmmmmm…..?”
Aside from the smarmy tone which I could live without, and find a little, dare I say “un-Christian, from someone claiming to be a minister, it’s an interesting question. The fact is, Rick Warren has the same stance on Jews that he has about gay people i.e. we are living in sin, falling short of God’s will and cannot get into Heaven. Actually, Rev. Warren may not believe the later about Gays, but he certainly does about Jews. I was in the room with him when he said it!
So the short answer to your question Rob is, “yes”. But what’s more telling is that you equate hating Jews with disapproving of homosexuality. I accept that some Christians relate to my Jewishness as “missing the boat” on God’s word, just as they think that gay people have. I don’t agree with them, but I hardly think that they are motivated by the kind of enduring hatred which defines genuine anti-Semitism.
Like most people in our society, Rob confuses disagreement with hatred. They are simply not the same. And as wrong as I believe Rick Warren was in dealing with Proposition 8, assuming he was motivated by hatred is actually a hateful act – one, that no matter how much inclusivity it dresses itself up in, is as absolutist in its demands of the theological right as they are of the left. This brings me to another comment that demands attention.

The following was offered by an anonymous commenter: “I don’t understand your reasoning that this is good for Faith; to have a Bible literalist who disparages the GLBT, that I feel (ital. added) is an abuse of a huge part of God’s children is not a good way to present Faith before the world.”
What we feel is hardly exhaustive of what the Bible might mean. That’s precisely the objection that the commenter has towards the literalists he/she decries! And that’s precisely why they should not be excluded from having a place, an honored place, at the theological/political table. I know it’s hard, which is why every faith traditions must keep teaching it, but let’s try not to do to others what we feel they have done to us.
None of this however excuses “Ulysee” who describes gays upset by the Obama’s decision as “behaving like spoiled brats”.
For starters, Ulysee, the paternalistic name calling is, well, uncalled for. Secondly, it’s not only gay people who are upset by this decision. And when any of us assumes that to be the case, we only confirm people’s fears that gays really are a separable group that can be left out there on their own, that this is “just” a “gay thing”. That is neither fair nor accurate.
The concerns about Rick Warren offering the inaugural invocation are an American thing and we all have a right to an opinion. And you certainly don’t have to be gay to care about how social policy affects gay people! We are all in this together. This is a human thing about which good people can disagree. That, I think, is what Obama’s decision is all about.