America's Pastor—just announced as Obama's choice to give his inaugural prayer—has a nice-guy image. But it is belied by what he says on Sundays.
Here is how evangelical superstar Pastor Rick Warren, who will deliver the invocation at Barack Obama's inauguration, described his philosophy this August: “I have never been considered a part of the religious right, because I don't believe politics is the most effective way to change the world.”
The mainstream press has been almost universally eager to indulge his self-description. Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times columnist, called Warren “an evangelical liberals can love.” Newsweek named Warren one of fifteen “people who make America great.” And even The Nation published an article puffing Warren as “America’s Pastor,” a figure who “disassociates himself from the religious right, noting that he shares its position on social issues but doesn't want to focus on them. He focuses on poverty, disease and aid to Africa.”
Even the public relations firms responsible for burnishing Warren’s image seem mystified by the press’s worshipful portrayal of their client.
At age 54, Warren cuts a drastically different figure than the hard-right dinosaurs that defined the evangelical movement’s image. The mega-best-selling author of “The Purpose Driven Life,” Warren prefers jeans and short-sleeved shirts, often with loud, Hawaiian patterns, to the cheap suits familiar to Southern Baptist firebrands. He has a pudgy face and a paunch that gives him a teddy bear-like quality. When Warren preaches, he does so in a measured, almost ponderous tone, without hectoring or hollering.
Warren’s acknowledgment of climate change, his reputation for open mindedness and his calm manner enabled him to draw both Obama and John McCain in August to his Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency, where he sequentially questioned the candidates on their faith. Warren’s stature was never higher than on that day. He was ascendant as the 21st century version of Billy Graham, pastor to presidents, minister of the national soul, but moving away from the hard right.
But his tolerant image is belied by what he says on Sunday.
A week before Election Day, here is what “America’s Pastor” told the 22,000 members of his Saddleback Church in Orange County: “Here’s an interesting thing: there are about 2% of Americans [who] are homosexual, gay, lesbian people. We should not let two percent of the population determine—to change a definition of marriage that has been supported by every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years. This is not even just a Christian issue, it is a humanitarian and human issue, that God created marriage for the purpose of family, love and procreation. I urge you to support Proposition 8 and to pass that on.”
Warren has also supported every major ballot measure opposing gay marriage that sprouted up in his native California in the past ten years, a fact that is barely mentioned in accounts of him as the pioneer of a “New Evangelical” movement that sees beyond the old hobgoblins of the far right. Warren waged a sub rosa campaign to re-elect George W. Bush, but was still described as never having been ”written or talked about…in the context of any political issue,” according to the non-partisan Religion News Service. Fighting the culture war with a velvet glove, Warren has constructed an international platform using two powerful constituencies few figures before him have been able to reconcile: conservative evangelicals hungry for more sophisticated leadership and opinion elites frantically searching for post-partisan heroes.
Tracy Quan's latest novel is Diary of a Jetsetting Call Girl, set in Provence and praised in The Nation as a "deft account of occupational rigors and anxieties before the crash." Tracy's debut, Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl, and the sequel, Diary of a Married Call Girl, are international bestsellers. A regular columnist for The Guardian, she has written for many publications including Cosmopolitan, The Financial Times, and The New York Times.
Joe Mathews is a journalist, an Irvine senior fellow at the New America Foundation, and a contributing writer at the Los Angeles Times. He previously served as Justice Department reporter for the Wall Street Journal and as a city desk reporter at the Baltimore Sun. He is the author of The People’s Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy.
Gerald Posner is the award-winning author of 10 investigative nonfiction bestsellers, ranging from political assassinations, to Nazi war criminals, to 9/11, to terrorism (www.posner.com). Posner lives in Miami Beach with his wife, the author Trisha Posner.
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Renata Espinosa is the New York editor of Fashion Wire Daily. She is also the co-founder of impressionistic fashion and art blog TheNuNu and a sometimes backup dancer for "The Anna Copa Cabanna Show."
Amanda Fortini has written for The New Yorker, Slate, Elle, and New York, among other publications. She lives in Los Angeles.
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
Max Blumenthal is a senior writer for The Daily Beast and writing fellow at The Nation Institute, whose book, Republican Gomorrah (Basic/Nation Books), is forthcoming in Spring 2009. Contact him at maxblumenthal3000@yahoo.com.
This user is no longer registered.
Warren's no different than Dobson: obsessed with the attention and the fame and willing to do and say almost anything to get there. The religious masses are as blind and ignorant as ever, willing to follow anyone who speaks down to them. Warren is just another evangelical trying to control people while making millions. Go away!
Why be surprised when an evangelical pastor has evangelical Christian beliefs? Why be surprised when a liberal or Conservative holds to those philosophies? Last time I checked the Constitution, we still have freedom of speech and worship. Pastor Warren has every right to espouse his beliefs as everyone else does.
Max,
Max, I showed up to protest at Warren's church and there were about 200 of us, not thousands. Exxagerations hurt our cause. Also the Orange County Register pointed out that the supposed gay "member" was not a member at all, but an occasional attender of the church. I don't agree with Warren but no church has done more for gays with AIDS than Saddleback has.
This is the major problem with religion its not based on any intellectualism or critical thinking. The genius of religion is you don't have to prove anything.
I live in Colorado Springs. Dobson's Focus on The Family has a Highway sign on I-25 ! 95% of humans are permanently "asleep" the "Sheep", The flocks to be shepherded by the responsible 5% who can realize "The Big Picture". The Heard Mentality is alive and well in the Human Psych. Evolution is slow and the survival instinct is our strongest asset. Wolves come in many colors and some wear the clothes of the shepherd.
"But his tolerant image is belied by what he says on Sunday."
Perhaps it's time to examine the definition of "tolerance." Is it a requisite that every liberal position be supported? If so, it's liberalism not tolerance that is questioned.
Using a liberal litmus test on Christian Evangelicals is useful insofar as it highlights the differences in their positions, but it is a narrow dimension upon which to judge their "tolerance."
And what of liberals' tolerance? Can a liberal be tolerant of a Christian Evangelical?
I had never heard of this guy before seeing Obama and McCain at the Saddleback forum. Anyone who paid very close attention to Warren's TV appearances afterward knows this guy is a liar and a -- since it's the word of the day -- jerk.
@deanpaul1 - Mr. Warren gives away 90 percent of his income.
I hold a level of respect for the man. He takes his stances when he needs to, but he's not unnecessarily inflammatory. I think the reason he really is a media darling is because people like him. What'd he sell, like 40 million books? If you can get over a tenth of America to do anything, you're going to get attention.
The most disappointing moment in the Presidential election was when Barack Obama appeared at this guy's church. It's not like any of these people were going to vote for him anyway. You can put lipstick on a bigot but......
Add hypocrite to Warren's description. I never for a moment thought his little dog and pony show with the candidates was going to be non-partisan and now we know it wasn't. Religion used to be a unifying experience now it's divisive and judgemental, shame on all of you!
I like a description that I attribute to the very smart, and very inflammatory Christopher Hitchens about Religion.(I could be wrong about the author of the thought).
There is no good deed done in the name of faith that CANNOT be done without that faith and there are no evil deeds done in the name of faith that CAN be done without that faith, in short we can all be good without religion, but some of us can only be bad because of religion.
Pastor Warren has presents himself differently than the likes of James Dobson, but in his own words is not all that different, in his social beliefs.
This leads me to the very good reason our constitution specifically provided a clear distinction between church and state. In building a democracy, those fine gentlemen recognized the dictatorship of religion. As evidenced by Pastor Warren and the Mormon church, who gave instructions to the faithful about what to do in regards to gay marriage, which they followed. If that isn't a dictatorship I don't know what is.
As a spiritual agnostic it is entirely offensive to the world we live in that any religion can flex that power of division and subversion to deny any other American their rights under civil law, all with the protection of the constitution of America.
No marriage performed in any church in this country is legal until it is validated by a civil contract recognized by the state and then it becomes a marriage in the state and the country and is afforded all the manner of rights and responsibilities that go along with it, and the sudden grasp of ownership of the word and the institution is a smokescreen to rationalize bigotry towards a minoritiy in America.
The pastor also mis-spoke, (the political word for lied), about the number of gays and lesbians in America. Kinsey estimated that 6% to 8% of the population is gay, but note the word estimated. There are alot more of us in the closet, hiding in plain site than there are who are out and fighting the hard fight that women and people of color have had to fight for the past 200 years.
To Laire07:
The Ontological Proof for the existence of God has been around for quite some time...and can be found in such secluded corners of the world such as LIBRARIES? With the exception of Immanuel Kant, and a few others, most Modern Philosophers become speechless by the conclusions already arrived at by such noteworthy persons as Sir Isaac Newton and Saint Thomas Moore. I don't pretend to believe that Nuclear Physics doesn't exist simply because I do not understand it, do I? And how exactly do the Philosophies of Immanuel Kant gibe with the Rhetoric of Today, embodied in the closing line "Yes, we can!" Or, is it going to be the same, I'm lost, down in the mouth Liberal Argument, "No, we Kant!" Surely you must be that brand of Puritanism that detests the mere notion that someone else would be happy with the simple things in life, like knowledge of the existence of God, and not mere belief. Knowledge does transcend belief once the issues philosophical are addressed squarely. And wasn't it the Puritanical Protestants that banned Christmas for the first 60 years of this Country's Life and preferred, instead of Plum Pudding, to hold sessions of Congress on that hallowed day? Or was it the example of such notable American Authors, who wrote "Bracebridge Hall", in an effort to 'introduce' the idea of an American Christmas, that broke the dark spell?
I have heard every reason why gay marriage is wrong, and the ones given by this pastor is just the usual reasons. I have read his book "the Purpose Driven Life" and I do have respect for him, but for him to use his pulpit as his soap box is wrong.
I hope people realize institution of marriage was a financial and not a religious institution from the very beginning. To say the concept of 1 man and 1 woman is the traditional meaning of marriage makes me laugh. Jacob from the old testament, who later changes his name to Israel, had 4 wives who were all sisters and his first cousins. Not one, not two, not three, but four. That's not 1 man and 1 woman. How about the polygyny that was practiced in Tibet, where all the brothers marries 1 woman, so the family land and wealth won't be split up? Dads have been marrying off their daughters for centuries with a dowry, "paying" her future husband to take her and take care of her.
So many cultures have it where it's not one man and one woman. And, it's only in more recent times that people romanticized marriage and make it seem like something it wasn't intended to be. You hear of some older women who can't leave their husbands because they have been out of the work force too long or never been in it in the first place, so they can't support themselves. I guess it still is in some ways a financial institute.
There is no such thing as a traditional marriage. It has evolved with time along with people who practice marriage. And with changes that has happened in recent times, it is only fitting that marriage changes with it, to meet the needs of the time.
The best man in a wedding no longer is the man who is the best swordsman in town picked to assist the groom incase the bride runs away. And people don't stick around after the wedding and reception to see/find out if the marriage is consumated or not anymore. There is no such thing as a traditional marriage. Get over it people.
Years ago when my own social/political views were in the making, I recall the Flordia Orange Juice Lady's worried face all over the TV. Her cause: cheerleading against gays and lesbians equal employment opportunities. A man on a talk show (straight-male-celebrity whose name I can't recall) was asked to comment on this timely issue and in a matter-of-fact tone stated: "She's hateful. There's no other way to describe her or her campaign." I've always remembered this comment and its brave, non-politically correct overtones. I wonder what he'd say about highly-admired Rev. Warren? Probably use the H-word.
The gays posting here don't get it. Every religion in the world sees marriage as a state entered into by a man and a woman. So, for that matter, does just about any cult making any claim to transcendence that you can name. It's just the way it is. The reverend is right about numbers. Why should 3% of the population -- Kinsey, the degenerate, is responsible for the bogus 10% number -- be allowed to redefine an institution in existence for millenia, even if it's vewy, vewy angry?
Humankind has been distorting the concept of marriage since it began. Homosexual marriage is just the next step. If you want understand the original concept, refer to Genesis 2:18. If anyone has a problem with that, don't complain to me, bring your grievance to G-D.
The religious masses are as blind and ignorant as ever, willing to follow anyone who speaks down to them.
He's as egotistical and as narrow minded as the rest of them. It's lipstick analogy all over again.
princessbuttercup: it's always been one man and one woman; the fact that stories from the bible are relayed to you does not mean that God condone what jacob did. Stories in the bible are told and used as example, directives etc it does not mean that God agreed with what was done. The relationship between a husband-man and a wife-woman as synonymous as the relationship between Christ and the church. Marriage is an institution created by Christ as one man and one woman. The new testament spoke of ten virgins and how five were prepared to receive their groom Jesus and five weren't. Believers--the church is the bride of Christ; he's coming back for us, a pure bride cleanse by the blood of Jesus Christ. WIth the nomination of the liberal Barack Obama it is very soon. As an african american female, I am extremely proud of the Mormon church for standing up for Christ. When the others including black churches have forgotten their first love, Christ to support someone whose beliefs and values are "anti-christs". BRAVO to the MORMONS, standing up for righteousness despite the masses being against you. For those who might be interested read 1 Samuel 8: God has given you the king you required in Barack Obama, your savior; watch and see!!! I'll be praying
The issue liberals have with evangelicals is not that they think this or think that. It's that their whole belief system is static and therefor any flaws in it cannot be fixed with any sort of rational thought.
Also, we have a issue with Warren and pastors like him because they essentially tell people how to vote, and even are very commanding about it. Like god tells them how to vote. They are just manipulating the masses into doing what they want.
Consider that a lot of people in the past have justified their bigoted beliefs based on religion. You can rationalize any school of thought through religion and remove the element of debate and rational thought that evolves human society.
"It's God's will" is the oldest fallacy in the world. It's been used to explain and justify everything from crop failure to Sarah Palin's political career. It's time to put that lie to rest.
Any time someone says they're doing something because it's God will, they're up to something. (For the record, I do believe in God.)
@AndreainNY, 'Perhaps it's time to examine the definition of "tolerance." Is it a requisite that every liberal position be supported?' - perhaps you do not understand that toleration relates to "tolerate" which is not "supported". It is only needed that you tolerate (allow) others to be who they are. This means that we tolerate religious beliefs as a society, even if we do not share them. Likewise, we tolerate others who are different from us.
Mr. Warren shows that he is not tolerant because he is trying to stop others from living their lives. He wants others to live their lives his way and not their way. This is why he is intolerant.
@ AndreainNY: The definition of tolerance according to Merriam Webster is:
http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/tolerance
I assume you are speaking about definition either 2a or 2b in your post. From that definition though, I have never seen secular thinkers, or what you term as liberals, restrain someone's legal ability to do something which causes no harm to other sentient rational human beings in this country. On the other hand, I have seen the conservative religious, or what you term Christian Evangelicals, restrain the ability of minorities to do such things as enter into social contracts throughout the history of this country and use their narrowly read religious view to inform those laws, whether it be preventing gay civil unions or marriage, interracial marriages, or even that marriage of slaves by accepting religious institutions. That by definition is not tolerance according to 2a and 2b.
If Christian Evangelicals really believe that marriage needs defense, perhaps they should attempt to outlaw divorces and annulments first as well as enforce laws for adultery and fornication. That seems to be the leading cause to the demise of family values and marriage more than what two consenting same sex people decide when entering into a social contract.
In fact, perhaps if Christian Evangelicals spent more time personally adhering to all the laws in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and the Letters of Paul, perhaps they would understand why we who do not hold their views accuse them of cherry picking their book for the sake of keeping others down. After all their would be no business including pro sports conducted on the Sabbath, a smaller market for crustacean eating, no usury loan rates in banking, no prejudging others, loving your neighbor, more support of the sick/hungry/poor among other so called benefits if they adhered to the entirety of what their supposed good book says.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.