Results tagged “liberals” from Marilyn Sewell

Many liberals have taken Barack Obama to task for choosing the evangelical preacher Rick Warren to pray at the coming inauguration.  Many gays and lesbians, who strongly supported Obama, feel betrayed.  It is true that Rev. Warren came out for California's Proposition 8, which disallowed gay marriage, and it is true that he has been an outspoken opponent of abortion.  Why would Obama make such a choice?

I believe such a choice is consistent with Obama's core message: "I want to be everyone's President--I want to bring this nation together."  Whereas George Bush said that and did just the opposite, I believe that Obama will genuinely try to be inclusive.  For eight years we have had an administration for whom the only qualification for office, whether it be Attorney General or a lowly intern, was that you were pro-Bush.  Everyone else was methodically winnowed out.  I for one never want another such administration.  I want a President who is strong and confident enough to engage those who disagree with him, considering their perspective, and possibly pulling them into his sphere of influence.

Who is Rick Warren, anyway?  He is one of the "new evangelicals"--more like Jim Wallis than Jim Bakker.  He is serious about Jesus, and that means being serious about poverty and being serious about global warming.  He doesn't understand Christians who dwell in the "end times" or pray for prosperity for themselves.  As I hear him, he believes that the Kingdom of God is to be made among us, here and now.  He is not one of your charismatic TV evangelists who is mainly an entertainer, collecting money from vulnerable people.  He is a man of integrity, so far as I can tell, who wants to follow the will of God.  And he is enormously influential with literally millions of American church-goers.

Do I agree with his theology?  Well, a big NO.  Am I looking forward to his prayer on the day of the inauguration?  No, again.  And I think I understand the hurt and disappointment of my gay and lesbian friends.  I personally would have preferred, say, Rev. James Forbes, the Emeritus Minister of Riverside Church in New York, where he succeeded William Sloan Coffin.  Forbes was the first African American to pastor this church, which is the pre-eminent American protestant pulpit; he is an amazing preacher; and he is a flaming liberal.  But after the Rev. Wright furor, perhaps another black liberal minister wouldn't have cut muster. 

Obama made a logical and consistent choice.  He chose a minister who would be known and admired by evangelicals, signaling to them that he cares about them--that they, too, are part of the America that he will serve.  He made an appropriate political choice.  This inauguration is not like a wedding, where you choose your best friends for the various roles, so they can be there to love and support you.  The inauguration signals to the whole country that all are welcome in this administration.

Consider also that Rick Warren will not be making policy--he'll be saying a short prayer.  Is the choice of Warren symbolic?  Well, yes.  But will Warren's theology influence this administration?  I think it may be the other way around.  I think Obama's friendship with Warren may make inroads for Obama into the evangelical community, as nothing else could.  I believe that this country is turning around on the question of gay marriage--the movement is toward inclusivity, toward acceptance of many kinds of love.  Rick Warren could change his mind.  Stranger things have happened. 

Yesterday the NY Times published an amazing photographic article called "The New Team" (p. A12), and it was a full page picturing 25 of the choices Obama has made to help him forge policy for our country.  Of the 25, there were only 12 white men.  Consider that--only 12!p  When have you ever seen anything like it?  There were 10 people of color, and there were 7 women.  I would have preferred more women, of course.  But you know what?  I'm ecstatic about our new President.  He's moving carefully and well, and I for one am not going to try to second-guess him all the time.  Liberals have been known forever to fail because of internal squabbling.  Just this one time--let's hang together and let this good man have a break and find his feet.  He has enough challenges before him, don't you think, without having to constantly fend off criticisms from his friends.  

 Share this

One of the most frightening events in contemporary political life is McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate.  Historically, I believe the number is nine Vice-Presidents who have had to step into the role of President when the President has died or been incapacitated.  That is a very, very high percentage and a particularly great risk to take with a potential President who is 72 years of age, with a history of serious health problems.

I heard Palin's speech last night, and she is rhetorically very powerful, very tough.  She is self-assured, humorous, pointed in her remarks.  She is presenting herself as "just a hockey mom"--but with plenty of executive experience to be President of the United States, should that role fall to her.  And the GOP is enthusiastically putting her forward as "one of the people": a pro-life mother of five, a gun enthusiast, PTA member, an outsider to the "Washington elite."  She is going to be an attack dog, and a very effective one, I fear.

Nevermind that she is being investigated for firing a state employee who was formerly married to her sister; nevermind that she was for the "bridge to nowhere" before she was against it; nevermind that she tried to fire a librarian for refusing to censor books; nevermind that she has stated that creationism should be taught in the public schools, alongside the "theory" of evolution.  Nevermind any of this, because of the anti-intellectual character of the American people, and because all too many voters either share Palin's values and/or will identify with her as "one of them."  

Initially, I considered McCain's decision a sure-fire path to GOP self-destruction--but now I'm not so sure.  It may very well work. Once again, they will fill the air waves with fear, and they will say that the warrior McCain will protect us from the enemy.  And the wealthy GOP base will protect their wealth by pulling in the "family values" folks with Sarah Palin, encouraging them to vote against their own economic self-interest. 

Surely this is a crucial time for liberals and progressive thinkers to become fully engaged in the political process.  There is too much at stake to be passive onlookers as this fascinating drama plays itself out.  

 Share this

To those who read my blog: I sent the following e-letter to my congregation yesterday, and I thought it appropriate to share the letter with you.

Dear Congregants,

People all over the nation were saddened Sunday morning with the news of the killings at the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee.  The shooter, a Jim Adkisson, was tackled and subdued by church members, but not before he killed two person and wounded several more, some remaining in critical or serious condition.

It is always a shock when sacred space is violated.  It is especially disturbing that this deed took place when children were present, presenting a play, "Annie," when the shooting began.  Our hearts go out to the members of the church, and we pray for them as they go through what will be a long and difficult time of healing.

The news reports say that Adkisson left a letter in his car saying that he chose this church because of their known liberal stance on many issues, and that he blamed "liberals" for his inability to find work.

That rationale appears to be entirely without logic.  But I think we have to understand that violence always happens in a context.  The context for these killings was set by Rush Limbaugh and his compatriots in the right-wing "hate media"--in fact, material by Bill O'Reilly and by Michael Savage were found in Adkisson's possession.  Also responsible are those businesses that sponsor hate media and those individuals who regularly listen to and support these programs.  Because such talk is on radio and TV, sponsored by legitimate companies, it must be credible, many will conclude.  And it is then a small step for some who are driven over the edge by loss or grief or mental illness to retaliate against their supposed enemies.  Though Adkisson pulled the trigger and is responsible for the crime, these tragic deaths should not be laid upon one man alone, but should be seen as emerging out of the total context of pain and propaganda from which this man came.

We at First Unitarian in Portland, Oregon, are widely known for our support of liberal causes, and we have always been vulnerable to acts of retaliation.  We have a security guard present every Sunday morning, and our sextons and our ushers are trained to respond to needs or disturbances in the service, whether they be from a troubled visitor or for a medical emergency.  We have had a very occasional medical emergency, but nothing serious, and thankfully we have never been visited by acts of violence.

Because we are a church, we take risks of various kinds.  We take in individuals that other organizations would reject.  We take stands that might be unpopular.  We do what is right, though it might be costly in various ways.  But if we did not go forward as a moral force in our society, we might as well close our doors.  We would be merely a social club or a debating society and not a place where lives are changed and where those lives reach out and change the larger world.

Yes, we are liberals in the sense of being generous, egalitarian, open, justice-seeking people.  We'll keep witness with our message.  We'll keep our banners up.  We'll keep the light shining from the steeple in the Eliot Chapel every night, letting our city know where we stand.  Because that's who we are and that's why we exist. 

 Share this