This will be a rather brief post as I prepare to welcome in 2009 (already a fact in some distant places 
), but as I find myself in the somewhat strange position of opposing the appointment of Caroline Kennedy, whom I greatly admire, to fill the U.S. Senate seat (New York) that Hillary Clinton will vacate on becoming Secretary of State, while supporting Rick Warren of Saddleback Church to give the invocation at Barack Obama’s inauguration on January 20, I wanted to comment at least briefly on my reasoning.
First, I think Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy, is immensely talented and gifted and would surpass the service of many already serving in the Senate. As well, it is not that she has held no elected office. Many others, including Sen. Clinton hadn’t, either. Nor do I resent the fact that she comes from a wealthy and powerful family. I’ve contributed to political campaigns or organizations related to her uncle Sen. Edward Kennedy and to her cousins, Joe Kennedy II and Patrick Kennedy (U.S. House: D-Rhode Island). I’ve exchanged e-mails with her cousin Kathleen Kennedy Townsend regarding the former Maryland Lt. Gov.’s book Failing America’s Faithful: How Today’s Churches Are Mixing God with Politics and Losing Their Way, about which I have been planning to post for a long time. At a fundraiser for Patrick Kennedy in 1995, I engaged him in conversation, rather briefly, in asking him if he had ever been to Oklahoma. He answered “once, I think, when my father (Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass) was running for president. At the end of the fundraiser, I shared an elevator ride with Joe Kennedy (former U.S. representavive, D-Massachusetts). Notwithstanding my little name-dropping here, none of the Kennedys would “know me from Adam.”
No, my concern here is that she has never shown a great taste for public life overall (though she has on many occasions engaged in great public service) nor has she been tested in the public forum. Her uncle, Sen. Robert Kennedy had never held elective office when he ran for the U.S. Senate from New York in 1964. He had, though, engaged greatly in the give-and-take of public life and been exposed to significant questioning from the American media.
With respect to Rick Warren, whose book The Purpose Driven Life greatly exceeds the drivel written by so many other Southern Baptists and religious conservatives in general, represents a significant part of the electorate and its religious thinking. Further, the inaugural ceremonies and speech are not for the purpose of advancing a particular theology or faith. That does not mean that I have no concern about Pastor Warren’s views on inclusivity (his denomination, the Southern Baptists, do not recognize the authority of women to be pastors, for instance). Rather, it is Obama’s task to set a moral tone and ethical course for the direction of U.S. national and international policies over the next four years within the context of leading a politically and theologically diverse nation. I would not want to see Warren appointed to fill a vacant Senate seat.
Yes, to Rick Warren (with some apprehension), and no to Caroline Kennedy (with regrets).
Disclosure: I contributed $970 to Obama’s presidential campaign, with most of it directed toward the primaries, as I saw Obama with more than sufficient funds for the general election. By way of comparison, I made $3,992 in charitable contributions, mostly to my church.
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
Kim Fabricius 01.01.09 at 1:34 am
Sorry, Joel, but from what I know about Rick Warren, it’s exactly his “moral tone and ethical course” that concerns me. But then I’ve got problems with the whole idea of the inaugural show-blessings of court prophets.
Happy New Year, mate.
Bene D 01.01.09 at 4:15 am
Happy New Year Joel.
Michael R. Bartley 01.01.09 at 5:12 am
Joel:
It is good to see you writing. I must admit I have missed you at recent meetings and hope that things are well with you. However, let me say that on many accounts I agree with your reasoning about Caroline Kennedy.. However, let me suggest that it is possible that role of a senator might be best fulfilled by less public figures and more serious thinkers and actors. I have for many years been concerned that our government is almost completely ran by snid-bit public speakers. I think she might be interesting.
On Rick Warren! I am not impressed with Rick– in fact– as I have watched his work with the Rwandian president for the past few years I have increasingly become concerned that he views himself as some sort of American Chaplain (sort of like Billy Graham). The time for Christianity in United States to be state Chaplain is over and I really do believe that it is appropriate to attempt to reclaim such a broken office.
PEACE
Joel 01.01.09 at 7:03 am
Kim,
My “support” for Rick Warren has to do with his idea that there is some purpose in our life on earth beyond “being saved” and then waiting around to go to heaven. He comes closer than most U.S. preachers to teaching that the “Kingdom” is both realized and in waiting. Warren also comes from an “Arminian” perspective rather than the increasingly Calvinist perspectives of many of the more narrow-minded Southern Baptists of today. And when I write this way of Calvinism, I in no way connect you to this particular brand of reformed (Calvinist, really, more than “reformed”) thought.
Warren studies ethical and and moral issues from a wider perspective than the great majority of Southern Baptist leaders. Nevertheless, I note and respect your concerns. I will continue to defend “The Purpose Driven Life” and its study in United Methodist Churches — so long as the serious differences with Methodist theology — and OK, Kim, I understand your point that Methodist theology offers little that is distinctive and that Methodism focuses too much on the Wesleys.
“The Purpose Driven Life” leads most United Methodists, particulary in more conservative areas, to engage faith and theology more seriously than many United Methodist pastors present (gulp — sorry if that is hard to swallow — but it is true).
That said, my point about the inaugural invocation would be the same if it were to be given Charles Colson or Pat Robertson. What I am more focused on is whether or not Obama, the flawed vessel he is, can nevertheless summon the courage to reorder priorities from “self” to “community.” I have serious doubts but still find Obama to offer the best possibility out of a slew of candidates pandering to the worst of our sentiments.
Your point about “the whole idea of inaugural show-blessings of court prophets” is well taken and worthy of serious study. Based on the history of invocations and benedictions, I might almost want to do without either. But if they are going to exist, then my focus will be on what Obama does, as opposed to what he has promised. My “enthusiasm” for Obama must be placed in the context of my real fears and anxieties regarding “W.” Maybe I’m too much the pragmatist to your idealism, but then I find that to simply exist in modern society is to be soaked in and beholden to sin — sin in the Wesleyan perspective of not necessarily conscience engagement, though. Every purchase I do or do not make carries risks of oppression and death to others.
And a Happy New Year to you, mate, even as I “damn” you for making me put my thinking cap back on after I’m ready to rest a weary brain! But then your sense of humor can also help relax the greatest of muscle tensions, so there is some balance.
And a Happy New Year to you, Bene!
dh 01.02.09 at 3:39 pm
Joel loved your post. It was great. I’m so glad you approve of Rick Warren as the prayer guy for the inagguration. But Joel you mustn’t discredit that we all must “be saved”. I totally agree that we must go beyond being saved. However, there are so many people who are not saved that need to be.
Also Joel, Rick as a Southern Baptist he is a “CalviMinian”. He may be less Calvinistic like you say but that doesn’t mean there is some level of Calvinism. Calvinism and Arminianism are not either/or.
I really like Rick Warren and when one reads ALL of what he says rather than bits and pieces I even more align with him than ever.
Your statement on “W” proves my point. That people voted not “for Obama” but it was an “anti-Bush” vote. With all of the Blogovich stuff and all of the Chicago people he appointed to office we’ll see how well he will do.
Burr Deming 01.03.09 at 6:13 pm
I don’t much care for Warren’s mistaken theology. It’s just hard for me, and possibly others in my age group, to become indignant about him. It’s not so much a boast as a confession. I wonder how many share my attitude.
Ivan the Crank 01.04.09 at 3:09 am
Joel, I take exception with only one thing that you say about Warren - go back and read chapter 2, I believe, of Purpose Driven and you find one of the most Calvinist points of view I have seen. He makes it sound like everything we do, even reading his book, was already set up by God before we did it. Not withstanding, I have no real issue with him giving the prayer - it’s Barak’s call and his former pastor was a lot more controversial.
DH 01.05.09 at 3:33 pm
Ivan, I believe you misunderstand Rick Warren. He is a classic Calviminian just like myself. The concept of predestination is not like you assume as being “predetermined”. It is the belief that God has a “forknowledge”. There is a big difference between forknowledge and predetermined. One can believe in predestination and not believe in predetermination.
Burr, what do you mean by his “mistaken theology”? What part of his theology is mistaken?
DH 01.05.09 at 3:36 pm
When one reads 1 Cor 6 and Romans 1 then what is so wrong with Warren’s theology when in fact it is God’s theology?
Joel 01.24.09 at 12:28 am
Thanks to all for commenting. Sorry I got sidetracked and stopped responding, but I’ve had more than a full plate.
I think there is a distinction between God have a “purpose” or “plan” for our lives on the one hand and having everything planned out. I will admit Warren can be confusing in his “theology” appearing at times to be “Arminian” and at other times “Calvinist.” However, I continue to maintain that Warren is closer overall to Arminian thought rather than Calvinist theology, given, of course, the different “variations” or nuances within each “camp.”
Finally, I note that 1) Caroline Kennedy, whether by her decision alone or as encouraged by others, has withdrawn from seeking appointment as U.S. Senator from New York and 2) I didn’t find much inspiration, comfort or admonishment in Rick Warren’s prayer as compared to what I had hoped for.
I could have been “happy” with a two sentence prayer that 1) gives thanks to our almight Creator and 2) calls us to repent of our greed and of our lust for power and violence.
I have heard several UM pastors tell the bereaved or congregations that God has a “greater purpose” in someone’s death. I find such to be a repugnant idea. It is ingrained to an extent, though, even in legal contracts that specify exceptions or “outs” for “acts of God”, implying that every unfortunate storm, disaster or whatever is of God’s design.
Michael, I’ve missed seing people too. I plan to attend the “Orders” gathering next week. And then I’ll see some other folks at an upcoming Conference Trustees meeting.
Kim 01.24.09 at 1:17 am
Great to hear from you, Joel.
I have heard several UM pastors tell the bereaved or congregations that God has a “greater purpose” in someone’s death. I find such to be a repugnant idea.
Absolutely. Faith changes the sense of death, but the whole idea that one’s death could be for anything, even for some “greater purpose”, is, you’re right, “repugnant”, buffering us from the real suffering before us (in the death, in the grief), and playing on the vulgar idea (common to theodicies) that present evils can be soft-pedalled in the light of greater goods. It’s not only a cliché, it’s a pastoral and theological disaster.
PamBG 01.24.09 at 10:24 am
Yeah, I was going to respond to that too as I also find it repugnant.
Sometimes I wonder if it’s sloppy language and sloppy thinking when people say things like that.
I’m moving back to the States to be with my parents because they have both become disabled. People keep saying to me ‘I’m sure God must have a purpose in all of this.’ I always respond ‘I don’t believe that God made my parents disabled so that I would move to where they are. But I believe that, given this tragedy, God will make a way for all of us to find meaning and purpose and to serve God.’ So far, the response has always been ‘Oh yes, yes, that’s what I meant. I don’t think that God made your parents disabled either.’
There are, of course, people who believe that nothing can happen unless God has made it happen but I think that a lot of times we trot out ‘old sayings’ without actually thinking about how they might sound to others.
Joel 01.25.09 at 9:45 pm
It seems to me that the stories of Joseph, or of Ruth and Naomi might be better ways to approach death, that in the wake of death, God can work through survivors to continue building the Kingdom on earth. One of the reasons I often struggle (but not fight) with church leaders or members is that with sometimes relatively weak attendance at Holy Week service, all is portrayed from triumph to triumph, victory to victory. The ashes of Golgotha can’t be ignored , however.
One interaction with a preacher really turned my stomach. His view of God’s power was such that “God had a purpose in the Holocaust.” To me, that implies that God can engage in evil. I will say that God used the strength of his created to rebuild lives, relationships and organizations in the aftermath.