Apparently, Rick Warren posts regular video diaries on his church’s website, updating congregants of goings on and whatnot. His post yesterday isn’t what I would call well advised. In it he says the media get it wrong (00:43); bloggers need to get lives (01:52), and marriage has been universally recognized as between a man and a woman “since the beginning of man” (03:53). The beginning of man … Really?!
His delivery is somewhat halting, and he steps on his own words in several spots, but it looks like Ricky is trying to orchestrate an image makeover. I might be a needs-a-life blogger, but I think he might want to hire some of those pesky media types to help him.
Oh, and Saddleback Church recently removed from its site its explicit message the church does not accept unrepentant homosexuals into its congregation.
More lame maneuvers like these, and Obama is going to have to pull the plug on Warren simply on the principle of not wanting stupidity at the podium.
The “beginning of man” thing is pretty damn hollow when the Bible itself documents bigamy…
Posted by Ames | December 23, 2008, 7:44 pmOh, and, Re: 1:52, speaking for both of us, I’m hurt!
Posted by Ames | December 23, 2008, 7:50 pmwell, it is so ridiculous … i know he is a “dinosaurs and man coexisted” fan, but come on! homo sapiens were plunked down on earth replete with societal institutions and a southern baptist convention manual?! …
i think the less he says, the better … but i am also fine with his burying himself and ending the controversy by the new year, allowing plenty of time for obama to make another choice.
Posted by didionsmommy | December 23, 2008, 8:03 pmI am amazed that this man is a pastor. His inability to speak publicly and coherently about his views makes him sound almost as incoherent as if he could. Hopefully the invocation is a prayer he already has memorized.
Posted by ReyMac | December 23, 2008, 10:32 pmrey — totally!
but i find it isn’t about eloquence or coherence or logic with these mega-church, evangelical preachers … it’s about retelling bible stories entertainingly with smatterings of platitudes.
trying to map out a proof to support the argument of any given sermon would look more like a rorschach than a straight line.
Posted by didionsmommy | December 23, 2008, 10:47 pmI would interject that even most non-fundamentalist Christians find the story of Adam and Eve compelling, if not historical fact. There’s something about the notion about one man, one woman and the potential for family and future generations that lies within them that is beautiful. That’s also why so many couples choose scripture readings or poems that reflect that notion for their weddings.
So, to make my point, I think that those criticizing Warren are being a bit too literal by reading them with a history book in their hand.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | December 24, 2008, 12:27 amI agree that the Adam & Eve story is compelling: why else would so many cultures have similar tales? Whether you call them Adam & Eve or Ask & Embla, there’s a beautiful simplicity in imagining two simple people as the originators of the human race.
Where I don’t follow is the second paragraph…
Posted by Ames | December 24, 2008, 1:11 amI would point out that, as it turns out, the section on denying membership to gay members isn’t down permanently, the website is just being updated with audio or something.
Good as You and Queerty have the scoop on that.
.org and .com respectively, if you didn’t know.
(didn’t make real links in case links get hung up in moderation)
Posted by Evan | December 24, 2008, 2:41 amthanks, evan!
here’s the queerty.com link:
http://www.queerty.com/saddleback-church-site-not-taking-down-gay-condemnations-after-all-20081223/
holy cow, gotta love “pastor tom” … nothing like a big, gleaming grin to deliver intolerance … (apparently pastor tom is tom holladay, warren’s brother-in-law.)
***
back to the bloggers needing to get lives … do evangelical bloggers who support warren need to get lives, too? do the saddleback church staff who run the site blog need to get lives? does warren need to get a life since he loves to video blog?
i’m just trying to locate the line in the sand.
Posted by didionsmommy | December 24, 2008, 7:58 amAmes,
The point I was trying to make was that maybe Warren’s comments are being taken a bit too literally. If he’s speaking from a fundamentalist perspective then by his reckoning Adam & Eve were the ‘gold standard’ for God’s vision for humanity. If he’s just making a general point, then I have to agree that as a general rule, the traditional pairing of one man, one woman is the most common throughout history and also probably the oldest social arrangement. It’s also the most basic idea in a chicken or egg scenario.
Posted by Mike (PC) | December 24, 2008, 8:32 amThe problem, Mike, is that he pairs that [arguably false] sentiment with the fact-free statement that that’s been the set-up in “every culture” and “every religion” for “5,000 years.” A perfunctory look at history, at almost any website save, perhaps, Conservapedia, shows that that assertion is so wrong it’s not even wrong, as some scientists say. It doesn’t even achieve the high standard of “wrong.” It’s just stupid.
Posted by Evan | December 24, 2008, 2:02 pm