Rick Warren’s Mythical Definition of Marriage

Rick Warren swings and misses:

“…I’m opposed to redefinition of a 5,000 year definition of marriage. I’m opposed to having a brother and sister being together and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I’m opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.”

Interesting. Apparently Rick Warren is unaware that polygamy is a well documented and accepted marital practice in the Bible. One would think he’d have a better grasp.

His whole take on Prop 8 and the issue of homosexuality is, as Andrew Sullivan pointed out, absurd. Warren supported Prop 8 on the fear that if it hadn’t passed, he could have been accused of “hate speech” for his position on the issue. Andrew hit back:

Well, yes, you could be considered as engaging in hate speech. But so what? As long as there are no criminal or legal penalties for religious speech – as guaranteed by the First Amendment – being called a hater is part of living in a democracy. I should say that I would not use the term “hate” for a principled theological defense of heterosexual normativity. And I have engaged very deeply with the arguments on those grounds. But fanning paranoia among Christians that somehow civil gay equality requires that they lose any free speech rights whatsoever is irresponsible, and presumably a conscious untruth.

Step it up, Pastor Rick.


13 thoughts on “Rick Warren’s Mythical Definition of Marriage

  1. 40% is not accurate either. It is somewhere in the middle given age and cohort demographics that change the percentages. (http://www.prepinc.com/main/docs/What%20Really%20is%20the%20Divorce%20Rate%208-3-2007.pdf). And how is 40% indicative of something successful? Statistically that does not look good at all.

    And he plays the slippery slope where if same gender marriage happens, then everybody is going to get married to whomeever they please. As if two consenting adults is the same as a polygamist taking his third wife who is 13 is the same thing? Seriously.

  2. well, clearly rick warren s just trying to emulate Jesus, because he understands that Jesus always did whatever would would get him in the least amount of trouble while keeping his good reputation in tact…

  3. @ Evan or ask him why it is that women caught in adultery are stoned, but the men can go for it unabated. The Taliban is a good example of what that “traditional” marriage looks like. Keep the women hidden because it is a man’s world. Go old school near east Rick. Why stop at 1955?

  4. Yea Rick Warren is such a dick I can’t believe he promotes his P.E.A.C.E. Plan.
    Promote reconciliation – Equip servant leaders – Assist the poor – Care for the sick – Educate the next generation.” He is pure evil. Why would Obama reach out to someone who gave away 90% of sales from top selling non-fiction book of all time.

  5. @scotty : “… who gave away 90% of sales from top selling non-fiction book of all time.”
    and how did we find out about him giving it away?
    here, let me take some scripture and twist it to where i want to apply it!! :
    “don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”. how did his left hand find out about what his right hand was doing? sounds like the right hand has been shouting from the rooftops 😉


  6. Danno, it’s called time magazine. When that much money gets moved it doesn’t matter who’s doing it people find out. Good job by the way on ignoring his P.E.A.C.E plan. I don’t think he is perfect but he has done some good things. Cynical people usually focus on the bad…

  7. Scotty, after looking over the comments I don’t believe I read anyone calling him a dick or minimizing his admirable accomplishments, which I’ve credited him for on this very blog. Yes, he has done some great things and has accomplished a great deal in his lifetime, but does that make him untouchable to any kind of critique?

  8. No one is untouchable from critique, that being said calling Warren “Dense or a wing nut” does not show me that find him admirable in anyway. Where is the critique of Obama choosing him as a speaker? Was it a good choice for him to pick someone who is so dense?

  9. I think I’ve done a fair job backing up why I believe Warren has exhibited a density and wingnuttery in some of his recent proclaimations. I stand by those. That in no way negates my admiration for some of his work. If you feel it does, so be it.

    As far as Obama goes, I haven’t criticized his choice because the choice itself represents a new kind of politics that Obama has been talking about all along. Surely there are differences between the two but there is also common ground. And Warrens participation won’t change obama’s policies one iota.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s