Bio
I am 62, divorced, basically without living relatives, endlessly curious, spiritually imaginative and always embarking on one sort of journey or anot...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Recent Comments

Bishop Gene Robinson to offer Invocation at inaugural event. His gay identity has people talking.

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 12
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

The opening event of the Inauguration is a big deal. It is called,"We Are One: The Obama Inaugural Celebration At The Lincoln Memorial."And Obama seems to be using it in part to make things right with people who were either disappointed or offended or hurt (or all three) by his choice to have Rick Warren, a vigorous opponent of gay marriage and gay rights offer the prayers at his inauguration on the 20th.

HBO will exclusively broadcast the opening Inaugural event, which will be free to the public, at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. On Sunday from 7 to 9 p.m. ET, the event will be televised by HBO on an open signal accessible to all U.S. viewers with access to cable, telcos or satellite television.

It's a big deal. Musical performers scheduled for the event include Beyonce, Mary J. Blige, Bono, Garth Brooks, Sheryl Crow, Renee Fleming, Josh Groban, Herbie Hancock, Heather Headley, John Legend, Jennifer Nettles, John Mellencamp, Usher Raymond IV, Shakira, Bruce Springsteen, James Taylor, will.i.am, and Stevie Wonder. Among those reading historical passages will be Jamie Foxx, Martin Luther King III, Queen Latifah and Denzel Washington.

The media and the blogosphere is coming at this from every angle imaginable. As a bell-weather for Obama's administration, it points to a hyper-observant ride.

First, a bit about Bishop V. Gene Robinson's place in history. In 2004 his election was approved by the Episcopal church in America as its first openly gay bishop. This began a poligious (my own word = political+religious) hailstorm in the worldwide Anglican communion that would take volumes to describe. Suffice to say that it lead to heated opinion on all sides of the issue. This storm, sadly, has yet to stop.

Earlier today, Bishop Robinson sent out an email. Reverend Elizabeth Keaton, an Episcopal priest, one of the recipients, says:

Note: Several of us on the Progressive side of the aisle got this note from Bishop Gene earlier this morning:

"I am writing to tell you that President-Elect Obama and the Inaugural Committee have invited me to give the invocation at the opening event of the Inaugural Week activities, “We are One,” to be held at the Lincoln Memorial, Sunday, January 18, at 2:00 pm....It is also an indication of the new president’s commitment to being the President of ALL the people. I am humbled and overjoyed at this invitation, and it will be my great honor to be there representing the Episcopal Church, the people of New Hampshire, and all of us in the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community."

Mombian sees the event as positive, one in which Obama made an error and then worked to make it right. She also sees it as the result of pressure brought by the activism of the LBGT community.

It is nonetheless an important acknowledgment by President-elect Obama that he made a mistake and is attempting to make amends. More than that, it is a recognition of the power of the LGBT community to make change. President-elect Obama isn’t perfect, but he’s learning. I still have hope.

However, there are the usual smatterings of extremist conservative bloggers who have vulgar things to say about Bishop Robinson, to whom I won't bother to give air-time, except to acknowledge that they are still out there.

In the religious media, Steve Waldeman, Editor in Chief for Beliefnet, says:In any event, it sure seems that they've countered the selection of someone who infuriates the left with someone who infuriates the right. Balance, yes. Harmony, not so much.

Is Robinson a counter to Warren? Is that appropriate at this point? Was that enough? Does the selection of Warren dilute the selection of Robinson? Is Robinson the best choice?

Pam says: Too bad he's not replacing Rick Warren on January 20.

But not only is the choice of Robinson scrutinized on the grounds of sexual preference, apparently some bloggers and columnists question his denominational suitability.Steve Waldemanof Beliefnet again goes on to say (and echo a few comments I found by others):

Now that Protestants make up only 50% of the population they get 100% of the inaugural speakers. Politically, this is particularly odd given the importance of the Catholic vote to Obama..I suspect the Obama folks got so tangled up in the culture war politics -- balancing on gay rights, gender and race issues -- that they forgot, or downplayed, old fashioned religious base-covering..Religious politics grows ever more complicated with each year, doesn't it?

To complicate matters further, an "un-named official" of the

  • 12
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Mata H 5 pts

Well, I do not know Bishop Robinson, but I respect the burden of being "the first" in anything. Given the stir made by Bishop Akinola and his supporters in the Global South, it is hard to imagine what right action to take, being personally outside the situation.

Robinson was insulted when Warren was selected. But his move to say yes to the later offer seems to me to be from a place of wanting to reconcile. That seems like a good motivation to me.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

poppy 5 pts

I voted for Obama, but chosing Rick Warren to give the official invocation and then giving Gene Robinson this consolation prize was just too overtly political and calculating.

If I were Robinson, I'd be insulted.

And I'm not speaking as a supporter of Gene Robinson's. I'm a life-long Episcopalian and have been following the situation since he was elected in 2003.

Robinson has made himself the poster child for gay ordination. He spends so much time telling his story to anyone who'll listen, he reminds me of the Ancient Mariner.

I mean, why does he have to travel to Sydney and Lambeth to explain to reporters how he'd prefer to remain "a simple country bishop"?

Bah, humbug. I smell another book deal in the works.

Poppy is a BlogHer Beauty Hacks Contributing Editor

She also blogs at The Opiate of the Masses ( http://www.poppisima.blogspot.com ) and Mamarazzi ( http://www.mamarazzi.org )

JeanLouise 5 pts

As a member of an activist church, I struggled for some time before I understood why I objected to faith-based initiatives and the like.  That was my conclusion.

Mata H 5 pts

Our president-elect is not an Episcopalian.

Regarding who should deliver invocations -- it all depends on how the politician at hand sees the decision, as representing him/her self, as pointing to the religious make-up of the country, as symbolizing diversity. There is no way to "get it right" if the goal is to make everyone happy.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

AllThingsToNoOne 5 pts

Is Barack Obama an Episcopalian?  As much as I respect Bishop Robinson, it seems strange that he and Warren will both be there, representing the "liberal" Christian and evangelicals.  It's almost as if Obama is trying to please everyone. 

The Inauguration is about President-Elect Obama.  If he is happy with the selections, then I respect that. 

If our President Elect was not a Christian, then I would not expect him or her to have Christian prayer included as part of the ceremony.

(Ha, like I would ever see that in my lifetime!)

<a href="http://www.youreeverwherethatimnot.blogspot.com">All Things to No One</a>

Mata H 5 pts

We may not agree on points, but this phrase is darned fine writing!

"don't want government and God intertwined because I want to be able to be angry with one without jeopardizing my relationship with the other."

I do separate "religion", "faith" and "spirituality" -- Religion is institutional and comes with attached structural belief.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Mata H 5 pts

Love is always the right choice. I mean that from my heart. Thanks for your comments. I, also, look forward to his prayers.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

JeanLouise 5 pts

Mata, I think these decisions say a lot to those who are spiritual for obvious reasons.  The decisions say a lot to those who are not religious because they've witnessed the power of religion in government in the recent past.

I never viewed Obama as perfection which has long been a point of contention between myself and some other posters.  As a spiritual person, Obama's use of religion for political purposes has always fascinated and repelled me.   I don't want government and God intertwined because I want to be able to be angry with one without jeopardizing my relationship with the other.

BeyondPinkblog 5 pts

Audrey

www.beyondpinkblog.com ( http://www.beyondpinkblog.com )

Thanks for covering this news.  I am Episcopalian and I can say that this has been a big point of stress in our community of faith.  We are a loving, open, freindly church that is also unknown by many.  We are a "thinking person's church".  This also hurts us at times. We do not judge others and we let God do his job. It's not our job and I feel like so many denominations take that role. 

I do not agree with the position he has been given because of my biblical beliefs.  I take a more biblical view of it, but I'm also a loving Christian who can move past it, love him and respect him.  I love my church and only God is perfect.

The issue has drawn lines in church and within families.  I'm not sure Bishop Robinson wanted that, but now our church is recognized for something....

His words will likely be beautiful on January 18th.  Us Episcopalians always have eloquent prayers. :)

JRobert484 5 pts

.. stand side by side and sing Kumbaya at the ceremony.

http://www.broowaha.com/article.php?id=4468

Read more about it.

Mata H 5 pts

In my more cynical moments I can see it as religion used to bolster politics, but in my more positive moments I can see it as religion used to symbolize inclusivity.

We'll have to wait to hear the actual prayers to say anything about spiritual content.

In any case it certainly is a spiritual comment about those of us who write either in print or online or social media that something like the choice of people to pray raises so much print/typeface. One spiritual issue may be the need for us to balance all this hope we have for Obama with the impossible desire for his absolute perfection.

It also speaks to the level of rawness and disconnection that people feel, I think.

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs right along at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

JeanLouise 5 pts

The choice of Warren appears to have been a soul-less, political choice that said less about inclusion and more about his admiration for a fellow televangelist who happens to be really popular with a swath of people that Obama continues to court for votes.  He could have chosen one of the tens of thousands of middle-of-the-road clergy that represent the middle-of-the-road views of Americans if inclusiveness were the goal.

Robinson is a non-issue for me.  I do think he was an instrument of damage control and if it that satisfies the LGBT community, then it was a smart political move by Obama who was losing the support of a vocal, wealthy constituency. 

I hadn't considered that Catholics might feel left out but it really doesn't seem to be an ecumenical group, does it? 

My problem with the whole thing is that it seems to have more to do with politics than with spirituality.