Thinking it over, I begin to think Warren is an excellent choice for Obama's invocation. And the fact that he chosen Warren's opposite - Rev. Lowery, the civil rights hero -- as his counterpart (Warren gives the invocation, Lowery the benediction) is highly significant and, I think, confirms my thesis.
So, WHY do I think Obama made an excellent choice?
The invocation (opening) and benediction (closing) of the inaguration are CEREMONIAL posts. Ceremonies are not to be judged by the same standard as, say, lectures or political meetings. Attending a ceremony is a symbolic act saying you are part of a community -- it does NOT imply one agrees with the personal views of the person performing the ceremony. Have those of you who have been married by a Rabbi, Priest, etc., demanded to know what his political -- or even religious -- views are? Does anybody inquire into the political views of the singer of the national anthem in a baseball game? No.
The obvious question, then, is why have ceremonies at all. Why the "pointless" excercise of listening to words you already know by someone whose views you don't care about? The reason is that ceremony is a COMMUNITY affair -- it symbolizes the community supports, or denounces, certain things; it lets people declare (by participating) they belong to the community; and so on.
Now, what is Obama's purpose in giving these ceremonial posts to these two people, Warren and Lowery? It is to show that he, as president, has the support -- or, conversely, WILL support -- Americans of all kinds of different communities, even those (civil-right-era blacks and contemporary religious conservatives) which have strong disagreements between them. The idea is to symbolize the unity of the American people.
So Warren is NOT there as an individual. Warren is there as a representative of a community -- the evangelical community, and, more generally, the conservative religious community. Obama, in inviting Warren, is NOT saying that he agrees with his views (in that case, why invite Lowery?), but, quite legitimately and correctly, that the conservative religious community, whatever his differences with it, is welcome as a legitimate section of America. For this reason, it is PRECSIELY THAT Warren is (a) a very popular preacher and (b) known to have strong, even extreme, conservative views that make him an ideal selection for the ceremonial purpose. If a prima facie more "appropriate" -- e.g., liberal -- priest were chosen, that would (implicitly) send the message to evangelicals that they are not welcome in Obama's America. That would be a very bad message to send -- not only morally, but also practically.
It's a bit like the old ceremonies of priests hugging lepers or the jewish prayer, on the day of atonement, that "it is permissible to pray with habitual sinners" (avaryan'im). These ceremonial acts were hardly to be seen as support of leprosy or of habitual sin; they were intended rather to show to the beggars and sinners (as well as the community in general) that they are still part of the community.
So, WHY do I think Obama made an excellent choice?
The invocation (opening) and benediction (closing) of the inaguration are CEREMONIAL posts. Ceremonies are not to be judged by the same standard as, say, lectures or political meetings. Attending a ceremony is a symbolic act saying you are part of a community -- it does NOT imply one agrees with the personal views of the person performing the ceremony. Have those of you who have been married by a Rabbi, Priest, etc., demanded to know what his political -- or even religious -- views are? Does anybody inquire into the political views of the singer of the national anthem in a baseball game? No.
The obvious question, then, is why have ceremonies at all. Why the "pointless" excercise of listening to words you already know by someone whose views you don't care about? The reason is that ceremony is a COMMUNITY affair -- it symbolizes the community supports, or denounces, certain things; it lets people declare (by participating) they belong to the community; and so on.
Now, what is Obama's purpose in giving these ceremonial posts to these two people, Warren and Lowery? It is to show that he, as president, has the support -- or, conversely, WILL support -- Americans of all kinds of different communities, even those (civil-right-era blacks and contemporary religious conservatives) which have strong disagreements between them. The idea is to symbolize the unity of the American people.
So Warren is NOT there as an individual. Warren is there as a representative of a community -- the evangelical community, and, more generally, the conservative religious community. Obama, in inviting Warren, is NOT saying that he agrees with his views (in that case, why invite Lowery?), but, quite legitimately and correctly, that the conservative religious community, whatever his differences with it, is welcome as a legitimate section of America. For this reason, it is PRECSIELY THAT Warren is (a) a very popular preacher and (b) known to have strong, even extreme, conservative views that make him an ideal selection for the ceremonial purpose. If a prima facie more "appropriate" -- e.g., liberal -- priest were chosen, that would (implicitly) send the message to evangelicals that they are not welcome in Obama's America. That would be a very bad message to send -- not only morally, but also practically.
It's a bit like the old ceremonies of priests hugging lepers or the jewish prayer, on the day of atonement, that "it is permissible to pray with habitual sinners" (avaryan'im). These ceremonial acts were hardly to be seen as support of leprosy or of habitual sin; they were intended rather to show to the beggars and sinners (as well as the community in general) that they are still part of the community.
