While I was disappointed by Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the inauguration, and felt it was a double slap in the face to those fighting for gay rights after Prop 8, I was willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the choice. It seemed that it spelled the beginnings of a new era where the many faces of America were recognized, no matter which administration was in power and even if that meant recognizing those who refuse to do the same for their fellow citizens. It also just seemed like a symbolic, if potentially politically beneficial move for Obama, and one not to lose too much breath over given more substantive battles ahead. A New York Times article reported the following on how the invocation choice was received in Oklahoma:

The church’s pastor and founder, Billy Joe Daugherty, said that the selection of the Rev. Rick Warren, a prominent evangelical minister from California, to give the inaugural invocation went a long way to easing fears in Mr. Daugherty’s mostly conservative congregation about a liberal social agenda. Mr. Obama’s selection of Mr. Warren has been denounced by many gay rights advocates and other liberal groups.

And as Bishop Gene Robinson wrote, the inaugural committee’s request that Bishop Robinson, the only openly gay pastor of a major Christian denomination, give the invocation at the opening We Are One event was “an indication of the new president’s commitment to being the President of ALL the people.”

As long as Obama’s administration still pursues that liberal social agenda (getting rid of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, shoring up abortion rights, getting rid of Bush’s 11th hour health provider “conscience” rule), I’m fine with him extending the symbolic olive branch.

But speaking of facts on the ground, in reality Rick Warren’s speech was extremely disappointing, a piece exclusionary buffoonery. First, it felt generally uninspired, an ordinary speech for an extraordinary moment. Second, while some felt it gave inclusive nods to various American religious populations, I found his invocation of Jesus and full inclusion and leading of the “Our Father” prayer as unsettling, and I was raised with both in my religious background. I can’t imagine how it felt to those for whom such prayers and invocations have no religious meaning.

But it was the contrast between Rick Warren’s invocation on Tuesday, and Gene Robinson’s on Sunday, that was the most stark. Bishop Robinson began with a explosively inclusive tone: “O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…” and continued on:

Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance – replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

Bless us with compassion and generosity – remembering that every religion’s God judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community, whether across town or across the world.

You should also read Gwen and Tonni’s awesome GWP post about feminism and faith from this morning.

Update:

I like this description from the New York Times of the national prayer service this morning attended by the Obamas and Bidens at the National Cathedral:

Some new traditions were also being made. The service featured no fewer than 20 interfaith clergy, including woman leaders of the Muslim and Hindu faiths. And for the first time, the preacher was a woman, the Rev. Dr. Sharon E. Watkins, general minister and president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), a mainline Protestant denomination.