I've posted several times this week on issues related to prayer at the inauguration of the new president. H/T to the Deacon's Bench for this lead to a TIME essay. Follow the link at the end of the piece to an interesting history of inaugural prayers and invitations to clergy.
As recently as July '08, Obama vistited Israel and prayed at the Western Wall, placing a written prayer in a crack in the wall as is the custom. (Photo: AP)
Over at TIME, Amy Sullivan looks over the roster of people on the inaugural dais and finds one or two glaring omissions:
Inauguration audiences on Tuesday will hear the new President deliver the most anticipated Inaugural Address since John F. Kennedy. They'll hear the Queen of Soul sing and Yo-Yo Ma play. They'll listen to hear if Rick Warren gets preachy when he prays. But there's one thing they won't hear: Baruch Atah Adonai Eloheinu Melech ha'olam.
That's because for the sixth straight presidential Inauguration, rabbis won't have a place on the dais. And the Jewish faith isn't the only religious tradition that continues to be snubbed. Since 1985, only Evangelical Protestants have played a part in the swearing-in ceremony. That will continue again this year when megachurch pastor Warren delivers the invocation and the Rev. Joseph Lowery, an African-American Evangelical, offers the benediction. At a time when the United States is more religiously diverse than at any other point in its history, and Obama's entire campaign was built on the notion of a newfound inclusiveness and multiculturalism, it seems a glaring omission.
The recent Evangelical Protestant monopoly began in 1989, when George H.W. Bush asked Billy Graham to deliver both the invocation and benediction (the opening and closing prayers) at his Inauguration. Graham did the same for Bill Clinton in 1993 and again in 1997. The decision to delegate the religious role to Graham seemed a reasonable alternative to filling the stage with an ever-growing number of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Hindu and Baha'i clergy. The famous Evangelist regularly topped the list of people Americans most admired, and he prayed in fairly broad terms, referring just to "God" and using the formulation "I pray" instead of "we pray" to make clear that he was not imposing his Christian prayer on the entire citizenry.
But the absence of non-Christian religious leaders was felt even more deeply starting in 2001, when Graham's son Franklin ended his invocation with an exclusive statement: "We ... acknowledge you alone as our Lord, our Savior and our Redeemer. We pray this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit." This was not a prayer offered on behalf of all Americans but on behalf of Christians alone. It bookended George W. Bush's Inauguration with a benediction by Kirbyjon Caldwell that declared, "We respectfully submit this humble prayer in the name that's above all other names, Jesus the Christ," and instructed, "Let all who agree say 'Amen.' " If you didn't agree, there was apparently nothing for you to do but shuffle your feet.
For non-Christians, but particularly for Jews who had gotten used to having a place on the dais, the development was deeply disturbing. After all, traditionally, the religious roster at presidential swearing ins looked something like the set-up to an old joke: "A priest, a pastor and a rabbi walk into an Inauguration ..." Rabbis prayed at a majority of Inaugurations that took place between 1949 and 1985, as did Catholic priests.
(for more, including the history of prayer at U.S. presidential inaugurations, see TIME) wuerl inauguration
Anyone else feel uncomfortable during Rick Warren's non-inclusive prayer? Not sure the crowd cared that much. I think maybe spoken prayer at these formal public events just isn't necessary. Those who wish to pray can do so in their own way.
ReplyDeleteAnne
Well written.
ReplyDeleteMy jaw dropped during Rick Warren's prayer as I realized he had started with the She'ma (the enduring, eternal, core prayer of Judaism) and ended with The Lord's Prayer.
ReplyDeleteAs a convert from Judaism, I have to say I appreciated Warren referring to Jesus by his Hebrew name, Yeshuah.
Not at all keen on Warren's politics, but grateful to hear the She'ma, even if it was in English!
I missed it ~ was working.
ReplyDeleteDidn't St. Paul say to proclaim the Good News to all people, in every occasion, with or without opportunity? (or something like that). I cannot imagine any name more inclusive that the "Name that is above all names", the name of Jesus, who opened his arms in the cross for EVERYBODY, believers and non-believers alike. Baby Jesus, born in a stable, Jesus nailed to the cross: who can possibly feel threatened or offended by such Name?
ReplyDeleteFor the swearing-in, the new president chose two Christian ministers to lead prayer. If ours were an exclusively Christian nation there would be no question to ask here. But the United States is not an exclusively Christian nation. There were many at the ceremony plus those who were "present" through radio, television and the internet who wanted to pray for the new President. It would have been unwieldy to invite clergy from even just the major religious traditions to each have a role. Some would argue, then, that those who are chosen should pray in a fashion that includes as many as possible of those who acknowledge God.
ReplyDeleteIt's not a question of excluding Jesus from the prayer text, it's a question of including as many as possible to join in the prayer.
I don't think the point is "numbers," Concord Pastor. The point is efficacy. A prayer in the Holy Name of Jesus has far more power and efficacy than a prayer to "whatever... holy." Prayer is offered TO GOD isn't it? And if I asked a Catholic or a Jew or an Assembly of God pastor to offer a prayer, I'd know very well about his or her faith and expect it to be reflected. Being in the public square means representing who you are and what you believe faithfully, not dialing back on your beliefs to reach some agreeable average.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't the official inauguration ceremony, but at the "We Are One" event on Sunday, Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson gave the invocation. So, non-evangelical Christians *were* represented at some point in the inauguration festivities. It was hard for people who weren't present to hear his prayer, however, since HBO didn't start their coverage until just after he ended. Supposedly this was a mistake.
ReplyDeleteFor those who'd like to hear what he prayed, you can find it at http://tinyurl.com/9t8znh
As I've written on another post, I'm often invited to lead prayer at civic events at which no other faith leaders have been invited to lead prayer. When those in attendance (from other faiths) thank me for leading prayer in a way that helped them to join in the prayer, I do not believe they think I've "dialed back my faith" for bigger "numbers." Nor do I think God feels snubbed because on a particular occasion I did not invoke his Son's name.
ReplyDeleteI believe that on such occasions I've been invited not to represent my faith but to lead the assembled in prayer. But when I'm introduced at such an event as the pastor of Holy Family Parish, the Catholic church in town, and I come forward to lead the prayer wearing a Roman collar, you can be sure that those present know which faith I represent. If people leave such a ceremony thinking, "There's a Catholic pastor who knows how to call people of many faiths to prayer" - I believe that's a good thing - and that God hears the prayer offered.
If you, "Anonymous," still want to argue the point, you might write to the pope who, in his address on the White House Lawn last April, said, "I come as a friend, a preacher of the Gospel and one with great respect for this vast pluralistic society." In that address he quoted only from the Hebrew scriptures - nothing from the Good News of the Christian scriptures. He did not use the efficacious name of Jesus but rather offered his "fervent prayers that Almighty God will confirm this nation and its people in the ways of justice, prosperity and peace. God bless America!"
Was the pope "dialing back his faith" in Jesus and going for bigger "numbers?" I doubt it. I believe he took into account the circumstances before him and although he is, indeed, charged with "proclaiming the Good News to all people, on every occasion" he realized that there are different ways to do that.
Piskie: I've read that it was an HBO error and that as they have the rights to broadcasting the event it will be correct in future showings.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is urgent that we learn to pray together. Inter-religious prayer is one way to peace. Inclusive prayer at a public event is not dialing back on anyone's belief. It's not about showing others how we pray in our respective churches, temples, mosques, homes etc. It more about love and respect for our neighbor which in itself is pleasing to God. It's about celebrating what we all have in common, our humanity, God's gift to all of us.
ReplyDeleteAnne
I believe the proper order of things is "Thou shall love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart... thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." Indeed, the first three commandments define our relationship with God, while the rest regulate our behavior towards self and others. Therefore, prayer above all is offered to God by people. It is not *about us.*
ReplyDeleteConcord Pastor, I am happy to see you praising the prayer of the Pope, which mentioned God, as opposed to "whatever you think is holy."
God bless you, "Anonymous!"
ReplyDeleteThrough Christ our Lord, Amen, Concord Pastor.
ReplyDeleteI'm the first anonymous, the one who quoted (or at least tried) St. Paul. I didn't mean to question anybody's prayer: not Rick Warren's, nor Concord Pastor's, much the less the Pope's prayer (although, I have to say that the Pope's was not a prayer, but an address). What I do question is the questioning. I don't think there is anything bad about leaving out Jesus' name in a prayer; I don't think there's anything bad in invoking it (if you ask me, if it's a matter of efficacy nothing can beat the Lord's Prayer). If we start questioning for the sake of some anonymous people's sensitivities, there's no end to it. The final answer is: just don't pray. Publicly, at least. It's what this relativistic culture relentlessly pursues: to keep faith a private matter. If it had its way, Christians should go back to the catacombs.
ReplyDeleteBut don’t we say every Sunday in the Creed that our Church is Apostolic! It's supposed to be "preachy", by definition. It's an institution with a mission. It's even more of a mission than an institution. And that mission is to bring the good news to all the ends of the earth.
I hope the last Popes' efforts at ecumenism succeed in bringing back our separate evangelical brothers. We so much need the testimony of their apostolic zeal in this sometimes languishing Catholic Church!
Let's look, for a moment, not at the name of Jesus but at the "name" of folks who comment here.
ReplyDeleteMultiple "anonymous" comments are frustrating for everyone who reads here and for me as I try to keep a little order in the comboxes.
Assuming a screen name (it does NOT have to be the one for your email) is a simple thing to do and would be very helpful for me and others in trying to read, understand and follow the thread of an individual's thinking.
Some bloggers simply do not accept "anonymous" comments and I'm often tempted to go in that direction.
I always sign my entries at the bottom. The reason I click on "Anonymous" is because for some reason I cannot get into Google. It just won't let me. It's not just here but the problem happens at other blogs as well. Anyone else have the problem or is it because I'm techno-challenged?
ReplyDeleteAnne
And it's so tempting to remain anonymous! Then you can opine freely and nobody will ask you to respond with deeds. No pressure to be coherent, in other words. Honestly, I only started anonymous because I thought that to do otherwise I should go through yet another process of registration, have my own blog, and new user name and password that I would very soon forget.
ReplyDeleteBut it's true, it's totally unfair. I'm the last anonymous. My name is Xavier Velasco-Suarez, and if I don't make up my mind to registering, I'll just start my posts with my name.
I often go to Sunday mass in the Holy Family with my not so holy family, although we're from Acton. We're like catholic "shoppers", shopping around for the most convenient mass. Not a good way of participating, I know. But I decided to switch my kids' religious education to the Holy Family (we have been going to the Faith Festivals) because I like your homilies. Mostly because they have a content, usually with doctrine, and obviously you have a gift with words.
Sorry about my previous "anonymity". I also posted in the abortion issue.
Anyway, I'll probably see you next Sunday after 11;30 mass.
I love your blog! (and envy your vacation) God bless you and thank you for all your work shepherding us.
Xavier
This is a test....hope it works.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Xavier! I hope you start a trend here.
ReplyDeleteBUT - other readers should know that you need not give your name or location. It's just having an "identifier" that helps readers keep track of who's writing what.
Anne - Looks like it worked! However you should know that your frequent comments all signed "Anne" allow me and readers to keep track of your thoughts and contributions. Thanks!
ReplyDelete