UPDATE: Lauren Green on the two prayers.
Bishop Gene Robinson- who needs no introduction, does he?- prayed at an Inaugural event over the weekend.
Bishop Robinson got the gig not because he is a spiritual leader or is looked up to by Christians, but because he is the first openly gay bishop in the ECUSA. He has become the lightning rod that has split worldwide Anglicanism. He has a way of turning up wherever the issue of gay marriage is on the agenda. He was hanging around the media rooms at the Lambeth Conference, just in case anyone wanted his opinion. And when Rick Warren was asked to pray at the Inauguration, Bishop Robinson’s angry friends- offended that Warren was a supporter of Prop 8 in California defining marriage traditionally in that state- got him the job of praying at this event.
The Bishop didn’t miss a beat in saying he was appalled by the distinctively Christian prayers that had dominated Inaugurations in the past, and he would not pray in the name of Jesus.
So here’s the text of Bishop Robinson’s prayer.
And here he is on Youtube.
If you watched today’s ceremony, you heard Pastor Rick Warren’s prayer. Here’s the text to it, and here’s Pastor Rick on Youtube.
If you are not a Christian, and you are wondering what the heck is going on within Christianity these days, I’d recommend these two prayers for your study.
Both have many good statements and thoughts, but a prayer is a very important, unique kind of speech in our faith. You can learn a lot listening to the prayer, to the statements about the difference God makes, the ideas about God that are at work and the emotions expressed toward God and about God.
Evangelicalism, for all its problems, and all its Warren-influenced struggles with relevance, still has something powerful to say to the world about God, and about the one through whom we know who is the God we are talking about.
You can’t talk reasonably and genuinely about a God of many understandings. Not with actual believers in Jesus, Yahweh, Allah and Buddah around. You might as well pray to the cat. (It probably would be better to pray to the cat.) But you can talk about the God who created, the God who reigns and the God we know as we know and believe Jesus.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on these two prayers and what they teach us.
The Internet Monk Archives 
Here is the link to the text of Rev. Lowery’s benediciton: http://m-pyre.blogspot.com/2009/01/rev-lowrys-benediction.html
LikeLike
Frankly, both prayers seemed a little preachy in their delivery and more like speeches than prayers. Both could take lessons from Rev. Lowery who used wonderful scriptural images and a playful heart to deliver both a sound and prophetic benediction. Now that’s some praying!
LikeLike
Ah, forgot: listening – *really* listening – to someone is a lot different than agreeing wit5h everything they say. Am sure Robinson and I disagree on many things, but that doesn’t mean I have the “right” to ignore him, let alone belittle him – or anyone else. (You, too.)
LikeLike
*I* didn’t “put them forth. That’s a quote from Robinson, not me. It does not speeak for me, but for him.
Cool? 😉
And actually, I think a moment of silence is a pretty good idea, compared to the ruckus that public prayers seem to engender…
LikeLike
“Real tolerance: Let each person pray to the God they believe in, and don’t try to throw a blanket over everyone.”
I wonder, if this is “real” tolerance, why we pray at public events at all. Going by your definition, we can never hope to have a public prayer without it being a public blanketing. We must return to the moment of silence – unless we’re in church where everyone is sure they believe in the same God – if we go by the parameters for “real” tolerance you put forth above.
Apologies if what I said is in the comments somewhere else. Lots of comments to go through!
LikeLike
@ Jeff M: I think the only person who can answer those questions is Robinson himself. He gave an interesting interview that was published on Beliefnet earlier this week.
I’m sure Robinson and I disagree on many things, but that said, I was very pleasantly surprised by his answers regarding a number of things about his now-infamous prayer. I honestly believe that lots of people – and I’m including myself here – tend to have knee-jerk reactions to him. For myself, I *know* that my own tendency to judge him as “wrong” has led to my not being willing to listen to him.
And then, amid all the tensions at the Lambeth Conference last summer, I saw some interviews with him that surprised me – jolted me, really. Because he was about 180 degrees away from being prejudiced toward those who opposed him there.
And that’s all made me want to stop and take a 2nd look at what he says. That, in turn, has led to repentance for my own prejudices, and an awareness that he has some very worthwhile things to say that *need to be listened to by people on all sides of the debate re. homosexuality, the ECUSA, splits in Anglicanism, and much more. *All* of the movers and shakers in this have good points. Now if only they could start talking with (rather than at) each other, the current deadlock might be a little more resolvable, and far less bitter.
That’s my personal take, at least… am not intending to pass judgment on anyone commenting here, or elsewhere, or on anyone in the Anglican communion. (Fwiw, I’m not Anglican/Episcopal myself, so I don’t have any horses in this race. ;))
LikeLike
Well, I guess the real question is, who is Robinson praying to? I have a hard time figuring it out based on his use of the god of many understandings and his later plea to that god to “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.”
I am not questioning his salvation, just his logic and perhaps his theology. Isn’t this an insult to the God of Abraham,Isaac and Jacob? In light of passages like Deuteronomy 32:15-16 is it wise for a prayer offered to the One and Only God of the Universe that Robinson would claim to be referring to by the phrase god of many understandings need to appeal to the judgment of other Gods?
I simply think what Robinson is doing is not healthy or Biblical. It doesn’t encourage people to seek the God who is; it allows them to continue with whatever the god of their many understandings is understood to be.
LikeLike
My point was that Paul himself was once mis-guided. And maybe because he remembers that fact, he has an understanding that God is working in everybody’s life; the details may differ but that fact remains the same.
Exactly. Which is one of many reasons that I wish people would look more closely at the complete text of Gene Robinson’s prayer. There’s a lot of good stuff there, especially in the section where he prayed for the Obamas.
LikeLike
“Paul recognizing the altar to the unknown God is not the same as Paul inviting everyone to pray to the unknown God.”
I agree. That wasn’t my point. My point was that Paul himself was once mis-guided. And maybe because he remembers that fact, he has an understanding that God is working in everybody’s life; the details may differ but that fact remains the same. Paul can afford enough humility to say “I remember when my idea of serving God meant holding the coats of those who would stone another human being to death and I encouraged others to do the same. How mis-guided can one get?” He can afford enough compassion to realize that perhaps those who are praying to that unknown God think they are seeking Him in the same way that he thought he was. Reminds me of that G.K. Chesterton quote: “Every man who knocks on the door of a brothel is looking for God.â€
These are the things that I keep having to remember when I react to others’ behaviours/prayers, etc. In fact, I still have to keep in mind that my spiritual “GPS” isn’t perfect; I’m definitely a work in progress. I’m in complete agreement that the one point of reference is Jesus, absolutely.
“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. ” 1 Corinthians 13:1
Somedays, I feel like a clanging cymbal. I suppose that was my point. How often have I “straightened out” somebody else’s thinking and it was more of an intellectual exercise rather than one of the heart?
LikeLike
Maybe today Paul could say, “I see you honor the ‘god of many understandings.’ Now what you worship as something vague I am going to proclaim to you.”
My problem with Robinson or any others who treat Christianity this way is that it leaves people without a clue that they are wrong. Paul took the opportunity that was presented by the people having an “undefined god” and defined who God is. He told them something rather than leaving them with nothing but a good feeling that they were at least trying.
LikeLike
FROM THE ARTICLE:Robinson said……
“God never gets it wrong the church often takes along time to get it right…I believe in my heart the church got it wrong about homosexuality.There is a great excitement in my heart to be living in a time when the church is starting to get it right”
“they honor me with their lips but their hearts are far from me”
“woe unto those that call evil good and good evil”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/12/gene-robinson-gay-bishop_n_157076.html
LikeLike
@ andyt – yes, that was *the* prayer!
LikeLike
Huh. I’m having trouble figuring out what all the fuss is about. I liked both prayers, though felt both had their weaknesses. I thought both of them felt much more like speeches than prayers – Warren’s certainly did. In fact, most “Big Event” prayers do.
Andyt, I agree – the benediction was the best of all. I was hoping that this post was going to comment on his prayer.
LikeLike
I thought that the third prayer~ the benediction~ was much more profound, inspiring and inclusive than either of the others. Comes from a man who seems to have the wisdom of the desert rather who would be unlikely to spend time arguing about semantics or the sex-lives of others. I think (writing from england) he represents americas most attractive and noble christian tradition.
LikeLike
Paul recognizing the altar to the unknown God is not the same as Paul inviting everyone to pray to the unknown God.
LikeLike
If you squeezed an orange would you be surprised if orange juice came out?
If a Christian pastor prays, no one should be surprised that the name of Jesus might come out. If a Muslim equivalent prays, would anyone be surprised that the prayer would be made to Allah and no mention of Jesus might be made?
I wasn’t surprised by Gene Robinson’s prayer. It sounded angry. I was surprised at Rick Warren’s prayer. It seemed designed to be inclusive and wording patterned to offend as few as possible.
The people who didn’t like Warren for his stances aren’t going to like him over a single prayer(Jesus himself said his followers would be hated for his name’s sake) and people like me will dismiss Warren hereafter for being so politically correct.
If you are asked to pray, and you are a Christian, then pray like the Christian bible teaches . . . in the name of Jesus.
LikeLike
@ Mich: Yes!!!
LikeLike
“For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.”
Acts 17:22-24 (NIV)
There’s something very gracious about what Paul said in that passage. He’s meeting people where they are in their journey. What I don’t hear from him is condemnation. There seems to be an acknowledgement that these folks have a sense of something that is greater than themselves for which they haven’t quite found the name and Paul commends them for it, for at least trying. He encourages them because he remembers his own mis-guided journey in his desire to be “good” or even just muddle through life.
Doesn’t it seem, sometimes, as if we just do too much analyzing and picking apart? We seem to examine and evaluate every little thing to death. I suppose it’s human nature but, after a time, it begins to feel a teeny bit neurotic. Is it just a bit too much? Everyone has their own arena in which they scrutinize, from what clothes was worn to what words are used in prayer.
I dunno…. Maybe I’m just tired of hearing my own criticisms. Maybe I’m just tired from lack of sleep. Maybe I’m just tired. Anyway, that’s what you get for saying: “I’d love to hear your thoughts on these two prayers and what they teach us.” 🙂
LikeLike
Separation of church and state is not about eliminating religion from public discourse. It’s about respecting their differing spheres of responsibility and authority to provide greater freedom for the citizens.
The state does not require or prohibit prayer from a particular religion or denomination (or prayer in general for that matter) for the inauguration, but it does permit prayer at the request of the participants (e.g. Obama). In this, the state exercises no authority in determining the people’s practice of their religions. At the same time, the prayers offered at the inauguration are in no way legally binding on the President. In this, the church exercises no direct control over the composition and actions of the government.
Warren’s prayer at a government event was aggressively Christian (as it were), but it did not challenge any separation between church and state. The two co-existed without collapsing the division of authority between the two.
I really like Warren’s prayer. It’s both global and personal. It’s grateful and challenging. He stayed true to his foundations, but deliberately reached out broadly.
Public prayer is always a tricky thing. If you try to capture every possible perspective from the people you are praying on behalf of, you’ll end up praying for no one to no one. Then you’re just throwing platitudes to the wind. I think every Christian’s public prayers should be distinctly Christian. A Christian who doesn’t deliberately pray to the God revealed in Jesus of Nazareth isn’t offering a sincere prayer.
LikeLike
Patrick you raise a great point. And I do believe we were founded as a Christian nation. My gut tells me that we have drifted a little from that if from nothing else just by becoming a cultural melting pot. And you are right that the majority of our nation does profess Christianity in at least some form. I must confess that my partially fundamental upbringing did not teach me to accept all forms as genuinely Christian, as a result I tend to see our nation’s demographics as significantly less in our favor. (as in only Protestant evangelicals with a conservative slant who accept biblical inerrancy are the true keepers of the flame…)
I just don’t understand though if it’s ethical (tongue in cheek) to call America a Christian nation and expect every citizen to be OK with that, especially dogmatic athiests or sincere Hindus. Despite the fact that it may have started that way.
Honestly this is an issue I’m really torn over and I’m just not sure if i’m supposed to choose between truth and fairness.
LikeLike
Miguel, what “mixed group” are you referring to?
Doesn’t the larger portion of our nation consider themselves Christian of one denomination or another?
Let people who want to pray, pray. I don’t see what the problem with letting everybody else wait – if I moved to Tibet or Tehran I wouldn’t expect them to feel the need to accommodate MY religion in their national ceremonies, because I’d be a minority. It’s called “diversity”, right?
LikeLike
One more thought: If he’d just said “In Jesus’ name” in a quiet, thoughtful way, I’d feel more inclined to be charitable about the “house points.” 😉
LikeLike
Oh, and: What Miguel said! (Bolding mine.)
It’s not that i think prayer at all violates separation of church and state. But maybe prayer at public events, specifically one that endorses one religion. I’m just not entirely sure if that is fair to other religions who do not get representation.
LikeLike
e2c:
What parts of Warren’s prayer did you not appreciate?
Overall, he was fine until the end. IMO, he got way too (forgive the term) “Jesus-centric” and kind of hammered on it (with “Yeshua” and “Isa”) + the Lord’s Prayer. If I were a Hogwarts’ prof., I’d mark him down 30 points. 😉
More seriously, I do feel that it would be better if he had followed the path Lowery chose, with “God” and “Lord.” It’s clear that Christ is there by implication for those who follow him, but equally, there’s a sensitivity to other religions (Judaism, for one).
But then, I was left scratching my head at the intense anger stirred up by the use of “Happy Holidays” a few years back. I’m from a small town that used to have a large Jewish community, and local radio and TV stations (also newspapers) ran ad and jingles wishing everyone “Happy Holidays” back in the 50s and 60s. It wasn’t a big deal.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some Jewish people felt excluded by Warren’s prayer; ditto for people who come from other faiths as well. I know he was trying to be inclusive, but he ended up (I think) actually being exclusionary.
LikeLike
Sorry, I meant “meditation” room, not “mediation” room.
LikeLike
*public government events that is…
LikeLike
It’s not that i think prayer at all violates separation of church and state. But maybe prayer at public events, specifically one that endorses one religion. I’m just not entirely sure if that is fair to other religions who do not get representation.
LikeLike
I appreciate that Rick Warren personalized his faith. I don’t thik there is much gained by praying to a generic “God of our understandings”.
Years ago, Marya Mannes (a writer for the New Yorker) visited the Mediation Room of the United Nations General Assembly Building – a room that is essentially unfinished, so no offense is given to the world’s religions. Marya critiqued:
“It seemed to me, standing there, that this nothingness was so oppressive and disturbing that it became a sort of madness, and the room a sort of padded cell. It seemed to me that the core of our greatest contemporary trouble lay here, that all this whiteness and shapelessness and weakness was the leukemia of noncommitment, sapping our strength.
We had found, finally, that only NOTHING could please all, and we were trying to make the greatest of all generalities out of that most singular truth, the spirit of man. The terrifying thing about this room was that it made no statement whatever.â€
LikeLike
What about a prayer violates separation of church and state?
The Founders would have found it incredible that we would ever be discussing prayer as offensive.
Tolerance is that: tolerating, not eliminating.
LikeLike
Although I am prone to agree with Warren on way too many issues, I do have to ask as an evangelical, what really is the purpose of corporate prayer in such a mixed group? Is it for the respected leader to get up and pray how he believes prayer should be done, or is it for him to simply for the sake of tradition and ceremony get up and recite a prayer that is representative of the people group in front of him who he is representing?
If the first, than kudos to Warren for prayin in Jesus name despite the criticism. If the second… i just don’t know here. It is a public forum, right? While I more closely identify with the religious right in that I’m pro life and all that, I still do believe in separation of church and state (which begs the question why even have prayer at the ceremony to begin with).
Someone help me out here. This is confusing.
LikeLike
e2c:
What parts of Warren’s prayer did you not appreciate?
LikeLike
^Bob – I like your take!
LikeLike
It is my considered opinion (he said, with deep humility) that no one prays into a microphone. One prays into one’s pillow, at night, with fear and trembling, at times with tears. Everything else, especially if done in public (even at church), seems to me to be an oration.
Oh, and of course everyone who disagrees with me is obviously wrong.
LikeLike
Just as an FYI, the the full text of Robinson’s prayer (posted here) is (I think) pretty darned good.
I also really appreciated Rev. Lowery’s prayer, and parts of Warren’s prayer as well.
LikeLike
I appreciate you summing up the two prayers the way you did. I know you’re not the biggest Rick Warren or seeker sensitive fan (and neither am I) but I think Pastor Rick did a great job with this. I thought it was a good day for evangelicalism.
LikeLike
Thanks Michael.
I don’t want to have to listen to him again and I don’t know enough about his style. Since I follow the ‘how’ of communicating, I appreciate your answer.
LikeLike
I’ve got family on both sides of the Anglican controversy. Usually, despite my disagreements with some their conclusions, I find the family members that are in mainstream ECUSA more reasonable. And I can agree to disagree with them about the homosexuality issue.
That said, the interviews and prayer I’ve heard from Bp Robinson over the last couple of weeks have really gotten on my nerves. The all-religions-are-equally-true, God-of-our-many-understandings bit is not only unreasonable but is an insult to all those religions he’s trying to include! I can dig the concept of making a public prayer somewhat generic. I did that myself when I gave the bennidiction at my high school graduation. But this wasn’t a generic prayer from a Christian. This was a Christian trying to pray to nobody and everybody at the same time. Weak, very weak.
As far as the division within the Anglican Communion, I have serious problems with the splinter groups here in the Stats (CANA, etc) because they are divisive themselves. But really, ECUSA started it with ordaining Robinson to the Episcopate. Not that two wrongs make a right…
LikeLike
Just having fun. Given my general dislike for Warren, the choice between the two seemed a little absurd. Yes, Robinson is “living in sin”, but Warren teaches people to earn God’s approving smile through being purpose driven. Both need the millstone treatment, but don’t we all?
BTW, I just finished Sara Mile’s book. Many objections about Robinson can be said about her. What am I supposed to do with that?
LikeLike
Interesting contrast. Thanks for posting this, I missed the whole thing, I was more impressed with this Warren prayer than the last one 4 years ago.
It’s a shame that the prayers are so political.
LikeLike
I think the offense felt was not because Bishop Robinso wished to offer a non-denominational prayer – for an event such as this (particularly as it was not at the inauguration itself but before the free concert at the Lincoln Memorial), you can make a case that since it is addressed to all the nation, which is not 100% Christian of one denomination, then a broad, generally applicable invocation is appropriate – but that as a bishop of a Christian church, he sounded so offended by the mere notion of Christianity and/or Scripture being invoked.
He could have said “I won’t be specifically naming Christ because I understand there are those for whom He is not the Saviour and besides, in this instance, this is more about a secular occasion than a religious one” without sounding as if he was being more enlightened than those yokels who believe all that tripe. That may not have been his intention, but that’s what he came off sounding like. “Horrified” by how “aggressively Christian” previous inauguration prayers have been? That’s like being horrified by how aggressively Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim prayers in Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim countries at similar ceremonies have been. If the majority of people in previous generations believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I’m sure the Bishop would have found previous prayers horribly pasta-based 🙂
LikeLike
Robinson needs to read about Bonhoeffer.
LikeLike
Robinson said plenty of good things. That’s not the point. His status as a bishop and what he’s doing with it is the point. I’m sure he’s a good person and has some wisdom, but when it comes to Christianity, good advice isn’t the point. He believes and practices the abandonment of the faith when it conflicts with what the world wants to hear.
And yes, Warren had many nods to Islam in that prayer. I assume people in the “Jesus hates Muslims” club will be beside themselves.
LikeLike
“Bless us with discomfort – at the easy, simplistic ‘answers’ we’ve preferred to hear from our politicians, instead of the truth, about ourselves and the world, which we need to face if we are going to rise to the challenges of the future.” -Bishop Robinson.
Seems like a Christian statement to me: bear your cross and take the narrow road. Any easy-answer, wide road, sand-building pragmatism is excluded. Sounds down-right purpose-driven.
Oh, Nevermind. Warren good. Robinson bad. Simplistic answers take so much less effort.
LikeLike
Yes, I did pick up on the fact that Robinson’s prayer sounded more like a political speech than a prayer. There was not a whole lot in it that I would have objected to, but it does become significant when you consider it in light of who and what Robinson is. I think Warren did a good job with his prayer; it was an appropriate prayer for a gathering such as this where many religious faiths were represented, and yet it was distinctively and unapologetically Christian.
LikeLike
I heard Ravi Zacharias on the radio a few days ago. At one point he said: “It is much more logical to say that all religions are wrong, than to say that all religions are right”. (my paraphrase). So true!!!
LikeLike
I shoulda Googled. Apparently the Discernment Polic & IslamWatch folk are in a tizzy!
LikeLike
Something I caught that was a nod to Muslims in Rev. Warren’s prayer, and a nod that is not at all in conflict with Christian faith, was his reference to our Father God as “The Compassionate, The Merciful” which is the first statement about Allah in many English Qurans. Also, there was his use of ‘Isa’ in the names of Jesus. Now, THERE is Christian inclusiveness.
Only the Yahoo news story actually picked up on “The Compassionate, The Merciful”. I haven’t heard any other news coverage that has.
LikeLike
The closing prayer of the inauguration, I’d like to hear that again.
LikeLike
Two thoughts, one on each of the prayes.
Robinson:
“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.”
“…Across our town or across our world…unless you live in a womb somewhere. Then you have the moral significance of fingernail clippings.â€
Warren:
I was curious what he would do, even after he announced he would pray in Jesus’ name. I was curious if he would go beyond saying the phrase itself and actually include distinctly Christian elements in his prayer, the kind that (apparently) offend folks like Bishop Robinson.
He exceeded my expectations. He acknowledged the oneness of God, the Fatherhood of God, the provision and love of the Father for us, and the final judgment where we will all give an account.
Closing with the Lord’s Prayer–filled as it is with the hallowing of the Father’s name, the coming of God’s kingdom, the doing of God’s will, the forgiveness of real trespasses, the deliverance from real evil, and the acknowledgment of God’s kingdom, power, and glory forever, all in the name of his Son Jesus–was a great way to end, though I too would have liked more audience participation.
LikeLike
Bene D:
The size of the crowd made for a massive sound delay. He paused because there was a reaction that interrupted him. He didn’t pause for applause.
peace
ms
LikeLike
I’m not threatening to ban you. I’m just not going to publish posts that characterize a reasonable discussion as “rage.”
Make all the points you want if you can characterize other discussion partners less extremely.
LikeLike
Sigh. Never mind.
LikeLike
I really don’t think you should say, “I’d love to hear your thoughts on these two prayers and what they teach us” — and then respond to my response with threats to ban me. However, it is your blog. Peace.
LikeLike
Robinson obviously provides a real problem to a lot of progressives. They want a gay Christian spokesperson, and Robinson seems like the obvious choice. But Robinson is willing to abandon a distinctive Christian voice as an expression of Christianity. Like so many liberals, he has more in common with Oprah than with the church, but the church is a lot more useful. His Christian commitment is much like many other gay Christians, but his attitude toward the larger church could be described as “God has told me his new will. I’ll be here when the rest of the Anglican world recognizes that God is on my side.”
The solution to this is always the same: change your convictions and accept the other person’s convictions. Not “How can we differ charitably?” but “How can I win, and you admit that you’re ignorant and hateful?”
I have a plan for Robinson. Keep your convictions. Resign your office as bishop.
LikeLike
Jeff M,
Thank you for putting into words what I wanted to say but couldn’t (I’m not as eloquent as you).
LikeLike
I wonder if it would have been more faithful and honest to pray to God without being very specifically Christian?
On some level and at some time even we as Christians all imagine a God that is different than He really is, but the God who hears us and answers us is the God who is.
On some level how you pray in that type of situation is based on what you were asked to do by those who hired you.
I think there is a way to pray that does not deny the truth, but does not have to be overtly Christian.
Robinson at the very least chose very poor words with his “God of our understanding”. I pray to a God who exists outside of my understanding.
LikeLike
I think many people here loathe Robinson’s prayer because they loathe him. They loathe him because of his personal life, and because he supports gay rights. His support of gay rights is enormously controversial; it will probably split my church, to my great regret. But it is his sincere belief, and it can be and has been supported from Scripture.
Let me be clear. I don’t loathe Robinson, even though I don’t think much of his prayer. I pity him as someone who chooses to define himself by prideful rebellion against the very God he claims to love. I have a problem with pornography and anger and any host of other issues that grieve the heart of God, but I cannot find it within myself to claim that this is just how God has made me(it is my sin nature after all) and say that it must be celebrated and defended. If someone has or does defend homosexuality from Scripture and assert that God approves of it in some way, then they are simply doing injustice to the text itself. It is the attitude of the heart that is on display here. A homosexual bishop who pridefully asserts that the Bible doesn’t mean what it says and that he knows better than anyone what God really means is no more acceptable to me than any other Christian who would claim their favorite sin as acceptable in God’s sight.
I have no hate or loathing and pray that God would temper any anger that flares within me as I pray that any who would pridefully thumb their nose at God in this way would come to know Him as He really is; the God whose name is I AM and who loved the world and sent His son, Jesus.
That’s what was missing from his prayer. There is no Jesus and therefore no God. All that is left is a god of many imaginations who is no god at all.
LikeLike
H. Lee:
>I’m surprised by the rage and loathing toward it on this board.
There is no rage and loathing on this thread. You can stop that tactic now. It’s a discussion and if you say everyone you disagree with is a raging hater, I’m not going to post your comments.
>it is reverent, kind and even eloquent at times. His main point is that we have a responsibility to others, especially to the weakest among us. This point is certainly not something contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
No one disagrees with the good thoughts in the prayer. We can talk about Jesus later. There’s more to Jesus than just his teachings.
>…Robinson may have said this elsewhere, but he doesn’t say it here.
Right. Many, many times.
>…There’s nothing in the prayer that says the church of Jesus is “too aggressive.†He may have said it elsewhere, but not here.
Right. When he accepted this gig. He said it to the world’s press and it was everywhere.
>…“The Bible doesn’t tell us not to judge?†Well, yeah, it does. Motes and beams and “the measure that you give†and all that sort of thing.
Yeah, well the book of Proverbs and I/II Timothy and False Prophets and all that. Every person is obliged to judge in accordance with God’s word. You’re doing it to this thread now. I made it clear that Matthew 7 means we don’t judge like the Pharisees, i.e. in God’s place, but we all have to make important judgments about sin and truth. Who teaches their kids not to use good judgment about friends?
>…..I think many people here loathe Robinson’s prayer because they loathe him.
Strike two.
>….There are homosexual men in my congregation. They have been welcomed and treated like anyone else, and I’m glad of that. We haven’t discussed it, but I’ll bet anything that they feel hopeful about remaining Christians primarily because of Bp. Robinson.
That’s great. I have gays in my congregation and classes too. I’d suggest to all of them that Gene Robinson is not anyone’s hope. He’s a big mistake by the ECUSA, a mistake that says your sex behavior defines your morality.
>….But as for his Inaugural prayer being a cesspool of all that is evil.
Strike two and a half. No more of this if you want to be published. No one used anything like this kind of language about Robinson.
I appreciate your comments, but disapproving of Gene Robinson as a bishop and a spokesman for Christianity isn’t entirely a radicallly hateful position. No one loathes the guy. I loathe the ridiculous decision to make the guy a bishop just to spit in the eye of worldwide Anglicanism.
ms
LikeLike
H. Lee
I don’t see any “rage and loathing” here. Please give me an example.
Paul in the GNW
LikeLike
Scott M: I agreed earlier that AA teaches this, but no one on AA prays like this for the group. Individuals pray to and relate to their own higher power. There is no “generic God” in AA. Robinson is misrepresenting AA if that is what he says. A “higher power” can be the cat, but the one thing it’s not is a generic god for everyone.
LikeLike
Robinson’s prayer doesn’t seem horrible to me. Frankly, I’m surprised by the rage and loathing toward it on this board. (FWIW, I am Episcopalian, though not in favor of gay marriage/ordination.)
The prayer seems rather self-conscious, but it is reverent, kind and even eloquent at times. His main point is that we have a responsibility to others, especially to the weakest among us. This point is certainly not something contrary to the teachings of Jesus.
There’s nothing in this prayer that says “that God is uniquely working through [my] ordination to change the world.” Robinson may have said this elsewhere, but he doesn’t say it here.
There’s nothing in the prayer that says the church of Jesus is “too aggressive.†He may have said it elsewhere, but not here.
In this event, he was speaking to/praying before a not-necessarily-Christian crowd, so an address to a “God of many understandings†was not inappropriate.
“The Bible doesn’t tell us not to judge?†Well, yeah, it does. Motes and beams and “the measure that you give†and all that sort of thing.
I think many people here loathe Robinson’s prayer because they loathe him. They loathe him because of his personal life, and because he supports gay rights. His support of gay rights is enormously controversial; it will probably split my church, to my great regret. But it is his sincere belief, and it can be and has been supported from Scripture.
I agree with Thom: “In spite of Robinson’s many, many shortcomings, and we all have them, he is indeed someone that many Christians look up to. Not because he’s a great teacher or Bishop, but simply because he’s gay, and it isn’t very often that they hold out much hope for their place or future in the Church.†There are homosexual men in my congregation. They have been welcomed and treated like anyone else, and I’m glad of that. We haven’t discussed it, but I’ll bet anything that they feel hopeful about remaining Christians primarily because of Bp. Robinson. I’d rather have them in the church than out of it.
Personally, I don’t feel that homosexual behavior is God’s will. I don’t feel that divorce is God’s will, either, but our priest is a divorced man and I believe we are lucky to have him and his (second) wife in our church.
I’ll play “dueling Scriptures†with anyone who wants me to. But I’m sure that won’t change anyone’s beliefs on the issue of homosexuality or on Robinson.
But as for his Inaugural prayer being a cesspool of all that is evil — I really don’t think so. You asked for opinions, and this is mine.
LikeLike
Bishop Robinson is simply following in the footsteps of other “great” member of the church of Tudor, let us not forget bishop Pike or bishop Spong.
They make Robinson look like a radical conservative.
LikeLike
I listened to the NPR interview with Bishop Robinson last week. He adapted the phrase ‘god of our many understandings’ directly from his participation in AA and the prayer to the ‘god of my understanding’. I know quite a few people in 12 step programs, not all of the Christian by any means, and that is the way it is structured.
Given that context, given our cultural enslavement to our passions, I actually find his use of the phrase ironically fitting.
There was actually plenty in his prayer I can affirm. If I’m going to focus on it at all, I would prefer to spend my energy focusing on those.
LikeLike
Also? Warren prayed the Shema.
LikeLike
The problem with Robinson is that he picks an ideology, and then tries to build his religion around it. This is why building a faith purely around one’s personal experience, instead of revealed objective truth, is a bad idea.
The “God of our understanding” was obviously meant to allow the various participants to pray to the God they believe in. This would have been fine as an introduction to the prayer, but not the prayer itself. When included in the prayer, it makes him sound like a deist (as opposed to a Christian).
Warren’s prayer was a typical Christian prayer (i.e. Thank you God, please bless this person/occasion in Jesus’ name). Warren’s prayer was also apolitical, Robinson’s was all politics.
LikeLike
I agree that Robinson is a figure of hope for gays in the ECUSA, and that his ordination is a sign of hope for many in that denomination.
But it’s a bit more complex than that. In order to perpetuate that hope, Robinson has blown up the larger Anglican communion. He is arguably the most divisive person in contemporary Christianity. And his position is clear: Press on with more of this, even though worldwide Anglicanism has begged the ECUSA to stop.
In his own context and to his constituency Robinson is a significant figure. But what he has to say to the larger Christian world is where he differs from other Christians that might be at that microphone.
There was probably a fairly good chance that Warren or someone like him wouldn’t have prayed at this ceremony because they realize that their commitment to their faith is controversial.
Think Robinson would have even considered declining such an invitation?
Robinson believes that God has chosen him to tell the rest of Christianity that it is wrong. That’s his idea of neutrality.
LikeLike
If Robinson was just some guy off the street, then his prayer is no big deal to me. It’s faithful to the liberal side of western folk religion. If that’s what some guy wants to believe I’ll think it foolish, but hey, it’s a free country. My problem is that Robinson is not just some guy off the street; he is ordained as a Bishop in the Christian faith. He’s supposed to be faithful to Trinitarian God of Father, Son and Spirit. He’s supposed to proclaim that Jesus is Lord. But he wasn’t and he didn’t. That this is par for him and acceptable to his denomination causes me to grieve for the systematic and catastrophic failure of the Episcopal church.
LikeLike
I disagree, if for no other reason than Warren prayed as our Lord Jesus taught us to pray. But besides, I hate when pastoral prayer forgets it’s a prayer and tries to be a sermon, instead. Prayer does not equal a sermon does not equal prayer. I think Warren did well. He offered a rich Christian prayer that was as inclusive as it could be while still remaining a sincere prayer to our triune God, offered in Christ’s name.
I agree. If, for example, President Obama were a Hindu and had a Hindu clergy offer a (sincere) prayer, I would find it more real and less patronizing, than if he had a Hindu cleric offer up some WASP milquetoast. I’d be praying to Jesus all the while, either way, mind you.
LikeLike
Thom
The first problem is that Bp. Robinson is a BISHOP of the Episcopal Church he isn’t a _______ or a lay person, he is a Christian Bishop. The second problem is that he throws 2000 years of Christianity right down the drain.
Paul in the GNW
LikeLike
I don’t deny that +Robinson is a little unhinged. We’re not completely on opposing teams, Mr. Monk! I think that Robinson’s refusal to pray “in Jesus’ name” at the Inauguration comes from his, however misplaced, belief that public territory should be neutral territory. (Again, not the way I would go, but anyway.)
In spite of Robinson’s many, many shortcomings, and we all have them, he is indeed someone that many Christians look up to. Not because he’s a great teacher or Bishop, but simply because he’s gay, and it isn’t very often that they hold out much hope for their place or future in the Church.
LikeLike
“I rather got the impression that Lowery (sp?) prayed a platform. It might all have been in code, but it was a platform. I was also uneasy with the impression that he was playing to the crowd rather than praying to his God. Maybe it is a difference of culture, I could not really say.”
Exactly! You got it! If you are going to have public prayer, make it cultural.
The sources he drew from are really something.
He was droll, snarky, mourning, warning, joyful – drew on cultural references (his rhyme is drawn from a 1940’s song), it was invocation and benediction, theatre, call and response.
An A+ public prayer.
It was cultural. You and I wouldn’t hear a prayer like that, speaking as the other foreigner in this thread. For a few hours it was as if America was back.
I have a question.
Is it just me and my cultural blinders or did Rev. Warren pause for applause?
LikeLike
Remarkable observation Thom. What Christian who disagrees with Robinson has he not called a Pharisee and worse?
It’s Robinson who claims that God is uniquely working through his ordination to change the world.
Judging his motivations? Really. Is it just mean to note that a bishop of the church of Jesus pronounces our faith too “aggressive,” and then makes a public event of bailing out on prayer in the name of the God he’s ordained to represent?
Robinson’s motives? I can’t judge them like God, but I can read, listen and think.
The Bible doesn’t tell us not to judge. It tells us not to get in the place of God. Judging that someone like Robinson has abandoned ship is a reasonable observation. God can judge his ultimate motives.
BTW, Jesus often warned about the motives of public prayer, as I recall. Seen and heard by men, etc.
LikeLike
…and apparently I can’t write or form thoughts today. My apologies for that!
LikeLike
I’m rather surprised by this post. I would have expected something a little more profound than a criticism of prayers at the Inauguration.
If you understand what +Robinson’s concept of what God is, his prayer very much makes sense.
If you understand what Warren’s concept of God is, his prayer very much makes sense.
It’s OK to say that you disagree with +Robinson’s concept of God, but to judge his motivations for prayer as disingenuous appears, at best, smacks of Phariseeism.
Do I agree with +Robinson’s view of God? No, I don’t. But I also think that it’s perfectly acceptable to believe that, and to manifest that belief in his prayer. (And no, +Robinson was not chosen to pray to placate those who despise Warren, myself included, though make no assumptions about my motivation. He was chosen long before the controversy over Warren surfaced.)
LikeLike
I didn’t know anything about this Robinson fellow until I read about him here. However, I did stumble upon his prayer on another site yesterday and thought it was a good one though I do see what you’re saying. Some good thoughts though, particularly about remembering that Mr. Obama is a human being with a daunting task ahead of him. Perhaps speech is a better description. Still, I’ve prayed the same things.
I’ve never read any of the “Purpose Driven… anythings” (that’s the same guy, right?) but I thought Rick Warren did a great job this morning. Very moving to end with the Lord’s Prayer and have all these people saying it together. Even up here in Canada, watching it on the tube, I said it along with them.
LikeLike
The problem with that phrase saying that “every religion’s god judges” is that it can’t possibly be true. If God is who Jesus revealed Him to be, which I believe, then there is no “other religion’s god.” It is impossible to get away from that narrowness and keep the faith if you will. The phrase “god of our many understandings” has the same problem. God isn’t the God of any of our understandings; He is what He is and refuses to be defined or “understood” by any of us. His very name in Hebrew (YHWH) reflects this.
And frankly, I am even more perplexed by Lowery’s prayer at the end. It was more poetic that the poem that went before it, but completely incomprehensible. Does he live in this century or the 19th?
As for Rick Warren’s prayer, I was pleasantly surprised. Maybe I shouldn’t have been so quick to expect the worst.
LikeLike
About himself….exactly.
And he is afraid of Christianity and its true message of tolerance: Love your neighbor, do onto others, etc. Instead, we have a concept of tolerance meant to do nothing less than criminalize those who adhere to the teachings of their own faith with integrity. Incredible.
LikeLike
I have the same problem with Bp. Robinson as I do with Joel Osteen. Believe whatever you want, speak and pray as you like, but when present yourself as a pastor or priest, when you claim to lead a Christian church, you no longer have the freedom to make up the faith as you see fit.
LikeLike
Overall, read by itself, Robinson’s prayer is mostly unremarkable. It is only when you take it in context of who he his, and who Barack Obabma is, and what it really means that I find it woefully inadequate and insincere.
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.
This statement is theologically weak, but sounds ‘christian’ and suggests a Pro-Life position. It is only when you know who ‘prayed’ it and where, that it becomes a political statement and not a prayer at all. Robinson doesn’t mean what he seems to be saying. In context with his statements about”freedom from mere tolerance…warm embrace of our differences”, “..discomfort -at the easy, simplistic “answers” we’ve preferred from our politicians”, “anger at discrimination against ..gay, lesbian, and transgendered people” that proceed the statement Bp. Robinson is not talking people who are really vulnerable: unborn babies, the poor, elderly, handicapped. He is talking about himself.
Paul in the GNW
LikeLike
Ive been to a lot of AA meetings. I heard a lot about the concept of a higher power as described in the program. I never heard anyone offer a prayer to “The Higher Power.”
LikeLike
Prayers to a ‘Higher Power” as in the 12 Step Program is somewhat akin to praying to “a god of our many understandings.”
One night at a rescue mission, I asked the homeless to join in blessing the food and saying the Lord’s Prayer – they all stood, men removed their hats, some held hands and the chorus of voices, mostly men, was overwhelming. I waited for that response today with Pastor Warren’s leading . . . was it the media or just not politically correct?
In God We Trust – still handled by every American who has money in their wallet.
LikeLike
The attempt to be all-inclusive just can’t work. How do you include the athiest in your prayer? I have to admit…I never thought relativism would get this far. Its patently irrational and yet few people seem to be able to see it.
LikeLike
Other Jean: Yes, we do differ. I believe Robinson excluded everyone except himself and those who, like him, believe in a God who is not revealed in any of the world’s faiths but in their own politics. Robinson excluded every believing Christian, Muslim, etc.c
Inclusion for Robinson? Only those who agree with him on gay marriage qualify as Christians. He’s made it clear that God has revealed, through him, new revelation that counters Biblical statements.
LikeLike
To preface, this is *a* view from across the Atlantic. Please blame any errors on difference in culture and location. I, of course, am completely irresponsible. 🙂
It surprised me, given how much our news correspondents talk about the religiosity of the States, that Warren’s praying of the Lord’s Prayer was not greeted with a great “congregational” response. Perhaps it was simply the camerawork, but I only saw one shot of someone with lips moving. Certainly no-one on the podium seemed to be joining in.
I rather got the impression that Lowery (sp?) prayed a platform. It might all have been in code, but it was a platform. I was also uneasy with the impression that he was playing to the crowd rather than praying to his God. Maybe it is a difference of culture, I could not really say.
The dust-up over Robinson’s comments on distinctively Christian prayer was a fun one; I could not make up my mind what to think, except to conclude that this is another reason why it is a better idea not to mix public religious worship with secular state functions. But hey, I live in a country where bishops vote on legislation, so I can scarcely offer advice.
LikeLike
I am a bit confused regarding to whom the prayer is addressed. To which god is he praying?
Much of the prayer strikes me as a political statement. Of course, growing up in “the evangelical wilderness”, I heard many prayers that were filled with announcements, information, value judgments, condemnation and so on, so I suppose political statements might be expected at a presidential inauguration.
Somehow I think he is trying to say a prayer that will make everyone happy and at the same time tell us what he thinks is wrong with the world. But the prayer seems to me to be addressed more to the audience than to God.
LikeLike
Not surprisingly, I have a somewhat different perspective from you, Michael, on the issue of public prayer in the United States. It seemed to me that Bishop Robinson was attempting, successfully, to be inclusive. As President Obama pointed out, the U.S. is not entirely a Christian nation, and the Bishop’s prayer was one that could be joined by people of many faiths.
Pastor Warren delivered a heartfelt, exclusively Christian prayer. That is no bad thing, of course,for private prayer, or prayer in church; but it is a choice that left out the non-Christian members of his very large and very mixed audience. For its purpose, I preferred the prayer offered by Bishop Robinson, and wish that it had been heard by more of the crowd attending the concert.
May both their prayers be answered.
LikeLike
I struggle with the idea of offering a public prayer in a setting like this. How could one possibly avoid “saying a prayer” rather than truly praying, no matter what one’s convictions are?
LikeLike
I agree with Rob that it was an importatnt statement about Obama’s priorities that we saw religious leaders praying at his inaguration. I believe both men prayed sincerely and eloquently in what had to be a challenging venue. God knows all hearts and if God is pleased with their efforts in prayer, and I believe God hears us when we pray, then we really don’t have anything to worry about. People approach God in different ways and we heard that reflected in these prayers. I am in no way worried that more than one style of praying was represented during these ceremonies. Another prayer I was touched by was the benediction by Joseph Lowery. Here was a faithful preacher, civil rights worker and African American who got to live long eough to see and pray for a black man taking the oath of office as our 44th President. His words had to have come from a very, very full and grateful heart.
LikeLike
I was struck by the difference in emotion in the two mens’ voices.
Robinson sounded like he was reading his musings back to himself.
On the contrary, there was wonder in Warren’s voice as he spoke of everything being created by and for God, tenderness as he lifted Obama, his wife, and his daughters to God for his protection, and gratitude as he mentioned how Jesus had changed his life all those years ago.
One knows about Jesus. The other knows Jesus.
LikeLike
“Joe B: If you think Warrens prayer was Lukewarm what in the world did you want? An speech denouncing abortion and gay marriage?”
Al Mohler posted one of those.
I read Bishop Robinson’s blog about his choice, and his Christ-centric sermon regarding the inaguration at The Episcopal Cafe.
I thought Lowrey’s benediction was joyful. If I have to listen to public prayers his is the one I would ‘relisten’ to and reflect on.
LikeLike
I thought it was a stroke of genius (one not always common amongst us evangelicals) on Warren’s part to finish with the Our Father. It’s a prayer that all Christians, regardless of their political affiliations, can (and, I noticed, did all through the audience) share in.
As an evangelical Episcopalian, I obviously have serious problems with Gene Robinson, but it isn’t any of those things that caused me to shake my head when I heard his prayer. You’re right, Michael, in saying that it contained many good petitions, but it was it’s studied aversion to praying in Jesus’ name that bothered me, and that simultaneously attracted me to Warren’s.
The issue is this: how does anyone who claims to represent a people who confess that “there is one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus” feel comfortable suggesting that praying through Jesus is optional? I get pluralism. I get allowing each faith to be faithful to itself when prayers are offered, even (maybe especially) in public settings. But how intelligent is it for a person, especially a bishop, to deny the faith that he claims to represent?
It wasn’t that I was offended by Robinson’s prayer so much as I feel that Warren’s prayer offered in the name of Jesus is the only way that a Christian can possibly pray, if they really believe what they confess.
LikeLike
Shouldn’t we just be happy that they are even praying at all. In an age where public prayer is becoming more and more uncommon, it is encouraging to see that prayer still has its place in an event like this. Whether the prayer was good or bad, at least for a few brief moments people were focused on God.
LikeLike
Bishop Robinson should ask himself this question: What is a bishop of the church supposed to do in a public role? Renounce his faith? Generically redefine the faith of everyone? Or unapologetically be what you say you are- a bishop of Christ’s Church.
You can see what Robinson’s priorities are in this whole prayer.
LikeLike
“I’d rather be led in prayer by any Immam, any Wiccan or any Hindu in their own tradition than this nonsensical “God as you understand him.†If I say God of all understandings, how do I deal with the fact that many understandings of God directly contradict everything I say in the prayer?
Real tolerance: Let each person pray to the God they believe in, and don’t try to throw a blanket over everyone.”
Perfect. Absolutely perfect. People with Mr. Robinson’s views THINK that they are being open-minded, tolerant and expansive, but yet they are actually being very narrow-minded and restrictive as they seek to remove everything that is unique about any religion and melt it all down into one bland gruel of relativism and uncertainty.
Warren’s wasn’t the best, most moving prayer I ever heard, but at least he was authentic, and genuinely imploring God with what seems a heart of good will. He did his job, in other words.
LikeLike
“God of our Understanding” is an insult to every religion that believes in revelation anyway.
Just say God and amen if you want to be generic.
LikeLike
I’d rather be led in prayer by any Imam, any Wiccan or any Hindu in their own tradition than this nonsensical “God as you understand him.â€
Amen to that!
LikeLike
So if Warren denounces abortion and gay marriage, and says Jesus is the only God, then he’s not lukewarm.
If I were asked to pray for a brother with whom I had open disagreements, I wouldn’t shove those issues into the prayer. And if I prayed in Jesus name, I’d consider that as distinctive an affirmation of Jesus deity as one needed to make.
But that’s me. I’m certainly lukewarm, if not worse.
LikeLike
I applaud your point that you can’t talk about “the god of many understandings.”‘
My first reaction to reading that in the Robinson speech yesterday was, “What the heck does that even mean???
It is god-talk that becomes, properly speaking, meaning-less.
“I found neither prayer offensive to me as a Christian. I doubt either prayer would be offensive to a person of different faith, unless that person was already planning on being offended.”
It is not offensive to me merely as a Christian but far more to me as someone who takes faith and claims about reality (my own and others’) seriously.
LikeLike
IMonk
Well that would have been nice, yes. But at bare minimum a prayer where Jesus isn’t just someone who changed Rick’s life but rather is acknowledged as the one and only God. Would that have offened people? Yes. But that would be a sacrifice I’d be willing to make.
LikeLike
I’d rather be led in prayer by any Immam, any Wiccan or any Hindu in their own tradition than this nonsensical “God as you understand him.” If I say God of all understandings, how do I deal with the fact that many understandings of God directly contradict everything I say in the prayer?
Real tolerance: Let each person pray to the God they believe in, and don’t try to throw a blanket over everyone.
Joe B: If you think Warrens prayer was Lukewarm what in the world did you want? An speech denouncing abortion and gay marriage?
LikeLike
Bishop Gene … and his prayer are the perfect demonstration of why true Christians need to proclaim proudly and loudly that there is one God, the only to God is through Jesus, and that God revels Himself in one book–the Bible–which came to us by way of God’s verbal, plenary inspiration of men chosen to write holy scripture.
When I read Rick’s prayer, I couldn’t help but think of that passage in Revelation where God says that people who are lukewarm make Him sick. Further, Rick’s prayer is not nearly as far removed from the Bishop’s prayer as some people seem to believe.
LikeLike
Kudos to Pastor Warren. He delivered the goods. Robinson? Not surprising coming from an apostate.
LikeLike
“If you get the idea that [Warren] is praying, and [Robinson] is making a speech, I think you’re pretty much on track.”
The first 6 paragraphs of Warren’s prayer are equally expository. The seem to be statements for the benefit of human listeners more than intercession with God almighty.
If no one knew anything about Gene Robinson, I doubt there would be so much criticism. (Though there will always be those who can’t see the humility in the choice of his opening words.) Warren prayer also showed an attempt at inclusiveness.
I found neither prayer offensive to me as a Christian. I doubt either prayer would be offensive to a person of different faith, unless that person was already planning on being offended
Obviously the President chose these particular men for carefully consideration of the symbolic meaning of their presence at the events. But I don’t think we can judge the intentions of the men themselves. If we must judge (and we are commanded not to), we must take the words themselves, as they are.
See here for Robinson’s own explanation of the phrase “God of our many understandings”:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/01/gene-robinsons-offer-and-chall.html#more
LikeLike
I find the notion arrogant and insulting, myself. It is one thing to pray, frankly, as a Christian. It is quite another thing to presume to speak for all understandings. He was not praying to the God of Roman Catholic understanding, or Evangelical Protestant understanding, or Muslim understanding, or Orthodox Jewish understanding, or Buddhist understanding. He was praying to the God of secular pluralist understanding, and to that God alone. So enough with this “many” bull**** – it’s as partisan and narrow as can be.
LikeLike
I don’t understand why it’s impossible to reasonably and genuinely discuss the “God of our many understandings”- the notion seems to imply that as humans, we each come to God with flawed ability to understand and perceive God, and yet God is able to exist above and apart from that- while at the same time being accessible to us through our flawed understandings. I get disagreeing with that idea, and imagine that some believers in Allah, Jesus, etc do disagree with that idea- but disagreeing with an idea and the idea not being possible to honestly hold are two different things.
LikeLike
I’d also say that Warren worked to build a personal relationship with Obama and McCain during the forum at Saddleback.
Warren obviously makes a statement from Obama to Evangelicals.
Robinson’s sins are not what makes him significant. It’s the ECUSA’s decision to elevate him against the will of Anglicanism around the world.
I don’t want to villify Robinson. I’m a big sinner too, and I’ve broken a lot of promises. But I wasn’t elevated to the office of bishop as a result, and then claimed that God was using me to change history (one of Robinson’s fave speeches about himself.)
LikeLike
If I may comment on the men who wrote and lead the prayers first.
Rick Warren is there because he is good at what he does. He grew a church, preaching Jesus and Him crucified. He wrote some books to encourage others to do the same. He was praised by his peers for being successful. In other words he worked hard to be where he is,
Robinson is famous only for division, abandoning his wife and children and adopting a lifestyle at the expense of his family and his church. What is wrong with this picture.
Warrens prayer had good theology, Robinson’s was a speech. A lot of preachers struggle till they learn, prayer is talking to God, speeches talk to the crowd. Atta boy Rick!
LikeLike
If you get the idea that one man is praying, and the other is making a speech, I think you’re pretty much on track. And that is the problem with so much of liberal Christianity: it’s God-talk isn’t about God or from God. It’s using God to make very human, very partisan points. Some good. Some questionable.
LikeLike