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.
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.
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!
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.)
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.
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.
“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
Kudos to Pastor Warren. He delivered the goods. Robinson? Not surprising coming from an apostate.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
…and apparently I can’t write or form thoughts today. My apologies for that!
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.
“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?
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.
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
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.
Real tolerance: Let each person pray to the God they believe in, and don’t try to throw a blanket over everyone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Also? Warren prayed the Shema.
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.
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.
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.
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.
H. Lee
I don’t see any “rage and loathing” here. Please give me an example.
Paul in the GNW