The Lessons of Two Prayers: Warren and Robinson
January 20, 2009 by iMonk
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.
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
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.
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.
Jeff M,
Thank you for putting into words what I wanted to say but couldn’t (I’m not as eloquent as you).
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.
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.
Sigh. Never mind.
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.
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
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.”
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.
The closing prayer of the inauguration, I’d like to hear that again.
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.
I shoulda Googled. Apparently the Discernment Polic & IslamWatch folk are in a tizzy!
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!!!
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.
“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.
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.
Robinson needs to read about Bonhoeffer.
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
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.
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?
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…
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.
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.
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.
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.
^Bob – I like your take!
e2c:
What parts of Warren’s prayer did you not appreciate?
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.
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.
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.”
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.
*public government events that is…
Sorry, I meant “meditation” room, not “mediation” room.
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.
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.
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.”
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?
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.
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.
“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.”
@ Mich: Yes!!!
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.
Paul recognizing the altar to the unknown God is not the same as Paul inviting everyone to pray to the unknown God.
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.
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.
@ andyt – yes, that was *the* prayer!
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
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.
“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.”
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?