Warren courts non-Christians -- or does he?
As a Times editorial today notes, mega-evangelist Rick Warren steered clear of controversy in his invocation at President Obama's inauguration. No mention of same-sex marriage, as an analogy to incest or otherwise. Warren also is receiving ecumenical Brownie points for salting his prayer with allusions to Jewish and Muslim tributes to the God of Abraham. But a friend of mine argued over drinks on Inauguration night that this amounted to "faux inclusiveness." I think he's right.
Unlike other clergymen called upon to sanctify public events, Warren didn't opt for a Judeo-Christian or even Judeo-Christian-Islamic lowest common denominator. The culmination of the invocation was the Lord's Prayer, which Warren prefaced with a prayer for the Obamas "in the name of the one who changed my life, Yeshua, Isa, Jesus, Jesus (the Spanish prounciation)." The use of Jesus' Hebrew or Aramaic name -- Yeshua -- might seem like a nod to Jews, but probably only Jews for Jesus were impressed.
Obama has every right to include an explicitly Christian prayer in his inauguration. Last year he told a Christian magazine: "Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals." But if Obama wanted to be inclusive, he might have passed over Warren for Daniel Coughlin, the Roman Catholic priest who serves as chaplain of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Coughlin isn't above making veiled references to Christianity. Last week, in a prayer thanking God for safeguarding the US Airways plane that crashed in the Hudson River, the people's padre praised the crew for "drowning self–interest items as in a momentary baptism." But at momentous state occasions he tends to be more circumspect than Warren was at the inauguration.
When Coughlin gave the invocation at a memorial service for former President Gerald Ford, he prayed: “{W]e humbly ask You, Lord, to grant peace and reconciliation, healing and gentle civility to this nation, as this man so nobly tried to do in life’s singular moments by his efforts to close chapter upon chapter on America’s sadness." No mention of Jesus -- or Yeshua.
[sorry is this is redundant; my first attempt to post landed me on an error page, so I'm not sure this transmitted on first attempt.]
Warren’s prayer is what (pace Robert Bellah) we might dub “American Uncivil Religion.” American Civil Religion (ACR) has been the style of most presidential inaugurations, etc.: lowest common denominator God the Father, whose chosen people are the Americans. (Re: the “Sh’ma,” the “Israel” Warren had in mind may not have been the Jews but the Puritan’s shining City on the Hill.) His multi-culti reference to various names of Jesus should not obscure the fact that Warren parts ways with the ACR tradition.
In a certain sense what he was doing is like what the creationists have done: to adopt, superficially, the rhetoric of mainstream, civil discourse in the pursuit of sectarian, uncivil ends. For example, creationists can be “skeptical fideists,” adopting the rhetoric of skepticism about (scientific) dogma in order to bolster religious dogma by process-of-elimination. For instance, creationists adopted the rhetoric of fair play, inclusiveness of minorities, and equal time in an attempt to (re-)insert Genesis into geology.
The parallel to Warren is that by invoking Hebrew, Arabic, and Spanish names for Jesus he is offering a mainstream, civil vision; whereas in fact his core message is that Jews, Arab Muslims (perhaps Methodists & Catholics too) etc., are all merely potential Christians. To remain un-Christian is un-American. Same old iron fist, new velvet glove.
As someone earlier pointed out, why blame someone whose religion tells him precisely this, that (Protestant, evangelical) Christianity is the only true religion, and that the rest of the world needs to convert? He would be untrue to his evangelical faith if he didn’t preach conversion to Jesus, in every context. But the incivility of Warren’s religion is precisely why he might not have been asked in the first place to kick off an Obama inauguration. His invocation was 4-8 years too late.
Just as creationism is bad for science, Protestant evangelical conversionism is bad for civil discourse -- no less so when gussied-up in modernist rhetoric.
Posted by: Michael A | January 22, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Warren’s prayer is what (pace Robert Bellah) we might dub “American Uncivil Religion.” American Civil Religion (ACR) has been the style of most presidential inaugurations, etc.: lowest common denominator God the Father, whose chosen people are the Americans. (Re: the "Sh'ma," the "Israel" Warren had in mind may not have been the Jews but the Puritan’s shining City on the Hill.) His multi-culti reference to various names of Jesus should not obscure the fact that Warren parts ways with the ACR tradition.
In a certain sense what he was doing is like what the creationists have done: to adopt, superficially, the rhetoric of mainstream, civil discourse in the pursuit of sectarian, uncivil ends. For example, creationists can be “skeptical fideists,” adopting the rhetoric of skepticism about (scientific) dogma in order to bolster religious dogma by process-of-elimination. For instance, creationists adopted the rhetoric of fair play, inclusiveness of minorities, and equal time in an attempt to (re-)insert Genesis into geology.
The parallel to Warren is that by invoking Hebrew, Arabic, and Spanish names for Jesus he is offering a mainstream, civil vision; whereas in fact his core message is that Jews, Arab Muslims (perhaps Methodists & Catholics too) etc., are all merely potential Christians. To remain un-Christian is un-American. Same old iron fist, new velvet glove.
As someone earlier pointed out, why blame someone whose religion tells him precisely this, that (Protestant, evangelical) Christianity is the only true religion, and that the rest of the world needs to convert? He would be untrue to his evangelical faith if he didn’t preach conversion to Jesus, in every context. But the incivility of Warren’s religion is precisely why he might not have been asked in the first place to kick off an Obama inauguration. His invocation was 4-8 years too late.
Just as creationism is bad for science, Protestant evangelical conversionism is bad for civil discourse -- no less so when gussied-up in modernist rhetoric.
Posted by: Michael A Cavanaugh | January 22, 2009 at 09:58 AM
How ironic that Warren would exercise the right to freely express his beliefs so soon after trying to deny that right to others through his attempted censorship of the book PyroMarketing. Would Warren have let strangers edit the text of his prayer? I doubt it, and he shouldn't. Yet that is what he tried doing to my book. What am I talking about? Search: "Purpose Driven Interference" to find out.
Posted by: Greg Stielstra | January 22, 2009 at 09:41 AM
Rick Warren's so-called prayer was the low point of the inauguration ceremony. It confirmed that Obama made a mistake inviting this guy to vitiate an otherwise uplifting event.
Regarding the unabashed reference to Jesus, that was to be expected. Rick Warren is an evangelical Christian. They believe that prayer to God have to be offered in Jesus' name, otherwise they are not answered. Jesus implored his disciples to "ask in his name." Therefore, Rick Warren had no theological choice in the matter.
Be that as it may, Rick Warren's reference to Jesus had an eerie exclusionary affect. It excluded everyone except ardent Christians.
Why religion is given this place at all? Whether these evangelicals like it or not, U.S.A is a democracy, and democracy by definition is SECULAR. A democratic government has to be religiously neutral.
It is demeaning to give such a "high" place to a particular religion. It brings everything else down.
Posted by: KushK | January 22, 2009 at 08:49 AM
As one of the people who actually attended the inauguration, I sat in the cold for several hours to see Obama sworn-in and to be a part of history.
Rick Warren was completely unnessesary to the success of the event. As a Jew, I felt uncomfortable and awkward when the prayer was recited. I didn't spend ages freezing to listen to a man attempt to include my religion in his prayers. It didn't matter to me that Warren had included the hebrew name of Jesus.
Jesus does not take a central role in Judaism.
Warren would might have been better off using many different names for G/d instead.
Posted by: Henna Averbeck | January 22, 2009 at 07:49 AM
I thought the prayer was awkward and hostile to non-Christians. The benediction by Rev. Lowery was much more inclusive and touching for me.
Posted by: sharon | January 22, 2009 at 02:24 AM
Rick Warren is an inclusive Pastor he visited Syria in 2006 and publicly praised Baathist dictator Bashir Al-Assad. He publicly told Lynda Resnick that God did not here the prayers of the Jews. He is also a follower of staunch anti-integrationist Wallie Amos Criswell whose views he has never repudiated.
A shill for Arab dictators an anti-Semite and a follower of an end-times nutter. You can’t get any more inclusive than that
Posted by: Alan Hinnrichs | January 22, 2009 at 01:56 AM
My parents were excited and gratified to hear the Sh'ma - their generation thinks that a nod to Jews is a sign that religious discrimination has passed.
But I know better - I'm a religious Jew and I have no need to hear the Sh'ma from Rick Warren. Instead of him pandering to MY religion TOO, I'd rather he not pander to ANY religion, and have the prayer be as broad, as non-denominational, as inoffensive and as inclusionary as possible.
Rick Warren probably did the best he could, but that's why he was a poor choice to begin with. He's a narrowly focused TV evangelist type who speaks with an self-adoring overdone affect. And if he tells you he's he's got 5 things to offer you, trust me - they're 5 things named Jesus.
Posted by: Marc | January 21, 2009 at 07:49 PM
Most Americans(80%) believe jesus. And all presidents of the United States of America take the oath on the Bible since 1789.
Posted by: John | January 21, 2009 at 07:41 PM
By asking, in advance, to be forgiven "when we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the Earth with the respect that they deserve," wasn't Reverend Warren signaling his intention to do just that?
Posted by: Fred Glynn | January 21, 2009 at 05:16 PM
I'm still waiting for Warren to be included on ANY inauguration highlights reel...anyone? anyone?
Warren's beautiful and succinct prayer was heard by many...some with open hearts, others with cold ones.
You would think that after 3 weeks of headline news about his "gay opposition" that he would at least be mentioned in inauguration analysis at places such as CNN. Interesting what people choose to "highlight."
Posted by: Alexander | January 21, 2009 at 03:26 PM
What does it matter if he mentions Jesus? I don't get the fuss -- it's a prayer. Obama closed his speech with God bless America - no one is up in arms about that, and as William points out. Obama is the one trying to court christians by choosing Rick Warren in the first place. The real story here is that Rick Warren is going to be the next Oprah... He's even launching a magazine: www.purposedriven.com.
Posted by: mtown | January 21, 2009 at 02:12 PM
I heard the prayer at the and I was surprised when he used the true and only name for that important man who was nailed to the cross. Its kinda become a cliche thing for people to just refer to Yahshua as the "hebrew" name which is totally incorrect. It is a universal name. If my name is Alfred and if i go to China, Iraq, Africa, Russia etc... my name will still be Alfred. It might be some slight diffrence in how people pronounce it. But you wont hear someone call me Bobby LOL. People have been fooled and tricked into just accepting that oh its the "old hebrew name". If you think about it, you will see how silly that sounds. What was your old name then?
Posted by: bigD | January 21, 2009 at 01:43 PM
"Warren courts non-Christians -- or does he?"
Wow, talk about missing the point. Warren wasn't there to court non-Christians. Most of those already back Obama anyway. He was there to court evangelicals, albeit with as little controversy as possible.
Posted by: William | January 21, 2009 at 11:51 AM
Why would you want a man that devotes his life to Jesus, to not mention Jesus?
Posted by: js | January 21, 2009 at 11:41 AM
The prayer should not have happened at all. Separation of Church and State. Period. By the inclusion of prayer, a Church function, at a State function, the First Amendment was violated. There should be no prayer, of any faith, at a government function. This is a secular country, the first secular country in the world. Keep it that way. Pray at home or in your temple.
Posted by: Michele | January 21, 2009 at 11:30 AM
well he started the prayer with the "Shema" - "Hear, oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." That was an immediate catering to Jewish people, as the Shema is the most important and revered prayer in the religion. That was a nice beginning ,I thought.
Posted by: Bernardo | January 21, 2009 at 11:21 AM
You failed to notice that Rick Warren said the "Shema" a very well known Jewish prayer in his speech. It was an English translation so unless you know the Hebrew and its meaning it could easily be missed.
Posted by: Andrew | January 21, 2009 at 11:16 AM