Mark D. Roberts

Mark D. Roberts


Examining Bishop Gene Robinsonâ??s Invocation

posted by Mark D. Roberts

Part 9 of series: Rick Warren, the Obama Inauguration, and Praying in Jesus’ Name
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Two days prior to the official inauguration of President Barack Obama, there was an opening event at the Lincoln Memorial. The invocation for this gathering was offered by the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire. As you probably know, Bishop Robinson is best known as the first openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church. His inclusion in the Obama inaugural surely demonstrated, for better or for worse, the new Presidentâ??s commitment to reach out to all segments of American society.
Not unexpectedly, Bishop Robinsonâ??s prayer was controversial. But the main reason for the controversy was not expected. Apparently, technical difficulties made it hard for most of those gathered to hear his prayer. Moreover, HBO didnâ??t include the prayer in their broadcast, which has led to cries of discrimination from gay and lesbian advocates. It seems likely, however, that HBO simply made a mistake. A reporter for Christianity Today magazine who was present when Bishop Robinson prayed took a surprisingly clear video, from which the picture to the right was taken. You can see the whole video on YouTube by clicking on the photo. The text of Robinsonâ??s prayer can be found at the Episcopal Café website.
Bishop Robinsonâ??s prayer included 525 words, and took just over four minutes to deliver. It was, as he described it, a prayer â??to ask Godâ??s blessing upon our nation and our next president.â? With this basic structure, the prayer began with seven requests for God to â??bless us.â? It ended with ten specific requests for the President elect: â??Give him wisdom; inspire him; Give him a quiet heart; Give him stirring words; Make him color-blind; Help him remember; Give him the strength; help him remember; keep him safe; Hold him in the palm of your hand.â?
From the point of view of structure and language, Robinsonâ??s prayer is exemplary. Unlike Rick Warrenâ??s prayer, which seemed to wander from topic to topic and which included little poetic repetition, Robinsonâ??s prayer reflected the artistry found in the liturgy that would be so familiar to an Episcopal bishop. One of the things Episcopalians, like all Anglicans, do so well is to use words sparingly, artfully, and profoundly in their written liturgies. One of the things Southern Baptists like Rick Warren do well is to pray spontaneously, eagerly, and enthusiastically. So neither Robinsonâ??s nor Warrenâ??s prayers were especially surprising in their form or manner of delivery.
I want to begin my examination of Bishop Robinsonâ??s content by focusing first upon his intercession for President-elect Obama. I find this section of the prayer to be wise, moving, and pastoral, as well as poetic. For example, â??Give him a quiet heart, for our Ship of State needs a steady, calm captain in these times.â? The thought here is right on, and wonderfully phrased as well.
Given Robinsonâ??s own liberalism, both theologically and politically, I was struck by the balance of one of his requests: â??Make [Obama] color-blind, reminding him of his own words that under his leadership, there will be neither red nor blue states, but the United States.â?
But I was most deeply impressed by the last two of Robinsonâ??s intercessions:

Give him the strength to find family time and privacy, and help him remember that even though he is president, a father only gets one shot at his daughtersâ?? childhoods.
And please, God, keep him safe. We know we ask too much of our presidents, and weâ??re asking FAR too much of this one. We know the risk he and his wife are taking for all of us, and we implore you, O good and great God, to keep him safe. Hold him in the palm of your hand â?? that he might do the work we have called him to do, that he might find joy in this impossible calling, and that in the end, he might lead us as a nation to a place of integrity, prosperity and peace.

The prayer for Obamaâ??s private life is full of pathos. I wonder if Robinsonâ??s prayer concerning Obamaâ??s time with his daughters reflects Robinsonâ??s own experience as a father with two daughters. In my opinion, Robinsonâ??s urgent request for Obamaâ??s safety was outstanding and badly needed.
All in all, I would give Bishop Robinsonâ??s prayer for Obama high marks. I canâ??t say the same for his intercession for the nation, though there are some fine thoughts there too, such as:

Bless us with patience â?? and the knowledge that none of what ails us will be â??fixedâ? anytime soon, and the understanding that our new president is a human being, not a messiah.
Bless us with humility â?? open to understanding that our own needs must always be balanced with those of the world.
Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance â?? replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger.

A couple of paragraphs were problematic, however, such as:

Bless us with anger â?? at discrimination, at home and abroad, against refugees and immigrants, women, people of color, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

I actually agree that we should not discriminate in the public sphere against the people on this list, though I doubt Bishop Robinson and I would always agree about what counts as discrimination. Nevertheless, I find his predictable litany of â??gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender peopleâ? to be unhelpful. It makes him sound like much less of a spiritual leader praying for the nation, and more of an activist pressing his own particular agenda. Of course one might counter in saying that Robinson is, indeed, more of an activist than a spiritual leader. He certainly doesnâ??t seem to mind splitting the Anglican communion in order to pursue his own aims. So, one might say that Robinson was being truthful in this part of his prayer. My point is that it was divisive. Contrast Rick Warrenâ??s prayer, which did not bring up divisive issues. Warren was bringing people together. Robinson was, once again, rending them asunder.
Perhaps the most notable and obviously controversial element of Bishop Robinsonâ??s prayer was his opening line: â??O God of our many understandings.â? From my point of view, this was a major mistake. It sounds almost like a Saturday Night Live parody. Of course Robinsonâ??s pointâ??that people understand God in many different waysâ??is correct. He could well have acknowledge this in a sentence, something like: â??O God, though we understand you in many different ways, we come together at this time to pray that you will . . . .â? But to address a prayer to â??God of our many understandingsâ? in this way seems to suggest that there is no real God out there to hear our prayers, but rather some figment of our corporate imagination. Itâ??s almost as if Bishop Robinson has given God a new name: not Yahweh, not God Almighty, not Prince of Peace, but â??God of our many understandings.â? Yikes!
Aside from the inelegance of this title for God, it epitomizes what I find most lacking in Robinsonâ??s prayer: Christianity. There is nothing specifically Christian here. There is nothing that reflects Robinsonâ??s apparent role as a Christian priest. Now Iâ??m not talking about any specific mention of Jesus. But I am talking about praying in a way that reflects the reality of Jesus and his ministry. There is no hint in Bishop Robinsonâ??s prayer of such Christian essentials as grace, mercy, justice, or forgiveness. There’s not one mention of faith, hope, or love. Robinson points to Godâ??s judgment, but never Godâ??s salvation. He wants us to be tearful over the pain of the world, but doesnâ??t ask that we participate in Godâ??s work of ending that pain. What a typically American response to the worldâ??s suffering! Letâ??s feel bad, but otherwise do nothing. If I feel your pain, that’s enough. No need to heal it. Doesnâ??t sound much like Jesus, does it? Similarly, weâ??re to be angry about discrimination. But Robinson never asks God to help us end it. From this prayer, youâ??d never know that the founder of Robinson’s religion began to inaugurate the kingdom of God, and called his followers to participate in his mission.
I do realize that Robinson told the New York Times in advance that he wasnâ??t going â??to pray a Christian prayer.â? In fact, he said he was â??horrifiedâ? at â??how specifically and aggressively Christianâ? previous inaugural prayers had been. Robinson followed through quite nicely on his promise to pray in a non-Christian manner. But, in the end, whatâ??s left is milquetoast religiosity. He leads us to ask God to give us tears, anger, discomfort, patience, humility, freedom, and compassion, all of which are quite fine. But thereâ??s nothing about doing justice, loving mercy, or walking humbly with our God. Under Robinsonâ??s leadership, we donâ??t ask God to help us love, forgive, feed the hungry, or heal the sick. Something is woefully lacking here . . . genuine Christianity.
I can understand why a Christian clergyman would choose not to use the name of Jesus in a civic prayer. But I cannot understand for the life of me why he would pray in a way that shows so little of Jesusâ?? influence.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(8)
post a comment
Bill Goff

posted January 23, 2009 at 8:38 am


Hi Mark,
Thank you for your detailed analysis of Bishop Robinson’s prayer with which I agree. I have only two additional observations to offer based on the fact that I was present when the bishop gave his prayer:
1) You referred to the setting of his prayer as “an opening event at the Lincoln Memorial” and “this gathering”. That’s true, but oddly vague. The event was in fact a concert featuring some of the most talented and popular actors, singers, and musicians in America and the world. From my vantage point on the side of the reflecting pool in front of a jumbotron several hundred yards away from the Lincoln Memorial, with the temperatures below freezing I was mostly glad that the prayer was not too long.
2) There is a difference between the immediate impression a prayer makes and a careful analysis of the text. The only thing that stuck in my mind at hearing the prayer out in the cold was the reminder that Barack Obama was not the messiah. Perhaps this reminder stuck because I had heard Rick Warren say the same thing in different words. The crowd around me at the concert greeted Barack Obama with much louder shouts and more mitten-muffled applause than any of the entertainers we enjoyed. So it was an appropriate and perhaps specifically Christian reminder to us concert goers that Barack Obama is not the messiah. As happy as I am that Barack Obama is now the President, I need to remember that Jesus is the Messiah, the Lord. It is he who will ultimately receive the adulation of all crowds.



report abuse
 

Ray

posted January 23, 2009 at 10:14 am


Dead-on analysis, Mark, both in your praise and your criticism, and also in your contrast to the style of Warren’s prayer. I hadn’t thought of that, and I found it interesting.
The language of the Bishop’s prayer, though artistic as you pointed out, has a somewhat depressing tone to it. It seems to me that he made a point to recite a laundry list of political/social grievances, which is fine. But there was no corresponding expression of hope for God’s intervention in these matters. With regard to these laments he asks God to make us cry and get angry. He asks God to make us uncomfortable, patient, humble, tolerant and compassionate; but the only response mentioned to his list of injustices is a warning that “every religion’s God” (yes, the transcriber you linked to used a capital G) “judges us by the way we care for the most vulnerable in the human community.” And he called not just for tolerance, but for unequivocal, all-inclusive acceptance…a topic for another day, maybe.
Most troubling was the way he referred to God as a sort of pantheistic, pluralistic, make-God-into-whatever-you-want-him/her/it-to-be sort of entity.
Most encouraging was his prayer for personal blessings on President Obama and his family. I thought that part of his prayer was extremely positive, and it actually acknowledged God’s sovereign ability to do something.
I’m hypercritical, I know. Except for a couple of details I can pray that prayer too. So I will.



report abuse
 

Evan

posted January 23, 2009 at 10:28 am


Mark: Regarding your comment:
“But I cannot understand for the life of me why he would pray in a way that shows so little of Jesusâ?? influence.”
My first thought is Occam’s Razor.



report abuse
 

Where have the Christians gone? « Whispers

posted January 23, 2009 at 1:04 pm

D Groothuis

posted January 23, 2009 at 9:15 pm


How would John the Baptist pray in the presence of Herod?



report abuse
 

Mike

posted January 24, 2009 at 7:30 am


The issue is not his prayer, it’s the condition of his heart. Without heart-purity a prayer is merely a collection of words. And depending his spiritual state, Robinson may have wasted his time according to 1 Peter 3:12 and James 5:16.



report abuse
 

Mariam

posted January 24, 2009 at 10:14 am


Speaking of inaugural prayers, the one that spoke best to me was the one delivered by Dr. Barry Black at the inaugural luncheon. I didnâ??t find the text, but it is toward the end of this video.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4739084n
Perhaps Dr. Black has an advantage, because, as Chaplain of the Senate, he is used to these occasions. He ends his prayer â??In Your Sovereign Name.â? People may call that a cop-out, but I have found it a helpful way to pray to mixed groups. Christians know perfectly well what it means, and other, non-Trinitarian believers can hear the prayer as being returned to the one God to whom it is originally addressed.



report abuse
 

Mark D. Roberts

posted January 24, 2009 at 11:55 am


Mariam: Thanks for the info. Dr. Black is a fantastic speaker, preacher, and, I expect, pray-er. I heard him once and was most impressed and grateful for his leadership in the Senate. He followed my mentor, Lloyd Ogilvie, in that role.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Mark D. Roberts. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Red Letters with Tom Davis Recent prayer post on Prayables Most Recent Inspiration blog post Happy Reading!  

posted 2:09:11pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? Conclusions
In this series on the death of Jesus, I have presented four different perspectives on why Jesus had to die: Roman, Jewish, Jesus’, and Early Christian. I believe that each of these points of view has merit, and that we cannot fully understand the necessity of Jesus’ death without taking them all

posted 2:47:39am Apr. 11, 2011 | read full post »

Sunday Inspiration from the High Calling
Can We Find God in the City? Psalm 48:1-14 Go, inspect the city of Jerusalem. Walk around and count the many towers. Take note of the fortified walls, and tour all the citadels, that you may describe them to future generations. For that is what God is like. He is our God forever and ever,

posted 2:05:51am Apr. 10, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 3
An Act and Symbol of Love Perhaps one of the most startling of the early Christian interpretations of the cross was that it was all about love. It’s easy in our day, when crosses are religious symbols, attractive ornaments, and trendy jewelry to associate the cross with love. But, in the first

posted 2:41:47am Apr. 08, 2011 | read full post »

Why Did Jesus Have to Die? The Perspective of the First Christians, Part 2
The Means of Reconciliation In my last post, I examined one of the very earliest Christian statements of the purpose of Jesus’ death. According to the tradition encapsulated in 1 Corinthians 15, Jesus died “for our sins in accordance with the scriptures” (15:3). Yet this text doesn’t expl

posted 2:30:03am Apr. 07, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.