Mark D. Roberts

Mark D. Roberts


Should Rick Warren Say “In the Name of Jesus” at the End of His Inaugural Prayer? Section 2

posted by Mark D. Roberts

Part 6 of series: Rick Warren, the Obama Inauguration, and Praying in Jesus’ Name
Permalink for this post / Permalink for this series
Yesterday I laid out the strongest case I could make against having Rick Warren say “in Jesus’ name” at the end of his inaugural prayer. Today I’m arguing the other side.
If you read this before 11:30 a.m. Easter time, then you won’t know what Warren actually did. If you read it afterwards, you may very well know how he prayed. The suspense will be over. Nevertheless, I want to reflect upon this issue because it’s important. The question of how Christians pray in civic gatherings – or whether they should or not – is part of the much larger conversation about the role of religion in America’s public square. If you’ve been following the furor surrounding Warren’s involvement in the Obama inauguration, you know this conversation is lively, sometimes even downright nasty. For Christians, we need to answer two crucial questions:

1. As American citizens, how should we properly speak of and live out our faith in our pluralistic society?
2. As citizens of God’s kingdom, how should we properly speak of and live out our faith in this pluralistic society?

Though both of these are the same question, the answers may be quite different. One will be based on issues of law and culture. The other will depend on biblical and theological interpretation. In the end, of course, each American Christian needs to answer both questions satisfactorily. At any rate, let’s get back to the issue at hand.
The Case for Saying “In Jesus’ Name” at the End of Rick Warren’s Inaugural Prayer
First of all, let me address this question as a Christian. One of our highest callings and greatest privileges is to glorify Jesus. Christians want people to know about him and to be drawn to him. Of course many people are not especially pleased by this desire. It’s popular these days to be not just non-Christian, but anti-Christian. Nevertheless, Christians are committed to letting folks know about Jesus. If a Christian had the opportunity to use the name of Jesus in a prayer that would be heard by millions, perhaps even billions of people, one might consider this a valuable opportunity to fulfill our Christian calling. (It would be rather like painting “John 3:16” under your eyes when you lead your college football team to the national championship, as did Florida quarterback Tim Tebow a couple of weeks ago.)
But if we think about this issue, not from a Christian perspective, but in light of American culture. Given the diversity of our society today, and given the wide range of religious beliefs, how could it be a positive thing for a Christian to say “in Jesus’ name” at the end of a prayer? Wouldn’t something more generic be helpful in the public square? Might one want to pray, as did the Episcopal bishop, Rev. Gene Robinson, in an inaugural event, to “O God of our many understandings”? (No joke.)
One of the things I value most about this country is our heritage of religious freedom. One of the greatest things about the United States of America is that people are free to practice the religion of their choice, within generous boundaries. One could not sacrifice another human being to the gods. But one could certainly say “in Jesus’ name” at the end of a public prayer. To do this, even when not everyone in America could say “Amen,”  would be a celebration of our freedom as well as our diversity as a nation. I’m quite sure the multitude of other prayer givers during the long Obama inauguration, including a Hindu, a Jew, a Muslim, and a wide variety of Christians, will pray according to their convictions and traditions. Though I might not pray to Allah myself, I’m blessed to be in a country where a Muslim can do this in freedom and without fear. Equally, I’m blessed to live in a country where an evangelical Christian can say “in Jesus’ name” at the end of his public prayer.
Some folks seem to prefer a lowest common denominator approach to public expressions of faith. That’s what I’d call praying to the “God of our many understandings.” But I think our civic life is enriched by the genuine diversity of our convictions and traditions. I don’t mine if a Muslim prays to Allah, or a Hindu to Krishna, because that’s what they really do, and I want to be exposed to their genuine religious faith and practice.
Of course we can exercise our personal faith in public in a way that’s offensive. But I think this isn’t necessary. In his 2001 prayer at the Bush inaugural, Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell (who is African American, and now an Obama supporter), ended this way: “We respectfully submit this humble prayer in the name that’s above all other names, Jesus, the Christ. Let all who agree say, ‘Amen.’” Understandably, he caught some heat for praying this way. More recently, in a civic gathering, Rev. Caldwell closed, “Respecting persons of all faiths, I humbly submit this prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.” Surely anyone who would be offended by that closing would be offended by just about any prayer in a public gathering.
So, I think our country is richer and better if people of faith can exercise their faith in public as well as private. If Rick Warren usually prays in Jesus’ name, then America is better off if he says this in the inauguration.
So What Would I Do?
Now that I’ve put forward my best arguments against and for using the phrase “in Jesus’ name” in the inaugural prayer, I should explain what I would do. At least that was my intent. But, after thinking about this for several days, I must admit that I’m less clear than I was before. I’ll tell you why.
Given the fact that praying in Jesus’ name, from a biblical point of view, does not require one to say “in Jesus’ name,” and given the fact that an inaugural prayer is meant to include a wide range of people, not just Christians of a certain stripe, and given the sensitivity many people feel over the name of Jesus, owing, in part, to terrible things Christians have done using his name, I was planning to admit that I would not use the name of Jesus if I were in Rick Warren’s shoes. In an effort to imitate Jesus’ own outreach to those who were on the edges, and who were surely not especially religious, I would not say “in Jesus’ name” to close my prayer. At least that’s what I thought I would do.
But the more I’ve reflected upon my last point about what makes America wonderful, I’m reconsidering my position. I’m not doing this for Christian reasons so much as more American ones, if you will. I would rather live in a nation where people were free to be honest about their beliefs, and even to express them openly in a public forum, than in a nation where we all had to pretend that we all worshiped the “God of our many understandings.”
So, as of this moment, if I were in Rick Warren’s shoes (which, by the way, I hope I never will be; I couldn’t take the heat), I would say something like “in Jesus’ name” at the end of my prayer. But I wouldn’t just do this. Rather, in advance of the inauguration, I would take the time to explain what it means to pray in the name of Jesus (as I have done in this blog series) and why I think America is better if people live out their faith with authenticity. I would acknowledge that not everyone in America could echo the “in Jesus’ name” part of my prayer. So I would not say, “we pray in the name of Jesus” but “I pray in the name of Jesus.” Among other things, that would simply be a statement of fact. I might very well be inclined to borrow the recent line of Kirbyjon Cladwell, “Respecting persons of all faiths, I humbly submit this prayer in the name of Jesus Christ.”
I do reserve the right, however, to change my mind again.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(12)
post a comment
Carl

posted January 20, 2009 at 12:18 pm


Well,
Rick went for four references to the name of Jesus. Interesting mix of respecting others by using Yeshua, Issa but not sure what to think of that.



report abuse
 

Frank Reed

posted January 20, 2009 at 12:32 pm


This whole series is why I left the Methodist Church. There should be no argument about whether we pray in Jesus’ name as a true Christian. I suspect John Wesley would be deeply hurt by the state of Methodism today. I will pray for all of you.



report abuse
 

Jennie

posted January 20, 2009 at 1:41 pm


I thought both Pastor Warren and Reverend Dr. Joseph E. Lowery did fine jobs today. I appreciated Warren’s decision to declare Jesus name as the one who saved him. He made an important statement while not intentionally leaving people out. I am also mindful that what I think about this day is only as important as what the millions of my fellow Americans think. This was a very inclusive morning. That matters. I wonder if all this talk about participating in conversations with people who are different from us and with whom we may have to agree to disagree is just too uncomfortable for those who have become very comfortable in an exclusive world?



report abuse
 

Steve

posted January 20, 2009 at 3:38 pm


I think Rick Warren did a fine job of praying for the President today. I liked the way he went from his recognition of Jesus as the one saved him into the Lord’s prayer as a way to end the invocation.



report abuse
 

Mark Roberts

posted January 20, 2009 at 4:40 pm


Frank: Did you read this series? If so, then you know I agree with you completely about our praying in Jesus’ name. I don’t get the connection with the Methodist church.



report abuse
 

Ray

posted January 20, 2009 at 5:48 pm


I didn’t get to see any of the inauguration today, so I had to search for the text of Warren’s prayer. To save somebody else the trouble of looking for it, here it is. (Hope it’s correct!!! That would be embarrassing, huh?)
http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2009/01/20/text-pastor-rick-warren-inauguration-invocation-january-20-2009/



report abuse
 

Jim

posted January 20, 2009 at 6:06 pm


Is anyone troubled by Warren addressing God by two of the “Divine Names” for the Muslim god Allah?: “And you are the compassionate* and merciful** one.”
*al-Rahim
**al-Rahman
Probably most non-Muslims would miss that, but it would be obvious to any Muslim that Warren is treating the Muslim god as equivalent to the Judeo-Christian God.



report abuse
 

Carl

posted January 20, 2009 at 7:19 pm


Jim – when Warren spoke of the compassionate and merciful God I thought of passages like Exodus 34:6 and parallels in the Psalms such as 103:8. I don’t see it in any way as a use of a Muslim divine name.



report abuse
 

Mark Roberts

posted January 20, 2009 at 7:25 pm


Jim: Also, you have James 5:11: “The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.” Warren was praying to the God revealed in the Old Testament and in Jesus. So I don’t think he was in any way equating the God of Islam with the God of the Bible.



report abuse
 

Joshua

posted January 21, 2009 at 11:19 pm


I try to avoid calling attention to typos, but I am going to do so this time because the meaning is affected.
The second paragraph of this post says, “If you read this before 11:30 a.m. Easter time, then you won’t know what Warren actually did.”
Let’s make that “Eastern” time. I assume Warren will be praying at 11:30 a.m. on Easter time as well, but by then the inauguration will be long in the past.



report abuse
 

Mariam

posted January 22, 2009 at 3:05 pm


“Compassionate and Merciful” would definitely evoke the address to Allah for any Muslim hearing it. I speak as a Christian convert from Islam. I believe that Pastor Warren meant it that way. But it does not follow that he was saying the Muslim Allah and the Trinitarian God are fully equivalent. Just as he immediately preceded it with a phrase that Jews would embrace, “Hear O Israel,” it was a way to make the prayer resound with more of his listeners, but without compromising his own beliefs. I hope it is not a reason for people to get upset.



report abuse
 

Mark D. Roberts

posted January 22, 2009 at 4:21 pm


Joshua: What an ironic typo! Thanks.



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.