I was delighted several months ago when I received another invitation to open a session of the Maryland Senate in prayer. This time, however, there was an additional request – to submit my prayer ahead of time so that, I was told, it might be accurately published in their records.
Several days before my scheduled visit, I received a phone call from the Senate asking me to please remove my reference to Jesus Christ at the end of my prayer. I said respectfully, I could not, simply because that is the only way I knew how to pray.
The day before my visit, I received another phone call informing me that because I could not comply with Senate protocol, my invitation had been withdrawn. The person dealing with me was most gracious and seemed to me personally embarrassed by this turn of events. She did, however, have to enforce policy.
An experience like this makes you think long and hard about the place of faith in a pluralistic society.
I responded to the Senate indicating that I was most sympathetic to their concerns. Why should someone lead the assembly in prayer in the name of Jesus, when there are members of the Senate who do not believe in Jesus, and could not reasonably be led in that way? I would feel equally offended if I were led in prayer by a Muslim, with the expectation that I would be praying in the name of Allah.
In fact, it seems to me that the days when Americans can be led in any sort of public prayer are gone. Such prayers are bound to be offensive, either because they would be sectarian, or because they would have to be spiritually diluted to the consistency of melted Jell-O.
Which is why I never intended to lead the Senate in prayer. I intended to pray for them. Here, I think, is a way forward in re-forging the partnership between church and State intended by the First Amendment. The Founding Fathers rejected the establishment of any particular religion, and I think that does rule out publicly leading robust prayers from any religious tradition. But those same Fathers had no intention of isolating the government from the spiritual concerns and religious influence of its citizens.
I believe a proper partnership could be re-established by asking a community’s religious leaders to pray for the nation/state/public assemblies, rather than try to lead those entities in prayer. That is to say, let community religious leaders ask God’s blessing in any way they believe is right, praying with all the sensitivities and fervor of their faith. But let it be an “I/them” prayer, not a “We/us” prayer. Let the one praying ask God to bless, rather than try to lead the whole group in asking for God’s blessing.
That means that occasionally I will be blessed in the name of some other god. I would not participate in such a prayer, but I would not be offended by someone else’s faith. As long as different religious leaders were invited in approximate proportion to the respective numbers they locally represent (including meditations from atheists), there would be no favoritism shown to any religion. And the public would benefit from exposure to the spiritual sensitivities and world views of its citizens. Such prayers would not be the prayers of the group, but only the prayers of the religious leaders involved.
And when I, as a Christian pastor, pray, I would ask God to act in the name of Jesus Christ.
I have asked the Maryland Senate to reconsider its policies along these lines. It would enable us to celebrate religious integrity in a pluralistic society.
HEAR HEAR and AMEN in the name of Jesus! Because, at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Man, this is so simple it is clearly genius, or could it be the Holy Spirit speaking through you! Glenn, yes! Thank you.
I think this could go to a larger audience because I think it will ring true. It could open doors that are closed in so many ways.
Just a few small words changed in how we THINK about a subject. Bravo.
a small change in the way you look at something can make a big change. this may be more along the lines of what our founding fathers intended, rather than a “wall of separation”.
I heartily concur that this is a reasonable solution to the issue of how publlic prayers to God can be put forth in our pluralistic society.
I just don’t know how an atheist could actually participate in any kind of prayer offerring. I guess that is their problem to figure out.
What remarkable clarity of thought! If our politicians could only think this clearly. What could have been taken as a politically correct snub, you have turned into clear, concise method for dealing with this problem. I would hope that this gets read by you local politicians and especially by our national leaders. I fear that any change must start there.
Steve Tucker
N. VA.
You would think the senate would have an ounce of common sense. We should all be praying FOR that. So eloquently put, as usual, Glenn.
Glenn – Lead on, Brother. That is what Chaplains in the U.S. Army go through. Some daily. There are some Christian commanders that ignore the pluralistic drum beat, and encourage their Chaplains to also ignore it. Us para-church folks are being creative to work within that framework, hopefully with integrity.
I think you’ve found a good solution for the future: the recognition that a person can pray _for_ a public gathering from a religious perspective without forcing any unwilling person to tacitly _participate_ in that perspective. I hope the senate takes your recommendation.
Would you clarify why taking Jesus’ name from the end of your prayer was a show stopper for you? You knew whom you were praying for, whom you were praying to, and that you were doing so through Jesus’ mediation. If your prayer would have “worked” from God’s perspective even without the name Jesus at the end of it, your objection must be more interesting than that. I can imagine arguments both about why you should or shouldn’t have prayed under those conditions. I’m just curious about your particular reasons.
I declined to pray without the use of Jesus’ name for two reasons, which I mentioned in my responses to the State Senate office.
The first is that linking my prayers to God through the ministry of Christ is, quite simply, the only way I know how to pray. You are correct in implying that declaring so out loud is not necessary for that to be true. But to choose not to declare it in a public prayer implies that I believe prayers are acceptable to God apart from Jesus – and thus in effect either denies my faith, or obscures it.
The second reason goes to the reason why public prayers can still be a good thing in our pluralistic culture. The current “solution” of dumbing down prayers to all sound alike denies our pluralistic nature, and pretends that we have no religious differences. But in terms of moral discussion, America is one of the most religious countries in the world. We need to find ways to acknowledge that fact in the public square, rather than mask or deny it. It may irk me to hear a Muslim pray for me in public, but if there were significant Muslims in Maryland, then I need to appreciate their religious sentiments – just as they need to appreciate those of Christians. This would help public officials keep the spiritual sensitivities of their constituents in mind, rather than pretend they don’t exist.