Rick Warren's prayer
Tuesday January 20, 2009
Categories: Barack Obama
Stunningly good, I thought. And has anybody ever prayed the Our Father at the Inaugural? Warren is now the new Billy Graham, no doubt about it....
Filed Under: Rick Warren
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Rick Warren is now the new Billy Graham, no doubt about it.
If that is the case, what a sad state of affairs.
At least he didn't say anything nasty about gay people, although the part of respect made me gag. Pretty words from a man who bars gay people from the door of his church.
So is Rick Warren. No need to confuse the two, since they have little in common. Their ministries are so totally different, I'd hate to say RW is the new BG just because he can pray well in public.
Was supposed to start with "Billy Graham is unique."
Makes sense now, eh? ;-)
I sincerely doubt it, Rod, though I am not surprised that Pastor Warren did it. It is fairly common for evangelical pastors to do that, IME, when praying dedicatory prayers for big occasions. I was more impressed by the fact that the whole thing was done extemp, or at least so it appeared, with his eyes closed [When I've had to do things like that in front of an audience, it's with one eye cracked so I can see the crib sheet taped to the back of my hand].
Technique aside, I think he spoke well for those of faith, graciously, and with a sense of compassion. If someone has to take the mantle, you could do far worse.
No liveblog?
Can you inform me as to where I might find a news (not a blog post, or anecdote) story supporting this claim "Z"? That would surprise me, but would like a source for that statement.
I don't believe BHO actually said the Lord's prayer with RW. Does he not know it? Or, was he perhaps spacing out?
"Pretty words from a man who bars gay people from the door of his church."
Strong words. No doubt, you'll site a source for such a comment. Right?
**looks at watch**
**taps foot**
We're waiting...
Of all the cuts ABC made in that stretch, I only saw one person [a young woman in the crowd] moving her lips. I'll go for spacing out, or taken by surprise, or the camera didn't catch him doing it, is all.
President Obama didn't repeat the words out loud, Appalachian Prof. None of us can know what he was praying in his own heart.
Well, actually, now that I do a little research it seems that Warren may have (conveniently) changed his policy last week-- see the bottom of this article here. http://www.hnn.us/articles/59098.html I'm having a hard time pinning down exactly what the policy is now, but if he's changed his mind, he's a real man of principle, I guess.
Still, I thought the remarks about "respect" were a bit rich in light of his likening gay marriage to incest and child abuse.
Jesus H. Christ on a pogo-stick, Prof. Who are you to judge a man because he wasn't moving his lips enough to show you what thoughts he was having?
Is it just me, or has Christianity become a competitive sport?
He is the new Billy Graham in that he is the new father of tolerance among evangelicalism.
He is the new symbol of one world religion, joining all peoples together at the sacrifice of eternal truth.
He is the newest abomination of God in that he referred to Jesus Christ, God's Son as Esa, the name that the Muslims do to refer to Jesus.
This day, is the darkest day for America's history.
Rob
January 20, 2009 12:23 PM
Can you inform me as to where I might find a news (not a blog post, or anecdote) story supporting this claim "Z"? That would surprise me, but would like a source for that statement.
******
Rob, don't hold your breath. What you see is another example of the stunted emotional state of many champions of the gay giving way to delusion. It is a phenomenon most often observed of small children reduced to rage by anyone who dares to tell them "No".
I think Barack Obama's speech trounced the other spoken words, including the prayers and the poem.
But that's just me.
As I recall, the Saddleback Church, showed hospitality to the gay rights activists who entered the church trying to disrupt it. Weren't they given doughnuts?
He is the newest abomination of God in that he referred to Jesus Christ, God's Son as Esa, the name that the Muslims do to refer to Jesus.
Well, Esa/Issa is a heck of a lot closer to how the Greek-speaking NT Christians pronounced His name than the American/English Southern-fried transmogrification/abomination "JEEEEzzz-UHHHzzzz."
Rod, you know Obama and Warren call it the Lord's prayer, not the Our Father. I think most of the crowd didn't realize that Warren's words were a cue to pray it aloud together.
sad sad sad God forgive us once again In THE NAME of your ONLY begotten SON THE LORD JESUS CHRIST AMEN AND AMEN.
I thought Obama sounded like he was still on the campaign stump. Allusional kiss-offs to the bad people who are no longer in power, assertions of rights absent calls for personal responsibility, promises of the U.S. government stepping in to make the world right wherever the world is wrong. I wanted to like this moment; I really did. I wanted to see him soar. No such luck.
Tonight the balls. Tomorrow the hangovers. And the return of business as usual under a smooth-talking yet garden-variety liberal in the White House.
"As I recall, the Saddleback Church, showed hospitality to the gay rights activists who entered the church trying to disrupt it."
Gina, this is of course correct. The problem is that raging children have no use for facts.
Wow! All peoples are now joined together? There's going to be tolerance among evangelicals? This is an even better day than I thought!
And thank you, Franklin--although I don't believe pogo-stick has been certified as an official Religious Olympics sport . . . yet. Next up: Rick Warren pole vaults!
Well, actually, now that I do a little research it seems that Warren may have (conveniently) changed his policy last week
The article you linked to does not prove your initial assertion, being granted, or not granted, membership in a church is not the same thing as "not allowing in the door". So we're still waiting from some proof of your assertion.
I don't know about you but I was praying during the whole speech that he would not bow to pressure and not use the Name of Jesus. BUT HE DID! He said in the Name of Yeshua, Isa and Jesus, which is the Name of Jesus in Hebrew, Arabic and also Spanish and English. Bravo!!!
The prayer was wonderful. I'd be suprised if in a much earlier time when Christianity was considered ordinary, that a Pastor didn't lead the Lord's Prayer at a presidential inaguration. And probably everyone on the platform said it with him.
That said, Obama's speech was very, very good and the official poem was downright awful.
Not that it matters on such a significant day, but I thought that Warren's prayer was decidedly mediocre, both in content and delivery. I've always thought that he was overrated after I read The Purpose Driven Life (an okay book, but not life-changing; it was full of religious platitudes). Now I'm fairly sure of it.
Having said that, Mark Case's comment above is ridiculous. "This day, is the darkest day for America's history." Right. God Himself is quivering.
Rick Warren did use the Name of Jesus. He said "in the Name of Yeshua, Isa, Jesus (in Spanish) and Jesus Christ."
An answer to prayer....
"I've got a really bad feeling about this."
---Han Solo
The American people---all the people of the Earth, actually---are going to really, really regret this day. Not because of whatever prayer was delivered, but because of who assumed power today.
Obama's policies may just wipe the United States of America out.
Your servant,
Lord Karth
Franklin Evans: Who judged? I just wondered. I'm not the one who cued the close-up at that moment. Maybe the camera-man/woman/person had the same question. You can untwist your pogo-stick/knickers now.
On the other hand, Obama's policies may just shut his detractors up. You had your eight years. Didn't that turn out just lovely?
Weren't they given doughnuts?
Now that is an evangelical church!
"Next up: Rick Warren pole vaults!"
Sig: The Queen of The Double Entendre!
All peoples together as "one?" I don't think so.
According to the words of Jesus Himself, "Think not that I have come to bring peace, but a sword." Also, "I came to send fire on the earth." Matt. 10:34, Lk. 12:49-53
His sword is His Word, and His fire, is His Spirit. They must divide eternal truth from eternal darkness in the hearts of men so that there may be true peace. Ric Warren is the newest, world renowned purveyor of the one world church of ecumenical abomination.
Thank you Kenneth for your cogent commentary.
The musical piece was nice, too. And to give Rick Warren credit, even though he kind of segued into mentioning Jesus by talking about how He had changed his life (or something like that), I'm glad he prayed (as he said he would) the kind of prayer that a Christian minister would be expected to pray. The Lord's Prayer was a quite fitting capstone and crown to his own words and prayer, something that all Christians, whether black, white, brown, yellow, red, gay, straight, male, female, young, old, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, non-denominational, liberal, conservative, fundamentalist, Pentecostal, sprinklers, dunkers, liturgical, house church, complementarian, egalitarian, etc. - as well as the President himself - could say in agreement.
Pandora
January 20, 2009 1:05 PM
I don't know about you but I was praying during the whole speech that he would not bow to pressure and not use the Name of Jesus.
Whew, good thing - otherwise Invisible Sky Father might have smote us all for using the wrong ritual.
rolls-eyes
Matthew 6:5-6, anyone?
Fair enough, Prof. Untwisting in progress...
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Jumpin'%20Jesus%20on%20a%20Pogo%20Stick
Thank you Brother Warren for a powerfulf, heartfelt prayer that touched my heart and thank you for mentioning the name of Jesus!
A wonderful, heartfelt, truly inspiring prayer.
We can be grateful to Pastor Warren for praying it, and to our God for hearing it.
Beautiful, reverent, and passionate prayer. Praise be to Issa.
And frankly: Obama's speech was excellent.
Who knew it would take a "progressive" liberal to utter the words "virtue" - virtue! - and not the squishy term "values" in a modern American public address?
American Christian conservatives love the "values" term (family "values", Biblical "values"). It just shows how deep in the relativistic mire we are. Grow a spine and call them what they are.
Sorry, my wife and I found Warren to be an embarrassment.Not going into details but owwww...it hurt me listening to that guy
Not similar to Billy Graham. Graham was comfortable with a heaven that had many routes. Warren's prayer had a strong ingredient of exclusivity.
I admit, I'm completely mystified as to why you think this is so good - I thought it was rhetorically weak and not very impressive, from a purely aesthetic standpoint.
The Benediction kicked ass, though. Warren's a piker.
Sharon
Good for Warren to pray the Our Father. Of course it will offend the atheists and Bishop V. Gene Robinson. Don't know that Warren is the next Billy Graham -- Rev. Graham is sui generis. Time will tell with Warren. Aretha Franklin really rocked the house -- man, that woman "still has it." She was great!! The poetess, by contrast, was absolutely lame -- that's poetry she composed? Yuck!
BTW, the line from Obama's speech that will reassure foreign policy conservatives: "We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." That line had the vibe of JFK and RR.
The one weird thing (beside the poem) was the flubbing of the actual oath of office as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. What was that all about? President Obama is a terrific speaker when he has the teleprompter at hand, but judging by today he still needs to improve his skill with extemporaneous speaking. I can imagine if the oath taking had been flubbed with the 40th President. Ronald Reagan would have smiled genially and said, "Mr. Chief Justice, let's take it from the top again."
He is the newest abomination of God in that he referred to Jesus Christ, God's Son as Esa, the name that the Muslims do to refer to Jesus.
Not all Muslims use that name; only the ones who speak Arabic. "Issa" is the Arabic name for Jesus. It is used by Arab Christians too. Also, if you worship in an Arabic-speaking Christian church, you will hear the word "Allah" a lot. It's the Arabic word for "God." Calm down.
Just as I thought. None of you knows what to do with the truth.
I was totally underwhelmed. To address Almighty God as "you" even at times with a lilting laugh as he said it and then to appear to demand instead of humbly request forgiveness left me disappointed.
Can't comment on Warren as I didn't hear it live. But I did hear the non-stop Lowery benediction which included what I've posted below. The NY Times found it humorous. Me: not so much. I'm "beige" and I'm deeply grateful for the civil rights struggle which is in many ways an ongoing struggle. But I cringed when I heard "when white would embrace what is right." C'mon, Rev. Lowery, did no white man or woman march beside you back in the day?!
Humor and the Anthem | 12:37 p.m. Dr. Lowery ended on a humorous note, calling for the day “when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead man and when white would embrace what is right.”
I did like concluding with the Lord's Prayer. . .caught me by surprise in a good way.
Lots of newsies are talking about the overall inclusive tone of Warren's prayer, but they--and you--seem to have missed a stunning bit of it that many Evangelicals won't catch either: Warren invoked God as "the Compassionate, the Merciful." This comes straight from the opening phrase of every Sura in the Quran, and I am certain it is no accident that in this phrase, Warren included faithful Muslims as they pray to God. Likewise, Warren used the Hebrew, Arabic, and Spanish names for Jesus in another bid to be culturally inclusive.
That prayer made no apologies for where he (Warren) stands; how can anyone argue with praying "in the name of the one who changed my life?" But it opened the door for lots of people, and not only Christians, to honestly pray with him.
Reaganite in NYC said, "President Obama is a terrific speaker when he has the teleprompter at hand, but judging by today he still needs to improve his skill with extemporaneous speaking."
Justice Roberts messed up the words.
I liked the following sentence from Obama's speech:
"To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
I'm not ready to judge whether Warren is the new Billy Graham or not. That's not important to me. But, I thought Obama's invitation to Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration was very healthy.
I attend a church with many gay members and couples. It does not hurt us to interact and listen to people who have different beliefs than we do. I'm not hugely impressed by Warren as a pastor, but it was very fitting to have someone like him be an important part of this inauguration. That's what reaching out to those who are different means.
Dear Mr. Dreher,
I am very calm. It is obvious that you would also ask Jesus to calm down when He would make a truth in point.
On the note about Issa, also spelled Esa, I realize that is the Arabic pronunciation for Jesus. I have traveled voluntary into Iraq, and throughout the Middle East several times, throughout Pakistan on numerous occasions, and I have many Arabic speaking friends. The Christians in the Arab world, almost NEVER refer to Jesus as Issa, because they do not want to take a chance on confusing the Arabic pronunciation of Jesus with the "Jesus" of the Koran. They make a specific point of using the English pronunciation. It is obvious, that the new Pope of evangelicalism made this calculated move for the purpose of appeasing the Muslims while escaping true criticism.
Now that I have freely, and lovingly helped your ignorance of Christian Arabic customs regarding Jesus Christ, are you bold enough to speak to the truth that Jesus spoke of concerning division in order to bring peace. Or, would you tell Him to "calm down" as well?
Ready.
Pleased re: Lord's Prayer but preferred the blessing over the food, as in Dr. Barry C. Black senate chaplain's more eloquent turn of phrase and sober delivery :
"enthuse" from Gk. enthousiazein "be inspired,"
from entheos "inspired, possessed by God,"
from en- "in" + theos "God"
What exactly did you want Warren to do, Mark? Call down God's judgment of fire on everyone there listening? Pray for Jesus to smite all the heathen? Or did you just want him to give a gospel message and an invitation to the altar? This was a Presidential inauguration.
I'm a Christian. I believe in Jesus. My Bible contains verses like the following:
"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God."
"As far as is possible with you, be at peace with all men."
"Be kind and tender to all."
"So then, as we have opportunity, let us work that which is good toward all men, and especially toward them that are of the household of the faith."
Are those verses in your Bible, Mark? People like you give Christians a very bad name.
quote: "Pretty words from a man who bars gay people from the door of his church."
This comment is laughable. It is either based on slander or emotionalism. It certainly isn't based in reality. With the exception of Fred Phelps' church, there probably isn't a single church in the country, Warren's included that literally "bars gay people from the door." Sometimes I have to wonder what planet liberals are on when they make such ignorant comments about religion such as this.
rr
"Obama's policies may just wipe the United States of America out."
Will that be before or after he pays off my mortgage and credit cards?
Z. That's not a news source either. It's essentially a blog entry.
I'm not holding my breath. I know "Z"'s mindset, if not the details. Don't think we're going to find a legit news story on that. Probably because said policy doesn't exist.
A Presidential inauguration is not a time for invited pastors to be Elijahs on Mt. Carmel. Let Rick Warren call down fire from heaven on unbelievers and wayward Christians on another occasion.
And I, too, found the "it's time for whitey to do what's righty" quip to be cheap, condescending and insulting. He could have stopped with black, brown and red. I have no idea what he meant about the yellow man being mellow. Is he insinuating that Asians are war-mongerers - you know, Fu Manchu and Genghis Khan and Pearl Harbor, et al -- or what?
While I found the Senate Chaplin's prayer quite eloquent, I found Rick Warren's more sincere and Biblical. What was all that "Mello Yellow" and "make white do right" stuff? And I did not hear his "eloquent prayer end in the name of Jesus.
Give me simple words and sincereity over eloquence every time. Thank you and God bless Rick Warren. . .
I won't presume to speak for "z" but perhaps he was speaking metaphorically. Maybe Mr. Warren doesn't physically bar people from the doors of his church, but his church refuses to allow "unrepentant homosexuals" into membership.
Not a grand deal of difference in the long term.
Besides, it's pretty hard to 'repent' of loving someone, especially since to love is Christ's only commandment.
(I realize that some/many conservatives refuse to believe that gay people can and do love, but that's is a problem for and of the 'right'.)
...has Christianity become a competitive sport?
Become? That goes back to Acts, doesn't it?
"I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life . . ." I'm a Christian, but I thought that moment of proselytization, subtle as it was, was inappropriate. The moment wasn't about him.
I thought Rick Warren's prayer was quite appropriate, effective, and heartfelt. I thought his mentioning of Jesus was just fine and true to his faith. Why is it we ALL can't talk about the specifics of our faith? Muslim, Jew, Christian, gay, straight, liberal, conservative...who cares? Let the people say what they want and what's in their heart. Why is does anyone find that so threatening?
Besides, it's pretty hard to 'repent' of loving someone, especially since to love is Christ's only commandment.
Hmmm.... It seems to me that Jesus Christ commanded a bit more than that in, e.g., the Gospel According to Matthew. Or were His "But I say to you..."s in the Sermon on the Mount merely pieces of advice?
I am sorry that the only way you can discuss truth is by taking it totally out of context. You and I know that as followers of Jesus Christ, we are NEVER to condemn anyone or to "call fire down on them. Jesus is the only One worthy to do that and He has reserved that judgment for His own time when He will do just that. Obviously, you didn't read the scripture in context.
The word and the Spirit of God are first, instruments of God's love and grace to separate us from our base nature of carnality. It is by them, that we might have opportunity to be freed from the sinful nature, and that we might walk in a new life. It is when truth is adhered to by all parties that we walk in true peace.
Mr. Warren's responsibility as a Christian is to make the Christian message, that there is no other way to the Father but by Him. The Bible makes clear that all mingling of the only God, with other versions of God is an abomination. Mr. Warren has made clear his "many gods" concept to the One God, many times. His prayer was no surprise. He, like many other Christians, fails miserably in presenting the truth of the gospel by escaping the fact that there is only one God and it is only through His Son, Jesus Christ whereby we may be saved. This is the message of love - offending the flesh and the natural mind - traditions and the like - but saving the soul.
I didn't take the "in the name of the one who changed my life" line as proselytization at all. I felt it was a way for him to make the fact that he was about to invoke the name of Jesus more personal. Sort of a way to say, "I'm a Christian, therefore I pray in Jesus' name" rather than just putting it out there in a way that assumed everyone listening is a Christian as well or swinging the other way and wimping out on invoking Christ's name at all.
Mr. Case,
His sword is His Word, and His fire, is His Spirit. They must divide eternal truth from eternal darkness in the hearts of men so that there may be true peace. Ric Warren is the newest, world renowned purveyor of the one world church of ecumenical abomination.
Rick Warren is not there to invoke the name of Jesus Christ, unique Son of God, in the name of world peace. Rick Warren is there to invite all the people there to acknowledge the God of Natural Law.
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world." For Rick Warren to pray over a nation that is quite diverse in religious commitment and imply that their hopes for peace and prosperity would be found in a commitment to Jesus Christ would be a lie. The division of "eternal darkness in the hearts of men" from "the eternal truth" will not come about through the efforts of government or any other community than the Church, no matter how Christian the commitment of that community's leaders. The Middle Ages proved that pretty well.
I think Rick Warren avoided personal idolatry by praying in the name of Jesus (since he knows God only through Jesus Christ), and avoided leading the nation into idolatry by refusing to reduce Jesus Christ to the purveyor of temporal peace. It was a fine line, but I think he may have just made it.
P.S. Don't you think it possible that Rick Warren may have been ignorant of all the subtler nuances of Arab Christian/Muslim relations, especially those that come down to different pronunciations of a name as a symbol of religious commitment?
P.P.S. @Your Name: It wasn't proselytizing. It was the classically Evangelical way of talking about God. "God is my God, in my heart." It stems from individualistic Protestantism and is true, if disastrously limited.
I think Warren's fifteen minutes are up.
As for the comparison to Billy Graham, Graham learned a few things about humility and integrity and graciousness over the years that Warren is nowhere close to yet, if ever. Neither measures to e.g. Desmond Tutu in any case.
Warren didn't actually pray the Our Father. He prayed, "Yeshua, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..."
Now this was a clever way to pray in the name of the Christian God while yet avoiding taboo vocabulary-- but it's also not the prayer that Christ taught his followers to pray.
Sorry, but I couldn't get over how much he sounded like an FM radio DJ.
The one weird thing (beside the poem) was the flubbing of the actual oath of office as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States. What was that all about? President Obama is a terrific speaker when he has the teleprompter at hand, but judging by today he still needs to improve his skill with extemporaneous speaking. I can imagine if the oath taking had been flubbed with the 40th President. Ronald Reagan would have smiled genially and said, "Mr. Chief Justice, let's take it from the top again."
Reaganite,
Please sit down, breathe slowly into a paper bag, and relax. If you were really paying attention, you would have noticed that it was Chief Justice John Roberts who flubbed the oath.
As for imagining what Ronald Reagan would have done ... Do you really think Ronald Reagan would have gone out of his way to embarrass Chief Justice Burger and draw attention to his mistake like that? I don't.
Stunningly good, I thought.
I guess we watched two different inaugurations. I found it to be derivative, borderline insufferable and boring. *yawn*
Mark Case
Huh? You are tying yourself into ridiculous semantic knots. Chill, please.
rr
Rick Warren's church does not bar gay people from attendance. Actually, the church's website (until recently) encouraged gay people to attend (and presumably be purged of their gayness, or some such). Gay people are barred from membership, unless they repent of being gay. That worked out real well for Ted haggard, of course...
PS -- I wonder how long it will be before the mouth-breaking dittoheads on the Right start claiming that Obama isn't really president because of the flubbed wording of the oath?
Please ignore my previous comment-- I just checked the text of Warren's prayer and see that I'd heard it wrong. I had been watching over a choppy internet feed, and it must have just skipped a chunk: what I heard was, "In the name of Yeshua, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name."
Really puzzled me!
Warren didn't actually pray the Our Father. He prayed, "Yeshua, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name..."
Um, no he didn't. He said "Our Father..."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012003.html
And I heard it that way as well. Said Yeshua when he said the line right before that:
"I humbly ask this in the name of the one who changed my life—Yeshua, Esa, Jesus, Jesus—who taught us to pray:"
If you were really paying attention, you would have noticed that it was Chief Justice John Roberts who flubbed the oath.
Ann Althouse is also writing that Chief Justice Roberts flubbed it.
Barack Obama handled the situation with graceful aplomb. From my live-blogging:
The Chief Justice in fact screwed up the oath. The Constitution requires:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Roberts left out the word "faithfully." (He also said "President to the United States.") Obama saw the mistake and stopped himself to give Roberts a chance to fix it. Roberts redid the line, remembering to throw in "faithfully," but putting it in the wrong place — after "President of the United States" — and, this time, Obama went along with the wording. Close enough, I guess he figured. I wonder what Barack Obama was thinking. Maybe: Some textualist you turned out to be!
Let no one think Barack Obama made the mistake.
ADDED: I've relistened. Roberts puts "faithfully" after "President of the United States" the first time as well as the second. He did not leave it out.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/
Sorry, I posted as you were posting your correction.
David J. White January 20, 2009 2:49 PM PS -- I wonder how long it will be before the mouth-breaking dittoheads on the Right start claiming that Obama isn't really president because of the flubbed wording of the oath?
CNN had a little news factoid on the bottom of the screen that said that Constitutionally Barack Obama became President at 12 noon EST whether he had said the oath (he hadn't yet) or not. I.e., he could have said Klaatu Barada Nikto - or said nothing at all - and he still became POTUS as of 12 noon EST 1/20/09.
It is people like Mark Case that started me on the journey that led me to Orthodoxy. Thanks! Quite the relief to be out of that narrow little Fundie box.
"rr
January 20, 2009 2:08 PM
quote: "Pretty words from a man who bars gay people from the door of his church."
This comment is laughable. It is either based on slander or emotionalism."
*****
RR, you present a false dichotomy. It could be BOTH slander and emotionalsim.
Then there's this from "Your Name"...
"Your Name
January 20, 2009 2:23 PM
I won't presume to speak for "z" but perhaps he was speaking metaphorically. Maybe Mr. Warren doesn't physically bar people from the doors of his church, but his church refuses to allow "unrepentant homosexuals" into membership.
Not a grand deal of difference in the long term.
Besides, it's pretty hard to 'repent' of loving someone, especially since to love is Christ's only commandment.
(I realize that some/many conservatives refuse to believe that gay people can and do love, but that's is a problem for and of the 'right'.)"
Again, the inability to distinguish between love and sex, not to mention criticizing a church for having it's own view of sexual sin.
Of course all men should love all men, it's just this old idea that love doesn't justify sexual contact.
Love your grandma?
Love your dog?
Love your neighbor?
Great. Just don't get all jiggy with 'em.
So, Warren's church thinks that embracing homosexual sex is a sin and the children of the scorn thinks this means Christianity has abandoned Love.
Again, the child rages with hate at being told, "No." (Which is even more ridiculous consider the child can go just about anywhere else to hear "Yes" the same question.)
Rick's got a magazine too? www.purposedriven.com
"David J. White January 20, 2009 2:49 PM PS -- I wonder how long it will be before the mouth-breaking dittoheads on the Right start claiming that Obama isn't really president because of the flubbed wording of the oath?"
Yeah, those morons will pop up soon, if they haven't already.
Maybe they could have lunch with the "Jail BushHitler" moonbats. Now THAT would be fun to watch.
He's Yeshua to the Jews, Esa to the Muslims, the one who "changed my life" to Rick Warren, the one who taught us to pray... But do all these descriptions really apply to the same person, and do they really say anything substantial? For either a Jew or a Muslim to call Yeshua or Esa the son of God would be blasphemy. Anchoring Jesus' identity in Rick's personal experience is certainly a safe move. Jesus is part of Rick's story, part of his truth. Cool. And identifying Jesus as the composer of a great prayer is also pretty safe. Are we playing word games while attempting look courageous? Whadaya think?
Robby, in most other circumstances, I agree that we should all feel free to talk about our faith. I just don't think the swearing-in of a president is the time for a supporting player to give his testimony.
David J. White: "Reaganite, Please sit down, breathe slowly into a paper bag, and relax. If you were really paying attention, you would have noticed that it was Chief Justice John Roberts who flubbed the oath."
Actually, if you had read my original post for its meaning -- and not hastily imagined that meaning in your own mind -- you would have seen that I did not attribute the error to either the President or the Chief Justice.
President Obama is an earnest individual who ably delivers well-prepared speeches on important occasions. I did not vote for President Obama last November, but on this day I wish him and his family well. I pray that he pleasantly surprises his detractors and disappoints the more extreme of his supporters.
Considering the weather, I suppose purpose-driven hot was appropriate, but I would think all the Obamanating would have been sufficient.
He only flubbed the oath because the words were actually turned around on him. He knew the correct verse and was confused as to why it wasn't said correctly.
The music was too somber. I wish John Williams had arranged something more rousing, like his own Star Wars main title theme.
David J. White
January 20, 2009 2:49 PM
PS -- I wonder how long it will be before the mouth-breaking dittoheads on the Right start claiming that Obama isn't really president because of the flubbed wording of the oath?
Did you hear Obama when he said put aside childish ways. Nice start.
Another thing about all this is how Warren's prayer differed from Gene Robinson's partisan speech disguised as prayer. Robinson's began with "O God of our many understandings, we pray that you will…" whatever that means. After invoking the great nondescript mush God in the sky, Robinson (who let's be honest is only famous and was only invited because he is the first openly gay ECUSA bishop), Robinson goes off very quickly into left wing political posturing and the whole gay issue. For those of us familiar with mainline liberals, this is all too typical. It's incoherent, apostate theology driven by secular left wing ideology, not religion.
Not that the critics of Warren who attacked what they saw as his "politics" will notice the irony of Robinson's "prayer."
Whatever the faults of Warren's prayer, at least he prayed to God instead of giving a partisan speech.
rr
Reaganite, your January 20, 2009 3:25 PM post is a model of civility and sincerity. I'm proud and honored to share this space and this day with you.
For anyone who might wonder about my motivation for that, it is simple: I write the simple truth as I see it here, and it comes from respect for a person with whom I agree on very little in the topics discussed on this blog.
Franklin,
I echo your remark to Reaganite.
I watched the Inauguration with my five-year old. I had jury duty at 1 PM, so I left immediately after the speech (which, IMO, was everything Rod says it was--truly right for the day, excellent).
On the other hand, re the comments of Your Name at 2:15 PM, just having won a Pulitzer Prize doesn't make every poem (or any poem) one writes good. I'm all for an increased respect for and visibility of poetry in our culture, but I must say that Angelou's poem was execrable (and I voted for Clinton the first time!).
I guess what I'm saying is that I'm glad to here that I didn't miss a thing by leaving after the address but before the poem.
Mark Case: Actually, it depends on the context as to what Arab Christians call Jesus. `Isa is the standard Arabic form, which is not that far from the Aramaic Yeshua`. Americans, such as Rick Warren, pronounce the latter as if it were "Yeh-SHOO-uh", but the correct pronunciation is something like "Yuh-SHOO", with a strangled or gargle-type sound at the end (or technically, a pharyngeal consonant, which sounds to us like a gag). I used to know a lot of Lebanese Arabs, and those who were Christian used Yasu` (Yah-SOO, with the same "gag" sound at the end). Here is a brief discussion of the names of Jesus in Arabic. In any case, I don't think you can say that Warren's use of "Isa" was somehow wrong. All Arabic speaking monotheists (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) use Allah for "God". This is cognate to the Hebrew Elohim and the Aramaic Eloah, and is especially appropriate, since "Allah" is a contraction of al-Illah, "the God", i.e. "the God", the one and only.
Dan Martin: I'm glad I'm not the only one who caught the phrase about "the Compassionate, the Merciful"! This, of course, is part of the classic formula that begins all Muslim prayers and all but one chapter of the Koran: Bismillah al-Rahman, al-Rahim ("In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful"). Warren is certainly not selling out his Christian faith, but trying to speak to others in the terms closest to what they are accustomed to, which is itself a form of evangelism, albeit polite and non-invasive (as should be the case for such an occasion). Those who have problems with this should learn some Koine Greek, study a little late Greek philsophy, and then read St. Paul and the Gospel of St. John, and note the extent to which they speak in the language of pagan philosophy. Paul is also notrious among those who read him in Greek for using quasi-Gnostic terminology, in fact!
Remember also that this was an invocation for the inauguration of the President of all Americans, not an altar call.
All in all, I was very much favorably impressed by Pastor Warren's gracious and obviously heartfelt prayer.
I was sorry that so much focus came to bear on these two prayers.
I think Mr. Warren's prayer became a platform for puffery. His television appearance eventually settled into a somewhat casual word to America, carrying possiblities to redirect us again to the long, difficult struggle each generation must address. That is, we honor and protect each other and our common heritage and prepare ourselves to impart it to the generation that will follow us.
The deeper word of elegance came from the black pastor's prayer, driving home the need of grace as African Americans once again gathered to forge before us another gift of grace. They remain a people marked with deeply held wisdom and pain, and before whom we might kneel and ask their enduring forgiveness, and perhaps especially their guidance.
God bless this land. May we be about confronting the rich and powerful, letting justice be honored and preserved, and lifting up those who need, binding up the wounded, teaching the young and the old, and drawing us all into a new community as we face an immediate future that should -- that will -- call upon every gift and grace we can impart to our nation, to the world, and to one another.
Mark,
Just a point of fact:
"For either a Jew or a Muslim to call Yeshua or Esa the son of God would be blasphemy."
A Jew can call him son of God or God (for that matter) and it is not blasphemy. It is blasphemy to worship him as such. We aren't afraid to talk about him.
Now then,
I liked Warren's prayer just fine. When he spoke of Jesus, he spoke about him as what he did for him (Warren). It allowed me to feel a part of the benediction. As for the Lord's Prayers, there is nothing against the Jewish faith in it. We just don't say it because it is a Christian prayer.
Re: The speech. Overall, very nice. But I put no stock in speeches. Let's see what President Obama does.
I echo Alicia's comments, as follows: "It does not hurt us to interact and listen to people who have different beliefs than we do. I'm not hugely impressed by Warren as a pastor, but it was very fitting to have someone like him be an important part of this inauguration. That's what reaching out to those who are different means."
While evangelicals and fundamentalists creep me out (I apologize, but there is no other way to describe my reaction), I was heartened by Obama's standing by his choice of Rick Warren amidst the outcry of the left. The tolerance and diversity espoused by the left never applies to those who have views and beliefs different from theirs, a fact I find galling and prevents me, a person of Republican/conservative roots whose views are generally gay-friendly, to vote liberal. I'd rather not vote at all. In fact, I haven't in eight years.
Your Name, at 6:11 p.m. I agree completely that "tolerance" by people on the left tends not to extend to conservatives or evangelicals. That's a continuing problem in the liberal congregation I belong to - if we only tolerate those who are easy to tolerate, then we are fooling ourselves. I think part of the reason it is so hard to listen to people who think differently is that we fear that we might lose our own sense of rightness.
I am so impressed that Obama appears to be "walking the walk" as well as talking the talk of being "post-partisan" and inclusive. If some on the left don't get it, perhaps they need to grow up.
"Your Name, at 6:11 p.m. I agree completely that "tolerance" by people on the left tends not to extend to conservatives or evangelicals."
You can say that again (think Panthera).
But WAIT!
Anyone read Vicki Gene's prayer from the other day?
He prayed (in part):
"Bless us with freedom from mere tolerance - replacing it with a genuine respect and warm embrace of our differences, and an understanding that in our diversity, we are stronger."
Mere tolerance? Like I've said before here, while the far left in general (and gay advocates specifically) call for tolerance of what they advocate, tolerance is not what they really want.
They want approval.
Just ask the Rt. Rev. Vicki.
How long before they demand it?
Stunningly good? I think not. I was struck by how Rev. Warren's "prayer" completely lacked intellectual, emotional, and spiritual passion. It did, however, accurately reflect the overly casual "God is my BFF" type of faith that is typical of so many, largely white, suburban, middle-class conservagelicals in America. I thought it lacked taste and reverence for the moment. Rev. Joseph Lowery's prayer on the other hand was inspirational and poignant.
Oh by the way.. do we really need a new Billy Graham?
Isa? Is this not Esa? 'from the name Esau?
"The ONE who changed my life" How Rick? Is this not THE SON OF GOD, Savior? Changed you how?
"And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in Heaven."
Rick is privy to knowledge in heaven? This comment pulls scripture out of context. Only God knows the state of man's soul and the "cloud of witnesses" watch those --who have come to REPENTANT faith in Jesus as Lord and Savior-- run the race, growing in Jesus until that day we stand before Him.
The prayer, as in Rick Warren's usual style, appeases the CULTURE.
"The prayer, as in Rick Warren's usual style, appeases the CULTURE."
What did you expect - the Sermon on the Mount? Moses speaking after coming down from Mt. Sinai? John the Baptist's speech to the Pharisees and Jerusalemites?
It's a CIVIC function, in a SECULAR nation at its SECULAR coronation, and it expects - and gets - a prayer designed for the occasion.
Did you want Rick Warren to say, "Come, Holy Spirit!" (a la Lonnie Frisbee at the high school Mother's Day meeting at John Wimber's invitation) and then have the power of God knock over all on the platform, with Obama and Biden and their wives speaking in tongues?
Calling Bishop Robinson "Vicki" is the height of disrespect. You may dislike him for being gay. You may dislike him for being an Episcopalian.
But you can show a little class.
Otherwise you're lower than the people you show disrespect for.
"Calling Bishop Robinson "Vicki" is the height of disrespect. You may dislike him for being gay. You may dislike him for being an Episcopalian.
But you can show a little class."
Robinson appeared on The Daily Show tonight and referred to himself as a queen. If Robinson's not going to dignify the office, perhaps he doesn't deserve our respect.
So our new president...who may not particularly agree on every topic with Rick Warren...makes a gesture of unity by asking him (not Bishop Robinson) to give the innagural invocation. He makes a gesture intended to show that we can (and need to) work together...
...yet so many people on this post choose to criticize Warren. "He's not orthodox enough..." "He's not inclusive enough..." ISN'T THAT THE POINT? He may be trying to be the ground to meet in the middle...not giving up his values to meet there, but at least willing to admit there is some way to get the country moving in a common direction.
I am not a Rick Warren fan, but I appreciated his invocation. Unfortunately I read many of the blog replies...sorry for those who choose to pick a side rather that looking for the common ground...
I second what Scott R. said, Max. I'm not a huge fan of Bishop Euguene Robinson (and I'm not capable of judging his qualifications to be bishop and I don't think most people are capable of overcoming their biases enough to judge him fairly, either way). But calling him "Vicki Gene" is dismissive, uncivil, and, yes, intolerant.
Alicia, Scott, "Vicki Gene" is Bp Robinson's real name. Honest. I long thought his opponents were making a cheap joke at his expense by using that name, but then I discovered that the poor man's parents really did saddle him with that unfortunate name. You can look it up. Y'all owe Max an apology.
" Y'all owe Max an apology."
Pish posh. He meant as a slur and in disrespect, no matter whether it is the name given as an infant. He's never used that as his first name, thus the initial. Just like when Max insisted on using Obama's middle name when talking dismissively about it, only the naive would not realize the intent was disrespectful and as a slur.
I realize Max is someone you know personally, but it's hard to believe he meant it in a neutral way given his usual behavior here.
I am a canadian.I watched the inauguration of your new president.I am so pleased that God's name was evoked by minister Rick warren.I expect good things for America.It is in God you trust.Thats why you are blessed.If God be for you ,who can be against you.
Hey, Rod. Good point. I didn't realize that Vicki Gene was Bishop Robinson's full name: Vicki Eugene? Or worse yet. Victoria Eugene?Jeez. Poor guy. But I tend to agree with Daniel on this one that it was meant by Max as form of dismissal. Max?
Daniel: "Just like when Max insisted on using Obama's middle name when talking dismissively about it, only the naive would not realize the intent was disrespectful and as a slur."
Dearest Daniel, your post is the slur. I have never called Obama by his middle name.
As is your wont, you have attributed to me things I have not said or written. I am left with the unescapable conclusion that you do so either out of ignorance or malice. Only you know which is the case.
But you know (as is often the case) the real interesting thing about Daniel's, ScottR's, and Alicia's response to me is that it proves the point I made. It is likely that their responses are emotional to the degree that they don't even realize that.
And what is that point?
Tolerance is insufficient. Why, because tolerance does not require me to respect the object of the tolerance in question. It requires me to allow; and that I do.
Rather, Vicki Gene hisself prayed for abolishing "mere tolerance". Those are his words. Tolerance is no longer (never really has been) acceptable.
In the newly out-of-the-closet campaign against "mere tolerance" one can no longer voice an opinion that contains snark or disrespect.
Fortunately, the anti-tolerance crusaders are NEVER disrespectful to conservaives, Christians, pro-lifers, capitalsists, et alia.
Okay, that last point is not true, but it points to why the new-crusaders of the left must destroy "mere tolerance" and insist on approval.
If we live in a world of "mere tolerance" then the left can be called on their own intolerance of that which they hate.
Approval of all things left however not only absolves the left of tolerating ANYTHING that they don't like, it requires the philosophical and ideological opponents to SHUT UP and quit opposition.
This is, of course, just an extension of the metaphor of the raging child screaming, "You HATE me!' because someone said, "No."
Now, it is no longer acceptable to allow the child to do as he will, the adults must now say, "That's good that you sent the dog to the cornfield." (And before any harpies cry, "He's comparing homosexuality to bestiality again!", it's a "Twilight Zone" reference."
Alicia IS correct on one point: I DO dismiss Vicki Gene.
FTR:
I've never called Obama "Hussien". (I don't even know if I spelled it correctly."
I've never said that homosexuals are the same as people having sex with their relatives or pets.
But of course, these are just facts, and we all know that a screaming child can rarely even grasp factual reality. If he does he just screams more because of the incovienence of reality.
If you google "Vicki Gene" you will see it is a common slur at Free Republic and other similar milieu. There's no need to kid ourselves here. Max was trolling around for a slur when he used the name. No apologies are due since Max has acknowledged he was being low and snarky.
Daniel,
Quit telling lies.
I never admitted to being low.
QUIT attributing to me things I've not done, written, or said.
Snarky? Dismissive? Disrepectful? Yes, Yes, and Yes.
But if these make one "low" then you're no higher than I, considering that you have "troll" in auto-complete whenever you respond to me.
Free Republic. You may be surprised to learn that I find those people, ah, below the pale. I do not go there, I do not approve OR tolerate the bilge found there.
Judging me and my posts by what you find at Free Republic because they are on the "right side of the aisle" would be like me attributing to you whatever the members of NAMBLA say because, well, they don't have a problem with embracing homosexuality.
Interestng that correctly using someone's name is a "slur".
What a world.
Daniel, when you get the facts straight and drop all snarkiness I'll be very impressed. Until then, I'll call you out for your falsehoods, hypocracy, and hatefulness.
Thanks for your post, Max. You are certainly entitled to dislike Bishop Robinson or even to dismiss him. I don't feel competent to judge him, personally, because I don't know that much about him beyond what the press coverage of his controversial career tell me about him (that he is openly gay, divorced, and alcoholic, among other things - putting him in good company with a lot of priests if you exclude the "openly" and the "divorced").
I think one thing that has really bothered me about the reaction of some (or most) in the gay community to the passage of Proposition 8 has been that that community almost instantly jumped to demonizing those on the other side of the issue.
I think that was far easier than expressing the deep sense of hurt and frustration that gay Californians must be feeling to find that the majority is not where they are, in terms of support for gay marriage.
The desire Robinson expressed in his prayer to "go beyond mere tolerance" may have something to do with that sense of hurt. I'm glad you highlighted it. When I think of "being tolerated" it is hard not to add "barely." But you are right that no one can or should be forced to accept another person or their sexual orientation just because "they should."
Nor do I think someone who doesn't accept gay marriage (for instance) needs to be "re-educated" or to "have their consciousness raised". But I would imagine that some in the gay community might have their work cut out of them "going beyond mere tolerance" of those, like Rick Warren, who do not believe in gay marriage.
Alicia,
Thanks for the thoughtful post, much of which I agree.
"I think one thing that has really bothered me about the reaction of some (or most) in the gay community to the passage of Proposition 8 has been that that community almost instantly jumped to demonizing those on the other side of the issue."
Like comparing gay relationships to beastiality, pedophilia, "marryin' a plant" etc. is somehow not demonizing (or dehumanizing, diminishing, demeaning) gay people?
"I think that was far easier than expressing the deep sense of hurt and frustration that gay Californians must be feeling to find that the majority is not where they are, in terms of support for gay marriage."
That is only part of the deep sense of hurt and frustration. Mostly, those feelings emanate from having our rights (or liberties/freedoms) put to a popular vote in the first place. Tell us who's next on the list of people we can vote to take rights from?
Your Name at 2:23 p.m. Personally, I think the government ought to get out of the business of giving marriage licenses and think that gay or straight, from a legal standpoint, should all be civil unions. But, is the only possible response to being demonized (or feeling demonized) to demonize in turn?
Thanks, Max.
Speaking of tellinng lies, Max ...
"Again, the inability to distinguish between love and sex"
I spoke only of love. You bring sex into it. Trust me, I know the difference.
"Of course all men should love all men, it's just this old idea that love doesn't justify sexual contact.
Love your grandma?
Love your dog?
Love your neighbor?
Great. Just don't get all jiggy with 'em."
Again, trust me, I don't. Nor do the vastly infinite majority of human beings, gay or str8. We can differentiate between love and sexual contact. It seems it is the likes of you that constantly wish to blur those lines. Yet you insist you do not compare our relationships to beastiality.
"Like comparing gay relationships to beastiality, pedophilia, "marryin' a plant" etc. is somehow not demonizing (or dehumanizing, diminishing, demeaning) gay people?"
I would love for you to post/link-to VERBATIM examples of this, but I'm incredulous that they would be as sweeping as you would have.
I mean, gay relationships (to the degree that the are occasioned by sexual activity) ARE somewhat similar to having sex with animals, grandma, toddlers, etc.
But then SO are heterosexual relationships occasioned by sexual activity.
The similarity?
Sexual activity. Not to mention the old buggabear of being objectively disordered (with the exception of SOME/NOT ALL heterosexual activity).
So what?
If anyone claims that homosexual sex is morally and/or even conceptional equivalent to sex with dogs or toddlers, well, that's just wrong and stupid.
However, I can't remember anyone on THIS blog ever doing THAT.
So again, I would love to review examples of what you claim. I'm sure proper examples of what you describe exist, but doubt that your sample would be restricted to those exclusively.
Your name,
Here's the comment (your's?) to which I had responded:
"I won't presume to speak for "z" but perhaps he was speaking metaphorically. Maybe Mr. Warren doesn't physically bar people from the doors of his church, but his church refuses to allow "unrepentant homosexuals" into membership.
Not a grand deal of difference in the long term.
Besides, it's pretty hard to 'repent' of loving someone, especially since to love is Christ's only commandment.
(I realize that some/many conservatives refuse to believe that gay people can and do love, but that's is a problem for and of the 'right'.)"
****
Now, I know this is hard for some to understand, but YOURNAME claimed that LOVE was the issue in a discussion of a church not approving of "unrepentant homosexuals" for membership.
Now what exactly is an "unrepentant homosexual" if not someone who embraces as a moral good homosexual activity?
The post from YOURNAME (you?) clearly equated opposing homosexual sex as an opposition to love between men.
That usage of love restricts "love between men" to mean embracing homosexual sex.
If that was not your intent, please say so.
In any event, love between men can mean so much more than anything related to wanting to have sex. And that was my point.
You imply that I'm telling lies. You would please be specific.
What lie did I tell?
Lieber Max Schadenfreude,
here is a quote from you, from this thread:
But of course, these are just facts, and we all know that a screaming child can rarely even grasp factual reality. If he does he just screams more because of the incovienence of reality.
end quote.
I even left your typo in.
You are very good at playing semantic games and you delight (nomen est omen) in twisting facts and statements around just enough to make life a living hell for those who desire a conversation.
For you this is all an exercise in viciousness. For homosexuals, it is a matter of human rights. Every week in the US, at least one gay or transgendered is raped, beaten to death, tortured and or all of those, sometimes including murdered.
Because you have no biblical or Christian basis to oppress us, you have to resort to other means.
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.