Rabbi Brad,
I agree that Rick Warren’s words were not what his ministry led many of us to expect. His exclusion at the inauguration was more modest than is true of his activities back home at Saddleback.
However, exclusion was still hinted at, if only inadvertently: He named Jesus as the one who taught “us” to pray. If only he had called Jesus “the one who changed my life and taught me to pray” or “the one who changed my life and taught Christians to pray”… I don’t think very many Hindus learned how to pray from Jesus.
That said, Warren’s bringing it all down, in the end, to the words Christians call the “Lord’s Prayer” was a nice touch. I do not agree with standard evangelical reading of those words, but with the right filter of metaphor and other types of symbolic language it becomes a prayer that is far broader than prayers said by evangelicals typically manage.
Peace,
Pavvel

Please. Asking a general audience at a civil event to pray a Christian prayer–the Christian prayer–is about as exclusive as you can get.
Yes Rabbi–we can all learn about prayer from other religion’s prayers. But Hershfield seems to have missed the point. This was a civil event–not a prayer meeting or a bible as literature seminar.
Would Hershfield have approved of a recitation of the Nicene Creed? Would that have worked equally well for him?
A little less sectarianism and bit more ecumenism is the least that should have been expected. But not for “Dr.” Warren. What a display of self-centeredness. You can take the egotist out of his church, but…
What a pander-bear Hershfield is to endorse this on thinest of all pretexts. Poetry indeed. I guess you don’t stay on tv, radio and the blogs unless you accommodate the majority.

The use of the Lord’s prayer was enthusiastically received as inclusion by Catholics, Episcopalians, and Orthodox, who use it in their services–Baptists don’t.
There are limits to how inclusive one can be. I think Warren did as much as he could from where he comes.

Words have power. I won’t recite the prayers of another faith, regardless of how positive the message behind the words is meant to be. I enjoy learning about other theologies, and it is true that the prayers can often incorporate poetic beauty, which I can and do appreciate for its own value, but I will not recite them. That is just a personal feeling I have.

I agree with you, Rabbi Brad. Often, I find ecumenical prayers either too watered down in order to not offend anyone or uncomfortable as the usually Christian speaker prays in an exclusively Christian language. In this invocation, it was clear that the speaker was a faithful Christian, but I as a Muslim did not feel left out. In addition to his quoting the passage about God being one, I believe he also mentioned that God was compassionate and merciful, which I think was an intentional use of Islamic language. Though some were offended by the fact that he ended the prayer in Jesus’ name, again, his language revealed his strong faith, while still being inclusive; he said, “I” pray in Jesus’ name, rather than “we” pray. Sometimes in our quest to be inclusive, we discourage others from using particular words or practices that we think might offend others; however, this can lead to a kind of exclusive inclusivism, excluding stricter or more conservative believers. Warren’s prayer was an intriguing mix of personal faith and openness. While it can’t please everyone, I think we can learn from it a new way of interacting with people who are different from us.

Ned, Warren did not invite people to pray along. He said, “…Jesus…, who taught us to pray, Our Father…” Christians spontaneously joined in. Warren probably planned his words so that would happen, knowing that many Christians grow up using that prayer liturgically. But he didn’t say it, and, as Robert suggested, great chunks of the evangelical subset of Christianity do not use the prayer that way. The recitation of many in the crowd was an expression of their own faith.
I still say that, taken in comparison to other evangelical prayers, statements, etc., this was more inclusive that I ever would have expected. And you do have to compare to some degree.
I agree with NightLad about not joining in the prayers of a group you’re not a part of. And, by and large, I see no reason to accept the presence of prayer in PUBLIC events. On this I completely agree with Ned. But we live in a society that loves its public prayers. It becomes a matter of managing it.
I think Warren was the wrong choice. And I agree that exclusion was still present in his presentation, but far less that we had legitimate reason to expect.
Yes, he did say, “And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in Heaven,” alluding to the Christian Bible’s wording in reference to the dead bearing witness to the truth of the narrative of salvation it tells. And that clearly implies exclusion of non-Christians. However, he also said, “Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all.”
The nice thing about ending with Jesus’ prayer is that, while it is used conspicuously by a large portion of the Christian population, it was not composed by a Christian at all but by a Jew, nor for a Christian or liturgical purpose.
The enormous irony though is that Jesus’ prayer, used so frequently in Christian events, was presented in one account in the Christian Bible as part of his teaching that people should say their prayers privately, even if only because there’s way too big an ego factor in displaying one’s faith in public.
Personally, I love liturgy. But a religious event and a civil one should be very separate in this country.
Peace,
Pavvel

Rabbi Hirschfield,
It does not surprise me that Pastor Rick Warren tried to be as inclusive as he can without compromising his faith in Jesus. In the Christian or evangelical world he was the one who got criticized a lot just for trying to be inclusive and unite Christians from a variety of denominations. Saddleback Church and Pastor Rick Warren are well known for trying to equip and unite churches from different backgrounds and also reaching out to the outside world through charity works. It was kind of strange to hear some media outlets label him as a conservative, since he was the one who got criticized a lot by Christian conservatives. I loved it when he said “Yeshua”.
Thanks.
Eric

Honest, I swear this is my last comment on this thread…
I would like to challenge Rabbi Brad on his second paragraph above. While I agree with him that a little humility is a good thing in the clergy, as elsewhere, and that it is important to distinguish between professional roles and personal identities, I do not agree that either function was served by introducing Warren as “Dr. Rick Warren” rather than “Pastor Rick Warren.”
Pastor is a relational word, ideally but not necessarily actually indicating a self-sacrificing leading and rescuing of others but indicating nothing about the expertise or correctness of the one bearing the title. Doctor is a status word indicating a certain level of a specific kind of achievement while saying absolutely nothing about the character of the one who earned the degree or his relationship with others. Neither designation in itself says anything about the personal identity of the one referred to.
Let’s be frank: the reason Rick Warren was asked to dance at this wedding was not because of his learning nor because of his personal identity, it was because there is a growing recognition of him, like Billy Graham in his prime, as “America’s pastor.” It was disingenuous to have him come to pray and then parse the words so as to act like the reason to ask him wasn’t what it was. He’s absolutely not Pastor to me. But he was at the inauguration AS PASTOR.
Peace,
Pavvel

Personally, i don’t think Rick Warren’s Invocation redefined inclusiveness at all.
It was basically Christian and could allude to the Jewish tradition, perhaps include those of Islam but beyond that, the prayer wasn’t inclusive to any religion outside of the 3 monotheistic ones.
Speaking for myself, I’m not of the Abrahamic faiths, but rather Wiccan. When a prayer is given by someone of a specific faith, I assume it will incorporate those beliefs of said religion, as Mr. Warren’s prayer did. To say it was inclusive is wrong, it wasn’t. It only addressed a specific group(s) religious view.
The point of my comment is not to denigrate the prayer but rather, imo, point out that it, the prayer, wasn’t as inclusive as it is being presented.

The government is not supposed to promote religion. It does not matter that Warren used a verse which some people believe apply to all. Basically he gave a religious lesson. He promoted religion and it was definitely a Westernized type of religion and left no legitimate room for secularists in a secular society.
Obama reminds me of Constantine who had no faith in Jezussss but who was acting politically to find a unifying force for his empire. He did not care what dogma the church agreed upon at the Council of Nicea as long as it was uniform. What we saw with Obama was a politician’s use of religion for secular purposes. In the long run that is not good for the religions or for the secular society. In the short run, if Obama has forced the right wing to moderate its extreme bigotry to stay in the spotlight, it may have some public benefit. Still, Obama is playing with fire.
Because Warren appears to be more motivated by personal self-aggrandizement than for his Faith, he was easily tempted into this high profile role, where he more or less sold out his brand of Xianity as much as possible without forcing the True Believers to turn against him.

The excessive religiosity of Warren at the inauguration and most of the responses here, especially Rabbi Brad’s comments, should how easily people slide down the proverbial slippery slope. People are discussing the merits of his religious ideas. Rabbi Brad rather arrogantly declares that what Warrens aid was just fine and dandy for the non-believers. The good rabbi wrote:
“Oneness is not limited to any particular faith, or inaccessible to those who are proudly atheist or agnostic either. Listening for oneness is a powerful message which transcends creed, political affiliation, or our position on any given topic.”
This statement contains the seeds of religious bigotry. It is not for rabbi Brad to decided what is good or bad for atheist or agnostics. I see no difference in his position that forcing Jews to listen to long lectures on the virtues of Xianity. Xians believe that they know what thought other people should hear and embrace. And when people do not embrace their silly ideas, we often move on to coercion so they will see the light and in the final analysis, we can save their misguided souls by burning them at the stake.
Obama, Warren and Rabbi Brad all exhibit the hubris of those who push their religious dogmas into the public realm.

I think youve made some truly inertesting points. Not too many people would actually think about this the way you just did. Im really impressed that theres so much about this subject thats been uncovered and you did it so well, with so much class. Good one you, man! Really great stuff here.

O5qJeV mvsuxfoqtrsy

9yJo4b dhvajfermsgl