As moved and inspired as I was by President Obama's inauguration and his inaugural speech, and as pleased as I am with the work he's been doing since, there was one part of the inaugural ceremony that really left me cold, to borrow an expression of my mom's when she's supremely annoyed about something: Rick Warren's recitation of the Lord's Prayer during the invocation.
I was skeptical about the selection of "Pastor Rick" as the religious leader to give the inaugural invocation, but was willing to listen with an open mind. I was unimpressed by most of what he said, but more or less mollified by his statement that "we are Americans, united not by race or religion or blood but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all." At least he was focusing on what unites us. Until he segued into "Our Father, who art in heaven..." I actually paused, waiting for him to continue in some other way than "hallowed be thy name," thinking he couldn't possibly be reciting the Lord's Prayer, an indisputably Christian-only devotion.
I was raised in the Protestant tradition and the Lord's Prayer actually has very significant personal meaning for me, but I was furious that anyone would think to make such an incredibly sectarian statement during a national ceremony, since ours is, after all, a secular government. I stood there, tight-lipped, arms crossed, teeth clenched, all but tapping my foot as I heard some of the people around me slowly start to chime in in quiet murmurs. Are you kidding me? I thought. This is ridiculous. A day of national celebration and renewal, and this jerk is taking it away from probably half the people watching.
Even to me, who learned the words he was speaking before I was old enough to fully understand their import, it felt like a slap in the face. I can't imagine how anyone not raised in or adherent to a Christian tradition must have felt. It was as though this man was telling them they weren't American, not really, not when the words he was speaking, to one very specific conception of a deity, were foreign to them.
I've heard different reactions to this, from ones in the "Oh, it's just Christmas!" vein to "He's an evangelical pastor, you got what you paid for," to ones similar to my own. I'm curious to hear your thoughts - was Rick Warren out of line - should he have continued in the inclusive tone he began with? Or does the invocation and its sentiment belong to the religious tradition of the person speaking it, and everyone else is just out of luck? What do you think?
(And on a completely unrelated note: Hugh Jackman is hosting the Academy Awards this year - yes! As Jackman is up there with James McAvoy on my to-drool-over list, I'll definitely tune in for at least part of it!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I had a similar reaction. I couldn't believe that a secular government would do that. But, then again, our secular government simply means that we don't have a state-run religion, not that religion is absent from government altogether.
When I thought about it more, I realized that many of the words of the Lord's prayer are fairly generic. I think all people would agree that we want our daily bread, to be delivered from evil, and forgiven for what we have done wrong so that we can start fresh. All of these themes are particularly relevant and universal for our country now.
c'est difficile répondre à l'anglais avec le français... donc....
i mostly agree with you (but since there was no way i could watch the inauguration live i got to pick and choose which parts i watched on the bbc when i got home from work... SOOOOOOO i didn't watch that part). the one thing that makes this difficult for me is that it is incredibly hard to completely avoid all mentions of religion in state business. i mean, obama put his hand on a distinctly christian bible to take his oath and he closed his speech with "god bless america" - and "god", strictly speaking, is a judeo-christian god. my question is where does one draw the line between simply invoking a higher spiritual power and invoking your own specific higher spiritual power, and how does one do that without seeming lukewarm (read: a faker) on said spiritual power?
anyways, i find it bothersome yet unavoidable, and as long as people aren't quoting scripture to make laws or decide state business, i try not to worry about it.
This responds a little bit to both of you, Claire and Anonymous: I agree in that, with the definition of "secular" acceptable in American society, a lot of Christianity (not religion, Christianity) has become fairly generic and isn't really going to bother many people on a societal level. As you said Claire, the Christian Bible on which Obama swore his oath of office, for example. The difference, as I see it, is that Obama's Bible was a personal choice. It was something personally meaningful to him that would bind him all the more to faithfully executing the oath he made on it, which is why U.S. presidents have always chosen the book on which they swear that oath.
But the Lord's Prayer, regardless of the generic nature of its individual components, is a powerful Christian symbol, and it was used as part of a statement made in the name of and to the American people as a whole. I think you're right, Anonymous, in saying that just about everyone would agree with the sentiment. But (and I am biased on this, given my upbringing - I'd be interested to see how someone with no personal connection to Christianity reacted to it), I think Rick Warren should have found a different, non-sectarian (or less-sectarian, more multi-faith) way to express those same wishes. It would have been fairly easy to do, using contemporary examples of poverty, hunger, the economy, the hope for peace, etc.
And maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, I really don't know.
I basically have no personal connection to Christianity, and I didn't even notice this part of the inauguration which I think is because I didn't even recognize what he was reciting as a Christian passage or prayer or whatever. But now that you've pointed it out I think it's a little annoying.
I wrestled with this one for a while too.
I wasn't thrilled with the choice of Pastor Rick to begin with, because it seems like such a blatantly political move to me. To create a successful coalition on social issues, Obama needs to win the support of as many of the centrist evangelicals as he can. He's never going to get the far-right ... Don Wildmon's people, for example ... but he can augment the Sojourners crowd with, say, 20 percent of the Saddleback crowd -- the ones who are in it more for the social scene than for the Jesus, who lean O.C. right but not so much that they can't HOPE for CHANGE. That's a useful combination for him.
My real complaint about his use of The Lord's Prayer wasn't that it was too Christian, it's that it was too boring. In that situation, in that venue, with that audience, he couldn't come up with an ORIGINAL inspiring prayer?
Now, you know I'm Episcopalian. We love the set liturgy, the pre-written prayers. At one point in my life I knew the whole Nicene Creed by heart. I'm not all about listening to the preacher have a "personal conversation with Jesus" for 20 minutes every Sunday.
But in this situation, I think Pastor Rick owed it to history and the occasion to write an entire speech, not get halfway through and then cop out by throwing in something pre-written.
The Christian aspect of it didn't bother me. He is what he is. He's an evangelical Christian. I don't expect him to downplay his own beliefs because other people around him believe something different. If they had chosen a rabbi to give the invocation, I would have expected him/her to do at least part of the prayer in Hebrew. If an imam was doing it, I wouldn't be offended if he spoke about Allah. I don't want any prayers that are watered-down in the name of not offending anyone.
It would have been interesting if he had chosen a UU for the job. (Sinkford! Why not Sinkford?! Seems blindingly obvious, given the racial angle, right?) A UU could pray in a completely ecumenical way without it being "watered down" because that's the usual UU style. That I could have respected.
But Obama doesn't need Sinkford, because he's already got the UUs. Where else are they going to go? He needs to work on Pastor Rick's crowd now.
So yeah, that's my ... I was going to say that's my two cents, but then I realized how much I wrote, so I think you got a whole nickel.
Gina - that raises another good point. Is a sectarian prayer exclusive if those listening to it who aren't part of that religion don't know it's sectarian? Your being annoyed about it now that you know is the answer to that one, I think.
I was going to add some sort of analogy to grades in school or thinking you got the freshest fruit from the market, but then I realized that only made sense because I'm tired, so nevermind!
Anne - I should've expected something so well-reasoned from you. :) (And the entire Nicene Creed? Wow!) Everything you said makes complete sense, and I absolutely agree that he should've written an original prayer for such a momentous occasion.
I don't think an original Christian prayer would have bothered me nearly as much, because he is what he is, as you said. There's just something about the Lord's Prayer, the Christian establishment feel of it, that really struck me as incredibly exclusive in that moment. It's possible to be Christian, give a Christian prayer and respect the traditions and cadence of the language of your religion without leaving half your audience looking around, wondering why the other half knew exactly what you were going to say and is saying it with you.
Again, everything you said makes total sense and I understand Obama's choice (although yes! Sinkford would have been awesome!)...but I'm still cranky about what Rick Warren did with it.
Thanks for the nickel!
That's why I liked Gene Robinson's invocation that began with "oh god of our many understandings". Also of note, Obama's inclusion of 'non-believers' in his speech when mentioning religious diversity. I totally agree about Rick Warren, but had mixed feelings about the event in general. Seemed like somebody was really trying to include everyone while not offending the status quo -- an impossible task if you ask me.
I completely missed Gene Robinson's invocation, but I really like that turn of phrase! And yeah, Obama's (and the inaugural committee's, as far as who was invited to speak goes) efforts in the inclusion area make me happy, impossible as actually satisfying everyone may be.
You didn't see it because the network coverage *conveniently* started right after his invocation prayer, but you can watch it on youtube: http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=Mk9Z8BUJrRw
I also really like how he ends with a prayer for Obama's safety saying "we know we ask too much of our presidents and we are asking far too much of this one". It's well said.
Post a Comment