In case you haven’t heard, Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) made headlines and became somewhat of a viral sensation with his “woke” attempt to be inclusive in his prayer before the U.S. House of Representatives. In effect, he ruined his prayer with incoherent logic and shameless pandering.
It is customary to open congressional sessions with prayer — a tradition dating back to the founding era. (It remains to be seen how long this tradition will last given the rise of “woke” secularism in America). These prayers are often given by the chaplain of either body, a Member of Congress, or visiting clergy.
The honor of the opening prayer on January 3 fell to Cleaver, who is not only a congressman but also an ordained minister in the United Methodist Church. Previously, Cleaver served as senior pastor of St. James United Methodist Church in Kansas City.
In an apparent effort to be inclusive toward people of various faiths and women, Cleaver concluded what was otherwise a generally standard, non-newsworthy prayer with the following:
“We ask it in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and ‘God’ known by many names by many different faiths. Amen and awoman.”
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, Prayer before the US House of Representatives, January 3, 2021
Most people have seized on the very end where Cleaver gendered the word “Amen,” which has nothing to do with sex or gender. The word means “so be it.” And the fact that Cleaver would mangle the ending of his prayer with “a-woman” either shows shameful ignorance (unlikely – given the man has a Master of Divinity) or wanton pandering.
Are women so marginalized and oppressed in 2021, in the United States of America, that we must take any word with “men” in it (even if the word has NOTHING to do with biological sex or gender) and twist it to also say “women” or “woman”? Seriously?
This, however, isn’t the only problem with Cleaver’s prayer.
Look what this Methodist minister does with the God to Whom he (Cleaver) purports to pray: “…in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and ‘God’ known by many names by many different faiths.”
Say what!?
It’s not my intention to insult or attack people of other faiths or religions. And I understand that the government of the United States is to respect and ensure the freedom of religion for everyone, including people who do not subscribe to the major religions of the world or our society.
I get it.
If the House had chosen to ask a non-Christian to pray (it’s happened before), I may not be as comfortable (since I’m a Christian), but I would accept it — since I believe in religious freedom.
And I certainly wouldn’t expect a non-Christian religious leader to pander to me with his or her prayer in a way that’s awkwardly trying to be inclusive, but would really come off (at least to me) as condescending and insulting.
If Congress is going to open with prayer (and I believe each house should), then let whomever gives the opening prayer do so according to his or her faith. And if some are uncomfortable, so be it.
And if a professing Christian wishes to be inclusive and as non-offensive as possible, there’s a better way than what Cleaver tried to pull.
All a Christian praying in such a setting needs to do is say something to the effect of… “With humble respect toward those of different faiths, I personally offer this prayer …” And then he or she can close the prayer in a manner that reflects his or her faith.
In such a scenario, the Christian is praying with humility and with consideration toward those who may differ or walk a different spiritual path.
If we were in church, I would naturally have a problem with this. I expect prayers in church to be unapologetically Christian – without any hesitation or reservation. But in a public setting where many faiths or perspectives or present, I understand the tone and approach being different.
Still, if it were me, I would have prayed to God in the Name of Jesus. I would have been polite about it. But I still would have done it.
Why? Because I take prayer seriously!
I realize, of course, that in a nation that is increasingly diverse, public prayer is a bit of a minefield. And many Americans are saying that public prayers should be a relic of the past.
As for me, I stand with George Washington, who said that “religion and morality” are “indispensable supports” to “political prosperity.”
I’m with John Adams who said that our Constitution “was made for a moral and a religious people” and is “wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
I stand with Franklin D. Roosevelt who led the American people in public prayer, over radio, during the D-Day landings in Europe.
And I stand with our national motto: “In God We Trust.”
I therefore oppose the secularization of the American public square and the banishment of all mentions of God, Jesus, and the Bible from public life.
And while I do support religious freedom (and do so passionately), when someone addresses God in prayer (whether it’s in private or in public), that should be taken seriously!
If we’re going to have public prayer (and I believe we should), then our country must allow people to pray according to their faith. And if some people get offended or are uncomfortable, so be it.
You might say in response to that: “Well…what about Representative Cleaver? Doesn’t he have a right to pray according to his faith?”
Absolutely!
I have no issue with the FACT that Congressman Cleaver prayed. And I also have NO desire for the government, in ANY way, to police the content of Congressman Cleaver’s prayer!
My post here has NOTHING to do with calling on the government to act in ANY way. If Congressman Cleaver wishes to exercise his freedom of religion by ruining his prayer with pathetic pandering, let him do it.
But I have the freedom of SPEECH to let people know what I think about his pathetic excuse for a prayer. And my post is offered in that spirit.
What’s more, I’m urging my Christian readers to beware of this kind of compromise.
It’s not (and should not be) necessary for a Bible-believing Christian to compromise his or her own faith and adoration for God by praying to “Brahma” or saying “A-woman” at the end of your prayers.
It should go without saying – but I’ll say it – that what Rep. Cleaver did is frankly in violation of one of the Ten Commandments:
“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.”
Exodus 20:7, KJV
There’s no question that, had an Israelite under the Law of Moses, addressed Jehovah God as “Brahma,” it would have been considered a blasphemous violation of that sacred commandment.
It’s one thing to recognize and respect diversity. It’s quite another to compromise YOUR OWN FAITH by pandering in your own prayers.
If you’re going to do that, it’s better that you not pray at all.
