Cross posted at Washington Post's and Newsweek's On Faith
A minor
controversy has arisen over the ending of the Rev. Joel Hunter's
beautiful benediction at the Democratic Convention's conclusion after
Sen. Obama's acceptance speech. In fact, his decision to ask all
present to conclude in accordance with their own tradition and
conscience was a brilliant, elegant, creative and sensitive resolution
to a great paradox of public prayer.
For those who did not see it, as he finished his prayer, he said:
Now, I interrupt this prayer for a closing instruction:
because we are gathered in a country that continues to welcome people
of all faiths, let us personalize this prayer by closing according to
our own tradition. On the count of three, end your prayer as you would
usually do...one, two, three __________ ("in Jesus name") AMEN!
And on three, as Dr. Hunter said: In Jesus' name-- resounding across
the stadium came a mix of Hebrew, Christological, and other prayers,
mixed with simple Amens. One presumes there were others who chose to
remain silent. To the tv and radio audiences, where the microphones are
set to filter out crowd noise, I have been told that it sounded as
though he used the microphone to overwhelm everyone else. But inside
the stadium, he finished in a quiet steady voice that seemed aimed at
allowing the other voices to be heard.
Public prayer has two, potentially contradictory, goals: the need
to make such prayers as inclusive as possible (since the clergy is
praying for all) and as authentic as possible (since they must be true
to themselves). But when one person's authenticity utilizes language
that excludes others, controversy ensues. The most common occurrence
arises when Christian clergy pray in the name of Jesus or Jesus Christ
or Christ our Saviour or the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For
the many non-Christians, this language has an exclusionary aspect that
leaves them left out and slighted.
Most Christian clergy have no qualms about praying to God in such
settings using terms that include all monotheists. This reflects the
recommendations found in the long standing guidelines of the
(organization formerly known as the) National Conference of Christians
and Jews. Some of those clergy, regretfully, nonetheless prefer to pray
the way they normally do, invoking Jesus' name, despite (or oblivious
to) the discomfort and the sense of being an outsider or excluded that
it may cause non-Christians. Still others, as I understand it, find in
verses such as those found in John 14 ("No one comes to the Father
except through the Son;" "You can ask for anything in my name, and I
will do it, because the work of the Son brings glory to the Father") a
mandate to pray in Jesus' name.
Where clergy feel such references are required, the inviting
organization can choose between not inviting them or understanding and
accepting that they will pray in their own sectarian manner. And the
Democratic Party, which wants to show how genuinely open it is to
sincere religious expression and to potential voters holding such views
across a substantial theological spectrum of American religious life,
found that this dilemma presented itself at its just completed
Convention.
Twice at the Convention this came up and Dr. Hunter's words must be
viewed in the context of the controversy regarding the earlier
invocation.
On Monday, the well-known author, Donald Miller, gave a moving prayer using
"We" throughout until the final words in which he switched to "I,"
clearly in an effort to avoid implicating those who did not share the
beliefs inherent in his final and concluded:
I make these requests in the name of your son, Jesus, who
gave his own life against the forces of injustice. Let Him be our
example. Amen."
For some non-Christians, it worked and they appreciated his effort
to speak only for himself; but others felt the nuance was lost, and
were offended and complained that in this diverse group, he had used
sectarian language referring to Jesus as divine.
To what degree Dr. Hunter was aware of this controversy or what role it played in his own choice of words, he would have to say.
Dr. Hunter's prayer struck the balance between personal integrity
from someone holding the view he must pray in Jesus' name and respect
for the diversity even more keenly. He prayed only for himself, spoke
of Jesus without specific reference to his divinity, permitting those
who wished to hear the reference Jesus as being to that of a great
teacher, and, most importantly, empowered others to speak for
themselves. It was an inspired resolution to this classic dilemma.
Make no mistake: as a Jew, when someone is praying on behalf of a group
of which I am a part, I would greatly prefer that the clergy find it in
themselves to pray to God in the most inclusive language possible,
without reference to praying in Jesus' name. But for those clergy who
cannot in good conscience pray in more inclusive language, Dr. Hunter
may just have started a trend.
(Rabbi Saperstein, offered the invocation at the same gathering.)