For the past 20 years, I've had the privilege of helping lead a delegation from the Middle East to attend the National Prayer Breakfast, an annual event that gathers politicians and people of influence from around the world over several days. It's one of the few prayer events where you're as likely to see Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as you are to see Sam Brownback or Sarah Palin. It's my favorite week of the year. It's hard to put into words how inspiring it is to see Democrats and Republicans, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus -- and probably a few non-religious types thrown in the mix -- gathering together to pray and talk about faith. What's even more remarkable is the one person that every politician or religious leader agrees on: Jesus. From the opening prayer to the closing ceremony, and every workshop and roundtable discussion in between, the life and teachings of Jesus take center stage. As a follower of Jesus who believes in prayer, this is a prayer event I can sign on to.
Governor Perry's prayer rally last Saturday....
Not so much.
What I and my other friends do as private citizens during the week of the National Prayer Breakfast differs significantly from Governor Perry, who holds a position of considerable power over others. As the commander and chief of the state of Texas, the decisions that he makes have the potential to affect who gets access to housing, jobs, and social services, and who doesn't. As a death penalty state, he also gets to decide who lives or dies.
Such is the nature of political office. Politicians have power over others that private citizens do not, and it's precisely because politicians wield so much power over their constituents that some actions that may be appropriate for private citizens are less appropriate for politicians. There are times when it may be appropriate for politicians to attend a prayer event or call upon their constituents to pray, but when politicians use the influence of their office to summon prayer for a particular religious or political agenda, people who don't share the politician's religion or political views have every right to feel that they're being marginalized by an individual who is abusing their power.
Governor Perry and the supporters of "the Response" can say all they want that the prayer rally was a non-political event, but the fact is the event was sponsored by the American Family Association, an exclusively Christian group with a narrowly-focused political agenda that revolves mostly around outlawing abortion and curtailing gay rights. Supporters of the event say that Governor Perry's promotion of the event is a demonstration of what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the first amendment -- keeping government from influencing the church, not the other way around -- but would they say the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot? What if President Obama were to promote a prayer event sponsored by the National Gay and Lesbian Task force, where tens of thousands of Christians from liberal mainline churches gathered together to pray against the encroaching tide of fundamentalism? Would Governor Perry and the sponsors of "the Response" chalk it up to religious freedom -- or would they call it political persecution?
My point is not to denigrate the political views of Governor Perry and the people that attended "the Response." Abortion and gay-marriage are controversial issues that deserve to be debated as part of a robust national dialogue. I'm not even saying that Governor Perry shouldn't have been able to promote and attend the event. I'll leave that to the constitutional scholars to decide. The real issue is to what degree -- if any -- should followers of Jesus cozy up to the power of political office to force an agenda, regardless of what that agenda looks like, over others.
Some say that Governor Perry used the event to consolidate his credentials as a social conservative so that he could be free to move onto other issues more important to independent voters. I don't think that's fair. Only God knows the sincerity of a man's heart. But here's my suggestion for the next politician that feels the need to call the nation to prayer, and wants to do so in a way that honors Jesus. Why not make the event open to people of all faiths and political persuasions? And rather than focusing on a narrow set of political concerns, why not make the focus of prayer something that Jesus actually talked about, like removing the planks from our eyes before we judge others... and loving our neighbor as ourselves?
Love God.
Love your neighbor.
I think we can all use a little help with that.
Carl Medearis is the author of "Speaking of Jesus: The Art of Not-Evangelism"
“Beware of practicing your righteousnÂÂÂÂÂÂess before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocritesÂÂÂÂÂÂ. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. ... "
And what are you willing to bet that those "few non-religious types" are people like Greg Epstein who, while being atheist themselves and representing some atheists, are hardly representative of all atheists? That there are other atheists who still feel alienated by their government for holding national day of prayer or prayer breakfast (I'm one such atheist)? Note that by Epstein I mean a particular secular humanist who quite literally said that the faith initiatives are okay because he personally talked to the President, as if he somehow represents atheists enough to speak to the President on our behalf. "A few non-religiÂous types" does not impress me in the slightest as a non-religious type.
There isn't one atheist who speaks for or is a representative of all other atheists!!!! And it all goes back to Jesus. Gotta feel sorry for him sometimes. He gets dragged into so much crap.
Um, no, there really isn't. It is never appropriate for the government to call on citizens to pray.
"It's hard to put into words how inspiring it is to see Democrats and Republicans, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus -- and probably a few non-religious types thrown in the mix -- gathering together to pray and talk about faith."
was followed by a sentence that rather arrogantly focused on the Christians:
"What's even more remarkable is the one person that every politician or religious leader agrees on: Jesus."
Yes, all the workshops and discussions centered on the Christians' Jesus. Meanwhile Mohammed and the Buddha were mysteriously missing. Carl, really, this is how you saw the Prayer Breakfast? As people of many different religions all there to discuss and focus on your religion and in particular Jesus.
"What I and my other friends do as private citizens during the week of the National Prayer Breakfast differs significantly from Governor Perry, who holds a position of considerable power over others."
Yes, because we know the President is there as a private citizen.
No, it isn't.
"he knows that repentance is the only answer"
No, repentance isn't the only answer. The hard work of getting our hands dirty and fixing our own problems is also an answer. For example, with the economy we could work to create more jobs and help those who don't have jobs. That is actually a far better solution than repentance and prayer, as repentance and prayer accomplishes nothing.
I believe he deliberately misrepresented it, however sincere his religious convictions may be -- he followed his considerable political instincts. In that context, he reminds me of Rev. Al Sharpton.
Finally, as a Texas taxpayer, I objected to his use of state resources in connection with "The Response." I would have had to think long and hard about it even had the event been open to members of all faiths -- or no faith -- AND not designed as a stealth attempt to corner non-Christians to try to convert them. On the other hand, had he participated in this event solely in his capacity as a private individual -- fine. He has the same religious freedoms I have, and I would not deny him those. But I don't use taxpayers' money to promote my views.
P.S. It would be fascinating were an array of members of *other* faiths got together with Christians and organized an interfaith event -- then asked the Governor both to use Texas' resources to help promote it and to attend. Somehow, I imagine his response would be
This is the same Jesus who told his followers not to pray in public as the hypocrites do?
Furthermore, just to vent...I'm a staunch Christian, personally, but I've had it up over my eyeballs with people assuming that my faith is supposed to mean I vote in a conservative way. I'm liberal and always will be. Back when Bush Jr. attached his religion to his politics, that's when this entire country started to come apart, as far as civility in discourse goes. It's only gotten worse since, as the nastiness over the debt ceiling proved last week...We Christians have got to start standing for justice again and not hate.
It is absolutely i nsane that the American political landscape is dominated by the likes of Perry, Palin, Bachmann, Limbaugh, and other wholly i gnorant and d egenerate people from their ranks. We should be ashamed of ourselves.
Not everyone believes in your God. You might want to pull your a $$ out of the MIddle Ages and face the reality of the here and now, without relying on some big Daddy in the Sky.
" The issue of moral values and the mandate that has been claimed after the election raises serious questions. The architects of the Iraq invasion claim a stamp of approval from the same people who voted for moral values by voting against abortion and gay marriage. The question must be asked whether or not the promotion of pre-emptive war and a foreign policy of intervention deserve the same acceptance as the pro-life position by those who supported moral values. The two seem incompatible: being pro-life yet pro-war, with a callous disregard for the innocent deaths of thousands. The minister who preaches this mixed message ofprotecting life for some while promoting death for others deserves close scrutiny. Too often the message from some of our national Christian leaders sounds hateful and decidedly un-Christian in tone. They preach the need for vengeance and war against a country that never attacked nor posed a threat to us. It's just as important to resolve this dilemma as the one involving the abortionist who is paid to kill the unborn while the mother is put in prison for killing her newborn.
To argue the invasion and occupation of Iraq is pro-life and pro-moral values is toomuch of a stretch for thinking Americans, especially conservativeChristians.