Inauguration Invocation
January 20th, 2009 by Victor
After much discussion and controversy in the media in the United States, here is the prayer of Dr. Rick Warren of Saddleback Church and “Purpose Driven Life” fame.
Living in a world where people are offended if someone prays in Jesus’ name, Warren, who often is criticized for compromising traditional Christian values for mainstream acceptence, did not back down in standing up for his beliefs. What do you think?
Ah, you beat me to it Victor. I was just looking up the text of Warren’s invocation prayer to post here. I thought it had several interesting parts that I’m glad he included – especially quoting the “SHEMA” (Deut 6:4) and the “Lord’s Prayer”. Though I (and many of us here at Kingdomready will probably as well) disagree with his sentence referencing Dr. King & others “shouting in heaven”.
For those that want to read the text transcript, here’s the invocation prayer text I copied from a news site:
Father in heaven, when we sin against you, correct us.
Show us our sins, hold us accountable, correct us and by
the power of the cross change us as you forgive us, in Jesus’s
name, Amen.
Some have objected to the “preachyness” of this prayer.. calling it nearly a sermon. Does anyone have thoughts regarding that?
These types of prayers are usually a bit preachy, because they tend to be more about the people than about God. To truly call on God’s help would require a commitment to live God’s way and that’s not going to happen. I appreciate that Rick Warren did use the name of Jesus, but the fact that that would be such a big deal just shows where things are at in this country, at least from the perspective of those who drive the agenda.
I thought Trevin Wax had some interesting comments at Kingdom People. Here is a sample:
“We are the enlightened ones who bring justice and freedom and peace to the world.
“You could hear it in Bush’s audacious speech after 9/11, in which he claimed that “we will eliminate evil from the world.”
“You could hear it in John McCain’s claim at one of the 2008 debates that the “United States of America is the greatest force for good in the world.”
“You can hear it even now in the speeches of Barack Obama: We are the world-changers.
“Behind the clamor of the adoring media and the sight of swooning fans in Washington, D.C. – we can see that what truly unites us as a nation is a sense of superiority over the rest of the world, a belief in America as our savior, a naïve assumption that our cause is always right.
“The Tower of Babel is going up right before our eyes.
“But how many leaders have to come and go before we realize the truth that only Jesus Christ is Lord?
“How many examples of government injustice have to take place before we realize that Christ’s Church is still the greatest force for good in the world?
“How many towers have to fall before we realize the truth that his kingdom is the one that will never fail?
“We live in a day when hope has dawned, yes. But not because we have elected a new president. Let the Church never forget:
“Peace has broken out because of the cross – God’s resolution to our war against him. Hope has dawned because the tomb of a certain first-century Jew has been emptied of its contents. Justice will reign because of the Church who anticipates his return and dominion.
“Nations rise and fall, but the Word of the Lord stands firm forever.
When I make a public prayer I try to keep it close to the point of how Jesus taught us to pray. I try to include other Biblical prayer instructions like, not praying to gain favor of men, or praying for the leaders of men.
I do not like prayers like the one above that seem to glamorize the sacred communication with God. I don’t care where I am, prayer is something that should be considered sacred and would not have prayed like he did if I were placed in the same position.
Brian,
Amen.
It is easy for me to see the difference between the two prayers – though Robinson’s has many many good things in it. And while I can’t stand much of Warren’s theology and practice, I am grateful for the few things it does right. As much as I would like to say “I enjoyed one of these prayers” (and I really would like to say it) only now is the preachy-ness getting to me. It is easy to pray that way. It is so much harder to make it meaningful for someone more than yourself and not preachy. But, like John said, this is sacred – so, literally, forget everyone else.
I was talking to a theologian yesterday about the invocation. He brought up an interesting point. This was supposed to be an invocation and it seems that the meaning of the word was either lost or ignored. Invocation was not the bulk of the prayer and hence, the I feel the criticisms of the “preachiness” might be justified. Yet at the same time I thought the prayer of forgiveness was amazing and very much appropriate.
That aside, while listening to the prayer I thought it was interesting that at the swearing in of the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, a prayer was said for a kingdom to come that will over throw that nation (including its leader.)
I am super-happy that he ended with the “Lord’s Prayer”. I love communally saying that prayer together.
I know I am being a bit picky here, but we have no idea if the USA will be in existence when that kingdom comes.
“Almighty God, Our Father, everything we see and everything we can’t see exists because of You alone. It all comes from You, it all belongs to You, it all exists for Your glory. History is your story. The Scripture tells us, ‘Hear, oh Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is one’
Sounds like a Unitarian to me!
Dustin
Just to clarify, are you including “praying for the leaders of men” under the “not” in the previous part of the sentence? If so, I would remind you of I Tim. 2:1-2.
I would reword that:“How many examples of church injustice have to take place before we realize that government is meant to keep evil in check in this world?”
Christ’s Church is not the greatest force for good in this world, since our purpose is to announce the coming Kingdom, not to try to change the world. In the meantime, God puts or allows governments in power to keep things from getting too out of hand during this present evil age.
invocation: 1a: the act or process of petitioning for help or support; specifically often capitalized: a prayer of entreaty (as at the beginning of a service of worship) b: a calling upon for authority or justification.
After giving God His due by reciting the SHEMA, the prayer asked God to give our new president wisdom, courage, and compassion; to bless and protect him, his family, and our other leaders; to help us remember; to help us share. He then finished with the Lord’s prayer which is the very model of invocation. I would expect non-believers to call it preachy, but why do you say the bulk of it was not invocation?
Every time I think about how the libs are now in majority power I start to feel sick.
I bet he ticked off a lot of folks with that prayer.
With Obama, the US will push more toward socialism and sexual immorality.
I think Bush pushed us a good deal towards socialism when he socialized airport security and pushed through the “patriot” act. I think we need to realize that Christianity is not Republican (or Democrat), it transcends both. Furthermore, you and I are commanded to honor not slander the ruler:
1 Peter 2:17 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.
My favorite line was
” And may we never forget that one day, all nations, all people will stand accountable before You.”
Nice to hear that – how true it is. I don’t remember hearing something like that in the past, but at the same time I don’t remember what I have heard in the past
I really don’t know why “socialism” is a scapegoat all the time. It is a pretty pathetic confusion of ideas and attempt to understand them.
Hi Mark C.
Your point on 1 Tim 2 is a good one. I worded my statement poorly in that I should pray for the leaders of men, but public prayer is not something that is discussed a lot in the Bible. From the examples we have for prayer it would seem to me that prayer is.
1. Sacred communication with God.
2. Private
3. To accomplish specific things in praising Him, asking for forgiveness, and stating our submission to his Kingdom or those he has put in power.
I do not judge the man for his prayer for maybe God is using his words for other uses. The statement I make is if I were placed in the same position or when I make public prayer I am very cautious to not over word my prayer in trying to please men. The following is an example of his prayer that I would have not included
“Now today we rejoice not only in America’s peaceful transfer of power for the 43rd time, we celebrate a hinge-point of history with the inauguration of our first African American president of the united states. We are so grateful to live in this land, a land of unequaled possibility, where a a son of an African Immigrant can rise to the highest level of our leadership. And we know today that Dr. King and a great cloud of witnesses are shouting in heaven.”
My fear is in doing what Jesus spoke of in the scripture below.
Matthew 6:5
[ The Lord’s Prayer ] “And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. 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.
It is not my place or goal to judge Dr. Warren. He just makes some statements that I would not since I consider prayer more of a private communicaiton and need to stick to Gods points. Thanks,
I agree, Bush also pushed us toward a socialist Gov. with the first bailout deal. He also tried to sell control of our ports to Dubai. I’m not a Republicrat or a Democan, and I will never support a President that does not respect God’s laws. Obama supports values that were practiced in Sodom and Gomorrah, such as, Homosexuality and abortion. So I will not Honor a King who has such immoral principles, because in doing so I am sending a message to those around me that these action are to be honored or respected.
It’s a definition, not an excuse. What do you call taking ones money by force through taxation and giving it away without ones permission?
Um, taxation != socialism… again, confusion of ideas.
So then what do you call taking by force from one who has earned more wealth and giving it away to another “less fortunate?”
I call that socialism, and it’s not to be confused with fair taxation.
Joseph,
Who do you think was the King that Peter referred to? Do you think the Roman Emperor was Christian? Nero actually burned Christians alive for his amusement in his gardens. If we disregard the Scripture then what’s the point in calling ourselves Christians?
Sean,
I believe it means to do good to the King, whether he does bad to you or not. Peter tells us…
1Pe 2:19 “For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.”
We are to endure authority figures (King, masters) not embrace them.
Do you really think to “Honor the King” means to honor his ideology such as Homosexuality and abortion?
honor means to treat with respect…we need to be respectful to the king but that does not mean we agree with his policies…however, with the Obama election, Christians have increasingly jumped into the worldly slander and rumors at an alarming rate. I hope we can get past that sort of childishness.
Sean,
I don’t think so, because in no way will I ever have respect for someone who supports immoral policies. That is where we part ways in interpretation. I can still honor Obama by not cursing him, and praying and doing good toward him, but in no way do I need to respect him until he respects God’s commandments and the lives of the unborn.
It is obvious that Peter was speaking in context to vs. 19 in relation to “honor” to Authority (Kings, Masters, Leaders)…
17Honour all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.
18Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
19“For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.”
Giving honor does not mean treating somebody with respect? That’s an interesting idea… Especially another one, that honoring is reduced to just not cursing somebody and praying for them…
I wonder if God had this same definition in mind when He said “Honor your father and mother”? Also:
- People in Malta “honored [Paul and Luke] with many marks of respect” (Acts 28:10)
- 1 Timothy 5:3 Honor widows who are widows indeed
- 1 Timothy 6:1 All who are under the yoke as slaves are to regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine will not be spoken against.
I am struck by how difficult it can be to communicate with each other. Certain words can have a slightly different meaning to each of us and that hampers our discussion. What is the meaning of honor, respect, socialism, pacifism, violence, etc. Fruitful discourse is hard work and takes a willingness for all parties to have the give and take necessary to get to the point that we really understand what we are trying to say. That is one of the down sides of this type of communication. If I write more than a sentence or two, I feel like what I wrote isn’t EXACTLY what I meant.
JohnE
I like that you went to the Scriptures to help understand the meaning of honor. I would point out though that your reference to Act 28:10 reads more literally from the Greek: “who also with many honors, honors us” The word respect is not there.
Joseph
If I am honoring someone and praying for someone, it is hard for me to think that I could be contemptuous at the same time and I get that sense from what you have written. You are right that we don’t need to honor his ideology. I think that no matter who is President, we would take issue with his ideology–that’s not the point, however. It’s not about liking his policies, it’s about honoring him for the position that he holds.
We do need to remember as well, that in this country, the president is not king. The president passes no law–he only signs what has been passed by Congress; so if you want to blame someone for bad laws, blame the people who vote for the people who pass the laws that the president executes.
Sean,
Although in some circles I am sure that
“Christians have increasingly jumped into the worldly slander and rumors at an alarming rate.”
Yet I am quite aware of other Christians who were quite vociferous in their condemnations of the previous president. We are all too tempted to be nice the guy we voted for (or would have voted for, if we believed in that sort of thing) and condemn the other guy. Certain Christians are more than ready to tell you the sins of George Bush; others are ready to tell you the sins of Barak Obama. I really can’t picture Paul sitting around talking about how sinful Caesar was; all I can remember is that Paul wanted to preach the gospel to him. As you point out, in the 1st Century, the people in charge make any of our politicians look like school boys, yet the directives were to “honor the king”
John E,
Go back and read the context in vs. 19, which defines that honor (value) is by our enduring and suffering. You just can’t pick and choose to fit your ideology.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The people in Malta honored Paul and Luke for their righteousness, therefore this is why they respected them. Pretty obvious.
It is interesting that timaō “honor” is also translated as “value” in another place. It makes sense when one thinks of “honor” in the other meaning of “value.” So we read in truth….
17Honour (Value) all [men]. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour (Value) the king.
18Servants, [be] subject to [your] masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.
19“For this [is] thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully.”
As I’ve said, if you choose to honor someone who supports killing the unborn or supports the ways of the King of Sodom and Gomorrah then that is your choice. But don’t think you hold the truth because you are on the side of honoring sin.
Joseph,
The text says to honor the king, but you say that you won’t honor the king if he supports killing the unborn. I told you that the king Peter likely referred to was killing fully grown Christians in despicable ways. Help me understand why you willingly go against what the Bible says. If you refuse to honor/value/respect those in authority then you are refusing a command given by inspiration of God through the Apostle Peter!
Respect is something that is earned, not just freely given to anyone who happens to be put into a position of authority. Obama must earn my respect by his actions (which I doubt he will do based on his past). I respect the office called “The President of the United States of America” because that position itself is worthy of respect. I think that is also what Peter was saying: Respect the position of King even though the person in that position now does not deserve respect. Because we need to be used to respecting the king when the true king returns (the King of Kings).
Hi all,
I think Daniel offers us the best example. He worked and surely showed respect toward kings that were obviously against the Lord God. However, when he was commanded or a law was made that was against what God commanded that broke his committment. I follow the leaders before me up to the point where they conflict with Gods commands.
…Which should bring us back to the subject of the thread. It wasn’t about respecting those in power so much as praying for them.
Brian,
Out of curiosity, if you were asked to do the invocation prayer at the inauguration of this presidency (or any presidency for that matter), would you do it? Why or why not?
To those who support Obama: The King you honor just reversed a Bush law set in place to ban federal money given to international abortionists. What honor! What respect! This makes me sick and angry. I’ll never honor a King who supports the killing of the unborn, sexual immorality, disobeying God’s commandments. In fact, I will fight for righteousness against Obama and his comrades.
Sean, I don’t care how you think I’m disobeying Peter’s commandment. Firstly, Peter isn’t God, and nothing suggests that God ever commanded us to respect or honor sinful people. Secondly, The passage leaves a lot up to interpretation. Instead, if Kings, Masters, cause us to suffer we should endure and value this, as we are suffering in a position of righteousness.
John H,
Good point. The context Peter was speaking of was more toward the position, not the person.
Sort of like Honor you Father and Mother. But if ones Father and Mother are in a position of sinning against God, we should honor God first.
Joseph, I did read the context, but you just picked verse 19 because you are biased against Obama, your secular king. I’m sorry, the context of “honor your king” has nothing to do with suffering. The context starts in verse 12, where Peter urges to us to keep our behavior excellent among the non-believers, so that in the thing in which they slander us as evildoers, they may because of our good deeds glorify God.
In order for them to have no ammo to slander us, we should submit ourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by the Lord for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
This is again, in order to silence the critics that slander us, Christians, accusing we are against the secular state. “For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men”.
Therefore, to silence them, honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king. Honor the king not for his wrong beliefs and mistakes, but for his position as the sword of God. THIS is the context, not the one you chose, doing the very thing you accuse me of: picking a “context” in order to fit your ideology.
The context of the enduring and suffering is this:
1 Peter 2:18-19 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and gentle, but also to those who are unreasonable. For this finds favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly.
Servants are to be submissive even when their masters are unreasonable. If we bear up under sorrows when suffering unjustly, we do it “for the sake of conscience toward God”. Honor has nothing to do with enduring and suffering. Your contention that honor is defined by our enduring and suffering makes no sense really. How am I giving honor to the secular King by suffering injustice?
My opinion is that instead of finding excuses not to give respect to the king because of your personal powerful dislikes, to the point where you are ready to defy reason saying respect has nothing to do with honoring somebody, you should submit to the will of God.
First, your contention is baseless. Go back and read the context: it is plain to see they honored Paul and Luke because Paul healed the sick people there, not because “their righteousness”.
Second, “honor” and “honor” are not “apples” and “oranges”. Honor is honor. The reason behind giving honor can certainly be different, but the end result is still simply honor.
Your line of reasoning is misleading. When one honors the person of the king they honor the institution he represents, not his personal sins. As pointed out above by somebody else, the prophet Daniel honored and respected the king holding Israel captive.
It is not Peter’s command, and Peter doesn’t have to be God for us to heed his advice. God gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ. If it’s just Peter’s command, the gospels are just their writers’ gospels, the Law is just Moses’ Law and Moses is not God, etc.
JohnB,
That is certainly a well-spread attitude, but I think it is a wrong one. IMO, respect is by default. I strive to respect even the ones I do not know, strangers on the street.
Brian, thank you for your appreciation and for pointing out this aspect. Indeed, Luke says “with many honors they honored us”. But the verb itself, “honor”, implies respect. BDAG says:
“the showing of honor, reverence, or respect as an action”
The translators were correct in rendering “respect” there.
JohnE
My purpose in pointing out the translation in Acts 28:10 was to show that it was the same Greek word (verb and noun) and not a different word.
People in Malta “honored [Paul and Luke] with many marks of respect” (Acts 28:10)
It’s a little misleading the way it is stated here and one gets the impression that these were different words. The discussion at this point was the difference between the meaning of the word “honor” and the word “respect.” The use of the NASB lent more weight to the idea that “honor” is shown by”respect” than the text warrants.
I think Joseph is off base on this argument, and he seems to be splitting hairs, but I don’t think using Acts 28:10 works to show that he is wrong.
Brian,
Could you explain why you think so? It is a bit difficult for me to understand your logic, since we already know that timao is the action of showing respect, according to the lexicon I quoted earlier. It’s not that NASB came up with “respect” out of the blue; the “respect” is in the Greek text itself as timao!
So I can’t agree with the idea that NASB lents more weight to the idea that “honor” is shown by”respect” than the text warrants. The text itself mentions respect.
JohnE
Sorry you don’t get my logic. Frankly, I have no desire to continue a discussion this trivial.
I think the problem here is that everyone has a differenet idea of what ‘respect’ is. At dictionary.com there are 16 different definitions for ‘respect’. While they are somewhat similar, there are subtle differences between them which could easily cause a misunderstanding if two people are thinking of different definitions but assuming the other person is thinking of the same definition.
I was thinking respect meant defintion #3 which is why I said in my earlier post that respect is earned.
3. esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability: I have great respect for her judgment.
I think in 1 Peter 2:17 the definition is probably #4.
4. deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect’s right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.
I would not respect Obama using definition #3 but I would using definition #4. Of course it wouldn’t really be Obama I was respecting but his position (like I stated in my earlier post).
BTW, ‘honor’ has 24 definitions.
Personally I got so tired of hearing everyone in the media knocking Bush that I am glad they have what they want now. They have no more excuses. Whatever happens, they can’t blame it on the Republicans now. The pendulum has swung back and forth this way since the country was founded. I don’t believe one party is any better than the other, because I don’t believe politics is the answer to our problems.
Getting back to Victor’s original question, I thought this was a great paryer !
I was just glad that the name of Jesus was declared, without any apologies. Praise God!
Considering the circumstances(a million or more in the audience and a hundred times that amount watching on TV or the web) and the vast diversity of the audience and their beliefs, I think Rick did a very good job.
I wouldn’t expect a prayer under these conditions to sound like one you might hear at a home fellowship or Sunday service.
Rich
Sean,
You asked: “Out of curiosity, if you were asked to do the invocation prayer at the inauguration of this presidency (or any presidency for that matter), would you do it? Why or why not? ”
I’m not really sure. I don’t want to spend a whole lot of time considering the question. I have enough of a challenge making the decisions that I need to make without making a decision on something that will never happen. I can see a reason FOR doing the prayer based upon some of the things that Rich just shared above. The reasons for NOT doing the prayer would be my desire to not have my stand for God compromised by being a part of something which, regardless of the trimmings, is a wholly, at best, secular event.
Certainly the inauguration of a president is a secular event. If you were publicly praying for God’s blessing on it, isn’t that a good thing? It doesn’t mean you’re “part of” the administration or condoning it. You’re praying for it, which is what we’re supposed to do. That would not be compromising your stand for God, IMO.
I am thankful to live in a country that is predominately Christian. I know there are many denominations of Christianity, but if you travel at all to different countries and see how blessed we are to live in America and the blessings we have. I believe it is because of our foundation on Christianity and not on pagan or other beliefs.
The prayer gave God the glory, thanked him for his blessings, asked for forgiveness, ask to give our leader wisdom, courage and more, asked in the name of Jesus and even quoted the Lord’s Prayer (mentioning thy Kingdom come, thy will be done).
As stated above the only thing that I felt was in major error was the mentioning of Dr King and others celebrating in heaven. Go to almost any funeral and the majority of our country believes that when you die you go to heaven, even though it is not based on the truth of the scriptures and the coming Kingdom.
I might not agree with many things in how our new President believes, but he is our President and I will pray for him because like many other Presidents he needs and deserves it.
Bottom line for me is that I was blessed the prayer was based on our Christian foundation and I can honestly say that I had tears in my eyes during it.
God Bless You!
Bud
Well said!