Ray, I appreciate your willingness as always to look at all sides, even if it means arriving at unpopular conclusions. Not many people have done the research to understand what Cleaver was trying to do by ending his prayer with “awomen.” In my view, you’ve done a great job modeling Christlike behavior here.
However, I disagree with your criticism of the previous line. I understand your discomfort with “we ask it in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and God known by many names by many different faiths,” but given the location, audience, and occasion, it was entirely appropriate from a biblical point of view.
The audience was not there to celebrate and worship Jesus Christ; many are not Christian at all. Rev Cleaver’s task that day was not to convince people that salvation can only be attained through Jesus Christ, or that the God of the Old and New Testaments is distinct from Brahma. Instead, he was called to encourage our legislators to push aside personal feelings and selfishness, and focus instead on what God wants from us. As you say, Cleaver did this very well. He represented Christ very, very well that day.
Just as some people read too much into “awomen,” I think you’re reading too much into “Brahma.” He was saying nothing more than, “as far as your service in Congress goes, it’s OK with me if you look to Brahma to help you push aside selfishness,” and “I hope your God, whoever it is, helps you to serve with integrity and grace.” He did not say that all Gods are equal, or even that they all exist. He merely recognized that many non-Christians believe that their God teaches values (integrity, honesty, humility, grace, etc.) that are similar to those of the God of the Bible.
If Cleaver had done as you suggest, praying in the name of the God of the Bible only, he would be telling Ilhan Omar that her God is not on the same level as ours. While I believe that his would have been true, it would also have been obnoxious and sinful.
As you suggested at the start, over-reading people’s words is harmful, and certainly is not Christ-like. It’s the sort of behavior that Cleaver was criticizing. Let’s be careful not to do this ourselves.
Ray, I appreciate your willingness as always to look at all sides, even if it means arriving at unpopular conclusions. Not many people have done the research to understand what Cleaver was trying to do by ending his prayer with “awomen.” In my view, you’ve done a great job modeling Christlike behavior here.
However, I disagree with your criticism of the previous line. I understand your discomfort with “we ask it in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and God known by many names by many different faiths,” but given the location, audience, and occasion, it was entirely appropriate from a biblical point of view.
The audience was not there to celebrate and worship Jesus Christ; many are not Christian at all. Rev Cleaver’s task that day was not to convince people that salvation can only be attained through Jesus Christ, or that the God of the Old and New Testaments is distinct from Brahma. Instead, he was called to encourage our legislators to push aside personal feelings and selfishness, and focus instead on what God wants from us. As you say, Cleaver did this very well. He represented Christ very, very well that day.
Just as some people read too much into “awomen,” I think you’re reading too much into “Brahma.” He was saying nothing more than, “as far as your service in Congress goes, it’s OK with me if you look to Brahma to help you push aside selfishness,” and “I hope your God, whoever it is, helps you to serve with integrity and grace.” He did not say that all Gods are equal, or even that they all exist. He merely recognized that many non-Christians believe that their God teaches values (integrity, honesty, humility, grace, etc.) that are similar to those of the God of the Bible.
If Cleaver had done as you suggest, praying in the name of the God of the Bible only, he would be telling Ilhan Omar that her God is not on the same level as ours. While I believe that his would have been true, it would also have been obnoxious and sinful.
As you suggested at the start, over-reading people’s words is harmful, and certainly is not Christ-like. It’s the sort of behavior that Cleaver was criticizing. Let’s be careful not to do this ourselves.