http://www.wrvm.org/prayer_given.htm

- - -

The prayer was offered on January 23, 1996, before the Kansas state legislature by Rev. Joe Wright, pastor of Central Christian (nondenominational) Church in Wichita, Kansas.

Paul Harvey read it on one of his programs and a huge response (mostly positive) followed:

- - -

Prayers like this one indicate all sorts of things, from one's image of God, moral values, and how the Spirit works.

What say ye, friends? This is fairly representative of the thinking of many Christians today. Comments?

There�s a lot of truth to that prayer: We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building esteem. We have abused power and called it political savvy. We have coveted our neighbors' possessions and called it taxes. We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.. Brilliant. But I would want to nuance a few other things a bit. It does no good to commit the same errors as the left. Two wrongs don�t make a right. For instance, to say "We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism" is a bit of a cheap shot that whitewashes the truth as much a multiculturalism does. I think this statement actually gives some credence to the idea of multiculturalism because the statement implies a rigidness where there is only one proper way to worship. Although I recognize the inherent knee-jerk anti-American underpinnings of multiculturalism and that multiculturalism is a cause often quite disconnected from any legitimate sources, it surely does no good to give these people any more ammunition than they already have.

I've always been a bit undecided about the prayer, myself. The reason I am is because when we, as Christians, invoke this type of thing on a legislative body, we begin muddying the waters between Church and State. While I, as a Christian, agree pretty much with the prayer, it implies that this country is devoted and sacrificed to God. It is not. We may have a predominant factor of population that claims the name "Christian," but we have never really been a "Christian" country (just ask the Native Americans). We are a country claimed and built in and upon in the name of freedom.

It also means that because of that freedom, any other religion could be represented in the same way before a legislative body (because we've made sure our laws provide for that).

Like I said..I've never been quite sure how I felt about it.

Blessings,
Terri

Echoing some of Terri's and Brad's comments:

I ask in the name of your Son, the living Savior, Jesus Christ. Amen!

Well, this was in Kansas, but it's still inappropriate. "In the name of our Creator" or something like that would have been fine. How'd they like it if a Moslem led a prayer and concluded "I ask in the name of Allah, the one and only true God"?

We confess that we have ridiculed the absolute truth of your Word in the name of moral pluralism.

The "absolute truth of your Word" is also out of bounds. Also, where does anyone do anything "in the name of moral pluralism?"

We have worshipped other gods and called it multiculturalism.

Who has worshipped what? And what's that got to do with multiculturalism?

We have endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle.

What perversion? We know he means homosexuality, of course, but there are a lot of "alternative lifestyles" that are not perversion.

We have exploited the poor and called it a lottery.

Well . . . maybe . . . sorta . . . ???

We have neglected the needy and called it self preservation.

Lots of money gets spent on social welfare programs in this state. In fact, we're pretty much broke.

We have rewarded laziness and called it welfare.

Well . . . hmmm . . . might at least some of these people be the needy whose rejection was just lamented?

In the name of choice we have killed our unborn. In the name of right to life we have killed abortionists.

He got that one right.

We have neglected to discipline our children and called it building esteem.

Broadside against values clarification programs. FWIW, I think lack of discipline is generally out of laziness or neglect, and not out of an attempt to build self-esteem.

We have abused power and called it political savvy.

That one's pretty close.

We have coveted our neighbors' possessions and called it taxes.

He totally lost me on this one. I covet my neighbor's possession and don't receive any taxes. Have I missed something?

We have polluted the air with profanity and pornography and called it freedom of expression.

OK.

We have ridiculed the time honored values of our forefathers and called it enlightenment.

More likely, "foremothers." Sheesh! But this is much too poorly nuanced.

Search us O God, and know our hearts today. Try us and show us any wicked way in us. Cleanse us from every sin and set us free.

Us = "you filthy, lazy, good-for-nothin' excuses of human beings who call yourselves politicians."

- - -

This is the prayer of a fundamentalistic, spiral dynamics Blue, Christian pastor.

This is the prayer of a fundamentalistic, spiral dynamics Blue, Christian pastor.


I generally agree with both of your further evaluations. I don't mind thumpin' hard but there seems such a thin wall these day between the last little bits of traditional values and the gunk that wishes to rush in without thought to replace it that I think we should be prudent and wise about such things. I don't think anyone should ever be cowed, but I also don't think it pays to give the barbarians at the gate any more ammunition than they already have. Which is not to say that some of the new ideas aren't of value. But it seems they so often come haphazardly packaged, rushed, and not very well thought out that the benefit of the doubt must be to reinforce traditional values unless given a very compelling reason to do otherwise.

I'd probably get stoned by some of my Christian brothers and sisters, but I didn't boycott with the "take prayer out of school" idea. The reason is because it's never been taken out of school. A person can pray all they want in school. However, if we're going to allow oral prayers, then we'd better be prepared to offer the same space to any other religion, and to me that's worse. No one can control whether I pray or not...the only thing they can control or attempt to control is if I command all to listen to me pray out loud and hold my audience captive to that prayer.

I also don't have a problem with whether or not the 10 commandments are displayed. For the most part, the "10" are a part of every moral society whether it's called "commandments" or "from God." To demand displaying them causes the same problem as demanding that my prayer to God Almighty maker of heaven and earth be heard.

We have made sure that there is religious freedom in this country..uh huh. The only problem with it is that religious "freedom" in many ways, gives rise to religious "restriction" when I wish to display my Christianity because I am infringing upon the "freedom" of another religion. Try saying that 10 times real fast .

This prayer, to me, might've caused more damage than good because it is a prayer of personal opinions being used in the name of God. As I said, I do agree with parts of it, but I still don't think it belongs in a place like a legislative body. It's more the prayer of a small prayer group who is dealing with some specific issues rather than a blanket approach to the country's ills.

Whew...that was deep for my first cup of coffee

Blessings,
Terri

quote:

I'd probably get stoned by some of my Christian brothers and sisters, but I didn't boycott with the "take prayer out of school" idea. The reason is because it's never been taken out of school. A person can pray all they want in school. However, if we're going to allow oral prayers, then we'd better be prepared to offer the same space to any other religion, and to me that's worse. No one can control whether I pray or not...the only thing they can control or attempt to control is if I command all to listen to me pray out loud and hold my audience captive to that prayer.

I want to jump in with you, Terri, and say that I agree fully, but eliminating prayer from school wouldn�t eliminate worship. It would eliminate only one type of worship and open the door for the dominance of another type. I was mildly amused the other day when I visited my nephew�s school. No longer may there be pictures of Jesus hanging on the walls of public schools (and that�s just fine with me), but in their place you�ll often see objects of no less consecrational value. In this case it was a rather huge and prominent Native America carved wooden boat taking up about half of a side hallway. Art piece or object of worship? Well, I agree that the boat is ostensibly just a piece of cultural art (as would be, of course, a picture of Jesus in this abundantly Christian nation, but I digress). But the rapt enthrallment so many people have for multiculturalism, the environment, abortion and other leftist causes resembles, at least to my eye, religious veneration. But let�s play fair. Let�s assume that this religious interpretation of the boat is wrong, over-the-top and hysterical. But then let�s also play fair, for God�s sake (quite literally, one might suppose), and allow people to learn about the historical significance of the Christian religion as it relates to the western world, in general, and the United States in particular. But you�ll generally find that the left views ANY injection of religion as ONLY being about indoctrination. Well, fine. Then I�m going to view all of the cultural art that they impose on the rest of us as expressions of their leftist multicultural religion.

Let me just put it this way, Terri (if you�re still with me). I want cooperation, tolerance and, most of all, reasonableness to win out. If I�m a superintendent or principal I will allow a teacher to have a short time for a generic silent prayer. I see no harm in that. Let it be up to the teacher. It�s been this drive to specifically purge anything with even tangential ties to religion that has been so dehumanizing, harmful and unfair. After all, I see no particular reason to favor the zealous atheist over the strident fundamentalist, or vice versa.

There�s no need to try to make school into a weak substitute for church. It would be wrong to make everyone stand silently while someone recites, say, the Lord�s Prayer. But on the other hand, religion is a huge part of our culture and heritage. To purge it from our public life altogether, as has been done in so many places, is to simply elevate somebody else�s narrow view of how things should be. It�s also giving in to a totalitarian and utopian vision of things. That should be resisted by any freedom-loving American. And that is while you�ll find me, hardly a church-goer, making this case and defending religious liberty and, by extension, liberty of all types.

It's more the prayer of a small prayer group who is dealing with some specific issues rather than a blanket approach to the country's ills.

I just wanted to add that I think that's very well said and shows much wisdom.

My guess is that Pastor Wright and many other biblical fundamentalists would consider it proper that the Bible be used as the basis for formulating law. In fact, I don't think there's much difference between these people and the Taliban in this regard, although surely not in the content of the law.

There are a lot of "Pastor Wrights" out there, and a lot who go along with this view. His "Central Chistian Church" in Wichita is non-denominational and seats well over a thousand people. It's packed on Sundays and some week nights.

While I share much of the same faith with Pastor Wright, I don't share his political views. A Catholic perspective would be that natural law should be the means by which politicians determine the moral dimension of their policies. There's nothing of the sort in Pastor Wright's tradition, so he cannot fathom how moral determinations could be made apart from the Bible.

There's a lot of wisdom in your post as well, Brad. I believe that there SHOULD be appropriate attention paid to Christianity because, as you pointed out, it is indeed so much a part of our history, and also in our culture...especially those in the "Bible belt."

I also agree with the silent prayer thing. Our school still actually does hold prayer simply because all the teachers, except 1, profess themselves to be Christians and 99% of the student body attends church somewhere. Now, if someone comes along and has an issue with it, then we will have to stop the oral prayer, the Nativity in our Christmas programs, etc. Usually they also offer a moment of silence for anyone to pray or meditate or whatever.

I think your desire for cooperation, tolerance and reasonableness shows a desire for the wisdom of Solomon...and that isn't a bad thing . And I wholeheartedly agree with this:

To purge it from our public life altogether, as has been done in so many places, is to simply elevate somebody else�s narrow view of how things should be.

Just a little side note here. About 10 years ago, I went to Jamaica on a mission trip...Vacation Bible school (I know, I know....but that's what a lot of mission trips are if they aren't for medical or construction). These Jamaican children could recite Bible passage after Bible passage, much better than ANY of us could. They were taught the Bible as part of their regular school curriculum (which makes the idea of VBS totally absurd for this part of the world, but I didn't know that til I went there..lol). The thing is, they knew the scripture, but they knew it as "literature," so in that respect, no "religious" aspect of it was really in the forefront. In fact, for the most part, the ministers there had a problem moving beyond the literature part of it to the spirtual part of it because the native Jamaicans are a very superstitious peoples with their own "spirtuality." To me, it was an illustration of just how off base this fear of bringing the Bible into school is. In fact, if the protesters were to see the actual result of it, it just might be that it actually worked in their favor instead of against it because it would be so incorporated as to be mere "literature." Kinda weird, huh?

Another little tidbit to just throw in here. In studying Church history, one particular author noted that the earliest Christians, being so devoted to Christ, could not teach because they would have to teach about the gods and goddesses of the Roman culture. They could not work in the hospitals because each hospital was "protected" by a god. They could not be stone masons because they would be called upon to build a temple devoted to a god...etc. etc. That is how they ended up as little communities unto themselves. They kept themselves out of the culture of the world in order to serve their God. In many ways, this prevented the whole interlacing of church and state or government. Just an interesting thing to mull over.

Blessings,
Terri