"it is for freedom"

Reading my local paper this morning online, I found a story about a controversy that is occurring locally concerning prayer in the public forum. A neighboring city council has had different preachers praying "in the name of Jesus" during the invocation at city council meetings. Evidently a local person informed the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation group that this was happening. In turn the Freedom From Religion group sent a "terse letter" saying the city council had been violating recent court decisions regarding public prayers. The Council in turn asked all preachers to stop praying using the name of Jesus. But the preachers didn't stop.

Now we have people marching in the streets (mostly peaceably) demonstrating their differing points of view. Most "anti-Jesus' name" folks are fine with the praying part, they just want Jesus kept out of it. The atheists in the group want a moment of silence instead of a spoken prayer. Some Christians are insisting that the "in Jesus' name" words should be spoken.

IMHO, it seems that it would be acceptable to have a moment of silence as an invocation at each meeting. Everyone should be content with that, I think. Certainly the atheists would be. All other religions, as far as I know, allow for silent prayer. I think that stillness actually could make a person more aware of presence, whether it be the "presence of God" for Christians, or the presence of Allah for Muslims, or the presence of the multitudes of Hindu gods, or the undefinable god (who may or may not exist) for the Buddhists. Why the big hubbub?

Why push the "in Jesus' name" prayers even after the city council asked the preachers to stop? Me thinks there is a little too much "ego" going on here. The pushing of views by any group will undoubtedly offend others. Certainly no one appreciates another viewpoint pushed down their throat. The one pushing and the one protesting are both demonstrating how active the ego can become.

Did Jesus push his point of view? On the religious hypocrites for sure he did, but his message was one of love.

If people think that their God will somehow not hear their silent prayers then perhaps a new god is in order. It seems he might be a bit limited. If the belief is that God will punish us for not acknowledging him publicly, perhaps an understanding of "pray in your closet" would be in order.

And we already see what pushing onto others our viewpoints produces. How about obeying those in authority (city council asking for no "in Jesus' name" prayers)? Isn't "winning" people to Christ the main object of Christianity? Prohibiting the forcing of opinion and belief on others is exactly what the founding fathers of the United States had in mind when they clearly preferred separation of church and state. Freedom was the goal, not dictating religious preference.

The "in Jesus' name" group has become a little like King George it seems to me. Of course, in colonial times it was Christian groups/denominations that were seeking freedom to worship. We don't live in colonial times however. We live in a diverse nation whose best interest is to uphold the freedom of religion clause found in our Bill of Rights. Insisting that Christians are the majority and that their religion should trump all others is simply forcing a belief on those that don't believe... again, King George-ish. Seems clear to me.

All said, insisting on one's position over the position of others won't produce peace. Freedom needs to be the banner cry... not religious preference.

thoughts on prayer

I saw this quote today.

"Prayer and suffering are the two primary paths of transformation. Only people who have first lived and loved, suffered and failed, and lived and loved again, are in a position to read the Scriptures in a humble, needy, inclusive and finally fruitful way."
(from Things Hidden: Scripture As Spirituality by Richard Rohr)

Working through difficult times with understanding and the courage to dig deep is prayer. It brings change. Sometimes drastically good change.