The Name of Jesus

Disclaimer: For those offended by religious posts, read no further!

In his newest book titled The Name, Franklin Graham tells of offering prayer at the Littleton, CO, memorial service just after the Columbine tragedy. He closed his prayer with the words, "In Jesus Name." A man walks up as Graham is leaving the scene and with loud arrogance states three times--"You offended me."

Throughout the book Graham details one public event after another in which pressure is applied to conform his prayer to generic terminology--to make his public prayers politically correct.

It is indeed amazing how one can pray to, or in the name of:

God
The Almighty
The Heavenly Architect
The Father
Mother Earth
Allah
Buddha
The Creator
The Force
The Sovereign One
Etc., Etc., Etc.

and tolerance rules the day!

But when one invokes the name of Jesus, many who cry for tolerance become intolerant.

 

This thread title was staring at me; and it was hard to pass it by.

Here is my favorite scripture:

• And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. (Revelation 11:15)

 

At a memorial service, several years ago, for the passengers of a Swissair flight that crashed off Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia the clergyman of various faiths were warned not to make the service faith specific, ie non-religious.

Most gave a shucks, ain't that too bad speech. Only the rabbi had enough endocrine activity to ignore the nameless, faceless and witless civil servants.

 

I guess that no Christian would even think of objecting if those assembled in memorial were led in invoking one of the avatars of Lord Vishnu.

My opinion is that a lot would depend on what the context of the prayer was. Was it a church service, or a more inclusive memorial of some kind? Was the prayer a personal expression of the person making it, or was he speaking for the entire group or leading them in prayer?

 

I can understand part of the argument here--I defended Bush's decision to invoke Jesus in his inaugural prayer, just as I would have defended a Jewish president who felt moved to recite the Sh'ma--but I have to agree with Bill that if it's okay to be sectarian and say the name of Jesus, the same should go for all religions (and any lack thereof). I wonder if Franklin Graham would agree with me on this point; I haven't read his book, but was distressed at his decision to call Islam an "evil religion" (not because he said it, but because waited to say it in a situation where he could exploit anti-Islamic prejudice).


Cheers,

 

If an imam were asked to offer a prayer at a public function, but not to address Deity by any of the "99 names of Allah", would he do so? Should he?

The Vishnu invocation should be no more or less objectionable than the invocation of Jesus; however, the religious right will holler at the first and applaud the second, and vice versa for the politically correct.

This sort of thing is why my religious body does not participate in public displays of religiosity.

Here is a modest proposal (though not Swiftian). What if the public pray-er were to say something along these lines: "I am a Parsee, and am going to offer a prayer to Ahura Mazda. Please listen respectfully or join in this act of devotion." This would ask only for public decorum during a ceremonial act, rather than presuming to speak in the name of all present or dragooning all into participating. It would also avoid inane "to whom it may concern" utterances which, in the name of diversity, obliterate all that is actually diverse about particular religions or philosophies.

 

I haven't read the book either. I confess that I haven't even heard this mans name before. Because of this I cannot say that he "waited" to express this opinion. He is, I assume, at the mercy of the publishers in that he cannot express all his thoughts to eveyone at will. Like (most of) the rest of us.

Jack

 

Franklin is Billy Graham's son and made the "evil religion" comment during a sermon, not very long after 9-11. Given the very real danger many American Muslims faced at the time, his comment was--at the very least--inconsiderate.


Peace,

 

Jesus is the Answer

What's the Question?

Who Was the Third Alou Brother?

Rich Douglas, not offended.

 

Indeed, the same should go for all religions--at least in the USA where freedom of religion (not freedom from religion) is enjoyed. The premise of Franklin's book is that this is not the case. He asserts that in far too many scenario's the Christian minister is under pressure to formulate politically correct public prayers, which means avoiding the use of the name Jesus. And it does seem that those who cry for tolerance in such contexts are tolerant of most any and everything--i.e., except Jesus name.

 

Re: Re: The Name of Jesus

Probably not if the dude was a Hindu (I think we could understand). I would respect his religious tradition and the sentiment behind his prayer. I would not pray to the diety because that diety is not in any way real other than in the beliefs and imagination of the Hindu praying it. I would simply listen respectfully.

I think Franklin Graham's point (have not read the book but seen him twice on Hannity & Colmes) is that people seem to have a general tolerance for most things............except Christianty. Teachers go spasdic (from elementary school on up) as do public officials as if any expression is the most vile thing. Christians are one of the few groups that it is okay to deprive of freedom of speech (expression) & assembly/equal access. Laywers from groups as the American Center for Law & Justice have the most bizarre cases of folks trying to deprive Christians of their rights and they have taken some of these through the court system. It is okay to distort Christian beliefs on sitcoms & make fun of them in ways that no one would do about color, etc. There are some extremely bigoted ideas, comments, and distortions about the Christian faith.

That name seems to provoke anger (which is a secondary emotion...the primary is probably fear). There is something about that name..............to the Greeks foolishness....to the Jews a stumbling block........but to those who are being called both Greeks & Jews, Christ the Power of God and the wisdom of God. (I Cor 1:23-24 NKJV)

North

 

Reminds me of the story I heard about a Latin American priest who had visited Mississippi and unintentionally made waves by signing his correspondence "Jesus" (which was, of course, his first name).


Cheers,

 

The founding fathers weren't conscious of a distinction between freedom of religion and freedom from religion; the former implies a certain amount of the latter, which is why the idea of prohibiting religious tests (in which one was to submit to a creed before taking office) was considered central to the First Amendment establishment clause.

I support freedom from religion depending on the context. I don't support removing religion from the public sphere any more than I support removing secularism from the public sphere (and I don't think either goal is realistic), but I do oppose anything that remotely resembles a state-enforced creed. That's why I'd like to see "in God we trust" either made optional (much as "solemnly swear" can be replaced with "solemnly affirm"), or completely removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

I don't actively oppose its use for currency because it serves a benign decorative purpose, but if a law were passed requiring anyone using currency to actually say "in God I trust," I hope we'd all raise heck.


Cheers,

 

I'm curious. Do we know why "Jesus" is regularly used as a first name in Latin America and Africa but not, as far as I know, in non-Hispanic Europe or the US/Canada?

 

What's a "public prayer"?

If this simply means a personal prayer uttered in a public place, Christians obviously have the same rights of free speech as anyone else. (And others have an equal right to disagree.)

But if the prayer becomes something more than a personal prayer, if it is spoken for a whole group of people, and particularly if a clergyman presumes to lead those people in their own prayers, then a great deal of care and consideration need to be shown.

If the proceeding is intended to reach out to the hearts of an entire group, the clergyman needs to be alert to the characteristics of that group. The symbolism employed needs to be capable of expressing the religiosity of as many of those present as possible.

Choosing prayers that are unique and specific to one segment will only make it more difficult for the rest of the group to comfortably participate.

If you push people away, don't be surprised if they are distant. If you want them to embrace you, you need to reach out to them and to draw them close.

 

But again, the issue Graham makes in his book is that there seems to be great tolerance for praying in "whomever's" name, until one prays in Jesus' name.

When I used the phrase "public prayer," I did not mean to imply public prayers that are personal in nature, e.g., praying over one's meal in a restuarant, etc. Rather, it would be those prayers which are offered by a Christian minister (or any religious personage) in a public setting, e.g., memorial services, inaugurations, ecumenical prayer services and the like.

If, in the above context, a Jewish Rabbi prays to the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, very little is said by those who are in attendance. This is who the man is---a Jewish Rabbi. And for the most part, the Rabbi is given respect. The same thing is true if an Islamic cleric prays in the name of Allah. The Christians in the group may not agree with Islamic theology, but little is said because of respect for another's religious preference. And oddly, the non-religious segment of such a gathering have little to say, basically respecting each individual's freedom concerning religion. This "tolerance" has become a "keyword" among the politically correct. What is most disturbing, and this is the premise of Graham's book, is that the same tolerance is many times not afforded to the Christian minister who prays in Jesus' name.

 

Bill, Russell: You're both right.

Bill: A public speaker, including a performance pray-er, does need to reach out to as much of her audience as possible. I can recall feeling grossly alienated by come-to-Jesus prayer at a public (!) high school graduation, which was offensive both to my personal theology and to my views on church-state matters. I can also recall being targeted as an "outsider" and being ostracized when I attended an overwhelmingly Jewish publc elementary school which (this was long ago) included Jewish religious customs, songs, perhaps prayers through which I sat somewhat bemused.

Russell: On the other hand, a public speaker is a lot more likely to be the target of opprobrium for a discernibly Christian prayer (on grounds of cultural insensitivity) than she is for prayer discernibly linked to other religions, for which she is likely to be applauded as a poster child for diversity.

Bill: As for "reaching out to them and drawing them close," the Carpathian peasant is a bit too austere for that--but God is not. He has instituted the means of grace (scripture, baptism, mass) to do just that, and the church diversely manifest, not civic fora of one kind or another, is the arena of the means of grace--in Jesus' name.

 

What' does the "H" stand for?

 

Quote by Russell Morris:

"If, in the above context, a Jewish Rabbi prays to the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, very little is said by those who are in attendance. This is who the man is---a Jewish Rabbi. And for the most part, the Rabbi is given respect. The same thing is true if an Islamic cleric prays in the name of Allah. The Christians in the group may not agree with Islamic theology, but little is said because of respect for another's religious preference. And oddly, the non-religious segment of such a gathering have little to say, basically respecting each individual's freedom concerning religion. This "tolerance" has become a "keyword" among the politically correct. What is most disturbing, and this is the premise of Graham's book, is that the same tolerance is many times not afforded to the Christian minister who prays in Jesus' name."

I agree with this statement. As a Christian I respect another's beliefs. Even Jesus never forced Himself on anyone. He simply told it like it was/is and the same was true of the Apostles.

In this day and age, it seems that it's o'k to be anything but a Christian. I'm not supprised though, Jesus said if they hate me then they will hate you(paraphrased). I would never force my beliefs on anyone, but I won't hide them either. Your beliefs are what you are. The Bible even says that " as a man thinks in his heart, so is he." It's just sad, because of the bias against Christianity, which is very much a huge part of our heritage here in America. If one person is "offended" about something then we are supposed to not say or do it for that person, even if the other ninty-nine want it, and yet we're supposed to allow the one to do whatever they want even if it isn't our custom or belief.
This is Hypocracy.

 

"Hell-bent"