Post by Barb on Apr 21, 2005 12:00:37 GMT -5
"IN JESUS? NAME" PUBLIC PRAYERS?
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
If you want to close your public prayers with "Jesus", then you have to count the cost.
Right now, according to Charisma News, Californians are dealing with the subject ? hotly. City councils are divided. Do Christians end their prayers with "in Jesus? name" and get by with it? Or are they going over the line in a democracy where there are various religions enjoying the freedom of religious expression?
Burbank is the city. The US Supreme Court is the final location. Burbank mayor David Laurell told the media there?s a lawsuit in the air. It "has already had statewide impact and could have nationwide impact. I?m all for invocations that are all-inclusive, but I don?t want me or anybody else to tell people that it has to be (a certain) way," he stated loud and clear.
Drive to Fullerton. There the city attorney has counseled that public petitions may start with "Our Heavenly Father" but cannot close with "in Jesus? name." A simple "Amen" should close out public utterances.
Evangelicals in particular counter that not being free to say "in Jesus? name" is not permitting a US citizen the right to be himself. If a Christian is the one chosen to pray to a public audience, then that believer should have the right to say what he wishes, including ending his offering to heaven in Jesus? name.
Now Temple City mayor Kenneth Gillanders sizes it up with: "Frankly, we?re a little reluctant to have somebody force their views on us. It?s strange to pick out (invocations) when we have ?under God? stamped on our coins. It?s part of the litigious society we?re in."
He goes on: "This is indicative of how confused we are, spiritually speaking, about what God is. I think we have a constitutional right to choose which God we?re praying to. Taking that right away is what?s unconstitutional.
Colorado?s State Board of Education has a Jewish member, Evie Hudak. "It?s just not the kind of situation I felt comfortable with," she told the city newspaper when asked about the pre-meeting public prayers. Some of them invoked the name of Jesus.
The Maryland State Senate, after hearing several pre-meeting prayers offered in Jesus? name, brought forth Jewish Senator Sharon M. Grosfeld?s remark to THE BALTIMORE SUN: "There are numerous faiths represented in the General Assembly, and in recognition of that. . .the prayers that are said. . .should be as neutral in terms of their reference to a particular god as they can be."
My thoughts:
If Christians continue to harp on pressing for "in Jesus? name" because of their democratic rights, they had better be prepared for the New Ager to close out her prayer in the name of some Egyptian goddess.
Also, there are the other world religions who will henceforth end their high school graduation benedictions with their own deities? names.
Just wait for the atheist to invoke the name "No God" to close out his humanistic petition to nothing more than the air breathed in.
There also could be the syncretistic pray-er who will round out her petition using every divine title in the world book of religions. Just to prove a point? Could be. But if it happens, pray for the Holy Spirit?s patience fruit; for that?s about all that you?ll be able to engage?under US law.
What?s good for the goose is good for the gander. Christians have enjoyed basically a Christian culture; that does not mean that the majority has been Christian. But it does mean that Christian influences have prevailed in numerous cultural dimensions.
Nevertheless, with society becoming more and more diverse, times and prayers are about to change.
I would think that using freedom of religious expression as one?s base, taking into consideration the US Constitution, one should be able to pray as he believes. But that opens it up then to all kinds of religious terminologies.
If Christians don?t permit that, then they could be shut down altogether even in their own use of the name of Jesus.
J. Grant Swank, Jr.
If you want to close your public prayers with "Jesus", then you have to count the cost.
Right now, according to Charisma News, Californians are dealing with the subject ? hotly. City councils are divided. Do Christians end their prayers with "in Jesus? name" and get by with it? Or are they going over the line in a democracy where there are various religions enjoying the freedom of religious expression?
Burbank is the city. The US Supreme Court is the final location. Burbank mayor David Laurell told the media there?s a lawsuit in the air. It "has already had statewide impact and could have nationwide impact. I?m all for invocations that are all-inclusive, but I don?t want me or anybody else to tell people that it has to be (a certain) way," he stated loud and clear.
Drive to Fullerton. There the city attorney has counseled that public petitions may start with "Our Heavenly Father" but cannot close with "in Jesus? name." A simple "Amen" should close out public utterances.
Evangelicals in particular counter that not being free to say "in Jesus? name" is not permitting a US citizen the right to be himself. If a Christian is the one chosen to pray to a public audience, then that believer should have the right to say what he wishes, including ending his offering to heaven in Jesus? name.
Now Temple City mayor Kenneth Gillanders sizes it up with: "Frankly, we?re a little reluctant to have somebody force their views on us. It?s strange to pick out (invocations) when we have ?under God? stamped on our coins. It?s part of the litigious society we?re in."
He goes on: "This is indicative of how confused we are, spiritually speaking, about what God is. I think we have a constitutional right to choose which God we?re praying to. Taking that right away is what?s unconstitutional.
Colorado?s State Board of Education has a Jewish member, Evie Hudak. "It?s just not the kind of situation I felt comfortable with," she told the city newspaper when asked about the pre-meeting public prayers. Some of them invoked the name of Jesus.
The Maryland State Senate, after hearing several pre-meeting prayers offered in Jesus? name, brought forth Jewish Senator Sharon M. Grosfeld?s remark to THE BALTIMORE SUN: "There are numerous faiths represented in the General Assembly, and in recognition of that. . .the prayers that are said. . .should be as neutral in terms of their reference to a particular god as they can be."
My thoughts:
If Christians continue to harp on pressing for "in Jesus? name" because of their democratic rights, they had better be prepared for the New Ager to close out her prayer in the name of some Egyptian goddess.
Also, there are the other world religions who will henceforth end their high school graduation benedictions with their own deities? names.
Just wait for the atheist to invoke the name "No God" to close out his humanistic petition to nothing more than the air breathed in.
There also could be the syncretistic pray-er who will round out her petition using every divine title in the world book of religions. Just to prove a point? Could be. But if it happens, pray for the Holy Spirit?s patience fruit; for that?s about all that you?ll be able to engage?under US law.
What?s good for the goose is good for the gander. Christians have enjoyed basically a Christian culture; that does not mean that the majority has been Christian. But it does mean that Christian influences have prevailed in numerous cultural dimensions.
Nevertheless, with society becoming more and more diverse, times and prayers are about to change.
I would think that using freedom of religious expression as one?s base, taking into consideration the US Constitution, one should be able to pray as he believes. But that opens it up then to all kinds of religious terminologies.
If Christians don?t permit that, then they could be shut down altogether even in their own use of the name of Jesus.