OP-ED: A noiseless prayer becomes noisy

The prayer on Sunday, Jan. 3, that opened the 117th Session of Congress has created quite a stir. The representative offering the prayer, the Rev. Emanuel Cleaver, created unintended headlines with some interesting word choices. He has been criticized by many, and has since offered his own explanation about his intentions and words.
Like Cleaver, I am a United Methodist minister who is often asked to offer prayers for governmental or civic bodies. Usually these prayers are invocations: a moment to “invoke” the wisdom and guidance of a higher power as we lead or govern. Just a day after Cleaver’s prayer, I had the privilege of praying an invocation to begin a local township supervisors meeting, as I’m asked to do several times a year.
For the most part, Cleaver’s prayer is standard for the audience to which it was addressed. Most of what he prayed is not much different than what I typically pray for in those settings. They are (and should be) different than a prayer in a faith-specific worship service or other overtly religious setting. The aim of these civic prayers ought to lift up shared religious principles of compassion, humility, service, and acknowledgement of our common humanity. All major religions uphold these values. I believe Cleaver covered all these things adequately, and had the prayer ended at about the 2:10 mark, no one would be talking about it a few days later.
Furthermore, when a prayer is given in public settings, including governmental proceedings, it is good and right to intentionally keep the prayer as an interfaith prayer. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Cleaver ended his prayer by steering clear of praying specifically to Jesus Christ, as some Christian leaders do in public settings. In my typical role with the church I serve, I almost always pray in the name of Jesus Christ, who I profess to be Lord and Savior. However, when in settings where people of other faiths may be present, I intentionally pray in a more inclusive way.
Cleaver wisely included all people of faith in his prayer. However, he unwisely named the Hindu god Brahma and to “God known by many names, by many different faiths” in his attempt at inclusivity. To be honest, I consider it inappropriate to pray to the god of a faith that is not your own, and if he had simply prayed to the “God of all people” (my preferred phrase), that would’ve been sufficient.
I think we honor the faith of others best when we express our own faith and allow others to express theirs. For instance, it’s better in a public setting to invite representatives from each major religion to each offer their own prayer rather than leave it to a Christian pastor, rabbi, imam, etc., to do it for everyone.
This mistake of Cleaver’s was carelessness borne out of an attempt to be respectful. So, criticism and correction is warranted, but ought to be given with a healthy dose of gentleness and grace.
Most of the focus has been on the three words Cleaver used to end his prayer: “Amen, and awoman.” This was clearly an attempt to be cute, and he has admitted as much. Consider it a joke that didn’t land. It was silly, sloppy, and confusing to those who don’t know what “amen” means (it means “so be it”). It has rightfully been criticized as stupid.
While these critiques are fair, some have suggested Cleaver’s prayer is blasphemous and “political correctness gone too far.” But it’s really just a prayer that didn’t end well, and I’m pretty sure Cleaver knows that by now. As a Christian, I’m sure he’s also glad for the grace of God who forgives him of these missteps in prayer. And he would probably wish for all of us to follow that example and offer him grace and forgiveness too. To do anything less would be, as Cleaver prayed, to “(rely) dangerously on our own fallible nature.”
The Rev. Erik Hoeke is pastor of Avery United Methodist Church in North Franklin and a South Strabane resident.