What liberals mean by excessively Christian

When the practicing sodomite “Bishop” Eugene Robinson of the formerly Christian body known as the Episcopal Church USA said that he is “horrified” at how “specifically and aggressively Christian” past inaugural prayers have been, he was speaking nonsense. The first specifically Christian prayer heard at a presidential inauguration in modern times, and probably the first ever, was at President Bush’s swearing-in eight years ago, when the Rev. Franklin Graham used the name of Jesus. That was startling and daring, and wouldn’t have been startling and daring if prayers mentioning Jesus by name had been the norm at those events.

Therefore, I think that what Robinson really means by “specifically and aggressively Christian” prayers at past inaugural ceremonies is that they were recognizably addressed to the God of the Bible, a.k.a. God. It is not some narrow denominalism, nor even explicit Christianity, that Robinson is targetting. It is God himself that Robinson and his fellow liberals want to remove from American public life.

- end of initial entry -

Laura W. writes:

Perhaps it is the Judeo-Christian notion of sin that most offends Robinson in past inaugural prayers. At Nixon’s inauguration, Rev. Billy Graham spoke of the “wages of sin staring us in the face,” and he frequently referred to sin in his prayers and sermons at inauguration events for six presidents. The “God of many understandings,” as Robinson refers to the recipient of this year’s prayers, isn’t the sort of guy who issues divine standards and judgments; those things are “aggressively Christian.” Can you imagine Robinson approving of Graham’s words: “Thou hast warned us in the Scriptures, ‘If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?’ As George Washington reminded us in his farewell address, morality and faith are the pillars of our society.”

LA replies:

Excellent point.

January 14

Charles T. writes:

Is Bishop Robinson’s approach to Christianity another example of liberalism being akin to atheism? After all, is he not creating a god in his own image, rather than the God that is described in the Bible? The two gods are different and mutually exclusive. One must be wrong.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 13, 2009 09:37 PM | Send