Related articles and links |  1 of 10

Is the National Prayer Breakfast unbiblical?
Addressing about three thousand attendees at the National Prayer Breakfast yesterday, President Bush directed his praise to an unlikely object. "All of us believe in the power of prayer. And for a lot of people here in Washington, a prayer has been answered with three words: Coach Joe Gibbs," he said. He went on to praise U.S. troops in Iraq for promoting religious tolerance.

"The Iraqi people are mostly Muslims, and we respect the faith they practice. Our troops in Iraq have helped to refurbish mosques, have treated Muslim clerics with deference, and are mindful of Islam's holy days," he said. "Some of our troops are Muslims themselves, because America welcomes people of every faith. Christians and Jews and Muslims have too often been divided by old suspicions, but we are called to act as what we are—the sons and daughters of Abraham."

Halfway through his speech, Bush was interrupted by a sound many described as like machine-gun fire. "It was an interaction between wireless microphones and the sound system, akin to a feedback effect," White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said. "It was not a 21-gun salute." (The sound can be heard 9 minutes and 15 seconds into this video.)

That wasn't the only negative feedback of the day, however. New Republic blogger Gregg Easterbrook yesterday called for an end to the National Prayer Breakfast. He's less concerned about its political aspects than its public ones. "Christ repeatedly said that people should pray in private, and followed his own advice, leaving his disciples when he wished to address God," Easterbrook writes. "The Washington Hilton ballroom is today's equivalent of the 'street corners' on which hypocrites used to pray 'so that they may be seen by others.' If the National Prayer Breakfast were transformed into an annual celebration of ecumenical cooperation—with Christians, Jews, Muslims, and others jointly vowing to respect each other—that might be one thing. Its current status as a celebration of public self-congratulation is another."

But if Easterbrook wants to take on public prayer, is the National Prayer Breakfast the best target? For one thing, the meeting is hardly one prayer after another. One need look no further than Bush, who did not offer any prayers himself, but did join others in bowing his head in prayer.

For another, the National Prayer Breakfast isn't tremendously public. It's by invitation only, and the press is barred for much of it (presidential speeches and a few musical acts notwithstanding).

It's not that the National Prayer Breakfast is untouchable. Several conservative Christians would critique the meeting's interfaith nature, and castigate orthodox believers for praying with heretics and Muslims (As Easterbrook notes, "Countless among those present to adulate prayer don't pray themselves, or even consider prayer an irrational superstition.") But Easterbrook's argument is probably better served against, say, legislative invocations than he does against the National Prayer Breakfast.

Furthermore, Easterbrook seems to conflate public prayer with corporate prayer. While he's right in noting, along with Mark, that "Jesus often withdrew to lonely places and prayed," the Scriptures offer many examples of believers praying together or in front of others. Indeed, Jesus promoted praying together: "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

next page... |  1 of 10

February (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48