On 3 January 2021, Emanuel Cleaver, an ordained United Methodist pastor who is currently serving as a Democratic representative for Missouri’s 5th congressional district, delivered the opening prayer for the 117th Congress. For the most part, it was an entirely conventional mainline Protestant prayer, asking for the usual sorts of things using the usual language. At the very end, though, Representative Cleaver added some remarks in an effort to make the prayer more inclusive, saying:
“May the Lord lift up the light of his countenance upon us and give us peace—peace in our families, peace across this land, and (dare I ask oh Lord?) peace even in this chamber for now and ever more. We ask it in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and God known by many names by many different faiths. Amen, and awoman.”
Naturally, Republicans are extremely outraged over this (or at least pretending to be extremely outraged in order to make their supporters feel outraged). They have, however, expressed their outrage in ways that show they clearly don’t have particularly in-depth knowledge of Christian history or even the Bible itself.
The meaning of the phrase amen
The first aspect of Representative Cleaver’s prayer that Republicans are upset about is the closing: “amen, and awoman.” Republicans have attempted to construe this closing as evidence that Representative Cleaver is a bumbling ignoramus who doesn’t even know what the word amen means.
Guy Reschenthaler, a Republican who is currently serving as a representative for Pennsylvania’s 14th congressional district, issued the following tweet denouncing Representative Cleaver’s prayer as “unbelievable.” Representative Reschenthaler declares that amen is “not a gendered word,” because it “is Latin for ‘so be it.’” He goes on to insist that “facts are irrelevant to progressives”:
Some guy named Matt Walsh weighed in with his own viral tweet:
Then, on 4 January 2021, Donald Trump Jr. issued the following tweet, denouncing the Democrats and repeating the claim “Amen means ‘So Be It’ in Latin”:
The Republicans are correct that amen does exist as a word in Latin that means “truly,” “let it be so,” or “so be it.” The word, however, does not originate from Latin. The Latin word is actually derived from the older Greek word ἀμήν (āmḗn), which is derived from the even older, nearly identical Biblical Hebrew word אָמֵן (āmḗn). It would have taken Republicans only a few seconds to look this up and see that the word actually comes from Hebrew, but, for some reason, none of them bothered to do this.
The great irony here is that Representative Cleaver almost certainly knows better than any of the Republicans attacking him what the word amen means, considering the fact that he has a Master of Divinity (M.Div) from the Saint Paul School of Theology and has spent years working as a Methodist preacher. When he said “amen, and awoman,” it wasn’t because he didn’t understand the meaning or etymology of the word, but rather because he was making a deliberate pun on the fact that the word amen sounds like the phrase “a man” in English.
Representative Cleaver has explicitly said this himself; he clarified to TMZ on 4 January 2021 that his use of the phrase “amen and awoman” was simply a “light-hearted pun” and that he made it “in recognition of the record number of women who will be representing the American people in Congress during this term as well as in recognition of the first female Chaplain of the House of Representatives.”
Now, you can argue that Representative Cleaver’s pun wasn’t very funny or that it was disrespectful, but it’s entirely disingenuous to construe it as evidence that he doesn’t know what amen means.
Cleaver’s mention of Brahma
The other aspect of Representative Cleaver’s prayer that conservatives are acting upset about is the fact that he invokes “the monotheistic God, Brahma, and God known by many names by many different faiths.” Many conservatives are declaring that this proves that Representative Cleaver is not a real Christian, but rather an apostate and a heretic. One person tweeted this:
Another person tweeted that Representative Cleaver should “unquestionably be stripped of” his “title and position”:
It is certainly true there are substantial differences between what most Hindus believe about Brahma and what most Methodists believe about the Christian God. On the other hand, the claim that Representative Cleaver’s mention of Brahma is proof that he is a heretic is clearly unwarranted. There is a very long tradition of Christians equating other people’s deities with their own. This tradition extends all the way back to the New Testament itself.
In the Book of the Acts of the Apostles 17:22–31, the apostle Paul is portrayed as giving a speech to the Athenians on the Areios Pagos in which he expressly appeals to native Greek religious beliefs to make his case for the Christian gospel. First, he points out that the Athenians have an altar in their city with the inscription “To the unknown god.” He declares that this “unknown god” is, in fact, none other than the Christian God and that the Athenians have unknowingly been worshipping Him this whole time. He declares, as translated in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV):
“Athenians, I see how extremely religious you are in every way. For as I went through the city and looked carefully at the objects of your worship, I found among them an altar with the inscription, ‘To an unknown god.’ What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. The God who made the world and everything in it, he who is Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things. From one ancestor he made all nations to inhabit the whole earth, and he allotted the times of their existence and the boundaries of the places where they would live, so that they would search for God and perhaps grope for him and find him—though indeed he is not far from each one of us.”
Paul isn’t done here, though! He immediately goes on to quote directly from the Kretika, a poem written in the Greek language that was attributed in ancient times to the Kretan mystic poet Epimenides of Knossos. The poem is ostensibly a hymn to the Greek god Zeus, but Paul declares to the Athenians that the poet was actually writing about the Christian God without even knowing it. He declares, as translated in the NRSV:
“For ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’ Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.”
In other words, according to the Book of the Acts of the Apostles, the apostle Paul literally argued that some people who think they are worshipping Zeus are actually worshipping YHWH. Whether the historical Paul ever did anything like this is open for debate, but the fact that the Book of the Acts of the Apostles portrays him as doing it is significant.
If a literal apostle could quote a Greek hymn invoking the god Zeus, then I hardly see how it could be considered heretical for a present-day United Methodist minister to declare that God is “known by many names by many different faiths.”
The real concern here shouldn’t be with the possibility that Representative Cleaver might be a heretic, but rather with the fact that he’s interpreting Hindu beliefs through an obviously Christian lens. From the perspective of diversity and inclusion, it’s much better to respect Hindu beliefs on their own terms, rather than through syncretism with Christianity.
ABOVE: Nineteenth-century western European oil painting of Paul the Apostle preaching in Athens
What Republicans are trying to distract from
It’s obvious that all this blustering about Representative Cleaver’s prayer is nothing more than a blatant and entirely disingenuous attempt by the Republicans to distract from President Donald J. Trump’s latest scandal.
On 3 January 2021, The Washington Post released an audio recording of Trump berating Brad Raffensberger, the Republican incumbent Secretary of State for the state of Georgia. In the recording, Trump insists that the election results in Georgia must be wrong because they show that he lost and he urges Raffensberger to do whatever he can to “find 11,780 votes” that would change the result of the election.
Trump is overtly acting like a tin-pot dictator and Republicans know that they can’t convincingly defend his actions to the American people, so they’re trying to distract from his corrupt behavior by trying to get Americans outraged about progressives acting “woke.” Unfortunately, their efforts seem to be succeeding.
ABOVE: Photograph of President Donald Trump, an aspiring autocrat whose persistent efforts to overturn democracy have so far resulted in failure
“Light hearted pun on a solemn prayer or evocation” really Spencer? I would expect better of you. The fact that they confused the word’s origin for being Latin instead of Hebrew is a strawman argument from you. I would have expected a more cerebral response from you. Perhaps you are dumbing it down for your lefty fellow travelers. You are not the Christian scholar you pretend to be. Spencer, you have gone Hollywood to please your ignorant lefty friends? Please, don’t go the way of “Bill Nye The Science Guy”. No true scientists can even pretend he has any intimacy with science or physics.
I don’t “pretend to be” a “Christian scholar”; on the contrary, for nearly the past two years, I’ve been very open about the fact that I no longer identify as a Christian. Instead, I currently identify as an agnostic. Nonetheless, I still have a very keen interest in the Bible and in Christian history. Thus, I continue to write about these subjects.
My point in this article is that Representative Cleaver clearly knows what amen means. It’s clear that he was just trying to make a pun. You can argue that his pun was disrespectful or inappropriate, but it’s disingenuous for Republicans to pretend like he doesn’t even know what amen means. Moreover, the hullaballoo Republicans are making over this is clearly a deliberate distraction.
With respect, Spencer, i disagree that he was trying to make a pun. There is a third, significantly more likely possibility. I think he was trying to make a political statement and when it upset a lot of Christians he tried to claim it was a pun for damage control, but the a-woman part, while stupid, isnt important. The part that I as a christian found interesting was his equation of other religions as equally valid as christianity. As a pastor, he should stand firm in his strict allegiance to christ, even at the expense of public opinion. This is a biblical view, unlike the one that you attempted to argue for by twisting what paul said in the book of acts. If you actually read that to find what he was really saying, you will learn he wasnt saying they were worshipping god without knowing it when they worshipped zeus, he was saying that the real God has attributes that they attempt to give to zeus but doesn’t require an image made by human hands to exist or sacrifices made by humans to remain satiated and that he overlooked their ignorance to him, but now that they were informed and no longer ignorant, they should choose the real god and leave their false gods behind. A very different meaning that is far from ‘inclusive’. Respect and tolerance are good values, however truth (including the true identity of God) should be held as a much higher and more important value than simple inclusivity. Thats why his message is wrong, because it politicizes religion. The best part of your article was when you said that the hindu beliefs should stand on their own and not through the lens of Christianity, and i completely agree. Let each religion stand on its own and those in search of truth will find it, but lets not pretend they can all be equal and correct when they are mutually exclusive, making that a distinct impossibility.
Amen
Bernardo Y Lucero, you are correct.
https://babylonbee.com/news/congressional-prayer-lasts-three-days-as-democrat-tries-to-include-amen-versions-of-all-5787-genders/
The Babylon Bee is a right-wing satire website. They’re basically like The Onion, only for the sort of people who get most of their information from Conservapedia.
No way?! It sounded so real.
Unfortunately, a lot of people don’t realize that their articles are satire. Notably, Snopes.com has had to debunk a large number of misconceptions that originated as joke articles on The Babylon Bee.
Hold on….what about this?
http://babylonbee.com/news/snopes-rates-babylon-bee-worlds-accurate-news-source/
Spencer Alexander McDaniel, you are much wirse than the Babylon Bee and the Onion. You are spreading lies not only about Christians but about the Apostle Paul and about the Lord Himself.
By your hogwash in your article, you have condoned the blasphemy that Emanuel Cleaver brought into the Capitol building on January 4th 2021. That was the day that the halls of Congress was breached by evil forces. Not January 6. The breachers of Jan. 6 did not invade a “sacred” place, because people who spread crap like you had ALREADY BREACHED it.
Blasphemy, Brenda Lee? Blasphemy? Do you know what that word means?
Is recognising other religions’ existence blasphemy? If it is, then shame upon whatever it is which defines it as blasphemy.
I am rather upset that these Republicans consider my beloved God of the Christian tradition to be nothing more than a tribal deity with rivals. After all, if any name is considered to refer to the ultimate, transcendent, and divine Absolute, the source of all existence, Being, Unity, Intellect, Goodness, Truth, and Beauty, it logically follows that we are talking about the same reality behind those names. And that is how YHWH, Allah, Waheguru, Brahman, the One (the Neoplatonic one), Ahura Mazda, etc. are understood in each of their religions.
The real mistake of Cleavers is that he spoke* about Brahmā (ब्रह्मा) when he obviously meant Brahman (ब्रह्मन्). How appalling!
* I assume so based on this article. As a non-American, I don’t have enough interest to search-engine the details.
It’s amazing that conservatives get mad about this stuff but not about anything Trump ever says. I slightly disagree with your statement about how this obvious distraction is working. It’s working among conservatives but I don’t think most Americans would care (the news has mostly covered the phone call and not this ridiculous “scandal”).
Ohh sorry. This was supposed to be a comment under the article not a reply this comment.
Agreed. Breaking down Foreign/historical words to extract a current English word is an illustration of Ignorance; thus, these people are stupid and demonstrate why they believe they are suitable to be politicians and “thought” leaders.
According to the dictionary for the origin of “amen”:
Old English, from ecclesiastical Latin, from Greek amēn, from Hebrew ‘āmēn ‘truth, certainty’, used adverbially as expression of agreement, and adopted in the Septuagint as a solemn expression of belief or affirmation.”
So while the conservative twitter gang was not exhaustive in the explanation of what amen means, they were 100% accurate. Like it or lump it, “amen” is indeed Latin. Now if any of them said that the world originated in Latin you might have more of an argument, but the word is in fact Latin even if it does have some earlier origins. Furthermore your contention that conservatives have mistaken the origin of “amen” in Latin are unfounded. They never used the word “origin”. You did. You are implanting your own bias on them by assuming they are saying “origin” when they use the word “means”.
What I found more remarkable though was that you used plain sight to analyze the Cleavers’ use of the term “awoman” and a fine toothed comb to analyze various commentators use of the term “amen”.
The comparison is so ridiculous it bears pointing out. “awoman” is a made up nonsense word (currently). It means nothing whether it’s a nod to gender inclusivity or a pun on “amen”. I find it odd that you would give a pass to “awoman” which really makes zero sense in a prayer. I don’t think any religion has ever included a pun or some other comedic or reverential nod to something else as part of the closing remarks in message to it’s respective diety. It’s so outside the norm of what people do in prayer that it boggles the imagination. It’s frankly something that only someone unacquainted with religion might think of, or at least think was acceptable as a part of a solemn religious practice.
Considering that Cleaver substituted Brahma, some made up guy with four faces sitting on a lotus (More technical definition (Sanskrit: ब्रह्मा, IAST: Brahmā) is the creator god in Hinduism. He is also known as Svayambhu (self-born), Vāgīśa (Lord of Speech), and the creator of the four Vedas, one from each of his mouths.) with the Almighty Lord of Hosts found in the Bible, is reason enough to conclude that Clever has no idea what “amen” means. Anyone that can make that mistake clearly hasn’t thoroughly studied scripture.
Which brings me to my next point. Your argument about Paul’s argument in Acts 17:22–31.
First of all your reasoning is lacking here. You claim that Paul is using two different lines of reasoning to arrive at one line of reasoning that, Paul is, “equating other people’s deities with (his) own.” You state that Paul stating that the “unknown god” is in fact God and then follow that by saying that Paul was intimating that Zeus is also God. This isn’t true though is it? If it were it would mean that the Zeus was ALSO the unknown god. We know this is true because the Greeks knew who Zeus was. He and the “unknown god” were two different entities. So there is no reason why Paul would state the unknown god is God and then back that up by quoting words from a poem that were clearly venerating Zeus.
So your conclusion that, “the apostle Paul literally argued that some people who think they are worshipping Zeus are actually worshipping YHWH.” falls flat. There is no foundation to support it.
So what was Paul doing? Paul was using the circumstances around him to push people to accept Jesus. He mentions specifically that the Greeks were very religious, which they were! This was to show them that he was familar with them and also to build trust. However he clearly says “does not live in shrines made by human hands, nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mortals life and breath and all things.”. This was to draw a distinction between their gods which were actually served by human hands and shaped and molded and needed sacrifices etc. He was showing that the true god was far above those petty notions.
Furthermore, he states that, “Since we are God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of mortals. While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” Again this was pointing out the err of the Greeks! The god Paul preached was not formed by human hands, and the god Paul preached knew the Greeks were in error in their worship. It wasn’t just a case of Paul saying, “Hey, you guys just called your God by a different name. Zeus and YHWH are the same God! That was the only error!” No. It was a vast error in reasoning. Let’s go further…or rather back: “16While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. 17So he reasoned in the synagogue with both Jews and God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. 18A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to debate with him. Some of them asked, “What is this babbler trying to say?” Others remarked, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection. ” Starting in verse 16 of that same chapter we see Paul’s true motive: to preach Jesus. He was not trying to equate God with idols…he was distressed! If he was in the equating business he would have been happy they knew what they were doing and been on his way. Even the people there understood where he was coming from when they said, “He seems to be advocating foreign gods.” They knew he was not trying to say ZEUS was YHWH by another name. I mean Greeks have Zeus and Romans had Jupiter right? I’m sure the Greeks knew Jupiter was an approximation or appropriation of Zeus. It would have been easy to just say YHWH was “Zeus” in Hebrew and be done with it.
That wasn’t his intent though.
Yep.
> The real concern here shouldn’t be with the possibility that Representative Cleaver might be a heretic, but rather with the fact that he’s interpreting Hindu beliefs through an obviously Christian lens. From the perspective of diversity and inclusion, it’s much better to respect Hindu beliefs on their own terms, rather than through syncretism with Christianity.
Thank you for this, because I didn’t expect for such a comment to be made.
While the statement was fairly open and accepting on the surface, the fact still stands that it’s quite patronizing towards every other faith, by basically calling them ‘expies of Christianity’.
Those Paulin verses never say that the Greeks have been worshiping Jesus all along. Paul uses the “unknown” thing of the Athenians simply as a segue to talking about his own God. What proves this obvious fact is that Paul then dismisses the Athenian gods as being dependent on human-made shrines. Clearly, Paul is rejecting these deities.
I don’t think you understand Paul’s usage of the poem either. He simply reinterpreted the poem as a general reference to us being offspring of God, and self-evidently was uninterested in its original meaning. I have no opinion on the whole Brahma thing, but if you wanted to make a good reason as to why the critics aren’t right, this wasn’t the best possible job.
I really hope I’m not the first person to point this out, whether to the Representative or on this blog (skimmed through the article so I might have missed it) but Hindus do NOT worship Brahma. I think what the “Methodist educated” politician was going for was *Brahman*: the impersonal ground of being (i.e. one that cannot strictly speaker hear or answer prayers, being the all-ground of everything ala the impersonal deity of Spinoza, Einstein, et.al) who is considered the supreme force in the Vedanta school of Sanathan Dharm. I don’t mean to be too hard on this guy but I am flabbergasted that it does not appear, at least from what I am seeing, that any Hindus or even educated non-Hindus, have pointed out this simple distinction. Also, Brahma is decidedly *not* a monothestic god since it is clear in the Vedic literature that he is not an eternally existing god but rather is created by Shri Vishnu and must die and be reborn. In other words, he is a Jiva, a soul, albeit one who has earned his way up to the highest post a conditioned being can earn, without actually being liberated (excluding bodhisattvas, but that’s Buddhism). In other words, he is a demigod, not a supreme god like Shiva or Narayana (visnu). If he had invoked Shri Krishna that would have made more sense, again since even if he were referring to Brahman, it would be pointless for his point since Brahman is de facto impersonal and incapable of hearing prayer. Later schools of Vedanta would claim that Brahman is the effulgence of Krishna but that’s a different story for a different time.
Meh. You really need to show more contempt for conservatives if you’re going to have an academic career. The problem is, things are moving fast, and what worked years ago now looks lukewarm, if not positively fascist-friendly.
Good article. But it cannot change that this “awoman” thing is just plain silly.
Of course it’s silly. Representative Cleaver himself called it a “pun.” I don’t think it was ever meant to be serious.
That’s all you have to say? Can you reply to Troy Fergus’ post? I’d be very interested in your reply.
Thnx!
Completely missing the point, this isn’t a distraction from Trump it is the very core of why I have to vote for him. The Democrats have left Biblical morality, and the true creator of Heaven and Earth. Under the pretense of social causes they are bringing in every false idol and sin and calling it good. They are indeed creating a god unto themselves. Unfortunately this will not be the god that judges them.
The Biblical God, and His Son Jesus Christ has even offered forgiveness, but instead this prayer is a slap in His face, an assault on his authority. God has specifically stated he will not share his glory with another, there is no other. The prayer affirms monotheism, yet it claims Brahma is just another name of this god…false. Salvation if found in no other name buy Jesus Christ.
Brahma and Jesus Christ can’t coexist. I know the Truth, and it is in Jesus. Mr. Cleaver is indeed well outside the Spirit of Jesus Christ, for all his knowledge he has learned nothing.
This isn’t rocket science. You are mis-quoting the meaning of those verses in Acts by Paul. As some of the posts above state, You have twisted it to justify and obviously defend cleaver. Why? You either don’t know the simple truth of scripture, or you have to turn it in a way that justifies worldly philosophies and practices because it’s just easier , or “we all just want to get along” and live the way “I want to live”, or “My pride doesn’t allow me to submit to His will”. God’s will presents huge obstacles to humanistic thought. To even suggest at the idea that all people’s and all faiths worship the same God with different names is blasphemy and playing with fire. Read their doctrine – they are not the same! ! Paul consistently thru scripture rejects any other deity but the God of Israel who sent His son Jesus as the ONLY savior of the world. He is the only way to God the Father. God consistently reiterates thru the old and New Testament that He shares His name with no other – end of conversation! cleaver can say what he wants regarding his “pun” on the word Amen. To quote, “it’s just silly” and a distraction from the main concern. The bigger issue is that typically as Christians at this point in prayer we interject “In Jesus Name” (as our Lord and that we can do nothing apart and thru His grace and power) but cleaver interjects and substitutes the false God Brahma. This is a heretical jab at the very nature of our God, the holiness and worship He demands of us, and the sacrificial life of Christ. However, It does represent the spiritual apostasy of our country and why we are where we are. We have cast the one true God aside to suit our prideful nature and appease the rich and famous who don’t believe . We as Christians have got to stand tall and firm on Truth. We cannot compromise, twist, or confuse the Truth.
Can we just admit that ‘awomen’ is just plain daft sounding, whatever the intent was?
I disagree. I think the fact that if you call a person by the wrong gender and “offend” them, it’s with merit. Every person has the right to be offended. Except Christians. When we get offended, it’s that we are making a big fuss about nothing, or covering up something else. Case in point, you say Rep. Cleaver should leave Brahma to Hindus, but it’s ok to make fun of and mock Christian prayer. By a pastor none the less. You are perpetuating the problem.
I think that it is fair to argue that Representative Cleaver may have been insensitive, but that’s not what most conservative commentators were doing. They were trying to portray it as though he didn’t even know what the word “amen” means, which is clearly not the case.
Since when does saying you were “joking” well after the fact invariably make it sound truth? What evidence are you citing that it is ‘clearly not the case’ Representative Cleaver ‘didn’t even know what the word “amen” means’? Since I already know there is no evidence supporting your claim I shall expect no response. Thank you.
As I discuss in my article, Representative Cleaver has a Master of Divinity (M.Div) from the Saint Paul School of Theology, he has spent years working as a Methodist preacher, and he explicitly said that he was joking. What more evidence do you want?
There are many interpretations of The Book, thus the many denominations. Being judgmental, in my interpretation, in not in keeping with the Spirit of Jesus Christ.