A Response to “Invocation Provocation”
by Mel Tillar
[An open critique of Michael's previous article.]
You are quite eloquent and make a valid point. However, there is another point of view. The speaker had several options. He could have prayed for himself, prayed according to a specific doctrine, prayed specifically for the event or prayed relative to his audience. Apparently his prayer was relative to his audience. He chose a prayer that spoke to their relative emotional needs and used their forms of verbal self-expression. You contend that speaking to the emotional needs of his audience, using their terminology and their forms of self-expression is pandering. You also imply that the words and phrases of some other culture are more fitting; more appropriate and more sacred. You marginalize the values of this audience and relegate this speaker’s cultural appreciation and recognition to simple pandering. The fact that he warmed their hearts, lifted their spirits and touched their souls appears to be unimportant and irrelevant.
I understand your point of view. However, it is clearly myopic in scope: not broad enough to embrace the emotional needs of others, too narrow to cover other cultural self-expressions and too judgmental to appreciate other valid viewpoints. You seem to imply that God does not understand or appreciate the way we speak. God said, “Have no other God before me.” God said. “I am Alpha and Omega.” God said, “Tell them I am sent you.” This God—All Seeing, All Knowing and All Powerful God—knows all there is to know … about … SWAGGER!!
A more cogent question might be, "Why is someone dragging religion into a football game?"
Since your response to Michael's article shows the peril of trying to represent various individuals of countless faiths, how dare someone presume to speak for such a vast crowd?
The whole premise is silly – 'let us all pray together before we try to knock the snot out of each other'.
As I struggle with my stance on the fence, I have to say this is probably as close as I come to leaning on a side. I love sports, played Rugby for a long time, but I never felt that God needed to be involved in that endeavour. I did pray before games, mostly just that I be kept mindful to put in my best effort for the team while being careful to watch that my efforts didn't effect the health of opposition players.
Indeed, if Matthew 6 had been written in modern times, perhaps we would have been exhorted to take no thought to who wins the big game, along with worring about food, drink, and clothing.
It's hard though, when I think about how worship in church has changed over time, especially in terms of worship expressed through song, there is much people could make about how some music is more respectful than others. There are heavy metal Christian bands, are they less respectful than one of those old school choirs?
In the end I think what is in a person's spirit is important. Only Dr. Frederick D. Haynes can answer between himself and God truthfully to that in my opinion. If only because I know that if I throw too much of the "O heavenly father…" honorifics into my prayer the rhetoric gets in the way of how I express myself, it's no longer me. There's a balance between the two. The standards of respectful address differ between people for various reasons, and imposing ones standards on the other can lead to a restriction of expression IMO. It's a fine balance though, because I know the content of Michael's third paragraph in his critique makes me feel uncomfortable as an initial reaction.
Anything less than Gregorian chant followed by self-flagellation is impiousness.
I did not hear a "marginalization" in the original post, but there clearly is a doctrinal or theological difference at the root of this. What is appropriate for prayer? Does anything go since God is all-knowing anyway? In that case, and if the prayer is only ostensibly about talking to God, then why not stir the audience without invoking prayer at all?
It seems to me there is ample opportunity to draw upon all the rhetoric at one's disposal, and prayer that is given in the Christian tradition should follow in the Christian tradition of piety and address to God, rather than the approval of the crowd. I'll refrain from drawing upon a dominical parable.
I beg to differ Mr. Tillar. This is not a matter of whether or not God can understand. Anyone who knows anything about the Almighty knows that he is capable of anything, but that is not the question, the question is whether or not God deserves a certain level of RESPECT when addressing him.
I'm going to have to make several replies. First of all, welcome to Concrete Academic. You do a good job of stating your opinion. But your reasoning is quite specious. There are several factors that are obviously affecting that opinion, and frankly lending quite heavily to the apologist posture that you have assumed in relation to Dr. Haynes prayer. For instance, you are a professional speaker, corporate trainer and professional musician. Your website states that you have "mesmerized audiences throughout the continental United States and abroad…" A quick analysis of this information speaks to the fact that you esteem performance quite highly because you yourself are a performer! And in the case of Dr. Haynes' invocation, you feel that it is acceptable that his theatrics, presentation and performance trump propriety as long as the crowd whooped and hollered. Your opinion is heavily colored by the connection that was made with the crowd because that is your aim whenever you step on a stage…to make a connection.
Response #2 — You make the interesting statement that in my initial piece I was "implying that the words and phrases of some other culture are more fitting; more appropriate and more sacred." Perish the thought. I know there is absolutely no truth in the idea that Europeans, or their descendants, have a monopoly on approaching God. My views on Dr. Haynes prayer are based firmly on Holy Scripture. Throughout the Inspired Canon, the prayers that God heard were those that showed the humility of the one doing the praying, as well as those that showed reverence to Him. For instance, notice the words at Psalm 8:3,4: "When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? And the son of man, that thou visitest him?" (KJV) Did Dr. Haynes' prayer exhibit this type of humility? I think not.
Response #3 — To further address the point of speaking to God using the language of the people present, allow me to present a scenario. Suppose Barack Obama was going to speak to the Congressional Black Caucus, and due to your reputation as a public speaker, your were chosen to be the Master of Ceremonies. When it came time for you to introduce President Obama, would you say, "And now, brothers and sisters, Barry O. is in the house! Everybody get out yo' seats, and give the baddest player player in Washington some love! Straight outta the South Side of Chi-Town to the baddest crib in the country, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue! Clap 'til yo' hands bleed and scream 'til yo' lungs are sore for our presidential big homie, BARACK OBAMAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!" No you wouldn't, despite the fact that everybody in the room may be feeling those exact words. Barack would send the Secret service after you himself. So if you wouldn't address the presence of the President this way, why would you address the King of Eternity in such a manner?
Response #4 —
Finally, as far as God knowing about "swagger", Genesis tells us that when God stepped back and viewed his creative work, he saw that it was "very good". Was God bragging? No, he was simply telling the truth. And even though we are made in God's image, I'm not going to say to Him in public prayer, "Thank You for giving us this swagger!" Especially in the context that Haynes used it, and I'll tell you why. "No one on the corner has swagger like us" is a line from a song called "Paper Planes", performed by a female British Hip-Hop artist that goes by the name "M.I.A." The song is about selling drugs and jacking people for their money. Allow me to share some lines from this song, as well as perform a quasi-exegesis of the lyrics in my following response(s).
Response #5 —
"Sometimes I feel sitting on trains
Every stop I get to I'm clocking that game
Everyone's a winner now we're making our fame
Bona fide hustler, making my name"
-Basically, the artist is on the train, thinking about how at every train stop she and her crew are going to increase their "street cred" and fatten their pockets by way of ill-gotten money.
"All I want to do is (sound of four gunshots)
And (sound of cash register ringing)
And take your money!"
-The artist is referencing armed robbery, and letting you know she is quick with the trigger, too.
Response #6 — More song lyrics:
"Some, some, some I, some I murder
Some, I some I let go
Some, some, some I, some I murder
Some, I some I let go"
-This is pretty self-explanatory, depending on how she feels, sometimes she'll murder a robbery victim, sometimes she'll let them go.
"Pirate skulls and bones
Sticks and stones and weed and bombs
Running when we hit them
Lethal poison through their system"
This artist's logo is a skull and bones (you see it in the video to the song) "Lethal poison through their system" is a reference to selling heroin.
Response #7 — More song lyrics and explanation:
"No one on the corner has swagger like us
Hit me on my burner, prepaid wireless
We pack and deliver like UPS trucks
Already going to hell just pumping that gas"
-Her crew has swagger, which in this context is pride in the menacing presence that so all too many criminals manifest in urban communities. "Hit me on my burner, prepaid wireless" refers to the fact that drug dealers use prepaid cell phones called "burners" and throw them away after the minutes are used up. If by chance a cop gets a suspected drug dealer's phone number they have to go through the time, trouble and legality of getting authorization for a wire tap on that number. However, by the time this process is complete, the wire tap is useless because the phone has been thrown away and the dealer is using another "burner". The lines "We pack and deliver like UPS trucks, already going to hell just pumping that gas" are pretty easy too…they are packing and moving so much drugs is like they are a shipping company.
Response #8 — Conclusion
This song was extremely popular last year, and has been remixed at least 6-7 times that I know of. Not to digress too much, but the African-American obsession with glorifying criminal activity made this song hot on several radio stations, including the one where Fred Haynes does his weekly radio show. It is from this song that he got the "swagger like us" line. Why did he use it? Because he knew that there would be a large number of people present that liked the song and its message. So even though he was supposed to be praying to the Holiest of Holies, he opted to get cheers from the crowd by calling to mind a song that tells of the exploits of a murderous, drug-dealing, stick-up artist…and he was successful. This is why I say with immutable, irrefutable evidence that he was doing nothing but pandering to the crowd.
Killer responses, no reply possible……it’s academic!
Great responses to back-up your feelings regarding your initial address of the situation, can't wait to hear Mr. Tillar's response.
Well, we thought it couldn't be done, but I'm actually speechless. I almost feel sorry for Mel right now. Well, at least I would be if the original statements hadn't been so asinine. I do believe his farcical "reasoning" has been soundly trounced!