A Response to Emanuel Cleaver's Prayer (Pt.2) | Praying to Other gods?

A Response to Emanuel Cleaver’s Prayer Pt.2 – praying to other gods?Show more

In my previous video, I discussed my concerns regarding Congressman Emanuel Cleaver’s statement of, “amen…and a-woman,” to conclude his invocation for the 117th United States Congress.

I would now like to review what is an even more dangerous issue that was raised by Cleaver’s prayer – his appeal to other gods.

I realize that we live in a day and age where many people assume an equality of faith. That it’s less important which God or gods you believe in, rather that you possess a reverence for a being beyond yourself and you do your best to live in good standing with others around you.

I realize also that Representative Cleaver has made public remarks to the effect that he intended his prayer to be a, “…faithful (request) for community healing and reversion from tribal tendencies.”

I think it’s amiable to push for reconciliation among people with differing points of view, especially when those differences lead to hostilities and violence toward one another. However, in so doing, Cleaver has abandoned the only sure foundation upon which mankind can be reconciled in peace – the exclusive Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Only in Christ is found the forgiveness of men from every tribe, tongue and nation. Only in Christ is found peace between men and women, slave and free, Jew and Gentile. All who would proclaim that Jesus is Lord and that God has raised Him from the dead will be saved and will find new communion with God and with those individuals they once regarded as enemies.

Some may be asking, “How did Representative Cleaver’s invocation abandon faith in Christ?” To be sure, the Congressman maintains a profession as a Methodist minister. Still, this is the reason why myself and many other faithful men and women in Christ have found his invocation to be so disturbing.

In concluding his prayer, Cleaver appealed to, “…the monotheistic God, Brahma, and God known by many names in many faiths.” I don’t know if the Congressman, in saying this, was equivocating the, “monotheistic God,” with Brahma, or if he was listing Brahma alongside the, “monotheistic God.” Regardless, my concerns persist, as either statement is in violation of the Biblical witness of God and Christ.

Scripture is clear – only YHWH, the God of the Bible and of Israel, revealed in flesh through the person of Jesus Christ, is to be worshipped. To equivocate with or acknowledge any other god alongside YHWH is blasphemy. For the ordained minister, it is cause for disqualification from ministry.

With that being said, who or what is Brahma?

Briefly, Brahma is a Hindu god. Brahma has a goddess wife and has many demi-god children. Rather than being eternal, he is self-created in a golden egg. He is one god among many within Hindu beliefs.

This god is radically different from YHWH, the true God. To either equivocate Brahma with YHWH or to acknowledge Brahma alongside YHWH is a complete disregard of everything YHWH has revealed about Himself in the Bible.

If Cleaver was attempting to acknowledge Brahma alongside YHWH, both dieties claim to be the Creator of all things. Thus, they are mutually exclusive; both can’t be right. If he was equivocating Brahma with YHWH, this is a false equivocation, as each one’s attributes are distinct.

Moreover, YHWH is The Monotheistic God, while Brahma is one of the many polytheistic false gods of Hinduism. Calling Brahma a monotheistic god or equivocating him with one is inaccurate both towards Christianity and Hinduism.

In making his appeal to the, “monotheistic God,” the Congressman quotes from the priestly benediction of Numbers 6. To then follow up the appeals of scripture with the acknowledgement of another god or to equivocate the promises of scripture with the work of another god is incredibly blasphemous.

It is not a mere nicety to acknowledge all gods to make people feel comfortable; it is a sin of the highest order against the true God, one in which His judgment is provoked.

Again, I appreciate that Cleaver is attempting to help reconcile people to each other, but doing so in this way is predicated upon fundamental misunderstandings of the people he is attempting to reconcile and an embrace of what he, as a Methodist minister, knows is sin against the God he professes to worship.

For the professing Christian, praying to another god is blasphemy. It is an abandonment of the promises in Christ, as doing so denies His authority. Again, my prayer is that the Congressman will realize the error of his remarks and will attempt, to the best of his ability, to make restitution for them. God’s grace is more powerful than our sin and all who turn to Him in repentance and faith will find times of refreshing from His presence.