David,

Thank you for your observations. I don’t see it the same way as you. There never was any question of Obama being tied to ‘right wing evangelicalism’. It’s all the more surprising that he even chose Warren – and hence the complaints from those of his supporters who thought they owned him (rather like right wing fundamentalists who thought they owned Bush when he didn’t follow their policies, e.g., on Israel).

The question of a Jew and a Muslim offering prayers at an American President’s inauguration raises the whole issue about the relationship between the state and religion in that country, which I don’t feel qualified to answer. I’m aware there are different interpretations of their constitutional position. Maybe one or more of my American friends who comment on the blog might like to offer some observations – Pam has commented already, but not on this question.

However, I would have to question your interpretation of Wesleyan theology. The love of God for Wesley was supremely expressed in Christ, and I don’t think his statement can so easily be imported into support for a multi-faith approach. I’d find it hard to see Wesley’s theology as anything other than Christocentric. Nor, given his opposition to the deists of his day, do I think he can be invoked to support what you call a ‘generous theology’. That generous theology sounds more like holding together irreconcilable tensions and contradictions to me. You could to some extent appeal to Wesley’s sermon on Catholic Spirit, but even that assumes common allegiance to the same faith, just a differing on secondary issues.

Thanks – I’m acutely aware I still haven’t seen Lowery’s benediction. Must seek that out on YouTube.

Thanks also for including me on your blogroll. Have you registered yours at Methoblog? You’ll appear on Methodist blogrolls around the world if you do.

I found Warren’s prayer rambling and predictable.

I think the issue of state and religion is fascinating – as a country we maintain an ‘established’ religion (which I believe is anachronistic) but our swearing in of a new Government and Prime Minister has much less overt reference to Christianityin particular and faith in general than what took place on the Capital Building in a country that deliberately and consciously separates state and religion.

Thanks for your further comment.

Tony,

Thanks for yours.

Both and All,

One of the things I found difficult to disentangle yesterday was the sense of America as a nation having a special destiny under God. I guess it’s not too many years since the UK felt that, but it’s long enough ago for me to be detached from it. Obama retained quite a balanced attitude, I thought. He implied an understanding of the US having good and bad aspects, both present-day and in history.

Also, although I am (as I said) closer in theology to Warren, I am distinct from him in my allegiance to a more missional approach. And besides, nobody would make me senior pastor of a megachurch! Like Tony, I began one of his books and didn’t finish it (‘The Purpose-Driven Church’).I guess I’m uncomfortable with notions of the word ‘driven’. That isn’t to question the man’s integrity at all, just to mark a point of difference.

Robinson, on the other hand, left me a bit disappointed. I wouldn’t say “sermon with eyes closed” but “pastoral advice pretending to be prayer.” He was too, too quickly into the petitionary prayers, very little sense of encounter with God. I don’t buy into the specific theologies of either man, and I think I’d be happy to work with either man, but Warren’s prayer seemed to me to be on the button.

I remember once getting furiously angry when someone made a very long prayer whose premise I think is totally inaccurate and discriminatory. I’d heard the person expressing those ideas before so it was not a surprise. I think the upset on my part was that I certainly didn’t want to be praying that prayer.

But then again, I’ve got more sympathy for Robinson than Warren. So I expect that it does depend on your perspective.