The Obamas Should Worship in the National Cathedral

"Advising a president where to worship would not have occurred to me. "On Faith" invited a swatch of opinions on the question, and I decided that being specific would stimulate thought - as indeed it has."

You had the option to reply that whether Obama attends services is an Obama family matter.

In other words, it's nobody's business but the Obamas'.

Leave the family alone.

No commenter has mentioned a fact pervasive of my entry, namely, that Obama, "in a way no previous president has been, will be a president for all the people...."
1
Advising a president where to worship would not have occurred to me. "On Faith" invited a swatch of opinions on the question, and I decided that being specific would stimulate thought - as indeed it has.
2
Of course the National Cathedral is Episcopal, as I said. And of course our nation's capital has some non-Episcopal "national" religious centers. But no other building in D.C. both provides weekly Christian worship and serves (as I said) "as a national center of piety, with occasional rituals of America's 'civil religion'."
3
Of course the Obamas should attend a church providing them with the spiritual nurture and motivation they need; and of course the National Cathedral may not be it.
4
As for race, America's first black president is on a razor's edge. As I said, he affirms his African heritage "with appropriate dignity." But he also wants to be seen by all the people as an American judged (as M.L.King said) "not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character." Membership in a specifically or predominantly black church would tend to weaken this objective.
5
The intra-church meaning of "ecumenical" is as a commenter has explained it. As president of four councils of churches, including a state council of 6,000 churches, I am well aware of its original Christian meaning. But my entry uses the word in its secondary, wider meaning, namely, openness to the the religions of (as I say) "all the people."

Some of the comments on Dr. Elliott's piece have been rather harsh, but I fear deservedly so. For a churchman with his resume, he has written some surprisingly nonsensical things.

First is his claim that for President-elect Obama "being identified with any one denomination within one religion would be un-ecumenical." Presidential worship choice has little or nothing to do with ecumenism, the field of church-to-church diplomacy and relationship-building. Furthermore, ecumenical activity is conducted almost entirely by representatives of particular denominations or churches (the Roman Catholic Church and some others reject description as a "denomination.") For example, I sit on the Ecumenical Commission of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. If, like Abraham Lincoln, the President-elect chooses not to identify with any particular church, he may or may not have made a canny political choice, but it will have nothing to do with ecumenism.

Second, Dr. Elliott advocates for Mr. Obama to worship at the National Cathedral on grounds that it is "uniquely a national center of piety." This thinking is not so much nonsensical as superficial. Dr. Elliott brushes aside the fact that the Cathedral is an Episcopal church, using Episcopal liturgies and run by Episcopal clergy under the direction of an Episcopal Dean with the supervision of the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. The Cathedral does from time to time use the rubric "A House of Prayer for All People," but its meaning is still a work in progress. It does not mean, and it has never meant, that the Cathedral is willing to efface its thoroughly Episcopal identity. As a former member of the Cathedral's program and ministry staff, I assert this with some confidence. The notion that the Cathedral is uniquely a place of national piety dishonors other sanctuaries of national import, such as the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Riverside Church, and various other churches, synagogues, masaajid, temples, gurudwaras etc.

Third, finally, and most offensively, Dr. Elliott counsels Mr. Obama against joining a "black church." Although not racist per se, this counsel is tantamount to pandering to racism. I cannot believe that Dr. Elliott would have the temerity to advise John McCain not to belong to a "white church" or Joseph Lieberman to a synagogue on grounds that by so doing they would be asserting personal identity in a divisive way.

Dr. Elliott, please think a bit harder before you write for public consumption.

Erik Schwarz
Managing Partner,Interfaith Works
Co-Director, Institute for Faith & Service

Some of the comments on Dr. Elliott's piece have been rather harsh, but I fear deservedly so. For a churchman with his resume, he has written some surprisingly nonsensical things.

First is his claim that for President-elect Obama "being identified with any one denomination within one religion would be un-ecumenical." Presidential worship choice has little or nothing to do with ecumenism, the field of church-to-church diplomacy and relationship-building. Furthermore, ecumenical activity is conducted almost entirely by representatives of particular denominations or churches (the Roman Catholic Church and some others reject description as a "denomination.") For example, I sit on the Ecumenical Commission of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. If, like Abraham Lincoln, the President-elect chooses not to identify with any particular church, he may or may not have made a canny political choice, but it will have nothing to do with ecumenism.

Second, Dr. Elliott advocates for Mr. Obama to worship at the National Cathedral on grounds that it is "uniquely a national center of piety." This thinking is not so much nonsensical as superficial. Dr. Elliott brushes aside the fact that the Cathedral is an Episcopal church, using Episcopal liturgies and run by Episcopal clergy under the direction of an Episcopal Dean with the supervision of the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington. The Cathedral does from time to time use the rubric "A House of Prayer for All People," but its meaning is still a work in progress. It does not mean, and it has never meant, that the Cathedral is willing to efface its thoroughly Episcopal identity. As a former member of its program and ministry staff, I assert this with some confidence. The notion that the Cathedral is uniquely a place of national piety dishonors other sanctuaries of national import, such as the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, Riverside Church, and various other churches, synagogues, masaajid, temples, gurudwaras etc.

Third, finally, and most offensively, Dr. Elliott counsels Mr. Obama against joining a "black church." Although not racist per se, this counsel is tantamount to pandering to racism. I cannot believe that Dr. Elliott would have the temerity to advise John McCain not to belong to a "white church" or Joseph Lieberman to a synagogue on grounds that by so doing they would be asserting personal identity in a divisive way.

Dr. Elliott, please think a bit harder before you write for public consumption.

Erik Schwarz
Managing Partner,Interfaith Works
Co-Director, Institute for Faith & Service

The choice on the place of worship is not based on political expediency but where the future president identifies closely with his faith and where his faith is nourished and is increased. It's ridiculous that these articles are even written since to my knowledge, it was never brought up before concerning other presidents. Should the previous president John F. Kennedy worship at a Protestant church to promote ecumenicism or because the majority of voters were Protestant. He has the right under the Freedom of Religion clause of the First Amendment to attend the House of Worship of his own choice. Such discussion is ridiculous.

Dear Rev Elliot

Happy Thanksgiving Day!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

If they do not wish to worship at The National Cathedral, which is my congregation and a very mystical place, they can worship privately in the White House Chapel.

I suggest he either not attend church or find a way to keep it private. It's the business of the man and his family, no one else.

Um... that might be a little difficult seeing as how the national cathedral is at the point of closing down: http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/17993/

And is it really any surprise TEC is shrivelling faster than a plum in the desert, given its heretical, watered down, fake Christianity? You know, the same kind that the UCC, UUs, PCUSA and ELCA are peddling?

Best bet is the Center for Inquiry. First stop should be the Washington office at which he coule read the Declaration.

On November 14, 2006 the CFI opened its Office of Public Policy in Washington, DC and issued Declaration in Defense of Science and Secularism, which calls for public policy to be based on science rather than faith [19]. The next day the Washington Post ran an article about it entitled "Think Tank Will Promote Thinking."

But are the Obamas going to church at all? From what I have read, they have not been to church since the election. Could be since he now is elected he doesn't need a church membership to rally the votes?

national anthem,

national chathedral,

what is national orthodixy ???

why you call a place of worship *national* ?

the fact is ,
the mentality of the savior is not the national mentality of usa, not even the concession of national and international christianity.

obama need a serious good advisor in regarding the national orthodixy of america!

1.....
The man expresses respect for all faiths - he doesn't have to participate in all of them. If he wanted to do that, I'd recommend a Unitarian church.

2.....I agree completely. And, their choice of a house of worship should also be a matter of personal and familial spiritual integrity, not a matter of political posturing.

3.....Why should they regularly attend an Episcopal church if the aren't Episcopalian? That would make as much sense as a Jewish person attending mass every week.

4.....So it's okay for him to be black as long as he's not too black, and doesn't spend too much time with other black people? How big of you.

5.....Some folks feel closer to the Divine alone than in a group. While I attend, praticipate in, and have even led sabat rituals, I feel closest to the Divine when I'm on my knees in my garden, sun beating down on my back, sweat pouring down my face, dirt under my fingernails. And while I attend a UU church on a regular basis, my back-yard vegetable plot is where most of my real worship takes place.

6.....Why does that mean that he should seek membership in a church of a denomination to whose theology he does not subscribe? Should he also regularly attend at a mosque, a synagogue, a Catholic church, a Buddhist temple, and a Ba'Hai center? Why can't he and his family simply have Sunday morning as THEIR personal time of spiritual refreshment at the house of worship that best feeds THEIR souls? Why must attending church be a performance?