The 117th United States Congress convened on January 3, 2021, with an opening prayer from Missouri Congressman and United Methodist pastor Emmanuel Cleaver. Representative Cleaver’s prayer has generated a lot of attention primarily for his apparent attempt at gender inclusiveness by closing the prayer with the befuddled words “amen and awoman.” Perhaps even more worthy of discussion, however, was the pastor’s choice, rather than praying in the name of Jesus, to instead pray in the name of the Hindu god Brahma, claiming this to be “the monotheistic god” known by “many names” to “many faiths.”  That this prayer was offered by a man who is both a lawmaker and an allegedly Christian pastor make his remarks worth a Christian response.

A Transcript of the Prayer

For context’s sake, a full transcript of Representative Cleaver’s brief opening prayer is provided here. I have put the relevant portion at the end in bold:

“Eternal God, noiselessly we bow before your throne of grace as we leave behind the politically and socially clamorous year of 2020. We gather now in this consequential chamber to inaugurate another chapter in our rollercoaster representative government. The members of this august body acknowledge your sacred supremacy and, therefore, confess that without your favor and forbearance, we enter into this new year relying dangerously on our own fallible nature. God, at a moment when many believe that the bright light of democracy is beginning to dim, empower us with an extra dose of commitment to its principles. May we of the 117th Congress refuel the lamp of liberty so brimful that generations unborn will witness its undying flame. And may we model community healing, control our tribal tendencies, and quicken our spirit, that we may feel thy priestly presence even in moments of heightened disagreement. May we so feel your presence that our service here may not be soiled by any utterances or acts unworthy of this high office. Insert in our spirit a light so bright that we can see ourselves and our politics as we really are, soiled by selfishness, perverted by prejudice, and inveigled by ideology. Now, may the God who created the world and everything in it bless us and keep us. May the Lord make his face to shine upon us and be gracious unto us. 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. Now and evermore, we ask it in the name of the monotheistic god, Brahma, and god known by many names, by many different faiths. Amen, and awoman.”¹I produced this transcript based on the video footage of the even found at: https://www.c-span.org/video/?507549-1/opening-day-117th-congress-us-house-representatives-election-speaker (Accessed 01/04/2021). The prayer begins at time stamp 1:11

Amen and awoman?

Let’s first consider Congressman Cleaver’s admittedly amusing attempt at egalitarian inclusion in the concluding formula of his prayer: “amen and awoman.” Obviously, as others have noted, this is simply absurd because “amen” is not actually a gendered word. “Amen” is simply a Hebrew word of affirmation, meaning “so let it be.” It was brought into the Greek of the New Testament and, through its use in Christian prayer, came into many other languages, English included. Thus, “amen” is not in any way connected to the word “men,” and “awoman” isn’t a real word at all. “Amen and awoman” makes as little sense as “pecan and pecan’t” or “alright and alleft.” What was meant to be some kind of “woke” olive branch of female inclusion instead came off as simply cheezy, ignorant pandering at best.

If we follow the congressman’s logic here, literally any word that happens to contain the letters m-e-n should be seen as referring only to human males, which is obviously nonsense. Does the first amendment exclude women because the word has “men” in it TWICE? Should we also have a first awomendwoment? To avoid male bias, should Representative Cleaver have referred to both “government” and “governwoment” since our nation is governed by people from both sexes? Was it male bigotry that led him to speak of the god of “many names” and “many faiths” without also saying “womany names” and “womany faiths”? Was he smuggling in the patriarchy by referring to “this” high office without also saying “ther” high office? The absurdity here has no limits.

This part of Congressman Cleaver’s prayer would just be funny if it weren’t reflective of the actual worldview of much of the current legislature of which he is a part. The 117th Congress is, in fact, rewriting the language of the rules of Congress to make all pronouns “gender-neutral,” as well as removing any references to specific family relationships like mother, father, son, daughter, etc., and replacing them with “neutral” terms.²https://rules.house.gov/press-releases/pelosi-and-mcgovern-unveil-details-rules-package-117th-congress, Accessed 01/05/2021) Thus, the silly wording at the end of Representative Cleaver’s prayer is actually part of a larger agenda to purge perceived “gender bias” in our very language. As a seminary-trained pastor, Cleaver almost certainly knew that “amen” was not actually a reference to “men,” but chose to say what he said to make a point (or at least to score a point with his audience, a group of people who view our language as inherently male-biased).

Brahma: The monotheistic god of many faiths?

The bigger issue, however, was not the pastor’s nonsensical choice to create a pseudo-word in the name of gender inclusion. The far weightier matter is that he chose to pray to a false god in the name of religious inclusion. For a professing Christian, “amen and awoman” is not nearly as significant as “in the name of the monothesitic god, Brahma.”

His prayer was replete with biblical titles for YHWH, the one true God of Scripture, such as “the Lord,” “eternal God,” and “the God who created the world and everything in it.” A Christian could say such things only of the Triune God of the Bible, the one and only, true and living God: Yahweh, Jehovah, the LORD. And any Christian should only ever pray to Him. Yet, after invoking such language in prayerful petition, Pastor Cleaver identifies the god to whom he is appealing as “the monotheistic god, Brahma, and god known by many names, by many different faiths.” Indeed, this was at the very place in the prayer where a Christian would normally say “in Jesus’ name.” The congressman here willfully and intentionally substituted “in the name of the monotheistic god, Brahma.”

Brahma is the name of one of the chief gods in Hinduism, part of a triad of deities known as the “Trimurti” alongside Vishnu and Shiva. Hinduism does not conceive of Brahma as a “monotheistic god” like the God of Christianity or even of Judaism or Islam. This is important for several reasons. First and foremost, Christians and Hindus do not worship the same God. Yahweh and Brahma are not just two different names for the same deity. And Yahweh is clear:

“You shall have no other gods besides Me,” (Deuteronomy 5:7).

And, indeed, He goes so far as to say:

“Now concerning everything which I have said to you, be careful; and do not mention the name of other gods, nor let them be heard from your mouth,” (Exodus 23:13).

To pray in the name of Brahma is a grievous sin, especially for anyone who would claim to be a disciple of Christ. And to systematically replace the name of Jesus with the name of Brahma is nothing short of blasphemy!

Yet, there is still more to be said here. When Congressman Cleaver said he was praying to “the monotheistic god, Brahma, and god known by many names, by many different faiths,” it should be noted that he wasn’t really praying to the Hindu god he named any more than he was praying to the Christian God who he refused to name. He attempts to be inclusive by describing a deity that is supposed to be the god of every religion but, in doing so, he doesn’t actually describe the god of any religion. This “monotheistic god” isn’t the Brahma that Hindus worship. It certainly isn’t YHWH of the Bible. It isn’t Allah or the Mormon “heavenly father.” Far from the god of “many faiths,” it isn’t the god of any major religion at all! In an effort to lump everyone in, the Congressman actually pushed everyone out! If Pastor Cleaver actually believes in this god, it is his own private god, and perhaps that of some of his fellow progressives. It is a household idol he hauled into the chamber and asked everyone else to worship with him; a new pluralistic deity that seeks not to include but rather replace the gods of the major world religions. A Hindu might well be just as offended at Cleaver’s “Brahma” as a Christian should be!

Thus, not only did Pastor Cleaver trade the true and living God for a lie, he did so for a lie that cannot even accomplish the inclusiveness it promised him. He sold his soul for nothing. As we pray for his repentance, let us also be warned lest we be tempted to fall into the same error. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except by Him, (John 14:6). His is the only name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved, (Acts 4:12). May the pluralistic ideals of false unity and “inclusion” never entice us to turn from Him.