MIM responds to Monroeville Council prayer controversy

The Monroeville Interfaith Ministerium has issued the following statement in response to reports that the Monroeville Council may face legal action over its practice of beginning council meetings with the Lord’s Prayer:

December 4, 2015

Dear Mayor Erosenko and Members of the Council,

As member congregations of the Monroeville Interfaith Ministerium, we believe that the power of prayer guides each of us to live our values. As a diverse community, we also believe that no single tradition’s prayer represents all of the religions of Monroeville. Therefore, we endorse the idea of a moment of silence prior to the beginning of the Council meetings.

With appreciation for the work you do on behalf of the Community,

Cross Roads Presbyterian Church
Bethel A.M.E. Church
East Suburban Unitarian Universalist Church
Emmanuel Lutheran Church of Eastmont-Penn Hills
Forbes Regional Hospital Pastoral Care
Garden City United Methodist Church
Hindu-Jain Temple
Metropolitan Community Church of Pittsburgh
Monroeville Church of the Brethren
Monroeville Mall Ministry
Monroeville United Methodist Church
Muslim Community Center of Greater Pittsburgh
North American Martyrs Roman Catholic Church
St. Bernadette Roman Catholic Parish
Temple David
Tri-State Sikh Cultural Society
UPMC East Pastoral Care


13 Replies to "MIM responds to Monroeville Council prayer controversy"

  • Preston urbahns
    December 7, 2015 (11:40 pm)
    Reply

    You can pray silently before meetings now!

    • Steve Roy
      January 22, 2020 (10:01 pm)
      Reply

      A moment of silence assumes all religions’ prayers are accommodated by a moment of silent, notwithstanding those whom drum, sing, and dance as prayer, whom are required to stifle their noiseful prayers

  • Josh
    December 8, 2015 (5:55 am)
    Reply

    As the complaintant in a potential suit, I think this is definitely the route the municipality should go. If the moment of silence is adopted by the mayor and council, I will happily withdraw my complaint.

  • Mary Beth Cirucci
    December 27, 2015 (2:01 pm)
    Reply

    I’m highly disappointed in the position that MIM has taken. One thing you all share is a belief in God. As spiritual leaders in the community, none of you are standing for prayer. That deeply saddens me as a woman of faith that spiritual leaders do not even want prayer. I would much rather see a rotation of spiritual leaders praying for guidance for our community leaders than a moment of silence. That’s what you do when someone dies…. hardly seems like the correct application… John Adams said that “our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. ” Even Benjamin Franklin prayed a beautiful prayer during the Constitutional Convention and recounted the time many of the same men prayed for divine protection during the Revolution. He is quoted as saying ” I have lived sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth – that God governs in the affairs of men”. Our founders were not against prayer. Why are you?

  • Bob Schaefer
    December 28, 2015 (12:50 am)
    Reply

    Mary Beth, I think if you re-read our letter, you’ll find MIM is lifting up the power and importance of prayer in our many traditions. Prayer both expresses and shapes our lives of faith. Prayer matters as much to us as it does to you. We are certainly not “against prayer,” as you put it.

    We do believe, however, that the most respectful way to seek divine blessing in a religiously plural community is to create space for individual believers to pray in their own way for the needs of our community, while also respecting our neighbors who do not share our views on the power of prayer.

    The purpose of a brief silence at the start of council meetings would not be to remove prayer from the council chambers, but to allow it to become the freely-chosen act of faithful individuals, lifting the concerns of their hearts to the god or gods they worship. Taking a moment to permit silent prayer would actually lead to a multiplication of prayers for our community and its leaders, each prayer deeply personal to the person praying.

    In what way is that a bad thing?

  • Mary Beth Cirucci
    December 28, 2015 (11:54 am)
    Reply

    I read your letter again. I guess a moment of silence and a moment of silent prayer are 2 different things to me. You claim it’s a freely chosen act of faith. I see the public prayer that was already occurring as a freely chosen act of faith and you are supporting the trampling of that right. It’s a “bad thing” because you are ebracing secularism of our society. Our founders never intended religion to be kept out of government. The reason for the Jefferson letter that referenced a wall of separation was merely to oppose the creation of a state sponsored church. Through this presidency he permitted church services in executive branch buildings because they were voluntary. It’s a “bad thing” because you are feeding into the misrepresentation of the establishment clause … Many people seem to forget the second half which states congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It’s a bad thing because the Supreme Court already ruled recently in New York that prayer before council meetings was not unconstitutional. It’s a “bad thing” because you are buying into the false notion that religion should be a personal thing and have no place in public settings. It’s a “bad thing” because you are bowing to the god of political correctness rather than the God of the universe. Opening public meetings with prayer is a cherished freedom that the authors of the constitution themselves practiced. Speech sensors should have no power to silence volunteers who want to pray for their communities just as our founders did in the name of not offending anyone. You say you want to embrace our differences. You are just silencing them. What better way to celebrate the differences of faith in our community than inviting various spiritual leaders to open in prayer. I respectfully still disagree with your ” moment of silence” recommendation. I’d be happy to continue this discussion off line with you.

  • Rev. Paul Kirschbaum Monroeville Assembly of God
    December 28, 2015 (9:45 pm)
    Reply

    The moment of silence is just as it states…… silence. It silences the passionate voice of a sincere individual seeking God for wisdom and direction. There is a time when silence is golden and then there is a time when it is just plain yellow. This is definitely one of those times. I would prefer the rotation as well. The alternative is weak, anemic, and pointless. With all of the problems we are facing as a nation, is this really the time to take YET ANOTHER STEP AWAY FROM GOD ?

  • Bob Schaefer
    December 30, 2015 (11:19 am)
    Reply

    Paul, I’m sorry you find MIM’s position cowardly. We would prefer to think of it as respectful of the importance of prayer and the many faiths our citizens profess.

    While a rotation of chaplains would certainly be more respectful than the previous approach of having an elected official lead an exclusively Christian prayer, this would still mean that every meeting would begin with at least some citizens being led in a prayer that violates their conscience. I don’t think it’s fair to ask you or your members to bow your heads and pray to Goddess just so you can do business with your council – that would deeply violate your most important religious beliefs! In the same way, citizens who don’t believe in Jesus shouldn’t need to violate their consciences as the price of admission to their own elected officials.

    You portray a time of silent prayer as a “step away from God” without making clear, “Whose god?” Our government should not and cannot promote one persons’ god over another’s. Silent prayer creates space for each citizen to take steps toward the god they worship. I understand why Christians would want that god to be Jesus – but it’s the work of the church, not the work of the government to turn hearts and minds toward Jesus.

    • John H
      July 19, 2018 (5:51 pm)
      Reply

      I was confirmed in the very church where you now hold office. I was one of 21 confirmands on 5/21/1972, the Rev. Charles J Schweikert held your position then. Thankfully, the church then, was part of the Missouri Synod. I don’t believe the evil ELCA even existed back then…but I may be wrong.

      Explain why an exclusive Christian prayer would be in error; After all there is only 1 (one) living and true God:

      “Shema” HEAR…Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah45:5-6, Isaiah 46:9-10, Ephesians 4:4-6.

      Universalism is apostasy and a profound theological error. Jesus is God; and since you are a representative of the Church of God, I suggest you get busy converting those of the Islamic faith, the Jewish faith, the Buddists, the Hari-Krishnas and the rest of humanity.

      There is only ONE…and He is sovereign

      • Bob Schaefer
        August 30, 2018 (3:31 pm)
        Reply

        Hi, John – Speaking as a Christian, the work of conversion belongs to the Holy Spirit and the Church, not the government. Using the power of the government as a tool of evangelism isn’t appropriate. I do believe there is one God, that Jesus is the Son, and down through the creedal statements. I don’t work with MIM because I believe all our faiths and deities are the same, but because I believe that there is value in being good neighbors to people whose theological convictions are different from mine, and partnering where our convictions overlap. That’s not syncretism – that’s being community.

        • John H
          September 5, 2018 (5:27 pm)
          Reply

          Indeed. God demands that we be good neighbors, even to our enemies…for one can only know God to the extent that one loves his enemies. As Christians, we have the command to share the good news with the world, even our enemies (You know the verse/command).

          I am confident that you believe in the trinity and the statements in the creeds; but are confused when you make the statement that theological convictions overlap between all faiths and deities. The beliefs and convictions of other faiths and deities will not save them or bless them with eternal life. I have great difficulty when I try to picture myself in paradise with a devout sharia Muslim. All faiths…all deities are not going to fit through the narrow gate. You will find them in the goat pen. We ALL need to get busy sharing the gospel.

          I will not be a present in any church that places a social justice agenda at the forefront.

          Nor will you find me in any church that twists the texts to somehow legitimize the homosexual, transgender, bisexual ideology so prevalent now. I believe the role of the church is to love these people, and show them Jesus, so that they might repent and be redeemed, reconciled, and justified before God. A genuine acceptance of Christ and repentance will produce obedience to God and His word. I will not coddle these people or enable their co-dependency.

          Here are two statements that describe my community:

          http://cbmw.org/nashville statement

          http://statementonsocialjustice.com

          Oh…I still think a Christian prayer is appropriate; in your prayer closet, or on the 50 yard line before a Steeler game…because God “is”.

        • John H
          October 17, 2018 (10:44 pm)
          Reply

          Bob,
          Um…sorry, but I think it is syncretism.There is nothing in scripture that justifies embracing people from other religions as “brothers and sisters” or holding this kind of interfaith dialog. In fact, scripture emphatically forbids us to seek spiritual common ground or cooperation with false religions. See 2 Corinthians 6: 14-17.
          Indiscriminate congeniality, the quest for common spiritual ground, and peace at any price certainly has great appeal, especially in an intellectual climate where the worst mistake anybody could make is claiming to know what’s true when so many others think something else is true.
          Besides, dialog does sound better than debate.
          Generally speaking, avoiding conflicts is a good idea. Warmth and congeniality trump cold harshness. A soft answer and a kind word usually go farther that an argument or a rebuke. Ordinarily, it’s better to be tender and mild rather than curt or combative…ESPECIALLY to the victims of false teachings.
          But those qualifying words are vital: Usually, ordinarily, generally. Avoiding conflict is not always the right thing. sometimes it is downright sinful. Especially in times like these, when almost no error is deemed too serious to be excluded from the evangelical conversation, and while God’s flock is being infiltrated by wolves dressed like prophets, declaring visions of peace when there is no peace. See Ezekiel 13:16.
          Even the kindest, gentlest shepherd sometimes needs to throw rocks at the wolves that come in sheep’s clothing.

          • Bob Schaefer
            October 24, 2018 (4:40 pm)

            John, we’ve reached the point where you’re attributing arguments to me that I’m not making. You also have called my church body, the ELCA, “evil.” You’ve misrecalled our congregational history (we were never part of the Missouri Synod, but were a plant of the ULCA). And you’ve mischaracterized the work of MIM. I’ve tried to allow some space here to engage you, since that’s part of our important work. But I think we’ve probably reached the limits of what can be accomplished. Thanks for your dialog. I’m glad you’re at a church that aligns more closely with your values these days. I hope that you’ll come to find that living together well in community with those whose faith we do not share is also a biblical value – Jeremiah’s instructions to the exiles in Babylon are a good starting point.


Got something to say?

Some html is OK