May 17, 2010 issue
Unofficially, prayer is better
“Let us pray” are words close to a Christian’s heart. Does it matter who says them? What if the call to prayer comes from the government?
As spiritual heirs of martyrs who insisted the church and the state should not mix, Mennonites believe the source does matter. We think prayer is not the government’s business.
Thus, on May 6, many of us found ourselves in the ironic position of being lovers of prayer who didn’t get excited about the National Day of Prayer.
The day got more than its usual attention this year due to a court ruling in April that declared it unconstitutional. Pending an appeal, the observance went ahead, as it has since the U.S. Congress established it in 1952.
The uproar that followed federal judge Barbara Crabb’s decision showed how fervently some American Christians desire the establishment of religion. The National Day of Prayer Task Force, a privately funded group, called the ruling “an attack upon our religious freedoms” — as though people weren’t free to pray on their own, or as though a prayer day would be worthless without government approval.
Rather than worthless, it might be better. We are assured of complete liberty to worship as we choose only when we leave the government out of our ceremonies. A controversy this year illustrated how government chooses expressions of faith it sees as acceptable: The Pentagon disinvited evangelist Franklin Graham from its National Day of Prayer event because he had described Islam as an “evil and wicked religion” and Muslims as “enslaved by Islam.” Pentagon officials needed to make their prayer event acceptable to people of diverse faiths, and they thought Graham’s presence, given his past expression of beliefs, would have compromised that.
Anabaptists were among the first to recognize the benefits of separating faith from the state. Hans Denck wrote in 1527 that he desired that all people, “Turk or heathen … Jew or Christian,” should “not submit to a magistrate in matters of faith.”
Mennonites descend from reformers who defined the church as a free association separate from the dominant culture. Therefore we distrust rituals and symbols that entangle faith with nationalism. We are especially grateful that the First Amendment protects the sacred from corruption (by prohibiting the establishment of religion) and ensures the rights of minorities such as conscientious objectors to war (by guaranteeing free exercise).
Those who appreciate a high wall between church and state also note that government sanction tends to drain religious symbols of spiritual meaning. The motto “in God we trust” on currency and the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance have become known as examples of “ceremonial deism” — statements that “have lost, through rote repetition, any significant religious content,” Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote in a 1984 opinion.
The recent ruling on the National Day of Prayer may force the Supreme Court to revisit past decisions on church-state issues. No matter which way future rulings go, Christians should recognize that their faith stands strongest when it is free from government endorsement or intrusion.
Comments
-
Are we really to believe that it is consistent with Mennonite faith to advocate/lobby to the political process on our behalf (i.e MCC Washington Witness, Sojourners & Jim Wallis etc) yet we are not to support a national day of prayer as it "tends to drain religious symbols of spiritual meaning"? Either both or none I should think. Mr. Schrag must even see the distortion and incongruity in this.
I am fine with leaving church and state truly separate as Mennonites have done traditionally, but certainly that includes attitudes toward lobbying congress, political service and protest marching too ?!? Are we that schizophrenic in the modern church ? - no wonder we cannot attract new believers. What accounts for this difference except political beliefs clouding our spiritual beliefs?
The MWR should address this type of mismatch on issues instead of towing the same line in every edition......
-
Are we to believe, as Mr. Schrag asserts, that it is inconsistent with Mennonite faith to support a national day of prayer yet wholly consistent to support lobbying/advocacy the likes of MCC Washington Witness or Sojourners/Jim Wallis. Even Mr. Schrag must see the incongruity in this type of position?
I support a natural seperation of church and state as has been traditional to Mennonite faith - but that also includes lobbying congress, political participation, marching and protesting etc. Its either all or none it would seem. No wonder we are so schizophrenic as a church- new believers would have no idea which side of the fence we are on.
We must acknowledge that political beliefs are actively influencing our spiritual beliefs, and soon. MWR should spend time on these types of mismatches instead of towing the same line in every issue.
-
Sorry for the double entry.
-
BW, I would hope that you are not excluding yourself from your critique of mingling religion and politics. And I would hope that you recognize the good faith of those with whom you disagree. I do not see Mr. Schrag, myself, or MWR as toeing a party line. There are cultural influences in everything, and we are all prone to these influences. If we do not acknowledge this, then we are thoroughly dishonest. This does not, however, mean that we are of lesser faith, as your post would seem to suggest.
I have nothing against a national day that encourages everyone to set aside a few moments for prayer--or reflective silence, for those who do not believe.
I also have nothing against a public prayer, even one broadcast on a PA system, so long that the public prayer is limited to something relatively neutral, such as, "God, extend Your love, Your grace, Your peace, Your justice to our world, our nation, our communities, our leaders. May we all strive to show each other the love you have shown us. Help us to treat even the least of these as we ourselves want to be treated. Amen."
The problem is, public prayers are inherently prone to some schmuck or another forcing his or her agenda into a prayer that is to be shared by the community. Sometimes, these prayers are quite abominable and have nothing to do with community:
Pat Robertson, for example, has often indulged in praying out contracts on people and politicians with whom he disagrees. "Dear lord, we ask that you call _ home."
In the wake of 9/11, both he and Jerry Falwell prayed for God's forgiveness for the United States' tolerance of homosexuality, its move toward gender equality.
At last Saturday's rally in Washington, DC, a woman from Minnesota prayed for God's forgiveness since the Minnesota had demonstrated its disobedience in electing the first Muslim in American history to the House of Representatives.
These prayers absolutely make me cringe, because they do not match my understanding of God. Were this the definition of Christianity, I could not consider myself a Christian, despite my faith in God and desire to follow Christ. Moreover, a god who would view such prayers favorably could not be the God whom I serve, could not be the God of John 3:16, could not be the God who has remained faithful and merciful to the people of Israel throughout the Old Testament and continues to remain so to his people even Today.
-
[Spam comment removed.]
-
First, thank you BW for your comments. I find it interesting that among the many serious problems we currently experience in our country, the recent National Day of Prayer deserves MWR editorial comment. I believe we should be very thankful that in the past our government has set aside a National Day of Prayer that includes the highest levels of government. We also have set aside a day of Thanksgiving, a day to recognize the birth of Jesus, days to recognize the death and resurrection of Jesus. Perhaps Editor Schrag, would also suggest these religious days be eliminated to accommodate the separation of Church and State theology of the religious left?
The first amendment of the US Constitution reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The context of this amendment was that the Government was not to ordain an official religion as was practiced in England at that time. Prayer, as proposed recently, did not violate the first amendment. Soon after 9-11, there was much prayer at the national level. Did that violate the so called “separation of church and state?”
There is no evidence that America's founders intended for there to be a separation of church and state as the religious left would have us believe. This is shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledge God in their state constitutions. I have listed one of them: Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution….. Why should people of faith, who call themselves lovers of prayer, be concerned about how it was planned to be done in Washington? The opening session of the House of Representatives is led in prayer by the Congressional Chaplain.
I wonder if Editor Schrag would ask the Supreme Court to insist on separation of Church and State and 1) Have the 50 states eliminate all references of God from their respective constitutions? And 2) Remove all chaplains from the military and local law enforcement? 3) Remove all chaplains from local, state and federal prisons?
Madalyn Murray O'Hair was one of the litigants in the case of Murray vs. Curlett, which led the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 1963 decision, to ban organized prayer in public schools. Since that time innocent living unborn babies were determined by the Supreme Court to be sub-human, therefore could legally be killed. Legalized gambling has been accepted with an increase in related crime and related increased law enforcement costs. Homosexual lifestyles and same sex marriages are to be openly accepted as normal. The Supreme Court ruled the Ten Commandments should not appear as a monument on public property or hang on walls of government buildings. Since 1963, there has been a huge increase in divorce and remarriage, violence in our schools, colleges and universities, communities and homes. Increase in corruption in government. Increasing terrorist activity directed at US citizens by religious extremists. A huge increase in use of illegal destructive drugs.
I believe we can accurately conclude that the farther we push God from our society and government, the more sin moves in and with it related misery. God tells us,”Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”. The flip side would be “Troubled is the nation who pushes God away”.
So, who do we trust to give us reliable Biblical truth? I strongly believe the problem in Government and society is the direct result in the acceptance by many churches of the sins I have listed above. As goes the church, so goes the family and so goes the Government.
-
Dale, I will only address one thing. You suggest things you find objectionable, suggest "liberals" would go along with them, and then talk about how corrupt these "liberals" really are. The only problem is, there are your straw "liberals" and there are real liberals. And never the twain shall meet. At this point, how is there any credible grounds for discussion or dialogue?
Comment on the article Unofficially, prayer is better
The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
Download
Download a free PDF showing the populations of
Mennonite groups and other Anabaptists.
