 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
A Response to David L. Adams The October edition of the Concordia Journal published as the lead article an essay by Dr. David Adams. Some of Dr. Adams' statements concern me, especially his position over again civil religion. I offer these thoughts for further discussion of this very important issue. Attempting to theologically define the limits of involvement of pastors of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod within events held under the banner of civil religion is to seek a theological definition in response to an exception. Neither the President of the United States nor the Mayor of New York City is in the habit of arranging weekly interfaith prayer meetings. If the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from public schools because of the objection of an atheist, how do you think they would respond to government leaders hosting religious events if similar objections were raised? The Supreme Court is not jumping all over this issue. What took place in the National Cathedral hosted by President Bush and at Yankee Stadium hosted by Mayor Giuliani in response to a national tragedy is extraordinary. It is the exception, not the rule. The theologians of our Synod must deal with this issue with great care. We will be forced to live with the implications of a position that we assume in response to an extraordinary event. It is highly irresponsible to denigrate the so-called "Civil Religion" that is a part of our national and social fabric and that provided the banner under which the event at the National Cathedral and the event at Yankee Stadium took place (1). To do so would place us in league with the ACLU, with the late Madalyn Murray O'Hair and her band of atheists, and the judges of the Ninth Circuit who attempted to declare that the statement in the pledge, "one nation under God" is unconstitutional. It is wrong to assess the essence of our civil religion by the various ways it has been manifested and the forms it has taken when grasped by the hands of the majority in an ever-changing culture. There is no doubt that in our day the postmodern philosophy has produced an age of tolerance in which all religious truth is relative and the mere expression of a variety of "faith communities," but postmodernism is not the official position of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. We certainly would not define the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod by the various movements that have infected our denomination nor should we define our civil religion by the movements that have infected the secular realm. In both cases, we appeal to public doctrine. To claim that American Civil Religion is "polytheistic" would be contrary to the establishment clause forbidding the government from establishing one religious expression over another. The "public doctrine" of the Constitution, Bill of Right, and Declaration of Independence merely acknowledges the existence of a "Creator," a "God," or a "Supreme Being." Our motto is, "In God We Trust." We do pledge allegiance to "one nation under God." We do sing "God Bless America," and for some of us, we sing it with a sense of pride and emotional fervor. In so doing, are we practicing polytheism? By critically assessing civil religion are we suggesting that our nation would be better served if God were totally left out of the picture? If that is our position, I am sure we can find many who agree with us. The issue for secularists in the public square is not focused upon the content of Christianity but the concept of a "God" to whom one is responsible. Believing in a God cramps the style of hedonists who want to do their own thing; frustrates the humanists who arrogantly think that they are the measure of all things; challenges the evolutionists who reject the existence of any mind behind the universe; irritates the self-esteem advocates who view God as a guilt-monger; exasperates the positivists who chaff at the notion that morality is not merely their own good idea; and angers the atheists who vow to rid the public square of any acknowledgment of a God. Theologians who seemingly join forces with these anti-God groups by denigrating civil religion puts them in bed with some rather strange fellows. To suggest that civil religion exists in our nation for some self-serving, contrived community benefit ignores the philosophic and theological implications of forming a constitutional government on the foundation of the existence of a God. We do not grant civil rights merely as the good idea of the majority or for some altruistic motivation. In fact, the objectivist philosophy of atheists such as the late Ayn Rand views the inclusion of altruism as being incompatible with the capitalist ideal. Our Creator grants our civil rights. Christians, together with other theists, are thereby enabled to defend "the Right to Life" of the unborn, not simply because our specific religious convictions say so, but because our Bill of Rights establishes the right to life in our Creator. Thomas Jefferson primarily borrowed the content of our Constitution and Bill of Rights from the writings of the British empiricist John Locke. By acknowledging the existence of a God, Locke established natural law – objective standards of right and wrong finding their source in God. The opposite of the natural law position is positivism. The positivist considers law to be the good idea of the majority. If we attack so-called American Civil Religion, we are attacking the constitutionally established concept of a God in whom we trust. If so, we are further attacking the concept of natural law and God-given rights. What alternative are we suggesting as the philosophic underpinning of our body politic - atheism? The philosophic debate over establishing a belief in God as a necessary being, the starting point for sound reasoning, and the ingredient for producing a coherent system of thought predate God's self-revelation in Christ Jesus. Let us not turn the profound into the simplistic. A belief in God motivates the growing intelligent design movement within the origin debate. To denigrate civil religion and make light of a national belief in a God allows the promoters of happenstance evolution a free reign. A belief in God establishes morality and evil on an objective basis. The 9/11 attack caused consternation among the promoters of postmodern relativism who define evil by community standards rather than by objective, God-given principles. We were confronted with objective evil at the hands of the terrorists. Who says so? God does! Jewish Michael Medved, a Hollywood movie critic, leads a campaign to raise the standards of morality in the media business. Because I would stand together with Medved in opposition to media-inspired moral decay does not mean that we also stand together on the question of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Our unity is in the common belief in a God who cares about the way people live. A belief in God gives to life a higher purpose and meaning. The LCMS has not officially entered into the "prayer in public schools" debate. Would we oppose our school children participating in a generic prayer that acknowledged "the Almighty" but was not offered in Jesus' name? From a theological position, offering a prayer that is not in the name of Jesus is a meaningless exercise. From a philosophic position, instilling into the minds of children the belief in a God has great value for the common good. In addition to granting civil rights, establishing objective morality, informing the intelligent design movement, and providing human existence with a higher, ultimate meaning, the belief in God also has psychological and emotional value for those confronting a national tragedy such as the 9/11 attack. When President Bush called for the National Cathedral event and when Mayor Giuliani hosted the Yankee Stadium event they were manifesting "godly government" and were not creating a sinful syncretism, promoting polytheism, and thereby violating the First Commandment. In his response to the decision of the Ninth Circuit that declared the statement in the pledge "one nation under God" unconstitutional, our Christian President George W. Bush made the following observations;
"(The Ninth Circuit decision is) out of step with the traditions and history of America and underscored America as a nation that values our relationship with an Almighty. (The) Declaration of God in the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't violate rights, as a matter of fact; it's a confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence. I believe it points up the fact that we need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God, and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench. You know, it's interesting, there is a universal God, in my opinion and the first conversation I ever had with Vladimir Putin was about God -- in Slovenia." Is our President violating the First Commandment by speaking of "a relationship with an Almighty," and suggesting that there is a "universal God?" Is he guilty of promoting polytheism? If he were, I would suggest that his sin is far more serious than anything Bill Clinton ever did. I wonder, how many of the conservative Republicans within the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod would appreciate our church accusing our conservative, pro-life, Christian President of being a polytheist? (2) What would we do, for example, if President George W. Bush were on the clergy roster of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod? It is not outside the realm of possibility that one of our pastors who becomes involved in the politics of his community might one day ascend to that position. Why not? Would we suspend George W. for allegedly breaking the First Commandment by hosting the National Cathedral event in the aftermath of 9/11 or would we clearly delineate the "Two Kingdoms" and recognize that the man functions in both – as we all do? The concept of God as expressed in our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence is nothing more, and nothing less, than a manifestation of the natural knowledge of God. It is a First Article expression. The theologians of our church have stated, "The natural knowledge of God is of value also for the Church. For one thing, the Church has its temporary home in the body politic; and civil righteousness, which maintains order and peace, thus serves the Church indirectly." After speaking of natural religion as being a blessing, Martin Chemnitz states that God left this remnant after the Fall "so that among men their might be a political society through which God through the Gospel could gather his Church." Without such civil religion, we might as well, as Luther put it, be preaching the Gospel to a "donkey, horse, ox or cow." (3) Our Confessions declare that God honors civil righteousness with temporal rewards. (4) To suggest that our participation in civil religious events in which Christians of different confessions also participate should be guided by the fellowship principles we apply to church-sponsored events is to say that the tenets of civil religion are incompatible with Lutheran confessional theology. This is not the case. (5) Romans 1:18-3:20 does not provide an alternative to the subsequent glorious truth of a righteousness from God found in Christ Jesus. It is not an alternative but a necessary stepping-stone from one to the other. The civil religion of the United States is not a threat to Lutheranism but by establishing an ultimate foundation for law, morality, and evil provides a context in which the Gospel of God's grace is preached. Apart from the precepts of our civil religion the Gospel has no context. Those who attempt missionary work in countries formerly established on the foundation of atheistic Communism cannot simply preach the Gospel but must begin with an apologetic defense for the existence of a God. A Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pastor invited to offer a prayer in a civil/religious event in which Christians of different confessions and clerics of other religions are also participating should not refuse by fearing that the error of darkness will be mingled with the light of truth. Rather, the pastor should participate with the full confidence that he is bringing the light of truth into the darkness of error. It is this desire that motivates us to establish churches in communities where other religions are represented; to list the names of our LCMS congregations in the Yellow Pages alongside a wide variety of religious expressions; and to place the Lutheran Hour on radio stations that also offer a diverse mixture of spiritual content. Should we refuse to broadcast the Lutheran Hour on a radio station that also broadcasts the "Islamic Hour?" How would we have responded if the President or the Mayor had hosted their gatherings and had not invited any Christians? Would there not have been a huge public outcry if only Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs were represented in the Prayer for America at Yankee Stadium? Why do we look at an event held unto the banner of civil religion and say, "There were Muslims, Jews, and Sikhs there"? Why don't we look at the same event and say, "There were Christians there, and a couple of them actually prayed in Jesus' name"? Pastor Don Matzat 1. In his assessment of American Civil Religion, Dr. Adams writes: "Specifically, American Civil Religion supplies the 'god' element of the traditional American trinity of "god, mother, and apple pie." It defines that 'god' in whom our money trusts and to whom we appeal in song and slogan to 'bless America.' And as we saw so powerfully demonstrated last September, American Civil Religion serves the interests of the state by providing our nation with a socially unifying rallying point in times of national crisis and a presumed least common denominator for our national social discourse." (Concordia Journal, October 2002, p. 371) 2. Adams writes, "We have recognized above that as the United States has become increasingly culturally diverse and pluralistic, American Civil Religion has become increasingly polytheistic. Because civil religious events are a fundamental expression of American Civil Religion, they have become increasingly polydox in nature." On the basis of that statement, one would assume that Dr. Adams is accusing our president George W. Bush of being a polytheist since he called for a polydox event in the National Cathedral. 3. Pieper; Christian Dogmatics, Vol. 1; pg. 374-5. 4. Tappert, Book of Concord, 110:24 5. Adams writes: "To the extent that a civil religious event is an event involving Christians of different confessions, participation in the event must be governed by the same principles that govern our interaction with other Christian church bodies." |
|
|
Home | Who We Are | Calendar | Our School | Prayer for America | Directions | Contact Us | Links |
|