 |
||
 |
|
|
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
||
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Pastor Don Matzat's Letter to "The Christian Century" The Christian Century Dear Sirs: Gilbert Meilaender's article "Interfaith Prayer," while an excellent discussion of a very difficult subject, leaves me with more questions than answers. It would have been helpful if Meilander had clarified his position on civil religion rather than dancing around the issue. Would he apply the warnings against Christians reverting "to the rituals of civil religion" to other events as well, such as the Inauguration of the President of the United States where the trappings of civil religion are hauled out every four years? If Meilander is suggesting that the church should make a decisive break with the surrounding pluralistic culture does he prefer a public square where God is not a part of the national discourse? Does he agree with the Ninth Circuit Court that the phrase "one nation under God" would be better left unsaid? It seemed to me that he is heading in that direction. The elimination of a civil religion would certainly solve the problem he discusses, but at what price? We are unable to identify the God of civil religion since it would be contrary to the establishment clause. It seems to me that the God in whom America trusts is the same God identified as the "unmoved Mover" in Aristotelian metaphysics. Civil religion under girds a philosophy, not a theology. The Bill of Rights acknowledges a Creator and thus we have Pro-Life movement including Christians, Jews, and Muslims? The philosophic concept of a Supreme Being leads to discussion over "intelligent design" behind the universe? Is Dr. Meilander suggesting that our nation would be better served by scrapping the Lockian natural law position in favor of positivism? Our constitutional acknowledgement of a God, freedom of religion, the establishment clause and civil religious events build the great American religious shopping mall, as was the case at Yankee Stadium. Indeed, over the years more stores have been added being occupied by some rather "strange" fellows. Is Meilander suggesting that no Christian display should be on the premises and no Christian "products" offered? By participating under the banner of civil religion and offering a prayer we are making no statements about the actions of the other participants any more than Sears is confirming the merchandise at Penny's by being present under the same roof. Meilander writes, "I doubt that it was really wise for Benke to participate in the (Yankee Stadium) event." Using the Kantian imperative, he must conclude that it would have been unwise for any Christian to participate at either Yankee Stadium or in the Bush-hosted National Cathedral event. In other words, the Church of Jesus Christ and the cause of the Gospel would have been better served, according to Meilander, if only Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs had participated in those events and the name of Jesus Christ had never been heard. While Meilander acknowledges that Pastor Benke offered a clearly Christian prayer, he goes on the to say that it was unwise for him to be there and do so. As a theologically conservative Lutheran I contend that we need to participate in events held under the banner of civil religion. We have truth, why be ashamed of it? Why not put it on display as long as we are not called upon to compromise? I watched the entire Yankee Stadium event live. If I were a seeker watching that event, I would have contacted Pastor Benke since he came off looking better than the rest of them. He made me proud to be a part of the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. What is an embarrassment is the manner in which my church has dealt with him. Pastor Don Matzat |
|
|
Home | Who We Are | Calendar | Our School | Prayer for America | Directions | Contact Us | Links |
|