C
ongress has been recognizing the National Day of Prayer since they came up with it 1952. However, this practice is currently being reviewed, and this might be the last year that the government officially recognizes this day.I'm not too upset, because the National Day of Prayer is going to go on with or without the government. Most importantly, I would rather the government drop this from their agenda then maintain the idea that congress should recommend religious actions for Americans. Of course, the National Day of Prayer doesn't harm me, but it probably offends people who don't believe in prayer (how would I feel if the government asked me to seek Nirvana on this day?) and I don't want our government involved in our belief systems. That is not a positive trend, and it's scary to imagine that power being abused by our leaders.
The National Day of Prayer will continue to be popular, and it doesn't need a government bureaucracy to help it along any longer. If this day is no longer recognized by Congress, then it will be even more potent when Americans get together and pray on their own.
29 comments:
I'm a disestablishmentarian, but I still find our modern ignorance of the proper interaction between Christianity and government, to this new bizarre level of disavowal of Christianity, equally troubling. The problem with the government's disavowal of the National Day of Prayer is not that prayer won't happen, but rather the institutionalized forsaking of both God and heritage. A government without God is historically more dangerous to the people than a government believing itself to have the sanction of God.
EDIT: Fixed typo in conclusion that rendered it nonsensical.
This makes me sad. If you were standing before God, your answer to Him would be that God doesnt have a place in government and that it would be better if the government didnt recognize Him. Shame on you for saying that. This country was not just founded on moral principles similar to those in the Bible, this country was founded so that a country would be run ONLY by God. All founders were very devout Christians that loved Jesus and thought God should not only have a place in government, but should be the center. I can only imagine what Moses or Joshua would have said if the people said "There should be a separation between government and religion." Every time God's people made Him the center, God used them for miraculous things, but every time they stopped looking to him and tried to do things on their own, God lifted his hand of protection on them, and they were on their own. The fact that I am even having to say this lets me know just how far away from God we truly are as a nation. The conversation has gone from "should God be in government or separate" to "should God be separate or non existent." As someone who loves and appreciates the freedom from sin that is given to Gods children, I am truly sad that our country has come to this, especially since I am aware of the results of not having God as the center of our country. God, please forgive us. I already know what kind of response I am gonna get to this, but I am prepared to be disagreed with, because thats the least of my worries.
And Jared's statement about a Godly government is ludicrous and warrantless. I find it hard to believe that you did any more research into that than merely looking at some report that some mainstream outlet released.
Anonymous,
I do not want the federal government involved in any part of religion. Giving them that power allows them to encourage a day of prayer for every religion and every belief. That's not a good power for the government to have.
The Bible does not charge us with forcing Christianity on our fellow countrymen through government, it charges us to put Christ at the center of our own lives. I don't need a federally mandated Jesus to do that.
@Adam - I totally agree with you. I hope the government does disavow the national day of prayer. The Constitution says two things about religion - freedom of religion, and no religious test for office. Otherwise, they've got no business doing things like this. And like you said, what if the government wanted us to all recognize a specific religious holiday of a non-Christian religion? How would Christians like that? Not at all, I'm sure.
@anonymous - The fact of the matter is that the Constitution has NOTHING in it that is explicitly biblical. More than that, almost NONE of the signers of the document were orthodox Christians. Honest, respectable, moral men - yes, most of them. But Christians? No.
And your comment about the separation of church and state is very telling - It was one of those "devout Christian" founders - Thomas Jefferson - that you speak of who spoke this phrase into American History. So, the idea of separating church and state is actually an OLDER idea in American History than is this National Day of prayer that you support. What's more, Jefferson is one of the best examples of NOT being an orthodox Christian, and he was proud of it.
@Jared - I agree that a government under God's rule and favor is better off. But, when do we decide what part of our heritage is supposed to be kept, and what isn't? For example, as Adam noted, this national day of prayer is a relatively new thing in our country's history. Why should it be this practice, rather than the heritage throughout the 18th and 19th centuries of NOT having the official day of prayer?
Anonymous,
I say these things as a Bible-believing Christian completing a PhD in US History.
1) Not all the founders were devout Christians, though some were. Saying the word "God" in your diaries and attending church (which everyone did because it was necessary to maintain and improve social standing) doesn't make you a devout Christian. It is very dangerous and foolish to claim that all the men who founded our country were Bible-believing, Jesus-loving, born-again, believers. This simply is not true, and it makes us look like fools to the world we are trying to save -- not to participate in a temporary place called America, but in an eternal place called the Kingdom of God.
2) Even if all the founders were Christian (which they weren't), were they acting in a Scriptural matter in this case, rebelling against authority, killing others made in the image of God, etc? You'll have to explain to me where that one pops up in Scripture.
3) Political freedom and spiritual freedom are two very different things. I know many Christians in China that are far freer than you because they do not suffer from your apparent chains of blind and misinformed patriotism, which is a very dangerous brand of the stuff.
As I recall from my history books, the founding fathers were mostly of the belief that the God of the universe was a being that had created the universe and then abandoned it to its fate. I don't remember the name of this philosophy, but it was very prevalent at the time. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, was as near to an atheist as a person can get without making the straightforward claim. In any case, our founding fathers created the separation of Church and state specifically to avoid the conflicts of Church mandated religion. Let us not forget that people in those days (and still today depending on the country) could be persecuted, tortured, and executed for small heresies -- to say nothing of actually belonging to another religion. The reason we live in a civilized nation and that morality is at such an evolved level as it has managed to reach is specifically because the Church has no power here. The Church has had to evolve with the demands of the people. If it hadn't it would still be talking about the virtues of slavery to say nothing of women's rights.
There is place for one religion and thats it. Yes, the word does want us to put God at the center of everthing. It makes no sense to be governed by laws that didnt come from meditation with the Lord. When Moses came off the mountain with the 10 commandments, and the people were worsiping Baal, did Moses say "i am gonna go to the side over here and pray to my God, and you guys can stay over there and worship your God?" no, he didnt. I understand your idea that the whole world shouldnt be forced to worsip God, but this is(was) a God fearing Christian country. The reason we became a powerful country was 100% God's blessing for seeking after Him. If you dont want to worship God, you dont have to, but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
This country can be God fearing without mandates from the federal government. When Jesus was asked about paying taxes, Jesus said to give to Caesar what belong to Caesar. Even though Rome was a polytheistic state. Jesus did not ask anyone to pass laws about worshiping Him. There's no need to give the government the power to be involved in our religion.
history books?!! I wont go there.
@ Anonymous (again . . .)
You need to do some serious theological study about what happens between the OT and the NT, especially some theology at the kingdom and what it means for it to be here and not yet fully here. Your comparisons between Israel and modern nations aren't helpful.
Also, prosperity for a nation is not a sign of God's blessing. The Scriptures alone should tell you that. Think about how God raised up Babylon and Assyria (both empires lasted FAR longer than America has to date) and gave them great power over the nations, not because they were godly at all, but because he had plans to use them. Even though they were God's instruments, it did not mean that He favored them.
You're all wrong. Hah! =)
And you're all right.
A key problem is the rule of self-government, introduced to the world through the worldview influence of Christianity: government of the people, by the people, and for the people muddies the issue of the Scriptural address to meekly obey one's government, and indeed all Americans would do well to study the discussions and ideas of the Founding Fathers to better understand the dilemma.
Brian, I couldn't care less about the official, annual "National Day of Prayer," as it were, but there have been national days of prayer much prior to 1952. My concern on this topic pertains to the longstanding tradition of freedom OF religion in a Christian nation being replaced by freedom FROM religion in a secular nation, because my study of history indicates that will soon be followed by outright tyranny. Also, I'm surprised you'd misapply Jefferson's quote like that.
@ JG - In regards to application of Scripture to pragmatic action, which I think is the crux of the item, I find your second point acceptable, but I object to the classification of the American Revolution as simple rebellion against authority. I needn't tell you that in the eyes of the Founding Fathers it was Britain who was rebelling against the established self-government.
@ JG, Brian, Adam - I'm more Libertarian than Conservative, so naturally I oppose government-enforcement of religion, but for Christian historians to have reached the opinion that government without the influence of Christianity is more free appalls me; I do quite wonder what history you have been reading. Heavy-handed Federal mandates should be opposed, but I think equal harm will be done by abdicating Christianity's influence within our self-government, for, as our first President said, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports." After all, political liberty is descended from spiritual liberty.
There was once a nation called Rome. As it began to decline it accepted Christianity as it's faith and only elected Christian lawmakers and leaders. Barbarian hordes wiped them out a century later.
I think Christianity can influence our government by our ministry to our leaders and not the other way around.
@Jared
1. How have I misapplied Jefferson's quotation? Usually, it's misapplied by BOTH sides of the argument, each claiming that he said one entity should stay away from the other. In reality, Jefferson meant in his letter to the Danbury Baptists that BOTH should stay out of each other's business. Madison agreed, and actually wrote even more extensively about this. Separation of Church and State (I'm not arguing for separation of God and State), Madison and Jefferson argued, was better for BOTH.
2. I kind of just hinted at this, but I am not arguing that government is better without God. I don't believe that at all. But, I am arguing that official business of State and Church should remain separate. Thus the State should not endorse any particular religion (i.e., Christian prayer, etc.), and the Church should not allow the State to tell them what to do within their own sphere.
My comment about rebellion was directed toward Anonymous' assertion that American was founded as a Christian nation. This naturally raises the question as to whether the founders were acting "Christianly" in their decision to rebel against the British crown. This makes us ask the question as to under what circumstances (if any) people can justifiably reject a present government and know themselves to be acting in accordance with the will of God. This was the line of reasoning I wanted Anonymous to explore, and I think it's an important one for us as believers to work through.
I cannot recall saying anything that would make it sound like I thought that government was better off without God or more free. I mentioned the example of China in order to make Anonymous think about the differences between political and spiritual freedom. True freedom -- freedom in Christ -- flourishes regardless of the political system involved. In fact, I would argue that the American church, with all its "liberties" is one of the more lethargic and anemic manifestations of the Church across human history. That is not to argue that democracy inherently harms Christianity or anything like that, but rather to point out that we should not assume a direct, positive relationship either.
Now don't get me wrong. I don't want persecution, and I actually quite enjoy being an American. My concern was that folks like Anonymous need to be at least more hesitant and circumspect in tracing the hand of God in human history and attaching the approval of God to human actions.
I think I'm a little late for this conversation, but...
Anonymous: I think the word for them was "Deist" and there were some more during that time who were "Unitarians."
Adam, the National Day of Prayer isn't a mandate from the government. It's a national observance. It's like Christmas.
Now I've never really been a fan of the NDP, but that's because I've always worked for ministries and I don't like being expected to attend spiritual activities and programs. But that might have more to do with me.
But as far as the government interfering with my religion, I don't feel any pressure from the government to pray on May 6. If it ever became a mandate or even like a rat on your neighbors if they don't comply, then we'd be in trouble.
So, there's part of me that couldn't care less about the NDP fading out of existence, partly because of the aforementioned reasons, and partly because unfriendliness toward Christians and Christianity isn't necessarily a bad thing: more like a promise from Christ himself.
However, what would it be like to say publicly we believe Christianity is true and because it's true it works best. So that's how we're going to do business, which includes publicly, but humbly (which is what's often missing from NDP programs) acknowledging and seeking the One True God on behalf of our leaders, etc. You are free to participate or abstain and you cannot be discriminated against for your choice because this is also an extension of what we believe to be true and right and good.
There are lots of government sanctioned religious practices in other countries I find offensive, and if I choose to live in one of those countries, I would, by that choice, subject myself to those realities. Why would I choose to live in such a country? Either their way works better than where I'm currently living, or I'm on a mission.
Those who are trying to change our freedom of religion to freedom from religion are on a mission.
Or they want to have their cake and eat it too.
Which I can understand... because we all want that.
Did I call it a mandate? I didn't mean to imply that it was being required. However, the government does ask us to pray on that day (even though it is informal) and that's a bit more religious than I want the government to be.
The word mandate was used in the comment about rendering unto Caesar, not in the post itself, but I see what you're after now. :] Although, I'm not really sure how Americans coming together to pray when it's no longer a national observance makes it more powerful. Because that's what's happening as it is, unless perhaps you work in the Whitehouse and are pressured to attend a service. (Dad and I were just having that conversation.) I could see how that would be a problem.
Allow me, if you will, to continue to play Devil's Advocate, because that's how I think through things. Let's say that the government no longer asks citizens to pray or meditate but continues to hold an official national observance. Would that still be an issue?
I guess what I'm getting at is more about the dangerous public/private split: ie. Religion is relegated to the private realm of personal values, but not appropriate in the public sphere of actual facts. That's what, it seems to me, this fight is really about.
Like I said, I'm not especially attached to the NDP anyway, I'm just trying to think through Christianity. (So thanks for always providing such excellent opportunities!)
Have you read all of this?
http://www.wiwd.uscourts.gov/assets/pdf/FFRF_v_Obama_Order.pdf
From that document:
When the Continental Congress met for its inaugural session in September 1774, delegate Thomas Cushing proposed to open the session with a prayer. Delegates John Jay and John Rutledge (two future Chief Justices of the Supreme Court) objected to the proposal on the ground that the Congress was “so divided in religious Sentiments . . . that We could not join in the same Act of Worship.” Eventually, Samuel
Adams convinced the other delegates to allow the reading of a psalm the following day.
Surely it was not the intention of congress to set aside a day to highlight the disunity among Americans http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NDPTFbrief and to give so many Christians the opportunity to do so much harm to their testimony with "dueling prayer services"... but congress did just that.
And what of the person that has invested months witnessing - only to have this day come along and drive a wedge between those that pray and those that don't.
My dear daughter said:
"However, what would it be like to say publicly we believe Christianity is true and because it's true it works best. So that's how we're going to do business, which includes publicly, but humbly (which is what's often missing from NDP programs) acknowledging and seeking the One True God on behalf of our leaders, etc."
But alas, the government disallowed itself from picking Christianity for the NDP. Instead, government has posited a unity among religions that does not and cannot exist.
Here's Wikipedia's description of the National Day of Prayer:
"The National Day of Prayer (36 U.S.C. § 119)[1] is an annual day of observance held on the first Thursday of May, designated by the United States Congress, when people are asked 'to turn to God in prayer and meditation'"
I'm to keen on the government asking me to turn to God in prayer. Of course, I am keen on turning to God in prayer on my own. I don't care if the government observes it, but I also don't care if they don't, because it won't hinder the Day of Prayer one bit. And, the government might go "Oprah" on us and start making it the "international multicultural all religions are one so pray to God-Allah-Nirvana-Nihilistic impules-etc. day of prayer" or something dumb. I am happier leaving it in the hands of the church.
I fear, Renea, that we are tackling this subject from different points of view that keep us from discussing it effectively, so forgive me if this conversation is just going in circles, but I think NDP is different from Christmas in that it is not simply recognized by the fed, but is recommended.
Anyone who's ok with the government meddling in the affairs of religion should move to Saudi Arabia and see how it works out for them. Government and religion are separate for a reason, and no good can come from attempting to reconcile or unify them in any way.
Touche Dad. But the question still remains: What if? It's probably an impossible ideal, but the argument is we strive for the ideal (the Kingdom way) even though we will never fully achieve it. I'm not sure I agree with that argument, I'm just saying that is the argument.
Adam, I concede to your point about Christmas, and ultimately I agree with your whole premise. It just gets tricky, I think, because separation of power and full-fledged divorce are conflated. You are probably more adept in distinguishing the two. I dislike politics and thinking about government, but I have to think about it, don't I? Which means, I'm afraid, you have to suffer as I sort out stuff you've probably already sorted through. ;-) I also think we're already in an Opera state of mind as Dad pointed out.
Justin, I see where you're coming from, but your statement conflates Islam and Christianity, and those two worldviews aren't created equal and therefore won't work in the same way for the people. When you say government and religion are irreconcilable and should have nothing to do with each other the implication is a secular government, which of course is in fact, religious. The thing is, we simply can't separate religion (what we believe) from how we govern ourselves.
We can separate the powers, which is what I believe we're largely talking about: mandates, and possibly even recommendations, from the government to participate in religious activity = unhealthy. But we have grown up with a social vocabulary which conflates separation of power with separation of fact from value: ie. check your religious beliefs at the door before you go to work--in this case, in the government. And I think this conflation is getting us into trouble and must be attended to in our thinking. The idea that facts and values can and should be split is in fact a value. And when we take on that value, we truncate our holistic selves.
Good points, all of you.
It's complicated. As a Libertarian I respond to complicated government situations by asking the Federal government to get lost. Maybe this is not a perfect solution, but I like it best.
reneamac-
I understand your idea of not being able to separate that which we personally believe and the government under which we live, and of the inherent differences between Christianity and Islam. The thing is, the religion at issue is a red herring- the real question is, do you want government officials deciding what religion to implement, how best to implement it into government activities, and how that religion is to be interpreted. There are practically limitless interpretations of the Bible; do you trust your elected representatives to interpret and implement it in the same way that you would? No one is suggesting that personal religious views be separated from the governmental decisionmaking process; the issue is whether or not those views should be made public by the officials who hold them. It's one thing to say "I voted for X because as a Christian, I believe it is the right thing to do," and "The Bible says that X should be the law so that's what I voted for." One is harmless and even expected; the other is the first step in the march toward religious totalitarianism.
@Justin
"...the issue is whether or not those views should be made public by the officials who hold them."
I think what you mean is the issue is whether or not those views should be made public policy. Did I read you right?
@everyone: This book review came across my desk recently which resonates with and can add to the conversation we're having here: The book is, To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World by James Davidson Hunter. The review is titled, "How Not to Change the World" by Andy Crouch. Here is the link: http://www.booksandculture.com/articles/2010/mayjun/hownotchangetheworld.html?paging=off
Thanks, all, for engaging conversation.
Interesting conversation. I am sorry I found it so long after it started.
I do think we are a nation founded on Judeo-Christian values by men who largely believed in God. That isn't to say they were devout Christians, because one can hold those values, and believe in God, but not be Christian.
My opinion on the matter of national observance of National Day of Prayer is that I personally like the idea. It means that the nation recognizes the importance of calling to God for help, even when things seem to be going well. It seems to appeal primarily to professing Christians, but I don;t think the concept is exclusively Christian. It also is not mandated or forced and does not force anyone to believe anything religiously. Anyone is free to ignore it, and most people do, I would wager.
That said, I attach no great importance to federal recognition of this day, because we shouldn't need it to be in prayer for our country, nor do we need government sanction to call to God together as a national community of believers.
Therefore, my conclusion is that it doesn't make a large difference whether the federal government chooses to continue to recognize National Day of Prayer or not.
Post a Comment