John H Armstrong

Why It's Important to Oppose Anti-Sharia Movements in America

Since 9-11 many Americans have reacted strongly against Muslims and Islamic laws. Some see the presence of Muslims as a threat to our nation. Others are more open but are still guided by a great deal of fear when it comes to Muslim practice. Many conservative commentators stir up a general, and often ill-defined, negative reaction to Islamic culture. The truth is that this is a culture they neither understand nor care to understand with any degree of empathy. Christians can, and should, do much better. If for no other reason we have clear statements from our Lord about loving our neighbors, even our enemies. Though this does not mean that we should be anything less than vigilant with regard to radical Islamic movements and people (for reasons of security) it also does not mean that we should oppose Islamic movements, people or their laws. It is this last idea (Muslim laws) that I write about today.

Make no mistake about this–there is a strong anti-Sharia movement in the United States. This movement had led to 22 state legislatures having either passed or considered bills to prohibit judges from considering Sharia law, or any foreign laws, in their decision making. But since 2011 numerous bills have either died or been withdrawn in states. This prompted Omar Sacirbey, of Religion News Service, to suggest that the anti-Sharia movement may have "lost its momentum." I hope so. 

Take Oklahoma as one example. In 2011 voters passed an amendment to the state constitution that prohibited judges from considering foreign laws, including all religious laws, in their decision making. Two federal courts have since ruled that this amendment is unconstitutional, forcing lawmakers to revise the law. A new bill passed the state House in 2011 but the Senate Rules Committee did not hear the bill until recently and the Rules Committee voted it down 9-6. In Minnesota and New Jersey anti-Muslim bills were withdrawn after various expressions of protest. One Republican legislator in New Jersey, Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi, said that her bill was never meant to be an anti-Sharia law bill, bur rather an "anti-foreign law" measure. She withdrew it on March 12 saying, "After sitting down with members of the Muslim community, and taking into consideration everything they'd been through in the last few weeks, I didn't want to create any more tension." It pays to sit down and listen. 

In New Jersey Muslims rallied against a surveillance program specifically aimed at Muslim businesses and community centers in Newark. They also spoke out against actions of the NYPD. In both cases their voices were heard and steps were taken to correct abuses. 

One online newsletter recently reported that similar bills have recently died in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi and New Mexico. A few could be revived next year but the trends are moving in the other direction for now. Only four states have actually passed such bills: Tennessee, Louisiana, Arizona and South Dakota. At this moment anti-foreign law bills are alive in 12 states altogether. So the movement is anything but dead. 

A recent poll shows that the number of Americans who believe Muslims want to impose Sharia on all Americans is now only 14%, down from 30% in the same poll last September (Public Research Institute). 

Why should anti-Sharia laws be opposed in America?

1. They are plainly discriminatory against Muslims. Our nation has rightly eschewed such forms of religious discrimination, especially over the last fifty years. 

2. This movement, and the passage of anti-Sharia laws, could adversely affect other religious groups such as Jews and Catholics, both of whom have religious laws that have been used by judges for many years to decide family or property disputes.

3. These anti-Sharia laws discourage businesses by invalidating foreign laws altogether.

These bills target Muslim communities at a time of deep national tension about the proper role of Islam in America. Muslim laws are seen by some as a menace to American freedoms. Behind these responses you can often find a veiled expression of xenophobia as well as a bad legal precedent that violates the practice and religious beliefs of minorities. In the light of what I wrote yesterday about our courts I believe that it will only be time until the Supreme Court will hear a direct challenge to such a state law. I think it is likely that they would strike down such a law as a clear violation of the First Amendment rights of Muslims.

Opposing anti-Sharia laws is important to a healthy democracy and to the proper understanding of the role of church and state in America. Informed Christians should promote the defeat of this kind of legislation on the grounds of religious freedom, a freedom that if threatened in one area can be threatened in another at some future point. We need to remain vigilant about our religious rights. This includes the rights of our Muslim neighbors. At its core this is what makes America unique from France, Germany and most other nations in the West. We do not promote religion through the state nor do we use the state to hinder religious practice so long as the rights of others are not violated. 

 

The Constant Struggle for a Proper Understanding of the Separation of Church and State

A growing number of Americans, according to a recent Pew Research Center poll, say that mixing religion in politics makes them uneasy. In 2010 29% said that there was too much religious talk from those in political office. 37% said there was too little. In both the 2010 and 2012 polls 25% said the amount was just about right. The numbers are almost reversed in a March 2012 survey. 38% now say that the mixture of religion with politics is too high and 30% said it was too little. 

There are several ways to read this data. One obvious response is to recognize the obvious. We are in an election year during which some Republicans made religion a central part of their rhetoric during the primaries. I honestly expect this to tone down quite a bit during the general election between Governor Romney and President Obama. Both seem far more moderate and less likely to continually engage in religous talk as part of their political agenda. 

But I have a bit different take on this data. My view is shared by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty’s executive director, J. Brent Walker, when he says “that while you cannot divorce religion from politics, it is encouraging that a growing number of Americans are seeing the pitfalls that come with an overuse or misuse of religion for political purposes.”

When campaigns make overt appeals based on religion there is a much great danger of stereotyping, bias and even overt religious prejudice. Walker is right when he says that “this threatens the liberty of everyone’s religious freedom.” 

In the same Pew Survey 54% of Americans said the church should stay out of politics while 40% thought churches should openly express views on social and political questions. 

This number is more difficult to assess, at least for me. I believe the church should engage in public theology, which has to include instructing faithful members about moral and social issues that impact life and freedom. What is clear is that with the exception of white evangelical Protestants most Christians say the church should stay out of political matters. 

Legally pastors and church leaders are free to interpret and apply the Scripture to moral issues and public matters. The great ethical issues of our time require such teaching if pastors and leaders are to be faithful Christian servants. But does this mean a pastor, or church, should endorse a party, a candidate or a ballot measure as part of its public mission? I think not. I believe the church should teach biblical principles, explain ethical stances and conclusions and, almost always, avoid engaging in partisan politics as a part of public work. We must avoid two extremes. On the one hand we should avoid the church being a “special interest group” for a candidate or party. On the other we must not make the implications of the gospel entirely interior and thus strictly private matters. If this approach was correct then the Civil Rights Movement would never have succeeded. Think about the loss to our culture if Christians had not talked openly about injustice and human rights.

I have occasionally suggested, in blogs written on this site over the last decade, that pastors should not be politicians. I believe Abraham Kuyper understood this correctly when he ran for the Parliament in Holland in the 19th century. Kuyper gave up his ordination and left his role as a minister of the gospel in the church. He believe the two spheres should not be mixed or a hopeless confusion would be created. I believe he was correct. Eventually Kuyper became Prime Minister. For the same reason the Catholic Church requires a priest to surrender his ministry in order to enter elected office. I wish evangelicals would heed such wisdom. If a minister wants to be a politician well and good. Just make it clear that this calling (vocation) is not the same as that of a gospel minister. It seems to me that this is more needed now than ever. 

 

The Contraception Coverage Debate

I have tried to get my mind around the current debate over contraception and the freedom of religion in America. In my opinion this is not easy to do. I admire the Catholic bishops deeply and share their concerns in general. But I also see other factors at work in this controversy that are seemingly missed in the heat of this debate. 

What I do know is that the Obama administration made a huge miscalculation in its initial proposal, a proposal which clearly required Christians to violate their conscience. What I am not as sure about is the present compromise and where it will lead. The White House, if I am understanding their stance correctly, has granted a year to faith groups to find a way to comply with mandated health insurance that does not cover contraception. Report from the Capital (Baptist Joint Committee) says that "The White House has privately assured religious leaders--especially those who head the Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies most affected by the employer mandate--that President Obama will be directly involved in efforts to find a workaround that would satisfy their concerns" (February 2012). 

Is it possible to reconcile the contraception mandate with the conscience and practice of faith-based employers? This is still unclear to me. What is very clear is that faith-based groups, especially Catholic groups, have mounted a serious fight to defeat the new Obama rules. According to Report from the Capital the administration is hoping to develop a system like the one already used in Hawaii. This system, used in several states, mandates birth control coverage but mitigates it through a complex process that tries to accommodate religious employers. It is this claim that I have not studied fully and thus do not completely understand. In the present environment it is hard to get a good answer about this question since the whole debate has gone viral and become deeply political. 

Baptist Joint Committee Executive Director Brent Walker, who is clearly not a voice from the politically conservative side in this debate, says this exemption, while important, "is insufficient and should be broadened" (Report from the Capital). He adds, "At the same time, the exemption need not deprive anyone of health care coverage. The exemption could carry a duty of full disclosure by the employer as well as an obligation to help employees who want contraceptive coverage to get it elsewhere at a reasonable cost."

It thus seems reasonable to me to think that this administration hopes that this one year period will allow the heat over this issue to die down until after the election. Have they understood the issue or are they simply committed to pushing their universal coverage so far that they are actually willing to threaten our cherished religious freedom? Galen Carey of the National Association of Evangelicals thinks the answer is yes. He says, "No government has the right to compel its citizens to violate their conscience." He calls this direction a "dangerous precedent." 

While many religious conservatives have lumped a number of issues with this new one (same-sex marriage and gay rights in particular) the contraception decision deeply disappoints some progressive Catholic allies of the Obama administration who have regularly supported him on many other social issues. Concludes the Report from the Capital, "Those Catholics, like other Christians in the progressive camp, had expected the administration would expand the exemption." 

This report is non-political, which makes me believe this issue really is touching religious freedom, a cherish freedom that we cannot afford to compromise regardless of our views on contraception. While I do not think the Obama White House is openly determined to oppose religious freedom this decision does not appear to be crafted in a way that has a strong enough commitment to this vital American right. This is why I remain troubled but cautious. I am troubled, not by the rhetoric I hear but by the reality of some fuzzy thinking that is sending terribly mixed signals. Yet I am also cautious because I do not like the fact that this has become another bomb to throw in an election year. We already have enough political bombs lying around for one election year, at least for my personal taste. 

Civil Religion, Prayer & Our Future Mission

America has had more than its share of court cases and challenges regarding prayer in our public schools. I can actually mark stages of my developing memory about growing up in America by these various challenges and debates. I remember, very vividly, when the Supreme Court first ruled on separation challenges regarding opening the day with prayer in our schools. I remember how Christians vehemently protested and spoke against the "evil" Warren Court for years. I also remember the hatred so many had for Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the flamboyant atheist who crusaded against "state-sponsored" prayers for years. I remember how Ronald Reagan made this a big emotional issue in his campaign for the White House in 1980. Many said that the day God turned against America was the same day that "we kicked him out of our public schools." This decision took on apocalyptic overtones. I still meet a few folks who believe this story with deep conviction. I also remember that Reagan was unable to do much about changing the court's decision. The truth is that nothing has happened since to fundamentally alter these movements and court decisions begun in the 1950s. 

Now we have another hotly-debated court case about prayer in our schools in the headlines. Jessica Ahlquist, an atheist high school student in Rhode Island, was recently part of a successful lawsuit to remove a longstanding printed prayer on the wall of her school auditorium. The response to Jessica has been nothing short of amazing. She has been threatened on-line and ostracized at school. She has stood before angry crowds of parents who have attacked her for her public stand. It has gotten so bad that Jessica needs police protection at school. 

What should Christians think and do about this situation?

First, it would help if we had a much better grasp of the legal and Constitutional issues. Jessica is arguing for freedom of religion from the state, but in a way that appears to many to be an attack on religion. In fact I think the decision underscores the protection that our state gives to all religious expression. As we become even more religiously diverse I believe this reality will be more important to serious Christians. Let me explain.

What is being challenged here? A prayer posted on a wall asking for mental and physical growth, for kindness and good sportsmanship and for students to bring credit to their high school. It is, in simple terms, a rather innocuous prayer. It is not, to put this plainly, a deeply Christian, Christ-centered expression of faithful belief and practice. It is an expression of civil religion. It is a relic of our culture, a culture that is rapidly changing. 

Do we believe that it is the role of the state to be the custodian of our faith in some public way? If you want to trace this argument go back to Emperor Constantine, where Christianity was granted official state protection and wedded to the state in a manner that gave it preference over Roman deities. The results of this marriage have been, at best, very mixed. Religious wars and major shifts in cultures have resulted from this arrangement. In America we separated church and state, primarily to protect the church from the state. Over the course of 225-plus years we have been working out what this actually looks like in a society that was predominantly Christian, at least in a cultural sense. When the state sponsors or supports any expression of faith, Christian or otherwise, what we get is civil religion. Why do we fight so hard to protect this form of civil religion when the clear facts are that it is not working as it once did? Further, is civil religion really the friend of vibrant, prophetic, radical discipleship in public? I think not. 

But the more intriguing question in the Jessica Ahlquist story is what Christians are actually doing, or not doing, in regards to this student? Those who are attacking this girl call themselves Christians. (The town is heavily Roman Catholic.) As these citizens embrace their expression of civil religion they show just how meaningless and misguided this approach is by their daily actions. 

Think about this for a minute. If the parents and students at this school want to defend biblical Christianity they should pour out true love for Jessica. They should stand by her in this very difficult time. This girl, who needs police protection at her high school, cannot even receive flowers from well-wishers who have tried to send them through her from local florists. Jessica is a neighbor but she has been turned into an enemy. Nothing could be further from the clear commands of Jesus.

What is being confirmed in the minds of millions who watch this story unfold? I believe many will draw the conclusion that Christianity is about power and getting our way. Rather than being about love for neighbor it is really about meaningless, divisive speech, a form of speech that further reduces the church's power to spread the good news. Through the actions of people in Rhode Island, and far beyond, multitudes show that faith is more about a prayer on a school wall than about a suffering girl who is threatened and vilified.

In microcosm this story reflects what is going on in our culture. Civil religion is still very strong, make no mistake about that. But brick-by-brick this cultural house is coming down. It seems to me that we have several ways we can respond. One is to fight these battles through protest and partisan political struggles. (Christians invest millions of hours and dollars in these efforts!) Another response is to work for a new public square where all religions have their place. In this context Christians can use this public square to openly witness to the love of Christ through words and actions that are consistent with a robust missional faith. We can even share the gospel. This is what my son's mission, Crossroads Kids Club, is doing inside public school buildings every week. (Most Christians protest taking a prayer off the wall of the school yet they care very little about sharing the story of Christ's love with the kids inside the schools when you actually show them that it is both legal and easy for a local church to do!) 

So which will it be? Will we accept what has happened to civil religion and adjust to this new reality of a plurality of faiths in America? Will we go inward and be silent or simply protest these decisions of the courts? Or will we love the Jessica Alhquists of the world and show them how much God actually loves them through our words and actions? Will we actually adopt a missional mindset that is in line with what Jesus taught and use the freedom of religion that we still have in this great country to make disciples of Jesus? 

A Canadian Leader Who Models Christian Grace in Leadership

A Canadian Christian friend recently introduced me to the head of state in his province by sharing an email link. I thus learned about a remarkable politician named Brad Wall. Wall was elected Premier of Saskatchewan in the November 2007 provincial election. 

Since that election, the Wall's leadership of the government can point to a remarkable list of achievements, including;  

- Three balanced budgets; 
- The largest tax cuts in the history of Saskatchewan; 
- Cutting the province's debt by almost 40 per cent; 
- Record infrastructure spending to improve roads, schools and senior's facilities all across Saskatchewan and providing more affordable housing for those with lower incomes.

Prior to his career in politics, Premier Wall was active in his local business community and was involved in service work spanning local events, economic development and health care recruitment.

One of his earliest forays into politics was in the late 1980's as a founding member and western co-chair of the Alliance for the Future of Young Canadians. This was an organization dedicated to promoting free trade.

Brad Wall was born and raised in Swift Current, which is in Saskatchewan's south-west.  He still lives there with his wife, Tami as well as their three children: Megan, Colter and Faith.  And because of them, he tries to get home most nights, even though it's a two hour drive from Saskatchewan's capital-Regina.  He also enjoys coaching minor football in his hometown.

Here is the premier's Christmas greetings to his people. This is an amazing balance of faith and leadership in a time when we are learning how to live in the public sector where Christendom no longer dominates the culture. God bless Premier Wall.  

 

An Inevitable Clash of Human Rights?

The most basic of all human rights, hammered out for millennia, is the right of religious freedom. I have often said that this is America’s greatest single contribution to civilization. Here what you believe is permitted and you can practice your personal faith without state interference, so long as no one else’s rights are harmed by your practice.

There is a fierce debate going on now about civil unions and same-sex marriage. Personally I have no doubt that same-sex marriage will eventually become the norm. It already is the norm in some states and over time I believe that it will be law in the majority of states. It will then become the law of the nation. On one side people argue that their right to free expression is hindered by our present laws while on the other people believe a fundamental building block of a moral and decent society is at stake.

My deepest concern in this debate has been growing for some time and it is not a concern over where we will end up defining marriage. In the end how the state actually defines marriage should not be a primary concern for Christians. (Note: I said “primary” concern!) Ancient Rome defined marriage and the early church clearly had very different ideas about sex and marriage. The early church not only survived but eventually it thrived!

My concern in this debate is about religious freedom, our most basic Constitutional right. Why does this concern me?

A recent example in Illinois serves to make my point. The governor informed a number of diocesan Catholic Charities that the state would not renew its foster care and adoption contracts with them starting in fiscal 2012 because their policy on not placing children with unmarried couples allegedly violates a new state civil unions law.

Now the ironies of this challenge are quite considerable. First, Governor Patrick Quinn is a Mass-attending Catholic. As such he is going head-to-head with Illinois bishops and Catholic social agencies. Second, the Illinois bill that created same-sex civil unions is called the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act. Third, proponents of the law explicitly denied the critics’ claims that this type of impact would come to bear on adoption agencies run by religious groups who disagree with the law.

New York provides a similar example with its same-sex marriage law. Before the law went into effect the New York Times editorialized about the “discriminatory intent” of the law’s provision that “allows tax-exempt charities to refuse to marry a same-sex couple or to allow the use of their buildings or services for weddings or wedding parties.”

This all means exactly what the words say. Many proponents of same-sex marriage are not satisfied to get the law changed about marriage. They want to remove the religious freedom churches have previously enjoyed to follow conscience and not the state. The editorial board of the NY Times clearly wants Catholic priests to marry same-sex couples or face the consequences.

What are the consequences? Right now they might seem almost inconsequential but the first line of attack is on Catholic social services. The same has already happened with regard to abortion and now it is happening with regard to same-sex reforms.

Are all advocates of same-sex marriage committed to forcing the church (legally) to conform to their views? Not at all. I think, in fact, it is only a minority at this point. But unless we gain clear evidence of respect for religious freedom the minority will become a cultural majority over time. Mine is not a far-right plea from the hinterlands. This is what is really happening. We had better defend the religious rights of all or the day will come when none of us will have them.

The solution is for Christians to join with non-Christians who are reasonable, and understand our system of laws, and to fight together for principles of democracy and tolerance that the church and our fiercest critics all know is right. This is not a Christian issue, per se, it is an issue of freedom for all who want to practice their faith in public, not just in their hearts. If we lose this freedom we will lose the greatest freedom our nation affords to us. This is why we must stand with every faith and allow all to express their faith as they see fit.

Are We a Christian Nation? Does It Matter?

A significant debate exists among historians and popularizing pundits about the religious origins of America and the religious views of her founding fathers. Some assert that America was a "Christian nation" from the beginning. Others point to the broad deism of prominent founders such as Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison to suggest that the philosophical views of the Enlightenment provided the primary basis for the Founders’ convictions. I have always felt the truth was not at the extremes. America was deeply influenced by Christians but the founders clearly never intended to create a Christian nation. Read the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Christ is not mentioned, nor the church of Christ. Most of the states favored one church over another but this was not the real issue either, at least not at that time. The founders were clearly thinking as far forward as possible. I doubt that they had any idea of the various religious competitors with the Christian faith that would arise centuries later; e.g. Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, etc.

For this reason I have always found references to our “Judeo-Christian” roots as disingenuous. Jews were not a part of our founding and only much later were they welcomed and accepted, especially because of impact of Reform Judaism. In some ways the Jews had to prove that they were good Americans before they were widely accepted. Even Catholics were denied basic rights at the founding of most states. Massachusetts gave them the franchise in 1833! They too had to prove their loyalty to the nation in much the same way that we are now asking Muslims to do. 

Cherie Harder, president of the evangelical Trinity Forum, adds: “Whatever the current ideological and historical divides between evangelicals and skeptics, one of the most interesting aspects of the founding was the unusual alliance between them – which ultimately ushered in the religious liberty we now expect as an intrinsic human right.” She is spot on in her observation.

Most of the original colonies had established a state church (generally Anglican or Presbyterian, though Maryland came along a little later to be a Catholic state) which, in some cases, eagerly prosecuted - and sometimes persecuted – denominations such as the Baptists and the Quakers. (The Quakers found a home in Pennsylvania and the Baptists in Rhode Island.) These minority Christian groups harbored no hopes for dominance in the new land. They did advocate for the freedom to worship as they believed. By this means they made strange bedfellows in their common cause for religious freedom with the deists and Unitarians of their time. All of them opposed the civil authority of established churches (the Christian "power centers" in the culture) to secure the full freedom of religious expression. They saw, in the Bill of Rights, that this freedom should be unhindered by the privileging of one denomination over another. They interpreted Jefferson’s famous statement about “a wall of separation” in a way that favored the view that the state had no interest in supporting and favoring the church, any church or religion, in particular or in general.

Professor Thomas S. Kidd, in his magisterial work God of Liberty, writes:

The evangelicals wanted disestablishment so they could freely preach the gospel; the rationalists and deists wanted disestablishment because they felt an enlightened government should not punish people for their religious views. The combination of the two agendas would transform America, helping make it both intensely religious and religiously free.

Trinity Forum Founder, and evangelical author, Os Guinness has written eloquently about the dangers of both a sacred public square, where religion is established by the state, and “a naked public square,” where faith is hindered or marginalized to private and pietistic expression only. Cherrie Harder is quite right when she says that: “It is worth noting that one of the greatest achievements of the founding – the securing of religious freedom and disestablishment of religion – came about precisely because it was in the best interest of both the faithful and the skeptical to ensure that the public square neither privileged nor penalized the practice of faith, but secured the freedom to think, speak, and worship publicly, as well as privately.”

What we had in America’s origins was a strong and unusual alliance between people of deep Christian faith as well as doubters and Deists. This is why Jefferson and Franklin had close association, in this regard, with groups like the Baptists. Today we still have both sides present in our constant cultural battles between those who would marginalize or banish faith from the public square and those who assert the cultural predominance of a "Christian America." The truth, in this instance, is not at the extremes of this debate. It is in the middle where it was in the Founders. These men worked to give us an incredible blessing. Can we keep it and use it well? Their gift was a nation where the most devout Christians, the most faithful Muslims and the most obnoxious atheists may live with the same freedom to propagate their beliefs without interference by the state.

The so-called Christian Right, and the older and more liberal Christian Left, both seem to miss the real genius of our system and how it works for our overall good. This is a free land where religion can and should play a role in public life without the interference and support of the state in the process. And it is a land where a plurality of faiths is not only tolerated but encouraged so far as the state is concerned. If you are a Christian you should thank God for this amazing gift. Personally, I think it is America’s greatest gift to her people and, for that matter, to the whole world. I think this gift is continually threatened by people of many faiths who seek to use the state for their religious goals, good or bad. This is why religious zeal, on every side, disturbs me when it directly enters the realm of the state.

God in America: A Series Worth Your Time

The PBS television series God in America was aired in 2010. I did not see it when it was aired on television. I finally saw it last week on DVD. It is simply superb. The series consists of six parts, each about 55 minutes long when the various trailers and ads are skipped. The subtitle is very accurate: “How Religious Liberty Shaped America.”

The series, which features both actors who are cast in bit roles as famous American figures and scholars who teach about various issues in the history of religious history, sets out to give the viewer an accurate account of religious liberty in America. How has religious liberty been used, abused and developed over the past four centuries plus? Religion professor Stephen Prothero (photo) is clearly the most frequent voice in all six episodes but shorter appearances include well-known evangelicals such as Grant Wacker, Harry Stout and Mark Noll. Randall Balmer, who grew up in an evangelical background, also has a prominent role in several of the episodes relating to the twentieth century. The bottom line is that religion matters deeply in America and this series will actually show you why. Indeed, religion matters in America more than anywhere else on the planet.

For the first time on television, God in America explores the four centuries old intersection of religion and public life in America, from the first European settlements to the 2008 presidential election. The series examines how religious dissidents helped shape the American concept of religious liberty and the controversial evolution of that ideal in the nation's courts and political arena; how religious freedom and waves of new immigrants and religious revivals fueled competition in the religious marketplace; how movements for social reform--from abolition to civil rights--galvanized men and women to put their faith into political action; and how religious faith influenced conflicts from the American Revolution to the Cold War.

Interweaving documentary footage, historical dramatization and interviews with religious historians, the six-part series is narrated by actor Campbell Scott. Executive producer Michael Sullivan says, "The American story cannot be fully understood without understanding the country's religious history. By examining that history, God in America will offer viewers a fresh, revealing and challenging portrait of the country."

The series explores various themes through emblematic stories of our religious history. It uses the political and spiritual journeys of some of America’s most important historical figures to do this. Some of these are well known; e.g. Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, Jr., and John Winthrop. Some are less well know; e.g. Reform Rabbi Isaac Meyer Wise, Presbyterian scholar Charles Briggs, Frederick Douglass, Anne Hutchison and the Pueblo leader Po’pay.

What is the role that religion has played in social reform in America? This series offers us the finest documentary available on this question. What role has religion played in politics, especially since World War II? Again, this series is as good (and as fair) as anything I have seen.

Let me give you one example. Following World War II America, especially under the influence of President Dwight Eisenhower, adopted strong civil religion as a means for fighting against “godless communism” and the Soviet Union in the Cold War era. In the 1950s we added God to our coins and to our pledge of allegiance. But in the same decade the first attempts to remove overt teaching about God and faith in the public schools also began. I believe the fifth episode (“The Soul of a Nation”) of this series is simply the best presentation of these oft-misunderstood matters that I’ve ever watched. I would urge churches and small groups to see the last two episodes if you want to understand the complicated issue of church and state separation, an issue badly misunderstood on both sides of our present political divide.

One of the most striking contrasts shown in episodes five and six is the difference between the Moral Majority and the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King, Jr. stands out as a prophet of righteousness who appealed to faith while he sought to bring justice through our legal system. At the same time MLK refused to be “used” by political leaders, as in his opposition to LBJ when Johnson felt he would not support him as he should with regard to the Vietnam War. King handled power with great caution.

On the other hand the leaders of the Moral Majority desired to elect a president and sought to remain close to government’s power (Reagan and later Bush). Their goal was to overtly control the outcome of issues that mattered to them. many of which had little to do with righteousness. If you’ve ever wondered about the right way to bring the claims of Christ to bear on a civil society then these two episodes will provide plenty of helpful insight for great discussion and fruitful response.

Most Americans have little or no appreciation for the delicate balance that we’ve experienced when it comes to the way church and state relate to one another in our constitutional republic. This  series will show you how our thinking and practice has developed over the course of our long history. It will also prepare you for some of the new challenges that we face as newer (non-Judeo Christian) religions move into the civic arena of our shared national life.

There are some minor mistakes in the series but this is not entirely surprising. For example, in the first episode the Puritans and Pilgrims are treated as if they are one and the same. And there are notable absences in the story, such as that of the Mormons. But the official Web site will tell you a great deal about how certain decisions were made regarding what to include and what to leave out.

You can actually watch the entire six-part series online. It would be well worth your time. You can also buy, rent or borrow DVDs. I got mine, as always, from my public library. A plethora of online resources will also help discussion and interaction with the series.

The Judge Who Ruled Against the National Day of Prayer

Thursday, May 6, was the National Day of Prayer, an event that has been celebrated in America since 1988. Earlier versions of the same idea of national prayer go back to the early history of the nation and eventually gained momentum during the Civil War when President Abraham Lincoln signed a Congressional resolution on March 3, 1863, which called for a day of fasting and prayer during the Civil War.

On April 17, 1952, a bill proclaiming an annual National Day of Prayer (NDP) was unanimously passed by both houses of congress. President Truman signed this bill into law. It required the President to select a day for national prayer each year. In 1972 The National Prayer Committee was created, an evangelical Christian organization. The National Day of Prayer Task Force, which now has a major role in the NDP, has become a major project of that committee. In 1988 a bill was introduced in Congress which fixed the annual NDP at the first Thursday in May, thus Thursday, May 6 this year. This bill, Senate Bill 1378, was introduced by Strom Thurmond (R-SC). A matching House version was initiated by Tony Hall, (D-OH). It received broad bipartisan sponsorship and support, and thus became Public Law 100-307. It was signed into law by President Reagan on May 5, 1988. The President commented: "On our National Day of Prayer, then, we join together as people of many faiths to petition God to show us His mercy and His love, to heal our weariness and uphold our hope, that we might live ever mindful of His justice and thankful for His blessing."

This year the White House issued a letter to the nation for the National Day of Prayer. It is worth reading to grasp how broadly defined this law has actually become. With each change of president the application is stretched and altered as the tides shift and move in America.

It all sounds innocent enough but now enter U. S. District Court Judge Barbara Crabb who recently ruled that the National Day of Prayer was unconstitutional. Crabb, a 71-year old veteran of the court, ruled that the law is itself a call to religious action and thus violates the legal separation of church and state. Her logic? The law directs the president to encourage citizens to pray and thus it amounts to a government endorsement of a religious exercise. She wrote that her ruling was not based “on the value of prayer or the millions of Americans who believe in its power.” She reasons that government has no more business encouraging its citizens to pray than to “fast during the month of Ramadan, attend a synagogue, purify themselves in a sweat lodge or practice rune magic.”

She further wrote in her decision:

In fact, it is because the nature of prayer is so personal and can have such a powerful effect on a community that the government may not use its authority to try to influence an individual’s decision on whether and when to pray.

So what will come of Judge Crabb’s ruling? Well, in the face of protest from almost every quarter, including the Congress and the White House, Judge Crabb put the enforcement of her ruling on hold for this year, pending an appeal. This meant that thousands of prayer events went on as planned on Thursday. But advocates for the separation of church and state will not give up on opposing a National Day of Prayer.

I have several responses to this judge and her ruling. Some of them will likely bother almost everyone who reads this post.

1. Judge Crabb is not entirely wrong. She is not a moron, a disgrace or a Marxist because of her ruling, as some have openly charged. There is actual legal precedent for her ruling. Separation does not mean religion has no role in public life but it does mean that government should not favor any particular religion. The question here will increasingly be this: “Should government favor the Christian religion in any meaningful sense?”

This is where the argument gets interesting, or at least it does to me. There can be no real doubt that it was evangelicals who pushed President Reagan to sign the current law mandating a particular date as the National Day of Prayer. Such evangelicals need to understand that there is a fine line between mandating what they desire for the entire nation by law, in terms of a religious event formally embraced by the government, and what they desire will happen in the culture at large. The question here is whether Congress can, or should, make a law mandating the President to support such a specially designated NDP.

What will eventually happen, and already is happening to a large extent, is that this type of event will become more and more pluralistic as our culture becomes more and more religiously diverse. This is all but inevitable. What if we have a President who is not a Christian in any sense of the term and he simply does not wish to support this “Christian” day? Is he violating the law? How sincere, better yet how consistent, is Congress in supporting such a law? And do not tell me this is not “Christian” when it is Christians who promote it, fight for it and debate about it.

2. It has always amazed me that so many Christians seem so oblivious to the simple fact that we can declare any day we want as a national day of prayer for all Christians and we can do this anytime we want to declare it. There is no law stopping us from praying and no law stopping us from doing so publicly and with all other Christians on any day we choose. The issue is whether or not the government should sponsor such a day legally.

3. I believe the higher courts, and maybe the Supreme Court, will eventually rule on this decision. I think they will not support Judge Crabb because this law is rather unlikely to be deemed a clear violation of the establishment clause. But even if the courts upheld Judge Crabb I have to say that I would not lose one bit of sleep about it. The real battle for the souls of men and women is not here and the sooner people realize this the better we all will be as Christians and churches.

I have been saying the same thing for twenty-five years. We decry our national lack of prayer, pass laws mandating it and then still do not pray. Following 9/11 people prayed like never before in the past forty years but within two months they stopped. Every poll I have read supports this observation. And if your church calls a meeting for prayer how many people come? And how long will they pray? Be honest. The problem is not in Washington or in Madison, where Judge Crabb issued her controversial ruling, but inside the church. We simply do not pray as Christians and we do not, on almost every other day of the year, pray with other Christians about much of anything. We can’t event talk to each other with civility in most cases much less learn to prayer together.

4. The reactions to Judge Crabb’s ruling are sad and disgusting, as they always are in these church-state battles. Critics, including some Christians, called Judge Crabb a Marxist, a moron and a disgrace. One person wrote that he was praying God would remove her from office. Another warned that she was headed to hell. (What a surprise, a Christian telling someone they think is liberal that they are going to hell!) GOP Representative Ted Poe of Texas took to the floor of the House to taunt: “What’s next Judge Crabb? You going to ban Thanksgiving and Christmas as national holidays?” I am just glad Congressman Poe does not represent my district.

If you want to get a huge emotional reaction in America then start talking about banning prayer in some public way. People come out of the woodwork screaming, yelling and writing every kind of nonsense under the sun. Most have no comprehension of the intricate debates that we have had about the separation of church and state and why this separation is so unique and so vital to what America is as a nation. In fact, most Christians seem to have very little comprehension of how important this separation is to the work of the real mission of the church. The only disciples I want to see us make in the years ahead are those who freely choose to follow Christ with no support or opposition from the government.

While religious pluralism is growing more and more in the wider culture, and when the number of people who have no use for Christianity is plainly on the rise as well, we should be slow to attempt to rescue the culture by means of government interference. If God moved his people to pray they wouldn’t need government support. They would pray. What I long for, quite personally, is a great outpouring of grace that leads Christians of all sorts to join in prayer and Bible study all across America forming a huge throng of Christians who love one another and care about the missional mandate of Christ as one people. When this happens we just might see the culture actually changed, by changing human hearts through the power of the Holy Spirit. Come to think of it this would happen without any legal support whatsoever.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

What should American Christians do for religious liberty in the world? 70% of the world's population does not enjoy the freedom to worship according to conscience as we know religious freedom in this land. I think, in most cases, this fact alone calls for Christians and non-Christians to work together to impact the world in such a way that people will be truly free to worship as they believe, or to not worship at all. What an army we would be, Christian and atheist, if we worked for this common purpose.

Put very simply we ought to strongly encourage the countries of the world to uphold the principles already set forth in Article XVIII of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the United Nations in 1948)) as the aspirational goal for all of humankind:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

This incredibly simple, but quite powerful, statement should be promoted vigorously and transparently by us and by our government. We should hope and pray that in the coming century we will see a far clearer adoption and practice of this Universal Declaration. As for religious liberty the 20^th century was bleak. Sadly, "freedom of thought, conscience and religion" is not increasing in the modern world. We need to admit that this is true and then prayerfully work to change it if we really care for the oppressed masses, both those who are our brothers and sisters in Christ and those with whom we still wish to share the glorious good news of Christ without resorting to any methods of coercion. If you think Christians have not used coercion think again. Not only have they used it but in some countries they still do. We should decry the violence employed by Muslim countries against those who convert to faith in Christ but we should also decry all Christian oppression in the southern hemisphere as well. While our problem is not as universally obvious as that of Muslims we cannot hide behind a perfect record no matter how we read history or current events.