|
|
A Sermon by Donel McClellan
A Sermon by Donel McClellan
Hot Topics for the Summer #1
Romans 13:107 - Fifth Sunday of Pentecost - July 4, 2004 The question of the relationship
of church and state is in the news daily. Recent and pending decisions by the
United States Supreme Court address this relationship. Both President Bush and
the likely candidate of the Democratic party, John Kerry have been attacked for
their religious views. There are lively controversies over federal funding of
church-run social programs, the influence of church doctrine on issues of
medical care, and the federal government struggles to define which organizations
calling themselves churches are qualified to receive the benefits given to
church bodies. This is a complex and immensely
relevant issue. And, I begin with the confession that I do not know of an
unbiased scholar or pundit or theologian who can clarify the relationship to the
satisfaction of all. So me begin with a statement by
someone whose opinion I have come to value although he frequently challenges my
perspective. He is Dr. Max L. Stackhouse, the Stephen Colwell Professor of
Christian Ethics at Princeton Theological Seminary. Ordained in the United
Church of Christ and having taught for more that thirty years, Max has the
distinction of serving on the editorial boards of The Christian Century,
a liberal theological journal, and First Things a conservative
theological journal. In an email conversation group, Max recently wrote:
I fully embrace the separation of church and state. . . . I do not want my
standing in the church to be determined by my citizenship, or my rights as a
citizen decided by my religious affiliation.
But that does not mean that theology and politics are and must be kept in
sealed containers that do not influence each other.
In fact, it leaves the door open precisely for the ethical implications of
theology to spill into the political realm.
And, of course, it means that some implications of political (economic,
cultural, etc.) life will, and should, shape our theological thinking. Because
both are ultimately . . . in God's hands.
[1] I believe that Max Stackhouse
provides an appropriate context for thinking about this issue. It is a moderate
position which seeks to protect citizens from the imposition of religious
criterion for citizenship, and people of faith from the imposition of political
direction to their religious beliefs. First, lets spend a moment
reflecting on Paul’s advice to the church in Rome. His support of that
government seems to be absolute, arguing that governing authorities could not
exist unless God had established them for a purpose. And, part of that purpose
is to maintain the order of law protecting the good and punishing the bad. So
long as that purpose is being fulfilled, Christians owe their allegiance to the
government in place. Unfortunately, this very passage was used by part of the
German Christian church to support their loyalty to Adolph Hitler and the Third
Reich. The basis of Paul’s argument is
that he believes that God’s primary work in creation was to bring order out of
chaos. For Paul, the Roman government was the most magnificent example of order
the world had ever seen. Roman law, the system of Roman roads, the Roman
military system was amazing. It was the government’s organizing power that
attracted Paul. He had no historical examples of governments more successful
than that of the Roman Empire. So let us take Paul’s view of
the Christian’s responsibility to the state as a starting place. It is a good
thing to support good government. Christians are called to share in civic
responsibilities. Moving from the Bible to the
American experience, let’s recall our history. New England was founded by
Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Baptists and other religious groups including
Anglicans. Except for the Anglicans these Christians groups had left Europe
partly because of religious persecution. England had an established State
Church, the Church of England. The British monarch appointed the head of the
church, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The archbishop, in turn, possessed great
religious, political and economic power. The American patriots did not
forget that the conjunction of religious and political authority did not leave
room for innovation or dissent. When they felt called by God to a new way of
educating themselves in faith, they met persecution which eventually brought
them to New England. These concerns of the earliest
settlers were not lost on those people we consider the founders of our republic.
Nearly one hundred and sixty years later these gentlemen—I fear the influence of
women on the process, although certain, is not well documented— gathered in
Philadelphia on July 1, 1776 on a hot, humid, stormy day. David McCullough, in his
biography of John Adams, provides a glimpse into that historical period. Born
and reared in the Congregational church, Adams became a leader in the new
Unitarian movement of the early 19th century. John Adams was not known as a
great orator and because of his strong opinions, crusty demeanor and critical
attitude, he was liked by few but respected by nearly everyone. On this day,
Adams spoke to the delegates of the Continental Congress logically, clearly and
carefully. Later, he recollected his own
words.
Objects of the most stupendous magnitude, measures in which the lives and
liberties of millions, born and unborn, are most essentially interested, are now
before us. We are in the very midst of revolution, the most complete,
unexpected, and remarkable of any in the history of the world. Near the end of his speech the
two New Jersey delegates, Frances Hopkinson and the Rev. John Witherspoon
arrived. Witherspoon, a Presbyterian minister was the only clergy member of the
congress. He was president of the College of New Jersey, now Princeton. These
gentlemen asked Adams to repeat his speech. Adams tried to refuse as he didn’t
fancy himself as an orator, but the other delegates were insistent and the hour
long address was repeated. At its conclusion the debate
continued for nine hours. At the end of the evening, nine colonies indicated
that they would support independence from Great Britain. The Congress adjourned
and, it is said, that at the City Tavern where the delegates were lodged,
conversations continued late into the night . The next morning, July 2, the
Congress reconvened and with a storm raging outside, a vote was taken and no
colonies opposed it. The colonies had declared their independence. David McCullogh comments:
It was John Adams, more than anyone, who made it happen. Further, he seems
to have understood more clearly than any what a momentous day it was and in the
privacy of two long letters to Abigail, he poured out his feelings as did no one
else. Adams wrote to his wife:
The second day of July 1776 will be the most memorable epoch in the
history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding
generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as
the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to
be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells,
bonfires and illumination from one end of this continent to the other from this
time forward forever more.
[2] However, even then, politics
took time and it wasn’t for another two days that the Declaration of
Independence was completed. They argued over every word and Thomas Jefferson
managed to add the lines we remember best:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that
among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure
these rights, governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers
from the consent of the governed. On July 4th the
Congress voted for a final time and then lined up to affix their signatures to
the revolutionary document and sent it out. None of these American patriots
were perfect people. In their diversity, they were united by a resistance to the
oppressive rule of Great Britain. They felt betrayed by the King after they had
fought alongside the British army in the French and Indian War to protect the
land claims of the empire. Because they felt that they were not being accorded
the rights of citizens of Britain they dreamed of a more just and equitable
union. Following the conclusion of the
Revolutionary War, General George Washington was elected president of the
Constitutional Convention. Our constitution is a clear and rather brief
document—the constitution of this church is longer. As soon as it was completed
it was attacked for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against
tyranny. Patrick Henry asked the
Virginia convention,
What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing,
chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances? Richard Henry Lee despaired at
the lack of provisions to protect:
those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist. A list of seventeen amendments
were proposed which the Congress reduced to twelve. These were circulated to the
Colonies and by December 15, 1791 three-fourths of the new states had ratified
the 10 amendments we know as our Bill of Rights. The first amendment is most
relevant to us today:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
government for a redress of grievances. I believe that it quite clear by
the simple wording that the intention of the amendment is to protect the church
from the state and not to protect the state from the church. There is no mention of the
separation of church and state in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That
concept is traced to a letter by Thomas Jefferson to A Baptist Association in
Danbury, Connecticut on Jan. 1, 1802. The Baptists had congratulated him on his
election as President. In response Jefferson wrote:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man
& his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that
the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I
contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which
declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of
separation between Church & State.
[3] To use the language of the
church, this image of a Wall of Separation has become gospel. In 1878,
The Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States established the phrase by
declaring that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration
of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment. In 1948, the high court claimed
that, in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of
religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and
state That case forbade religious instruction in public schools, and
provided the appearance that the court had used Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as a
sword to sever religion from public life. The debate about the proper
relationship of church and state has nothing to do with patriotism, or loyalty
to our nation. It has everything to do with the right of religious people to
hold that all of creation, church, state, nature and humanity are ultimately in
God’s hands, and are responsible to God. How shall we resolve this
question of the proper role of church and state in our lives today?
$ I do not wish
the state to restrict my freedom to worship as I choose
$ I wish to
conduct sacraments and blessings as my church prefers
$ I wish to be
free of narrow religious based laws which limit my medical options in hospitals,
restrict research into possible cures for diseases, or limit the options of
women to choose their best path when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy.
$ On the other
hand I do not welcome any church using its narrow apocalyptic religious
persuasion to shape foreign policy or guide national defense.
$ I don’t want
one religious group to impose its idealized images of family and sexuality upon
the law of the land
$ I do not want
to establish one portion of one religion as the defining voice for our nations
values or claiming, themselves, to represent the history of our diverse
religious nation. I seek a relationship of church
and state where each may influence the other by the virtue of their actions and
the intelligence of their vision, a relationship in which diversity is respected
both in the political and ecclesiastical realms, a relationship which moves
beyond the division of people into them and us. And next Sunday I will attempt
to speak to some of these concerns.
[1].
Max Stackhouse, note to Confessing Christ Discussion Group sent Mon
5/24/2004 1:06 PM
[2]. David
McCullough, John Adams, pp. 126-131, quoted John M. Buchanan,
Pastor, Fourth Presbyterian Church of Chicago in his sermon, The
Great Reversal 3. Free... To Be a Slave, July 1, 2001 |