The Smithsonian: America's True History of Religious Tolerance
"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries." James Madison, Fourth President of the United States and The Father of the American Constitution.
The Most Misquoted Verse in the Bible, 2 Chronicles 7:14
...if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land."
When I hear this verse quoted in a sermon or a conversation, by itself, without any indication of the context in which it is found, it automatically generates a red flag warning that it will be misinterpreted and incorrectly applied. It does have meaning and purpose, and it can be used as an illustration of a doctrinal point, but it does not have a literal application other than the context in which it was originally given.
It is most frequently used by those who don't make any distinctions between their Christian faith and their right wing politics, usually conservative Evangelicals, to claim that if all Christians would just believe the same things, and specifically, vote the same way on the issues in their tightly wrapped-up social agenda, then God will "heal our land", meaning the United States, of the problems that keep us from gaining his blessing. It is treated as a generally applicable commandment that works for all Christians everywhere, but more specifically, in the United States because we are a "Christian nation" so when the Christians of America, or at least, when the right kind of Christians in America, get it all together, the whole nation benefits from it.
But to interpret this verse in that way is to take it completely out of its historical and theological context. It's a verse, but the verse divisions and notations in the Bible are not part of the original text, and verses cannot be separated from the passage in which they are written or from any of the circumstances under which they were written. The words cannot be twisted to mean something different than the author's intended meaning for their original audience.
This particular verse can't be interpreted as a complete thought, because it is a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence. Any theological or doctrinal conclusion that rests on this verse by itself is in error and is an incorrect interpretation of the scripture. Here's the New Revised Standard Translation rendering of the part of the passage in which it appears:
Then the Lord appeared to Solomon in the night and said, "I have heard your prayer, and I have chosen this place for myself as a house of sacrifice, When I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or command the locusts to devour the land, or send pestilence among my people, if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, pray, seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and forgive their sin and heal their land."
That's from 2 Chronicles 7, starting with verse 12. It is God's answer to Solomon's prayer following the consecration of the temple in Jerusalem, which had just been completed. "My people" means the nation of Israel, which was a theocracy, a people according to the Old Testament who were chosen and set aside for the larger purpose of revealing God's existence, power, and his redemption of humanity from its sin through the Messiah promised as far back as Adam and Eve in Genesis.
The context of "God's people" in the new covenant, for his redemptive purpose, is not a theocratic nation, but the church, drawn from people of all nationalities and ethnicities, a spiritual body, not a political state. It's "land" is the common ground of spiritual unity that includes belief in Jesus as the Christ, and both a local and universal body made up of all of those who believe. There's no place in the Bible where any other political unit or nation was ever offered the theocratic rule that Israel claimed through the Abrahamic Covenant.
Political Conversion is not Christian Conversion
From its early beginnings up to the time of Constantine, even though it endured merciless and severe persecution at the hands of the Roman emperors, the Christian church enjoyed what was one of its greatest periods of evangelism and grew to become the largest, most influential religious group in the Empire. But, once its influence reached into the political center of Roman rule, and converting to Christianity became a political act rather than an act of spiritual conviction, the whole nature of the church changed.
Becoming a Christian is a matter of spiritual conviction, recognizing those things in one's life that separate them from God's holiness, repentance, and the acceptance of Jesus' messianic sacrifice for the forgiveness of sin and restoration to God. A "nation" cannot convert to Christianity. Only individuals can do this. And it is the collective group of those who have converted who make up local bodies known as churches, and the universal but invisible spiritual body made up of all individuals who have had a conversion experience, the church.
It is possible for a nation in which a majority of the population has converted to Christianity to be influenced by the values, morals and principles of the Christian faith, which are those characteristics that result from the conversion experience itself. There are multiple lists of these characteristics and values in the Bible, the most prominent one being the Beatitudes at the beginning of Matthew 5. But they do not include promoting the growth of the church by forced conversion, passing laws requiring all citizens to be members of the predominant faith group, burning at the stake people whose confession dissents from the error of the state appointed bishops and church leaders, going to war to subjugate the people of a country that are not Christian, or, in later church history, the bloody wars fought between Catholics and Protestants.
The law can require citizens to be members of a church, but if they are not genuinely converted to true Christian faith, then you have churches full of members who aren't Christians. And the fact of the matter is that all of that, throughout history, has been much more detrimental to Christian evangelism than it has been in promoting it.
A Free Church in a Free State
Now who will harm you if you are eager to do what is good? But even if you do suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear and do not be intimidated, but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an account of the hope that is within you, yet do it with gentleness and reverence. Keep your conscience clear so that when you are maligned, those who abuse you for your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame. I Peter 3:13-16, NRSV
There is no instruction, mandate, or even guidance, anywhere in the Christian gospel that even suggests that the church be linked to the civil government as a means of converting people to Christian faith. That produces a pseudo-Christianity, with practice regulated by law, but completely void of the spiritual life that is the essence of the faith. The Reformation was an attempt, after centuries of institutional emptiness, to restore the church's spiritual life, but it fell short in many ways, though it did open a narrow door to the establishment and existence of confessional groups that benefitted from the influences of the Enlightenment as religious liberty began to develop.
James Madison, the father of the American Constitution, pointed out that government sanction of religion was a threat to the religion. His observation included Baptists in Virginia, who were persecuted and arrested for preaching illegal sermons not permitted by the established state church, and he noted that "this religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them."
Thomas Jefferson held similar views. As governor of Virginia, Jefferson drafted a religious liberty bill for all citizens of the state, saying, "It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Jefferson defined American constitutional religious liberty as a "wall of separation" between the church and the state for another group of Baptists, this time from Connecticut, who were on the experiential end of religious persecution in America during its colonial days and beyond.
American Christianity is in Turmoil
Under full religious freedom, Protestant Christianity became an all-pervasive influence in America. The whole idea of America being a "Christian nation" has been rooted in the influence that Protestants have had over cultural institutions including the educational system and the government, over the course of history. It was so pervasive in public education, quite in violation of the establishment clause, that the Catholic church set up its own parish school system to try and stop their children from being converted to Protestant faiths in their public school classrooms.
In recent years, courts have pulled back on a lot of the privilege that was extended to Protestant Christians in government and in the public education system. Many Christians, especially Evangelicals, see this pulling back as an "attack" on their beliefs and their churches when, in fact, it is simply due to the recognition that people of other faiths, including Catholics and Jews, were not being extended the same privileges. And that has caused some Christians, especially Evangelicals and those in the Charismatic/Pentecostal movement, to claim that they are experiencing discrimination.
First of all, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that any white, Protestant Christians anywhere in this country have experienced any kind of discrimination of any kind in any government or public institution. There is, in fact, still some privilege being accorded to Christians, on an increasing basis, that citizens, institutions and groups which are not Christian, don't receive. And there is continued erosion of some of the protections that have been put in place in recent years which were the result of increased awareness of church-state separation.
But the increased involvement of the more conservative branches of Protestant Christianity in right wing politics have had some negative consequences. I've observed, for decades, going back to the Jerry Falwell, "Moral Majority" days, the difficulty of attempting to reconcile all-out endorsement and support for a political party based on its position on abortion, while it holds positions on many other social issues and especially an economic policy, that runs counter to Christian principles. And there is the difficulty of supporting politicians who exhibit no understanding of Christian faith at all, and don't know how to articulate a Christian testimony.
President Carter was an Evangelical, a Southern Baptist who openly spoke of his faith and who lived by it. He was sometimes criticized for that, but he never attempted to impose his convictions and beliefs on anyone else, and while he prayed for guidance during his Presidency, attended church regularly and didn't let the Presidency interfere with the practice of his faith, he recognized that he was President for all Americans, not just Christians. Neither of his opponents in elections held the kind of convictions he did, Ford was a member of a liberal, mainline denomination, Reagan didn't have much of a Christian background. Yet Evangelicals supported the Republicans over one of their own.
But the support given to a candidate who built his trademark as a debauched, worldly, God-cursing, womanizing, corrupt, degenerate, spiritual reprobate, with an entourage as corrupt and worldly as he is, without an Evangelical among them including his "spiritual advisor," a prophetess, prosperity gospel preacher, Paula White, is beyond me. It is also beyond many Christians who see this for what it is and are leaving their churches where some members are putting pressure on the leadership to talk about politics and support issues from the pulpit.
Over the past decade, weekly attendance in self-identified Evangelical churches and denominations in the US has declined by 18%, and the percentage of church members under 30 has also declined precipitously. The largest Protestant, Evangelical denomination in the United States is the Southern Baptist Convention, which has lost 2.9 million members since its peak in 2006, 2 million of those since 2015 and 800,000 in just the past two years. People are leaving for a reason, and while COVID accounts for attendance differences, it doesn't account for people leaving the membership of their church.
I've seen church members attempt to pressure their pastors and church leaders into moving their congregation in a more political direction which also means a less spiritual one. I've cited examples on this blog where political leaders are critical of core principles and doctrines of the Christian doctrine which they do not consider beneficial to their clause. Someone might sign a paper or agree to do something based on its legality, but it is not likely that action will prompt spiritual conviction and lead to a conversion experience.
Don't Paint With a Broad Brush
As a Christian, I am deeply appreciative of the constitution's guarantee of my religious liberty and the freedom I have to live by my faith. It is a right for which I am willing to fight, if necessary. And that means I will also fight for the right of anyone else who is an American to have the right to believe according to the dictates of their own conscience. As Jefferson said, extending that right to other people neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
I'm a Democrat because I believe that I have a much better chance holding on to this right, along with most others I have, and because I believe that we have a much better chance of preserving our representative democracy, if Democrats are in the majority. There are millions out there like me, who express our faith with gentleness and reverence, respecting those who don't see things the same way, and at the same time, working to preserve and defend the representative Democracy that protects our rights and freedoms.
No comments:
Post a Comment