Background:
In 1999 I left being the host of Issues, etc., and moved to Pittsburgh and
accepted the position as afternoon talk show host at WORD FM, a
fifty-thousand-watt Evangelical Christian radio station, part of the Salem
Broadcasting Network. I was thrust into the middle of the Calvinist,
Religious Right, “Christian Nation” ideology. Such Christian political
fervor was new to me. To seek a Lutheran understanding, I engaged in a
rather intense study of Luther’s two kingdom theology. On my talk show I
frequently argued the point that we could not be a Christian nation since, as
Luther put it; we would be forced to forgive evildoers. Even though we
were not a Christian nation, we were a “God fearing” nation, citing Luther’s
twofold understanding of the knowledge of God from the Law (in the kingdom of
the left-hand) and the Gospel (in the kingdom of the right-hand). At a
Salem conference for talk show hosts I engaged in a discussion with the late
Charles Colson over the issue of a “God-fearing government” versus a “Christian
government.” It was Wittenberg versus Geneva. After suffering through
four years in this theological maelstrom, I accepted a call back into the
parish ministry.
God in the
Civil Realm:
All noteworthy political philosophers and theorists
including Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Luther, Rousseau, John Locke, and Thomas
Jefferson recognized the necessity of a government affirming the belief in
God. Locke, the primary influence upon Jefferson, went so far as to state
that a government should not tolerate atheists. He wrote:
“Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of a
God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can
have no hold upon an atheist.”
A national acknowledgment of God, His Law and His role
as Final Judge, threatening the punishment of evil doers, curbs the coarse
outbreak of violence and moral perversity (first use of the law); the
disintegration of the family; and the rise of tyranny. If the government
rather than Almighty God is the source of human rights, what the government
gives it can also take away. We are enabled to argue against the atrocity
of abortion based upon the self-evident, God-given right to life. Most
“religious” observers of our national scene today would attribute the marked
increase in violence, moral perversity and the disintegration of the family
(same-sex marriage) to the gradual removal of God and his law from our national
discourse.
Being “one nation under God” is also of great benefit
to the church. The institutional church saves billions of dollars each
year because the government, recognizing the value of organized religion,
refuses to tax church property. As God is being gradually removed from
the public square, the debate regarding this issue intensifies. With the
growing strength of the atheist lobby together with the government’s fiscal
issues, there is no doubt that somewhere in the future this benefit will be
rescinded. With that in mind, it appears rather foolish for an institutional
church to denigrate the acknowledgment of God in the civil realm.
Being “one nation under God” also provides the
Christian Church with a “point of contact” for the preaching of the
Gospel. Only Calvinists, based on Karl Barth’s rejection of “natural
theology,” would contend that there is no knowledge of God before the preaching
of the Gospel.
Luther’s
Two Kingdoms:
Historically, maintaining a civil government that
confesses a belief in God required either the church ruling the state as in
medieval Europe; or the state ruling the church as initiated by Henry VIII
(state church). The third possibility is to negate the church and
establish a civil religion as proposed by Rousseau.
Alternatively, our Founding Fathers attempted to
establish a government where God and his law would be acknowledged by the state
while at the same time there would be a strict separation between the
institution of the church and the institution of the state. How is that
possible? Enter the genius of Martin Luther.
Luther’s “Two Kingdom” understanding is clearly
manifested in the government of the United States. (C.F.W Walther would
agree.) James Madison, our fourth President, explicitly stated as much.
Writing in an 1821 letter to F. L. Schaeffer, Madison said: “[America’s
government] illustrates the excellence of a system which, by a due distinction,
to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to
Caesar and what is due to God, best promotes the discharge of both obligations.
The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long
rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as the
corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of
religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence
is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to
political prosperity.”
The fact that we live in a God-fearing nation that also
retains the separation of church and state is the genius of Martin
Luther! Those in the LCMS who claim that the God acknowledged in the
civil realm is not the true God because His Triune Nature is not confessed have
an argument with Luther and his understanding of the twofold knowledge of God,
from the Law and from the Gospel. Calvinists, especially those who
promote “Reconstructionism,” despise Luther’s Two Kingdom theology.
Contrary to David Adams, it is historically inaccurate to claim that we have a
“civil religion.” Our understanding is not derived from Rousseau.
Luther, Locke and Jefferson never proposed a “civil religion.”
Given Luther’s understanding of the two kingdoms and in
the light of the devastating results of the gradual removal of God and his law
from our society based on the erroneous contention that any acknowledgment of
God in the civil realm violates the separation of church and state, it behooves
Lutheran theologians and pastors to lend their voices in the debate and
strongly affirm the truth that the separation of church and state does not imply
the separation of God and government. As Lutherans, we have a unique
contribution to offer to this debate, but we remain ambivalent and allow the
Calvinists and Religious Right to own the debate.
Alternatively, those who argue the case that any talk
about God in the civil realm must include and affirm the Christian truth of His
Triune nature causes the separation of church and state to negate any possible
relationship between God and government. This is tragic. Some of
our LCMS brethren are either aligned with the atheist minority seeking to
remove God from the public square or are crypto-Calvinists, seeking to produce
a Christian government. Perhaps they’re Communists. Regarding this
issue, they are certainly not Lutheran.
Even though we maintain a strict separation of church
and state, the state does acknowledge the value of the church by refusing to
tax church property and by granting tax privileges to those identified as
“Ministers of Religion.” If any group of people appreciates the genius of our
Founding Fathers who established “one nation under God” while maintaining a
clear separation of church and state it should be we Lutherans!
Civic Gatherings:
Civic Gatherings:
It is not strange in response to local or national
tragedy that civic gatherings are held and local “Ministers of Religion” are
invited to offer prayers and bring forth words of hope and comfort.
Since, our national motto is “in God we trust” and we confess to be “one nation
under God” it would be strange if such gatherings were not held. Are such
gatherings to be considered “worship services?”
A community chooses to gather together to pray and
receive words of hope and comfort in the face of tragedy because the community
is “hurting.” To suggest that such gatherings should be held in local
congregations, gathering around denominational/religious affiliation, is
insensitive to the needs of “the community.” The community shares a
common grief. The community desires to gather. When the LCMS pastor
in Newtown, Ct. was asked by the President of Synod to apologize for his
participation in the event and the media picked up the story, we were
embarrassed. Why? Because we appeared to be insensitive to the
needs of a devastated community who had experienced the senseless murder of
their children – and we were. Any effort to “clean up the mess” was
ineffective because the damage had already been done.
The CTCR repeatedly asks the question regarding the
“public perception” of our participating in civic prayer gatherings but voices
no concern over the “public perception” of our refusing to participate or to
apologize for participating. Question: What action did more damage to the
“public perception” of our Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod: Pastor Morris’
participation in the event in Newtown, Ct. or President Harrison’s request for
him to apologize for doing so? (A personal note: I would not have participated
in the event in Newtown, Ct. because it was held under the auspices of the
local Ministerial Association rather than under the auspices of the local civil
government.)
At present, all discussion of whether a civic event is
a “worship service” is the mere exchange of subjective human opinion. One
opinion is no better than any other opinion. There is no basis in
Scripture or in our Confessions for determining whether a civic event where
prayers are spoken and Scripture is read is a “worship service.” Nor is a
“worship service” ever defined in Scripture and the Confessions. Are we
speaking of Gottesdienst? On a few occasions in his writings Luther did
speak of worship services or Divine services but always as an activity of the
Church. Are there any objective criteria we might use to answer the
question?
Consider Two Events that Took Place in Response to
9/11:
The
National Cathedral: There is no doubt that the gathering in the National
Cathedral was a worship service within the kingdom of the right-hand.
President Bush could have very well sponsored such an event in a public arena
rather than under the auspices of the Episcopal Church. The public
doctrine of the Episcopal Church includes, in addition to a variety of
doctrines and practices contrary to Scripture, the holding of worship
services. The building in which the gathering took place was built to
house worship services. The people sitting in the pews could readily
identify what was happening with what takes place in the various houses of
worship on a Sunday morning. The leader was a “regularly designated
worship leader of the church.” The gathering was clearly unionistic and syncretistic.
Billy Graham compromised the Gospel by preaching in that setting. If any
LCMS pastor, including the President of Synod, had participated in that
gathering I would have been willing to lead the way in pressing charges and
demanding discipline.
Yankee
Stadium: The Yankee Stadium event was called by the Mayor of New York
City and conducted under the auspices of the city. The public doctrine
was our national acknowledgment of God. (The Declaration of Independence
contains five references to God — God as Creator, God as the Source of all
rights, God as supreme Lawmaker, God as the world’s supreme Judge, and God as
our Protector.) There is no public doctrine stating that the purpose of the
city of New York is to conduct worship services. The place where the
gathering was held was not a house of worship (unless you’re a Yankee
fan). The leader of the event was not a “regularly designated worship
leader of the church.” I cannot imagine anyone sitting in that place on
that day thinking that what happened there was of the same nature as what
happens in their various houses of worship on Sunday morning. Based on
“public doctrine” the event could not be construed as a worship service.
It was a civic gathering under the banner of “one nation under God.” The
participants had two things in common. They were members of the same
hurting community and were identified by their government as “Ministers of
Religion.” When I heard that David Benke was brought up on charges
for participating at Yankee Stadium and offering a prayer in Jesus’ name, I was
dismayed. My first words to him were, “This is a kingdom of the left-hand
event. How could they possibly apply right-hand theology?” It has always been our practice to assess fellowship
issues based on public doctrine. To avoid the mere exchange of human
opinion, we should also determine whether an event is a “worship service” based
on public doctrine.
Guilt by
Association:
It is, in my opinion, foolishness to suggest that LCMS
pastors, participating in civic events as “Ministers of Religion,” are
providing the public with the perception that we affirm the validity of the
doctrines and practices of the other participating “Ministers of Religion.” If
that were true, would not the mere acceptance of the category “Ministers of
Religion” by LCMS pastors, thereby lumping them together with other “Ministers
of Religion” for the express purpose of saving tax dollars, result in the same
public perception? If we are greatly concerned by pluralism and the fact,
as David Adams pointed out, that Wiccans and Satanists are being afforded
religious status, is it not time to question whether LCMS clergy should
continue to embrace the “Minister of Religion” designation because of public
perception? Is paying more income tax is too great a price to pay for
preserving the public’s perception of our profound theological purity? At
least the Amish are consistent.
Conclusion:
Conclusion:
Based on the above, I suggest the following:
Since the understanding of God within our civil realm
is an outgrowth of Luther’s two-kingdom theology; and since the acknowledgment
of God in the civil realm is beneficial to both the state (the first use of the
Law) and the church (financial benefit and a point of contact for the Gospel);
we as Lutherans should affirm the right and encourage the practice of our
national and local governments to acknowledge God and call upon God, especially
in response to local or national tragedy. We should also be voicing
strong opposition to any efforts to remove the acknowledgment of God from the
public square.
When called upon to do so, LCMS clergy, who are
designated by the government as “Ministers of Religion,” have the
responsibility to participate in civic events held under the banner of our
national public doctrine and in response to local or national tragedy, by
offering prayers in Jesus’ name and presenting a clear witness to the Gospel
(i.e. “This God in whom we trust, our Creator and Provider, loved this world so
much that He gave His only Son to suffer and die for us so that whoever
believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.”) LCMS clergy
should not participate if they are instructed to neither pray in Jesus’ name
nor offer a clear Gospel witness.
In my opinion…
No comments:
Post a Comment