In Whose God Do We Trust?

I am continuing my reflections upon civil religion and how a Christian is to bear witness to his or her faith in a multi-cultural nation like the United States. Here we have no state supported or government controlled religion or church. This is forbidden by our Constitution. We are a religiously diversified nation—and by law intend to remain so. To define a church and other religious entities some of the IRS guidelines consider whether or not an institution has:

• a distinct legal existence and religious history,
• a recognized creed and form of worship,
• established places of worship
• a regular congregation and regular religious services, and
• an organization of ordained ministers

By no means does that define what is the church in terms of the Bible. Drawing upon the Scriptures Article VII of the Augsburg Confession defines the church like this: 

The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.    (See also The Apology, Articles VII and VIII)                          

Massachusetts Halfpenny 1787 

So we have two distinct definitions of church, one from the so-called Kingdom of God's left hand (the state or government) and one from the Kingdom of God's right hand (the Church). Under the first definition above a wide variety of organizations worshipping any number of gods may be called church—and are in the U.S.A. These churches include Muslims who worship the god Allah, Sikhs who vaguely call their god "Vaheguru" (Wonderful Master), Jehovah's Witnesses who deny the Trinity and Scientology with no set dogma of god. There are many others.

So in this nation with the motto "In God We Trust," we are forced to ask quite simply, In whose god do we trust? The god worshipped by some majority, by some minority group or does it even matter? Given this pluralistic situation we return to my closing sentence from yesterday's blog:

However, there are times and contexts outside the fellowship of believers when public prayer may not be appropriate.

We who worship Jesus Christ as very God of very God and Son of God, affirm that

. . . there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." - Acts 4:12 ESV

The basic guideline for all Christians therefore is that we are at all times to bear witness in word and deed to this Good News, this Gospel. We are not saved, will not be saved by Allah, Jehovah, Vaheguru or some unknown Higher Being. We cannot, we dare not and we will not compromise therefore on this issue. And we will refuse to suggest—even in our public prayers—that these other gods may or should be the object of our prayer. In that sense we are in the same position as were believers in the early church who were persecuted and murdered because they could not compromise by suggesting that Jesus was but one of a pantheon of many gods. Nor will we worship with any group of Christians whose public teachings compromise on the Gospel and the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

With these principles to guide, each Christian and each Christian pastor must prayerfully ask himself if he is truly bearing witness to Jesus Christ and the Triune God by his prayers, his words and his actions.

We Insist Upon Religious Liberty In USA

Yesterday Paul McCain forwarded this link in his Lutheran blog, CyberBrethren, urging us all to take a stand for religious liberty. He is encouraged by a letter received from a Lutheran pastor in Indiana.

Take a Stand for Religious Liberty — How Pastors Can Organize Grass Root Efforts in Their Congregations 

That Indiana pastor writes about his congregation's plan,

The plan is an Internet-assisted effort to educate our members concerning the real and present danger to the religious liberty we have thus far enjoyed, and to encourage them to take at least a small step to stand in defense of this most valuable freedom. Although American Lutherans have traditionally avoided involvement in affairs of the State, today the State is invading the realm of the Church. This violates both our Constitution and our American traditions, as Pastor Harrison has noted in issuing his call to action. 

The plan is quite flexible. Each congregation can adapt it to its own situation and interests. It is interactive in that some aspects are yet to be finalized, depending on the response from our pastors and congregations. The proposed general approach is as follows: 

* Saint Paul’s is in the process of gathering, preparing and posting extensive background materials and resources on an Internet site and a Facebook page. These are meant to facilitate congregational and individual study of this and related issues. This material is now beginning to be posted at www.scandhouse.org/liberty and on the Facebook page www.facebook.com/sureLiberty. 

The website offers the advantage of stability and organization, while the Facebook permits quick, if somewhat chaotic, response. Particularly if a reliable moderator emerges, a forum feature may be added to facilitate discussion and interaction – based either on Facebook or the website. * 

More in-depth resources and analysis will be added in the coming days (and weeks). This is an interactive effort: members may offer additional high-quality materials that may be added to the site (as time and stamina permit). These resources are being developed under leadership of Chris Barnekov, a St. Paul’s member with a doctorate in economic policy and four decades’ experience as a senior policy analyst for six different federal agencies. In recent years, Dr. Barnekov has focused almost exclusively on issues of Church and State (a brief bio will be posted on the site)

He goes on to encourage letter writing and invites us to share them. Check the site.

Francesco C. Cesareo writes about the erosion of religious liberty in the Worcester Telegram & Gazette,

The Obama administration has embarked on a systematic effort to erode religious liberty to the point of nonexistence by attempting to restrict it solely to freedom of worship. Through administrative policies and mandates, religious liberty and freedom of conscience in the United States is under attack, as witnessed by the most recent “accommodation.”

It seems as though U.S. history has been forgotten, or perhaps ignored. The principle of religious liberty was so central to the founders of our nation that it was enshrined as a fundamental right in the United States Constitution. The Founding Fathers recognized that religious freedom and the corresponding freedom of conscience were not subject to the authority of the state or the whims of its leaders.

By defining religious liberty as an inalienable right, the framers of the Constitution ensured that the state could not dictate the extent to which people could or could not live out their lives in accordance with their religious beliefs.

For further information about the issues from an interfaith group, see Religious Liberty, An Introduction to the Issues. 

Religious Liberty

The United States, thanks to its Constitution and the eternal vigilance of its citizens, is a model of religious liberty. We all enjoy the right to believe or not believe, to worship or not worship, as we choose. No religious organization depends on or is controlled by the government, and the government is not controlled by or dependent on any religious organization.

Religious Diversity

The Interfaith Working Group is supported by religious organizations, congregations, and clergy from seventeen religious traditions: American Baptist, Brethren, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Conservative Judaism, Episcopal, Ethical Society, Lutheran, Mennonite, Moravian, Presbyterian (PCUSA), Reconstructionist Judaism, Reform Judaism, Unitarian Universalist, United Church of Christ, United Methodist and the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches. That's only a small portion of the religious groups in the United States.

The basic Biblical foundation for taking a stand on religious liberty comes from the words of the Apostles as they faced the Jewish Sanhedrin's demands that they cease to proclaim the Gospel and the resurrection of Jesus. To this Peter responded,

But Peter and John answered them, "Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard." - Act 4:19-20 ESV

And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, "We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us." But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men." - Act 5:27-29 ESV