Modern Testimony: From Christians and the State, by John C. Bennett, Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1958, page 229-230.
I think most of you are aware of the current events that must inevitable frame my sermon today: 1) September 11, 2001; 2) the so-called “War on Terrorism”; 3) July 4th, 2002; 4) the Ninth Circuit opinion with respect to the phrase “under God” added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954; and 5) the Supreme Court decision proclaiming the constitutionality of the school voucher program in Ohio.
It won’t come as a surprise to some of you when I say that I don’t know much. What may be less obvious is that I once knew much more. When I was in my twenties I knew just about everything. But over the years I have come to know less and less until, now, I worry that eventually I’ll know nothing at all. My increasing lack of knowledge coupled with my abysmal organizational skills and my personal lack of clarity on the issues I raise today may make it difficult to follow my thoughts in this sermon, but I ask you to give it a shot.
When I was in my twenties, I had no doubt whatsoever that the national government of the United States of America and any and all religious groups should be completely separate. I also had no doubt that any such collusion was clearly – indisputably unconstitutional. The former opinion I credit to my Baptist gene. The latter was based in a virtual tidal wave of ignorance.
It is not untoward of a Baptist to oppose any compromise of the Jeffersonian “wall of separation” between church and state. Jefferson and Madison were both prominent opponents of any mixture of the state with or into religion. Both, it appears, were more worried that the state would compromise the religious institutions rather than the other way around, but it remains, I believe, incontrovertible that they supported a very strict policy of separation. Jefferson wrote a letter to a group of Baptists who had written him about their concerns about state sanctioned religion. Jefferson, quoting from the First Amendment to the Constitution, concluded that the ratification of the First Amendment by the American people had the effect of “building a wall of separation between church and State.”
North Carolina and Rhode Island were the last two of the thirteen original states to ratify the constitution. Do you know why? Because North Carolina and Rhode Island had the largest percentage population of Baptists at the time who were very concerned that separation of church and state was not firmly stated in the new constitution. Baptists had good reason to support this separation. Baptists were long the objects of state proscription and persecution. The establishment of other sects in certain colonies forced the Baptists to support churches, and therefore theological systems, with which they vehemently disagreed. Maybe those Baptists were even far-sighted enough to know that one day, if they became the majority, they might want to proscribe and persecute other religious sects and they wanted to protect their spiritual descendants from such a degraded position.
My firmly held belief that any crossover between church and state is completely unconstitutional was less reliable, I believe. Mostly, because I had no real understanding of constitutional jurisprudence at the time – not that my understanding has greatly progressed in the meantime, but I have at least learned how much I don’t know. I recall to your attention Dr. Bennett’s reminder that at the time the First Amendment was drafted, five of the thirteen states had an established church. That’s a significant proportion. He suggests that the language of the First Amendment was a compromise. I remind you also that the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, did not apply to the states at all until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Fourteenth Amendment is anything but clear about how or to what degree Constitutional provisions apply to state governments. Supreme Court decisions overall have held that there is no absolute separation of church and state mandated by the Constitution, as I will discuss in a minute.
I realize that I may not be giving you a sufficient theoretical basis for any substantive thought, but all I have said, I hope, at least gives you some idea why I think that it is correct for me, as a Baptist, to oppose any weakening of that “wall of separation” between church and state. And why I have come to believe that it is incorrect to say that the Constitution categorically forbids any “cooperation” between church and state. So you see, church and state are separate in reaction to the issue of separation. The state often does have a compelling reason to delve into what are at least ostensibly church issues while the church also benefits – but there are problems as well, actual and potential.
For instance, as a Baptist, I think it would probably benefit the church if we paid property taxes and income taxes and did not get to deduct our gifts to the church. I know most people will immediately disagree – especially with my stance on charitable gift deductions – but I think that definitely would force some more serious commitment on the part of church members everywhere. How about the tax-exempt status of housing allowances for ministers? Campaigning and lobbying restrictions on 501(c)(3) organizations including churches? Why shouldn’t churches and synagogues be allowed to lobby? Should the military and public hospitals really be paying chaplains? Shouldn’t the churches be doing that? Is it right that ministers of the gospel are used by the state to regulate legal marriages? Is it okay that ministers are deputized by the state to perform legal wedding ceremonies? As a Baptist, I think that it’s okay for me to oppose any or all of these state supports or controls of religious exercise. But are they really unconstitutional? I think that it just isn’t clear. I’d like it to be – but I think it isn’t. There are certainly adjunct laws that are unconstitutional – sitting during the pledge of allegiance; it being a felony in some states if a minister performs a religious marriage ceremony where there is no legal license to marry – but the basic issues are not cleanly cut.
And so what does that have to do with the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance? Well, for starters, what are any of you Baptists doing saying a pledge of any such sort?!? And secondly, what difference does it make whether the McCarthian phrase is left in place or expunged? We do claim to have a higher allegiance, do we not, than that we bear to the state? Is our concern for religion? or for the state? In the end, while I sympathize with the Ninth Circuit, I think their reasoning is faulty. I’m pretty sure that an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit will overturn the ruling – and if not, the Supremes will almost certainly make short work of it. In fact, the most irritating part of the whole fracas has been the sanctimoniousness of our elected officials who have tripped over each other in their efforts to appear to be real live nieces or nephews of their Uncle Sam.
I’m much -- very much – less happy about the Supreme Court ruling on the Ohio voucher program. I have said in the past that I hoped I’d never live anywhere that had a voucher system because I didn’t want to end up in prison for refusing to pay taxes. I’ve said in the past that I refused to have to pay for my own oppression. But let’s face it folks, I already to that. The portion of my tax bill that goes to support certain policies of the military and law enforcement agencies – and even the public schools – in essence pays for policies and processes and systems that routinely and often quite openly oppress and teach hatred, or at least disdain.
I watch TV. I know most of you probably spend most of your off-work hours poring over the works of Soren Kierkegaard contemplating the mysteries of Zen. I like to turn the TV on when I get home and listen while I make and eat dinner. I see a commercial with young people talking about how they killed a policeman or helped pay for a bomb – all by using drugs which we’re told, bankroll terrorists. Well. Maybe I should be on a commercial like that: “I pay United States federal income taxes. I killed 20 people at a wedding reception in Afghanistan.” I could just as easily say, “I belong to a church and give money to it that ends up in the coffers of the American Baptist Churches national office. I helped buy the rope used by a gay seminarian to hang herself when told by seminary chaplains, professors and denominational officials that God might love her, but not as much as other seminarians and that God certainly did not call her to be a minister.”
The point I’m trying to make is that nothing is perfect. I support my government while at the same time acknowledging its severe deficiencies. I applaud those of us who are called to work for peace. But working for peace is a dirty business and it often is a fight. Fighting for peace? Well, yeah. Sometimes somebody has to say that the supply of unslapped cheeks has been expended. Nothing is perfect. Separation of church and state is an important and valuable principle – but like all principles, the proof is in the pudding. In other words, the importance and value of the principle lie in its application which can never be perfect.
We heard the scripture read about Paul wanting to do one thing but doing something else. Well, on some level, I want to be an unflinching advocate of the coming realm of God – whatever that is. I want to be clear that my allegiance is to God and that I don’t try to serve two masters. But you know what? I cried on September 11th. Not just for the physical death and destruction, either. I cried because of the death and destruction of innocence. Sure, governments are corrupt – ours included. But didn’t we think – you and I, John and Joanna Q Public – didn’t we think that we could help the world? Ok, maybe it was a colonial thought. Maybe it was egocentric. But we meant well. And on September 11th part of that died. Part of our 225-year-old enthusiasm was quenched in a few agonizing moments by a handful of people.
I may have rolled my eyes when the president gave his locker room talk while standing on the ashes of victims. I may have winced over the bravado and high-school testosterone-laden proclamations like “We may not be able to bring them to justice, but we’ll bring justice to them.” But when those folks raised the flag on the ground level spire of what was once the world’s tallest building – I cried. And I hurt with every email I received telling about friends of friends who had narrow misses – or who were now missing. And that next Sunday when we sang “God Bless America” here – as ambivalent as I felt about that violation of my inherent vehemence about the separation of church and state – I was moved.
So is it okay to be a patriot, albeit a reluctant one? Is it okay to want to stand up with the herd and sing God Bless America? Is it okay to fly my American flag every day? Can I do those things and still be a card-carrying, good citizen of the Realm of God? Well. I hope so.
I do not embrace, encourage or condone an unthinking allegiance – that would be no more than political fundamentalism. Patriotism can be the last refuge of scoundrels – as someone once put it. If I ever get pushed to the brink and have to choose between my country and my spirituality, I know what my answer will be. But until that time comes, if ever, I’m going to put my hand over my heart when I sing the Star Spangled Banner. And I’ll continue to oppose governmental control over religious services like church marriages and I’ll definitely express myself as loudly as I can about my opinion on school vouchers. But I’m going to keep paying my taxes – at least for now. I have very serious questions about certain of our military policies, and I maintain my own pacifism (even though Scott Dove thinks I have no right to do so), I appreciate that my way of life has been assured by others who have supported it by being willing to take up arms. And while I won’t preach at the front of a room that is adorned with an American flag – I’m going to keep flying the flag at home.
Again – it’s just a country folks. And countries come and go. On a historical level, the whole concept of country is a new thing. Let me say again that for me, my primary allegiance is to another calling. But I’m happy to be an American. I’m glad my ancestors, almost four hundred years ago, ended up here – whether they were forced to leave their homes in the old countries, were sent here as punishment, or came here for economic or religious reasons. I don’t know of any other countries in the world I’d really like to move – and if I did, I wouldn’t want to give up my American citizenship. While I can see a lot of the faults of this country and our government – I still think it’s the best show in town.
So what it comes down to is that I am a hesitant patriot. What I want to be is an enthusiastic citizen of the realm of God – but as a resident alien in the land of the mostly free, I can’t seem to avoid at least a modicum of cautious pride – if not so much always in what this country does – at least in what it has the potential to be. Not a Christian nation – God forbid – there’s no such thing as a Christian nation. But at least a nation where Christians (and Jews and Muslims and Atheists, etc.) can explore their faith or beliefs fully and freely – mostly.
So, ok. God bless America – and God bless us. And God bless our attempts to work out what it means to live as Christians in a great nation.
Print in pdf