School Prayer and the Virtue of Freedom

Deuteronomy 6:1-9

 

“We need to educate our children in morality. Indeed, we must use all means necessary to teach our children proper values, including using our schools, businesses and community groups to train young minds in right thinking, right believing and right behavior.”

 

            Do you know who wrote the above quote?  Think about it: who might have written such a quote? One of the Founding Fathers, perhaps?  One of the early Calvinists from the Massachusetts’s Bay Colony? The quote’s sentiment does sound nice, doesn’t it; after all, who can be against children being taught “right thinking, right believing and right behavior”? Or perhaps we might see the above quote conspiring with darker forces.  Maybe the quote was uttered by Mao during the “Cultural Revolution”?  Or perhaps by a radical Muslim cleric in Afghanistan?

 

            Actually, I wrote the quote to demonstrate a point: folks define “right thinking” according to their own set of values, and how we respond to those values, intellectually and emotionally, depends upon whether or not we share those values. I would love it if we could nurture every child in our community, no, every child in the world, to love Jesus Christ.  I would hate for my children, or any child anywhere, to be indoctrinated into the twisted and brutal ideologies of Mao or a radical Muslim cleric bent on violence toward the West.  I wonder, though, how would someone who does not share my values feel about what I would love and hate?

 

            Today we take a glimpse at school prayer and the virtue of freedom.  Where is the line between Church and State?  Where should the line be between Church and State?  What tools does our Christian faith give to us for navigating the different minefields planted by secular and religious forces in today’s society?

 

*****

 

            Megan Chapman was the valedictorian of her Russell County (VA) High School.  According to the National Liberty Journal (May, 2007), on the morning Megan was to address her graduating class, a federal judge issued an order barring Megan from praying during commencement.  The student body responded to this judicial incitement by standing in mass during the ceremony to recite the Lord’s Prayer. When Megan rose to speak, she decided to put away the poem by Robert Frost she had intended to read and instead gave her testimony; Megan spoke of her personal relationship with Jesus Christ.  All of this was legal under the Supreme Court’s “equal access” policy for graduation in which students may speak voluntary messages, including prayer, of either a religious or secular content so long as the content is not proscribed by the public school. Should we applaud or decry Megan’s ability – and choice – to speak of her religious faith in such a context?

 

            The College of William and Mary recently erupted in controversy over the decision by college President Gene R. Nichol to remove an 18-inch cross displayed prominently in the chapel. President Nichol’s reasoning was that, since the College of William and Mary was a secular institution attended by – and the chapel was used for – students of both the Christian faith and other religious faiths as well, it was inappropriate to have a large cross displayed.  President Nichol’s critics, of whom there were many, argued that the College of William and Mary has a long history of association with the Christian faith reaching back to its founding in the 18^th century and that the cross should remain, if only as a testimony to the college’s historical roots.  After a committee of alumni, students and staff were appointed to study the issue, it was decided the cross would remain in the chapel displayed prominently in a glass case, although less prominently than before.  Should we applaud or decry President Nichol’s attempts to balance the religious heritage of his public institution with the religious diversity of his student body?

 

            A prayer circulating email, allegedly written by a student in Arizona, is entitled The NEW School Prayer:

 

Now I sit me down in school, where praying is against the rule, for this great nation under God, finds mention of Him very odd. If Scripture now the class recites, it violates the Bill of Rights, and anytime my head I bow, becomes a federal matter now.

 

Our hair can be purple, orange or green, that’s no offense; it’s a freedom scene.  The law is specific, the law is precise, prayers spoken aloud are a serious vice, for praying in a public hall, might offend someone with no faith at all.

 

In silence alone we must meditate, God’s name is prohibited by the State. We’re allowed to cuss and dress like freaks, and pierce our noses, tongues and cheeks.  They’ve outlawed guns, but FIRST the Bible, to quote the Good Book makes me liable.

 

We can elect a pregnant Senior Queen, and the “unwed daddy” our Senior King, but it’s inappropriate to teach right from wrong.  We’re taught that such “judgments” do not belong. The Ten Commandments are not allowed, no word of God must reach this crowd.

 

It’s scary here I must confess, when chaos reigns the school’s a mess.  So, Lord, this silent plea I make: should I be shot; my soul please take!

 

Should we applaud or decry this anonymous student and his or her prayer?  Is it true that “to quote the Good Book makes me liable”? Or that “no word of God must reach this crowd”?  The above examples demonstrate some of the complexities of the debate regarding the separation of Church and State generally and school prayer specifically. What, then, shall we do?

 

*****

 

            The danger of not respecting the separation of Church and State is very real. The example of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBCPS) is instructive of said dangers. The NCBCPS promotes a “Bible History” curriculum that seeks “to convey the content of the Bible as compared to literature and history” (www.bibleinschools.net).  In theory, such a curriculum is legal according to the Supreme Court if it examines the Bible from an academic and non-sectarian perspective.  Unfortunately, extensive review of the curriculum’s use in Florida public school systems (www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1350) shows that it is neither academic nor non-sectarian.

 

            For instance, the curriculum consistently refers to the “Old Testament.” Now why is that a problem?  Well, consider what the term Old Testament might mean to a Jewish student.  What, precisely, is the Old Testament for a Jewish student?  Actually, there is no “old testament” from a Jewish perspective, only the Hebrew Scriptures, sometimes referred to by the short-hand term Torah.  An Old Testament implies a New Testament, which is what we believe is appropriate as Christians, but such is not a “non-sectarian” way of teaching the material.

 

            Or consider these examples of questions actually asked on exams:

 

·        If you had a Jewish friend who wanted to know if Jesus might be the expectant (sic) Messiah, which book [of the Gospels] would you give him?

·        Why is it hard for a non-Christian to understand things about God?

·        Who, according to Jesus, is the father of the Jews? (The answer in the lesson is, “The devil.”)

·        Write an essay on 1) God’s Plan for the Family, 2) Living a Victorious Life in the World Which Is So Dark, and 3) God’s Directions for Righteous Living.

 

You may think me intemperate for calling this curriculum dangerous, and I know that the curriculum’s proponents would call me a secularist in Christian clothing, but consider this: if by the year 2050 the United States becomes a Muslim majority nation, do you want your grandchildren being taught such a curriculum written from an Islamic perspective?  Do you want them to write an essay on why it is important to face Mecca while praying?  Or what about the question, “If you had a Christian friend who wanted to know why Muhammed is God’s true prophet, what would you tell him?”  The danger of not respecting the separation of Church and State is very real.

 

And yet, the danger of eradicating all dialogue between Church and State is equally real.  Last year a curriculum review at Harvard University recommended that students be required to take at least one religion course. Peter Gnomes, Harvard’s chaplain and a professor of religious studies says of student life on campus, “There is probably more active religious life now than there has been in 100 years” (New York Times, May 2, 2007).  Two-thirds of college freshmen pray and over 80% believe in God according to a recent survey of 112,000 students.  What this means is that there is a vital religious interest on our college campuses; to ignore this interest is to abdicate our responsibility to provide intellectual guidance to the younger generation.

 

David Hackett is the chair of the department of religion at the University of Florida. In an article in the University of Florida newsletter (Connections, Spring 2007), Professor Hackett quotes a recent study which found that only half of all Americans can name one of the four Gospels and most people think Sodom and Gomorrah were a married couple.  Professor Hackett goes on to argue that

 

…religious illiteracy threatens our ability to understand and participate in our civil society…Biblical references abound in public conversations about stem cell research and gay marriage, so how can we make informed decisions about these hot button issues without knowing something about the Bible?...Can we understand the war in Iraq without knowing something about Islam?

 

Indeed, we cannot. The danger of eradicating all dialogue between Church and State is also very real. As radically moderate Christians, what then shall we do? 

 

*****

 

            I want to live in a society where my children are safe from having to pray toward Mecca five times a day.  Where they are safe from being taught that dinosaurs and humans lived together on the Earth.  Where they are safe from being taught that using birth control, even as a married couple, is a sin.  Where they are safe from being taught that there is no god.  Where they are safe from being taught that when the stars align in a certain manner you will have good luck.  Where they are safe from being taught that the Oakland Raiders are anything but the Evil Empire.  Let not other people’s religious convictions dictate my children’s values.  Yet let it also be said that my religious convictions shall not dictate the values of other folks’ children. 

 

At least not in the public realm.

 

            The grave, theological error of those who would align too closely the Church and the State is that it leads others to break the third commandment.  Surely you remember the third commandment, do you not?  “You shall not take the Name of the Lord in vain” (Exodus 20:7).  The proposals for school prayer put forward by various politicians or religious leaders are vanity, emptiness, a chasing after wind.  If there is compulsory prayer in school, how faithfully will the 8 year old boy, whose friend has just passed gas in the classroom, pray?  How seriously do we expect the sophomore girl, who has just received a text message on her cell phone, to speak the sacred Name of the Lord?  Are we not causing our children and youth to stumble over this third commandment if we force upon them that which by nature and necessity must be freely grasped, willfully welcomed and sincerely embraced?  There is such a thing as inoculating someone against true faith.  Like a vaccine, if one is given a small dose, enough gets into one’s system that one becomes immune to the Real Thing. One need only look at the State supported religions of Europe, anemic to the point of death all of them, to understand the danger to true faith that such inoculations present.

 

            If we are not going to rely upon schools and government, then how shall our children learn faith?  The Book of Deuteronomy offers the antidote to aligning too closely the Church and the State.  Our children are to learn faith from their parents: at home and at church, through wisdom and through witness, by example and by emulation. “Impress [the love of the Lord our God] upon your children,” counsels Deuteronomy 6:7. The word “impress” has the connotation of placing a seal upon them; we might think of a king sealing a vital, important message with hot wax and his king’s ring.  We, the parents, are to leave our mark upon our children, for they are a vital, important message to the world.  Deuteronomy continues with the counsel that we are to share our faith “when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up” (6:7).  We might think of these times as when we watch TV or drive in the car, morning and night, always be an example of living faith by loving God.

 

            Many folks are unaware that Sunday School is a modern invention that started about 150 years ago.  The notion that it is the church’s job to instruct children and youth in the faith is an aberration of industrial age culture.  Before the mid-19^th century, it was assumed that children and youth would be taught Christian discipleship, faith and values at the feet of their parents.  We need to return to such an ethos.  Faith is caught in the home before it is taught in the church.

 

            As a church that practices infant baptism, we are especially called to fulfill our Christian responsibility as parents, for in the baptismal covenant we promise “to raise our children in the knowledge and love of Jesus Christ.” As parents, we can pray at bedtime with our children and discuss movies with our youth.  We can read stories from a toddler’s Bible with our children and share openly our concerns about violence, sexuality and the drug culture with our youth.  We can take our children with us to the Salvation Army to donate used clothes and take our youth with us as we serve together on a mission trip.  We can model gratitude openly and freely to our children, we can share (some of) our spiritual comforts and struggles with our youth. In these and a thousand other ways, we are called to nurture faith and thereby impress the love of the Lord our God on our children and youth.  This is our job.

 

*****

 

            Our nation has a rich heritage of freedom.  In freedom this nation was conceived, by freedom we have been nurtured and through freedom we will continue to flourish.  But throughout our history we have learned an important lesson about freedom: if freedom is to be honored and honorable, it must be for all people.  We have learned through our great and tumultuous history that freedom for Calvinists that persecutes Baptists is no true freedom. Freedom for blacks in the North but not for blacks in the South is no freedom at all. Freedom for oil barons and railroad tycoons that oppresses the common laborer is not a freedom worthy of the name. Freedom that honors every man with the vote but diminishes every woman by withholding the same is a freedom tainted with arrogance and altogether void of justice.  If we have learned anything from our history it is that freedom must be for all people.

 

            May we remember the lessons of freedom as we teach our children how to pray.

 

Return to Sermons Menu