The Lutheran Zephyr 2.0

So Help Us God (or Virtus)

I never imagined how "holy" an experience it would be to register at the courthouse for authorization to legally offiate at weddings.

• I provided papers proving that I am a called and ordained pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (We call you to exercise among us the ministry of Word and Sacrament which God has established and which the Holy Spirit empowers, one of the documents reads).
• I provided $29 in cash, bearing the words In God We Trust, as payment of the courthouse's administrative fee.
• I took an oath which concluded with the words So Help Me God (and yes, in a strange feat of government orthography, the first letter of each word in that phrase was capitalized). 
• And to top it all off, as I walked into the Arlington County Courthouse I passed the seal of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which prominently features the Roman goddess Virtus. 

All this God-talk is required so that I can be authorized to declare a marriage legal.  I'd expect God-talk in the church and in preparation for my ordination, but to formalize a state-sanctioned, legal relationship?  I don't see how such language is necessary, to be honest.

One thing this experience has taught me is that when it comes to God's role (or the role of ancient Roman dieties, for that matter) in our state and society, I think we're a confused lot ...

(Click here for more of my admittedly radical perspectives on the separation of church and state.)

Religious Clergy and Legal Weddings in Virginia

In preparation for conducting my first weddings as a pastor I'm reading the Code of Virginia (Title 20 [Domestic Relations] Chapter 2 [Marriage Generally]) and learning some interesting tidbits, especially in regards to the role that ordained clergy play in performing weddings:

• Any "regularly appointed pastor in his denomination" may perform wedding ceremonies in Virginia (though this leaves open the question about retired pastors or other pastors who are not "regularly appointed.") (see § 20-23)
• The law specifies no fee for clergy to obtain the order for authorization to perform wedding ceremonies, but in Arlington County (at least) there is a one-time $29 fee.  
• People whose religious communities do not have clergy can also be married within their religious communities, but that'll cost someone from their community a $500 bond with surety (see § 20-26)
• Non ordained persons may also perform wedding ceremonies, given that they receive an order from a judge and put up a $500 bond (with or without surety) (see § 20-25)
• Officiants are not allowed to charge more than $50 for the ceremony itself (see § 20-27)

As some of you know, I have some serious concerns about church/state matters, worried that both get compromised when they get too close to each other.  But in conducting a wedding as an ordained pastor I simultaneously proclaim the blessings of the church and execute the court-issued marriage license in the same liturgy, making the marriage legal in the eyes of the state.  I am uneasy about this, and would much prefer a system wherein couples first get married by an official of the courts and then later bring their legal marriage to the church for its blessing (which, I understand, is how weddings are performed in much of the world).

But that's not our system, and I'm not going to buck it.  For a variety of practical and pastoral reasons I'm not going to insist that couples get married before a judge prior to a church wedding, nor will I invite a judge or bonded non-ordained person to conduct the "legal" part of the marriage ceremony within the church service.  Yes, I've considered these options, but I've concluded that it is not worth it.  Instead, as I suggested in the past in response to this dilemma, through introductory remarks and/or the homily I will make clear that marriage is both a legal and a sacred bond, with both legal and sacred responsibilities and privileges (which resonates deeply with our Lutheran understanding of the Two Kingdoms ...).

The wedding day is not just about love and sentiments, or even the Spirit that has brought the couple together.  Rather, the wedding is an opportunity for couples to make promises that are legally binding and held in sacred trust, to hear the Word of God in Law and Gospel, and to receive the blessings of God and support of the gathered community.  It is a beautiful yet multifaceted occasion requiring careful attention be given to its diverse aspects ... I hope and pray that I am up to the task!

Today is the National Day of Prayer

My three frequent readers - or what's left of them after I've all but fallen off the blogging cliff - know that I have some severe concerns about the relationship of church and state, particularly when the two get too close to each other.  And so since today is the National Day of Prayer (established in 1952 and coordinated by a task force currently chaired by Shirley Dobson), I offer links to past posts expressing concerns about the blending of faith and patriotism, and outlining what I feel to be appropriate ways Christians can engage political and civic matters.

• Praising God, Honoring Country

One of my favorite posts ... an outline for how Christians can and should praise God and honor country, while recognizing the differences between and maintaining the integrity of both faithful praise and patriotic honor.  A follow-up: More Thoughts on God & Country.

• Why I Don't Like the National Day of Prayer

A little piece outlining my concerns about this very day.  Written in 2008.

• I frequently and severely criticized Barack Obama on church/state matters when he was running for office, including:

Matthew 25 Network's Obamessiah Complex

Faith, Politics, and Obama

"Barack Obama is a Strong, Christian Family Man"

• Too Much Religion in this Race

This post commends Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee for trying to turn the focus from religion to politics in the GOP Presidential primary.

• Luther on Government in Psalm 82

Less focused on the church/state issue, this post looks at Luther's writings on Psalm 82 in search of a "Lutheran" political philosophy.

No Fan of Homeowners Associations

I've lived in communities ruthlessly controlled by Homeowners Associations (HOAs) for the past few years . . . and I can't move out soon enough.  Their silly rules barring certain color paints, the display of political yard signs, or the presence of trucks with lettering and ladders - ie, blue-collar contractors - are unfair and contradict our nation's greatest intentions and values (yes, I've lived in communities with these rules).  In fact, many HOAs barred the flying of flags - yes, including American flags!  Congress thankfully intervened on that score.

Today's Washington Post features an article about a man who painted a Hindu religious symbol on his driveway for his son's coming-of-age celebration.  The HOA wants him to remove this painting, even though the man's immediate neighbors couldn't care less about the artwork (in fact, it's quite beautiful).  Somehow, I doubt that the HOA would be as concerned with a painting of a creche at Christmas time or cross at Good Friday . . .

Either way, I believe that HOA's should be minimalist in their rules and regulations - concerning trash, presence of junk on front lawns, noise levels, etc..  But regulating vehicles, speech (religious or political or any other kind), and paint color is a bit rediculous, and unAmerican, if you ask me.

Ten Commandments in the Park?

On Wednesday the Supreme Court heard arguments in Pleasant Grove City v. Summum.  In the case, the Summum religion has asked the Pleasant Grove City Council to accept a monument of their Seven Aphorism to be placed in a public park alongside a monument of the Ten Commandments, donated over a quarter-century ago by a private organization.  The city refused, and the case went to court.  For news coverage of the case, visit the many news links posted at Blog from the Capital, or read Nina Totenberg's report at NPR.  Transcript of the oral arguments available from the Supreme Court website (document opens as a pdf).  It is a very interesting case, and I encourage you to read up on it.

My three regular readers know that I am an adamant advocate for the separation of church and state.  I see no reason for monuments of either the Ten Commandments or the Seven Aphorisms or of any other religious teachings to be placed in a tax-payer funded public park (accuse me of being a small government, fiscal conservative on this issue if you like!).  Surely this town has private, religious organizations that would gladly erect religious symbols on their property and in their places of worship.  Why should the tax-payer funded public park display a series of religious teachings, including "I am the Lord your God.  You shall have no other Gods before me"?  Unlike the "golden rule" given by Jesus (but lacking any explicit God language), the Ten Commandments are clearly and unabiguously religious in nature.  Tax-payer dollars shouldn't go to the purchase, display, or maintenance of religious monuments.

But this is much more than a tax-payer issue.  As I've said elsewhere, I believe that the church is at greater risk than the state when we violate the separation of church and state.  The erection of religious monuments in public parks on one hand smacks of a faith-based and triumphalistic marking of one's territory, as if to say, "we Christians are the majority, this is our place, we can do what we want, the rest of you will just have to deal with it."  This kind of pride can only poison the church and our proclamation of the Gospel.

Furthermore, there's a false sense of security in monuments - whether on public or private ground.  We can build all the monuments we want, but that doesn't guarantee faithfulness to what the monument enshrines.  In fact, erecting a monument is often the cheap and easy thing to do.

(For example, in Cuzco, Peru, once the thriving capital of the Inca people, a monument to Peru's indiginous peoples stands.  But in this Andean nation it is the descendants of the Inca who remain disproportionately in poverty, struggling with illiteracy and suffering with shorter life expectancies.  But . . . but the government dominated by the descendants of European conquistadores erected a monument!  Why bother do anything else?)

Finally, I do not want the church to expect the government to help us carry out our God-given, faith-based mission.  The mission of faith is the responsibility of people of faith, not the responsibility of government or of the broader, secular society.  It seems unreasonable for people of faith to ask the government to help them in their ministry of proclaiming religious teachings by accepting, displaying, and maintaining a religious monument in a public park.  This is also why I oppose prayer in school - teaching children the discipline of prayer is the responsibility of parents and communities of faith, not that of a tax-payer funded public school system.  This is why I am also uncomfortable with civic displays of religoius piety - invocations at political rallies or prayers at city council meetings - for it supports the notion that we're a "Christian nation" or that our faith is supported by the government and political leaders.  That kind of complacency inhibits our prophetic mission to speak truth to power.

Well I could go on, but I won't.  You three regular readers already know where I'm coming from, and probably haven't read this far anyway . . . ;-)

"Barack Obama is a strong, Christian family man"

So said Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio, at a rally in the southern part of this state (scroll down to the bottom of this Washington Post blog posting).

"Barack Obama is a strong, Christian family man."

My question: How is Obama's faith relevant to his candidacy for the presidency?

My next question: Isn't this identity politics at its worst?

The answer to the second question helps us understand the first.  This is all about identity politics.  Barack Obama - an intellectual, Harvard-educated black man - has a difficult time relating to Joe Six Pack, who is white, and has probably never been to Cambridge, MA.  Part of the political game is about identifying with voters.  Obama needs to relate.

Bowing to political expediency, then, Obama needs to be explicit about his faith, because for many voters faith might be the only part of his persona that appeals to them.  And for many voters personal appeal is just as or more important than policy proposals.  Sad.  But Christian faith makes a personal connection to many voters.  Personal connection yields votes in November.  Votes in November yields power on Innaugeration Day.  Christian faith - in part, anyway - leads to political power.  What would Jesus say about that?

[I'm not arguing that Obama's faith is a political creation.  By all accounts, Barack Obama is a deeply committed man of faith.  But politics has called for him - and his surrogates - to be explicit about his faith on the campaign trail and but faith to work for political ends.]

But this creates another problem.  His "Christian family man" approach to campaigning in Ohio's appalachian region (see also his "Committed Chrisitan" flyer from the Kentucky primary) reinforces - rather than challenges - the notion that
A) we live in a Christian nation (a nation of Christians is not a "Christian nation");
B) we need Christian politicians to lead this Christian nation. 
This faith-based identity politics is a direct affront to our Constitution, creating a de-facto unConstitutional faith-based requirement for the presidency.

And it is a direct affront to Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians in our country.  The more our candidates perpetuate - rather than challenge, rather than change (to use Obama's word) - the faith-based mypoia of national identity, the harder we make it for religious minorities - or for Christians who do not want to play the faith-based game of identity politics - to claim their rightful place in the American democracy.

Oh, and don't get me started about the ways in which Christian faith gets distorted by politics.  In fact, I fear more for the church than the state when the two get intertwined, but I don't think that either is served the injection of religion into politics.  I've said that before, in many different ways, in my posts on Church & State issues.

Praying at Political/Civic Functions

Reflecting on a offered prayer at the Democratic National Convention that attempted to be inclusive of various perspectives of the Divine, Debra Bendis has some brief comments and questions about the nature of prayer at public events over at Theolog, the blog of The Christian Century.  She asks:

Can we honor the tradition of prayer in public forums without abandoning Christianity? Or, alternatively, can we offer Christian prayer in public forums without being obnoxious?

I'm not sure that we can answer her questions affirmatively.  But it is not so much for the reasons she posits (she seems more concerned about the ecumenical/interfaith aspect of such a prayer).  You regular readers know that I have a wicked separation of church and state streak running through me.  As I commented over on her post, it seems that prayer is an act of faith for people of faith.  What business, then, does an act of faith have at a civic event intended to speak to and be for all people of the community, regardless of faith? 

For what it's worth, I've previously outlined my take on what the relationship of prayer to civic events/causes should be in the post, Praising God, Honoring Country (with the follow-up post More Thoughts on God & Country).

Getting Out the God Vote (Lord have mercy upon us!)

Today's Washington Post Online reports on a Southern Baptist prayer campaign and get-out-the-vote effort designed to get more Christians to the polls and more "godly Christians" elected to office.  Read the full article here.  From the article:

The daily prayers include requests for God's guidance in voting, for the election of more "godly Christians," for God to "help churches find ways to help Christians get to the polls" and for public officials to be protected "from the attacks of Satan." . . .
 
"Our vision statement is an American society that affirms and practices Judeo-Christian values rooted in biblical authority," [The Rev. Richard Land, Director of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission] said. "America will be better off if people who are voting are seeking God's guidance."

A few brief critiques.  As my three loyal readers know, I'm an avid advocate for the separation of church and state.  The problem I see with this campaign is not that it involves Christians praying for government leaders - that's something we Lutherans do every week in our Prayers of the Church - but that it seeks to help Christians vote and to elect "godly Christians" to office.  Their whole campaign is predicated upon the wrong belief that if the government is chosen and run by Christians, our nation will be better off.  Its a move toward theocracy, and its (unintentional?) consequence is to devalue the role of non-Christians in society and in government.  In a pluralist society, in a theological anthropology that acknowledges the sinfulness of humans (even the sinfulness of "godly Christians"), and in a faith perspective that teaches Christians to honor and love our neighbor, a narrow Christian-focused prayer and voting campaign is very dangerous.

We Lutherans are inheritors of a Two Kingdoms theology that teaches that God works both in the Kingdom of the World and in the Kingdom of God.  Luther (ineloquently, to our modern ears) stated that he would rather be governed by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian.  That is, the faith of the leader is much less relevant than the leader's ability to govern with integrity and wisdom. 

Of course, the idea that Christians would promote a "Christian" government is alien to the New Testament.  Since its earliest days and for more than three hundred years, Christianity was a minority religion that suffered alienation (at best) and persecution (at worst).  It is a religion whose central defining moment is the brutal state-sponsored execution of a rejected religious leader.  Martyrdom was a common experience for the early Christians.

Yet in the midst of such pressure, the early Christians taught respect for the (non-Christian) governing authorities.  "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities; for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God" (Romans 13:1). Peter tells us in 1 Peter 2:17 to "honor the emperor."  And of course Jesus taught that we should give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's (Matthew 21:22).  These passages promote a respectful approach toward a government in which Christians neither have nor seek a privileged place.  This stands in contrast to the faith-based, power-grab kind of divisive religious politics that too many on the Right practice today.

Another critique of this prayer/voting campaign: do Jews ever speak of "Judeo-Christian" values?  I've only ever heard Christians (conservative Christians, at that) use this term, and I wonder if it represents an attempt by majority Christians to claim a broader mandate for their narrow social agenda.  By using the term "Judeo-Christian" conservative Christians imply that their social agenda is in keeping with the Jewish people today and with the Jewish tradition spanning several thousand years.  This seems terribly arrogant, if not worse.

Purpose Driven Politics

First we had the Compassion Forum (about which I blogged and complained here).  And now we have Rick Warren's Civil Forum on the Presidency, a conversation with the candidates at his Saddleback Church Saturday night. 

I'm bothered by these religious/political forums, because I fear that they lend credence to the idea that we need to have a religious, a faithful, a Christian president in the United States, as if faith were a prerequisite for the presidency (try finding that in the Constitution!).  Furthermore, Christians are hardly unified on how they feel about a variety of religious - let alone political - issues.  But by their nature these forums present a rather narrow understanding of the Christian faith, and they paint Christianity's political concerns with a misleadingly broad - and blunt - brush. 

Rick Warren promises to ask the candidates about their relationship to Jesus Christ.  From an ABC News report on the upcoming Saddleback event:

[Warren] said the key for many evangelicals is the candidates' "relationship to Jesus Christ ... I'm going to give them a chance to explain themselves."

Huh?  The key for these voters is the candidates' "relationship to Jesus Christ"?  What about their fealty to the US Constitution?  What about their concern for the kinds of things Jesus is concerned about: the poor, the outsider, the widow, the hungry?  Anyone can give lipservice to a "relationship to Jesus Christ" for millions of voters watching on television . . . it's kinda hard (and pretty darn inappropriate) to question the candidates' claim to faith.  But we can and should question and evaluate the candidates' commitment to issues.

And that's what these presidential debates and forums should be about - issues.  Issues of the economy, the environment, international affairs, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, taxation, education . . . that is, let's have discussions about policy, not piety; about governance, not God.

We Lutherans are inheritors of a Two Kingdoms tradition that recognizes the God-blessed function of  government, a function that does not need crosses or Christian banners to be considered blessed.  A government that governs well - maintains order, restrains evil, provides for the common good - is blessed and holy regardless of the faith of the people holding office.  What we need are people in government who can govern well, not necessarily those who can give the correct answers on a religious litmus test. 

So as Christians, let us ask our candidates questions about good governance, let us ask questions about who would be the best steward of the mechanism of government.  These are questions that people of many faiths - or of no faith - can and should ask when deciding on a political candidate. 

And let us not be complicit in using Jesus as a campaign prop.

Some of my recent posts on Church/State issues:
Matthew 25 Network's Obamessiah Complex
Faith, Politics, and Obama
Why I Don't Like the National Day of Prayer
Clinton's Troubling Politics of Choosing Church
Christian Prayers in Government Chambers: Music to the Devil's Ears
Too Much Religion in this Race
Civil Governance & the Church

Or for all of my Church/State posts, click on my new Church/State category link.

UPDATE: Saturday's Washington Post includes an AP article on the forum: McCain and Obama Face Questions About Their Faith.  The article simply presents the challenges each candidate faces in the forum, but doesn't raise any questions about the forum itself.  That's too bad. 

UPDATE #2: An earlier article by Reuters published on Thursday by the Post, Obama, McCain Aim for Faith Vote at Forum is equally lacking in any critique of the forum.

Also, Americans United for Separation of Church and State has a press release critical of the forum.  An excerpt: 

“Campaign 2008 is starting to feel like a Sunday school Bible drill,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “We’re electing a president, not a national pastor. I don’t see what good it will do for the American people to again hear the candidates spout pious platitudes about their favorite Bible verses or how devout they are.

“Candidates should appeal to the voters based on their qualifications for office and their stands on the issues, not their religious beliefs,” Lynn said. “This event continues the campaign spiral into religious matters. Americans want to hear the candidates’ views on important issues such as constitutional rights, public education, the Iraq War and the economy.”

. . .

“Why should one of these important events be orchestrated entirely by only one pastor who comes out of one narrow segment of our diverse country?” Lynn asked.

Matthew 25 Network's Obamessiah Complex

I am a Christian.  I go to church every Sunday.  I believe that God's Kingdom is breaking into the world today, and that justice is a primary calling of all Christians.  I also like Senator Obama.  I've given money to his campaign, and will volunteer for his campaign this fall.  With that profile, I'm supposed to like the Matthew 25 Network, the Christian political action committee organized to support Barack Obama in the November election.

But I don't.  I won't be joining the Matthew 25 Network's Facebook group, nor will I send this group my money.  I like Obama, and I like the call to action that Matthew 25:35-40 represents, but I wouldn't conflate the two.

I find the above poster disturbing, showing Senator Obama's profile positioned alongside the words of Jesus - as if those words and the symbol of Barack Obama are one in the same.  Obamamania is morphing into an Obamessiah complex.

I'm tired and can't write much right now - I leave on an eleven-day church trip to El Salvador in 36 hours - but I agree with pastorricky99 who commented on Matthew 25 Network's YouTube page:

Why can't Matthew25 use this as an opportunity to encourage social action and gospel truth and challenge candidates to respond appropriately? As it stands, this organization appears to be a full scale endorsement of Obama, and not an organization that will challenge the next president to be the one who exemplifies Matthew 25:35-36.

The uncritical embrace of Senator Obama - placing Jesus' words into his mouth, claiming that as President Barack Obama would stand for Matthew 25:35-36, the "proudly endorse" language - is all a bit much.  This is not an anti-poverty organization - it is a political action committee using religious texts to endorse a political candidate.  And that crosses a line.  That bothers me.

Another few thoughts: I am sure that there are many Christians - from the left and right - who stand for the truths of Matthew 25:35-36.  But what is the role of government in this (faithful Christians can disagree on this issue)?  Matthew 25:35-36 makes no claim to Caesar, but to the Christian.  And what will the Matthew 25 Network do when President Obama has to cut funding to anti-poverty programs?  Will they care?  Will they even be there?  Or will his halo turn into Devil's horns?

Senator Obama is already on a pedestal.  We need not put him on a cloud with a halo over his head.  Obamamania is bad enough.  This Obamessiah Complex is beyond belief.

Lord, have mercy upon us.
Christ, have mercy upon us.
Lord, have mercy upon us.