A sermon by Fr. Davenport ©
Church of the Ascension and S. Agnes, Washington, D.C.
14 July 2002
Isaiah, 55:1-5, 10-13
Romans, 8:9-17
Matthew, 13:1-9, 18-23
+ In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Today is Bastille Day. It commemorates the storming of the Bastille, the spark of the French Revolution, sort of the French equivalent of our Independence Day. We may recall our indebtedness to France for her assistance in helping us achieve our independence, assistance that considerably increased her national debt and probably hastened her own revolution. Although our Founding Fathers were sympathetic to the French Revolution's attempt to overthrow tyrannous oppressors, who used religion, among other things, to control the masses, the extreme excesses of the French Revolution, including its violence against religion, shocked our Founding Fathers. But, that is not to imply that our Founding Fathers were staunch, pious, devout Churchmen. Generally they regarded religion as a civilising influence in society, good for public virtue and morals, but many of them had little devotional fervour and little interest in doctrine. (1) Benjamin Franklin rebuked Tom Paine for attacking religion, but Franklin, like Washington and Jefferson, was a deist. They generally believed in a benevolent Supreme Being and had some regard for Christ, but probably did not consider him divine. They hated religious intolerance and restriction on religious belief and practice. In stark contrast to the 17th and 19th centuries, the 18th century was decidedly secularist. The historian Paul Johnson concluded,
There is no doubt that if the United States Constitution had been drawn up in 1687 it would have had a religious framework and almost certainly provided for a broad-based Protestantism to be the national religion. And if it had been drawn up in 1887 it would have contained provisions acknowledging the strong spirit of religious belief and practice in America and the need for the state to nurture and underpin it. . . . The actual language of the Constitution reflects the spirit of the time, which was secular. (2)
The Constitution is an extraordinary achievement, a flexible, living work that has helped produce good, democratic government, and it deserves our attentive respect and qualified reverence. But it is not Holy Writ, and it is not without flaw. That assumption, however, seems to linger in our national consciousness, and it certainly seemed to influence the reaction to the ruling of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the Pledge of Allegiance to one nation 'under God' is unconstitutional. The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, . . ." In 1892, the Rev'd Francis Bellamy, an avowed socialist who had lost his job for preaching that Jesus was a socialist, wrote the Pledge. In 1954, President Eisenhower and Congress added the phrase 'under God' to remind ourselves of our moral superiority over the godless communists. (3)
A few weeks ago, Judge Alfred Goodwin ruled that the phrase 'under God' constitutes "a profession of religious belief, namely a belief in monotheism." He held that a pledge to monotheism is like professing that "we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no God.'" He ruled that it constitutes the state endorsement of religion, a step toward establishing religion. We may not agree with Judge Goodwin's ruling, but his ruling certainly is not 'stupid,' or 'nuts,' or 'ridiculous,' as our leading politicians courageously attacked. (4) Professor Jack Balkin of Yale Law School commented, "As a matter of common sense, a court should struggle not to reach this result. But the reasoning isn't crazy. It's technically correct." (5) We may wish that the Constitution was more explicit in supporting public expressions of belief in God, but it is not. The Constitution mostly attempts to steer the government away from making pronouncements about religion. And there is something to be grateful about that. When civic leaders begin posturing on religion, Churchmen should be worried. Posturing cheapens religious belief. It trivializes religion, making it a tool to garner support, a marketing device, a badge. Religion does not exist to serve a politician or a cause.
Yet, perhaps the Constitution should be more explicit in supporting public religion. Perhaps religion should be more part of our national life. I am both saddened and appalled that Good Friday is not a public holiday as it is throughout Europe. Holiday means 'holy day,' and few days are more holy than Good Friday. If we were a proper Christian nation, we would also recognize the Epiphany, the Ascension, Corpus Christi, SS. Peter and Paul, the Assumption, and All Saints, at the very least. But almost all of our public holidays are secular and civic, and often political payoffs to interest groups: New Year's, Presidents, Martin Luther King, Independence, Labor, Columbus, Veterans. I very much hope that some court does not find that having Christmas Day as a public holiday violates the Constitution, that Christmas as a public holiday serves to establish religion. But I do not worry about that because of the importance of Christmas to business, and is not "the business of America business"? (6)
Some nations are organically catholic, that is people there become catholics almost by fact of birth. They grow up in a culture saturated with Christian meaning. They are surrounded by roads, statues, buildings, holidays, customs, words, foods, et cetera, et cetera, reminding them of the faith and pointing them to God. Alas, that is not going to be the reality in this country any time soon, even if we change the Constitution so that government could endorse public expression of religious belief. Yet, we should be reticent about such a change to the Constitution if we want to protect the minority, if we want liberty and justice for all.
The point of all of this is that most of us, and certainly our nation, have ambiguous feelings about religion. While on one hand, most Americans do not want the public square to be godless; on the other hand, we have concerns about the kind of religion expressed in public. So we do not want religion to dominate it. The United States is a far, far preferable environment for religious belief (and for most noble things!) than say China or the Soviet Union, but our country is not the most fertile soil for nurturing religious belief, and specifically Christian belief. To some extent, we can interpret the parable of the sower along these lines. Our Lord is the sower; we are the seeds; and our society, our culture, is the ground, the field. The word 'culture,' after all, derives from the Latin colere, meaning to till the soil. Our Lord warns of three kinds of bad soil, which characterize our culture.
First, some seeds fall upon the path - hardened soil. The soil, our culture, has been hardened so that people do not understand. As Isaiah the prophet said of Israel, they hear but do not understand, they see but do not perceive; their hearts are fat, their ears heavy, and their eyes shut. (Isa 6:9-10) Our public, civic life confines the purpose of human existence to this world. In addition, as a whole our society does not hold religion, and specifically Christ, to be essential for fullness of life even in the here and now. The Church, however, knows that religion is vital for our health, individually and corporately.
Second, some seeds fall into rocky ground. This represents those who do not persevere through hardship. Our society does not persecute religion. Again, it is not virulently anti-Christian like Chinese or Soviet society, but large segments of our society hold religion in contempt, suspicion, or utter disinterest. When religion is brought into the public square, people usually become nervous. Our society does not make religious belief natural and organic, something that is part of the fabric of our life and culture. Rather, we have to make a decision for it. To be a Christian in our society requires great commitment and will.
Third, some seeds fall among the thorns, which choke out life. This represents worldly concerns and desire for wealth, which devour devotion to our Lord. Our culture considers greed to be a virtue; it helps you 'make something of yourself.' Countless images and slogans bombard us encouraging us to have happiness through consumption and acquisition, and we have bought the lie. What nation is more anxious about storing up riches, about prosperity, about worldly success? We think that Mammon is a sign of God's favour. We put "In God we trust" on our money, and do not even get the irony.
That is one way to interpret the parable. Yet, we have to be careful that we do not blame our personal failings, our lack of fruit, on society. We have just considered the parable with the soil representing our culture. While we can learn and benefit from that interpretation, the preferred interpretation, the interpretation given by our Lord, is that the soil is us. The soil represents our hearts, the sower is our Lord, and the seed is also our Lord, his Word. Will it grow in our hearts and bring forth fruit? Or are our hearts too hardened for the Word to sink in? Or are our hearts too shallow so that we receive the Word and rejoice in it, but only until we have to face difficulties and suffering, so that we can avoid great commitment and sacrifice? Or are our hearts choked with worldly concerns, with serving Mammon? Our culture may not help prepare our hearts, but ultimately the decision is ours. We have freedom to make the decision for or against our Lord. Are we going to serve his Son, the Body of Christ, the Church, and grow and bring forth fruit? We will if we receive the gospel in our hearts with trust, and obedience, and joy, and adoration, and then we have to share the gospel.
+ In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
1. Adams, Madison, Hamilton, Sherman, Pinckney, Gerry, and Livingston may all qualify as exceptions.
2. Paul Johnson, A History of the American People, HarperCollins (1997), p. 205.
3. On Flag Day, 14 June 1954, President Eisenhower declared: "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource in peace and war."
The Knights of Columbus claim to have taken the initiative to add the phrase 'under God.' In a 17 August 1954 message to the Knights of Columbus, who received credit for the initiative to add the phrase 'under God,' President Eisenhower said: "These words will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded."
4. Senator Byrd: "Stupid." Senator Daschle: "Nuts." President Bush: "Ridiculous." I suppose these may be fair statements especially if they endorse 'ceremonial deism.' In a 1963 concurring opinion about school prayer, Justice Brennan argued that the words 'under God' may remain in the Pledge of Allegiance only because they "no longer have a religious purpose or meaning." Instead, according to Brennan they "may merely recognize the historical fact that our Nation was believed to have been founded 'under God'." [Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 304, (1963).] The issue is whether it is responsible to give the public the impression that Goodwin's ruling is simply and utterly without basis.
5. Nadya Labi, "To Pledge or Not to Pledge," Time.com, Saturday, 29 June 2002.
6. Calvin Coolidge, Speech to the Society of American Newspaper Editors, 17 January 1925.
|
|
||
|
||
|
|
||