There is always a lot of debate centered around Thomas Jefferson's now-accepted concept of "separation of church and state."
These days it seems like it's used almost equally by people on both sides of the argument: those people who feel that people of faith have no legal right to impose symbols or traditions of their faith into an ever-expanding definition of "government,'' definitions that now include such things as prayer at sporting events or nativity scenes at shopping malls at Christmas; and those people who believe government is trying to interfere with their faith by trying to prohibit prayer and Christmas decorations.
The current presidential primary season has brought a steady stream of commentary from presidential hopefuls talking about the current administrations' 'war on religion,' and indeed (at the time of this writing) the recent effort by the White House to impose governmental morality (an oxymoron if ever there was one) by forcing religious organizations to provide services to employees that go against some of the basic values held by those of that faith.
As a Christian and a Southerner (and hard as it is to believe, those terms are not synonymous), sometimes all I want is for "gummint" - as generations of Southern politicians pronounced the word "government" - to simply leave me the hell alone.
But while reading I Peter again the other night, it occurred to me that attitude was not what the Apostle Paul expected of followers of Christ.
You may disagree, and that's all right. After all, we all know examples of people who believe that once they've "found the truth'' or "seen the light" the are called to separate themselves from "the world."
That idea takes on a lot of different forms: Branch Dividians or Heaven's Gate or the Manson Family or the Forever Family or the Unification Church or Raelians or the Aleph - the list goes on and on.
Those are the extremes. But then we have the Amish - admirable in their faith and consistency, who certainly live lives withdrawn from much of the world around it. Even closer to home, I grew up knowing people who believed women were not to wear make-up or jewelry or cut their hair, and seemed to always go around wearing ankle-length denim skirts that reach their socked-and-tennis shoed feet, while their blouses are long-sleeved and look like they came out of the 1800s. That, too, is a form of separation from the world.
Many even use the same passage in I Peter that I was re-reading, and believe the part that describes believers as "aliens and strangers in the world" means they are to withdraw and live out their lives waiting for Christ's return.
But the same passage goes on to tell believers to "live such good lives among the non-believers that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God ..." It just seems unlikely to me that Peter was telling believers to withdraw from the world while at the same time living lives that unbelievers would see and grudgingly admire.
Peter then goes on to talk about how we're to live in the political arena, the business arena, and in our personal lives. The implication seems to me that we're called to be active in all three in such a way that non-believers see it and are forced to recognize the good that comes from that involvement.
Or, as I heard someone once say, "Don't impose your faith, expose it."
While the framers of the Constitution - descendants or recent escapees from European countries where an organized religion (usually Anglican or Catholic) was synonymous with political power - wanted to create a government that could not force a particular brand of faith down its people's throat, there is also no denying that generations of religious thought and belief - from the Reformation to the First Great Awakening - heavily influenced the framework within which this country's Constitution was shaped.
Ideas like the individual priesthood of the believer and the basic depravity of man led to the creation of a form of government in which every individual was supposed to be equal while acknowledging that because men are prone to do evil, there has to be a system of checks and balances to keep those evil tendencies from dominating.
I Peter says that we're to be visible in the world, to get involved in government and education and culture and be the best citizens and neighbors and family there is.
This whole idea of dividing our lives into the 'secular' and the 'sacred' was unthinkable to the people in the Bible. It would have led to what we'd call dissociative identity disorder, or multiple personalities. It can't be healthy. You live what you believe in every aspect of your life.
So the question is not "how do I make government leave me alone'' but rather "what can I do to influence government, to participate fully in this great experiment framed by the Constitution, to make this country better than it is?"
That is, after all, our right as citizens: to participate. To hear - absolutely to hear - but also not to be afraid to be heard. To try to create an environment that might give all of us a hint, a tease, of what heaven - where Peter says our true citizenship lies - might be like.
Live in such a way that people who don't believe you are right will be forced to admit that there is something different about you that they can't help but admire, even if they don't agree.
And "always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have - but do this with gentleness and respect..."
We don't engage in the political arena to impose our faith, but to expose it.
And believe that just as that faith changed us, it has the power to change the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment