2nd Circuit Rules Town Should Encourage More Groups to Pray at Meetings

On May 17, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Galloway v. Town of Greece, 0-3635-cv) ruled that the town of Greece,  New York violated the U.S. Constitution by opening meetings with prayers that favored Christianity over other religions.

Linda Galloway and Linda Stephens filed suit in 2008 claiming that the town’s prayer practice affiliated the town with the single creed of Christianity in violation of the Establishment Clause. The district court dismissed granted summary judgment against Galloway and Stephens. The 2nd Circuit overturned the summary judgment and remanded the case to the lower courts.

In this ruling, the Second Circuit did not preclude prayer, but noted that even though prayers may be offered with the best of intentions, those giving them may attempt to “convey their views of religious truth, and thereby run the risk of making others feel like outsiders.”

The court set what appears to be a new standard for determining whether a prayer, or pattern of prayers, is appropriate.

Justice Guido Calabresi wrote for the majority.

“What we do hold is that a legislative prayer practice that, however well-intentioned, conveys to a reasonable objective observer under the totality of the circumstances an official affiliation with a particular religion violates the clear command of the Establishment Clause. Where the overwhelming predominance of prayers offered are associated, often in an explicitly sectarian way, with a particular creed, and where the town takes no steps to avoid the identification, but rather conveys the impression that town officials themselves identify with the sectarian prayers and that residents in attendance are expected to participate in them, a reasonable objective observer would perceive such an affiliation.”

The court also was not impressed by the town’s claim that it would have accommodated volunteers from other faiths since the town “neither publicly solicited volunteers to deliver invocations nor informed members of the general public that volunteers would be considered or accepted, let alone welcomed, regardless of their religious beliefs or non-beliefs.”

The Galloway court referenced the Supreme Court case Marsh v. Chambers., 463 U.S. 783 (1983) where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Nebraska Legislature did not violate the establishment clause by opening its sessions with prayer as it was “simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.”

The Alliance Defense Fund, which had argued for the Town of Greece, is currently deciding whether or not to appeal the decision either by petitioning the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari or asking the full circuit to rehear the case en banc. The appeal would be based on the idea that the town should not need to take additional steps, such as calling for volunteers, to insure compliance with the Constitution.

ANALYSIS

This decision appears to be a rare win-win where the town can continue to have prayers offered, but needs to be more proactive in making sure that the opportunity is made available to a wider range of faith groups.

Prayer is a way to reach for the Divine in reverence and should not be a launching point for an argument. After 2,000 years, there is still wisdom in these words:

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.  But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.  Matthew 6:5-6 (NIV).

###

Ninth Circuit to Determine Whether “Spiritualist” Charter Schools Get Tax Dollars

CASE NOTE: 10-17720 Plans Inc. v. Sacramento City Unified School District

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – MAY 17, 2012 –

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a case this morning on the issue of whether the Sacramento Unified School District is violating constitutional principles of separation of church and state in awarding Waldorf-method charter public schools tax-based funding.

In the case brought by People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS), PLANS argues that Waldorf-method schools should not publicly funded because they are rooted in a spiritual philosophy called Anthrosophy, which was developed by Rudolf Steiner in the late 1800s. Proponents of Anthrosophy attempt to “extend the clarity of the scientific method to phenonema of human soul-life and to spiritual experiences.” This includes developing new concepts of objective spiritual perception.
In the lawsuit, PLANS contends that this is based on spiritualist beliefs such as reincarnation and combines elements of Hinduism, European occultism, Gnostic Christianity, and other religions.

In a website, WaldorfAnswers.org, Waldorf proponents state that, “anthroposophy strives to bridge the clefts that have developed since the Middle Ages between the sciences, the arts and the religious strivings of man as the three main areas of human culture, and build the foundation for a synthesis of them for the future.”

Waldorf proponents deny that Anthroposophy is a religion  because it is open to people of any faith or no faith at all and that this openness in practice, leadership, and belief precludes it from being categorized as a religion. Members are not required to perform a specific form of spiritual practice, and there is no profession of faith.

According to OpenWaldorf.com, which features links to a variety of Waldorf materials but is not affiliated with Waldorf education, teachers in Waldorf schools are encouraged to read a variety of books on spiritual topics, including A Western Approach to Reincarnation and Karma.
Pacific Justice Institute attorney Kevin Snider, who is arguing the case on behalf of PLANS,states, “The record is replete with examples of Anthrosophy that cannot be described as anything other than religious. We cannot have a double standard where mainstream religions like Christianity and Judaism are excluded from public schools while the door is open for esoteric, occult beliefs.”

In 2003, the Ninth-Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that PLANS had tax-payer standing to pursue the case.

###

We Separate Church and State for a Reason – Romney’s Perspective on Religion and the Presidency

 

On December 6, 2007, candidate Mitt Romney gave this speech at the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas in order to reach evangelicals who were concerned about how Romney’s Mormon religion might affect his presidency.  Michael Luo of The New York Times gives some background on the speech. The transcript is reproduced below.

Mitt Romney’s “Faith In America” Address:

It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the First Lady and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the President as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation’s turn. How we respond to today’s challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

America faces a new generation of challenges. Radical violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my Presidency, if I were elected.

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams, ‘We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion… Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people.’

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ ? the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers. I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.

Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes President he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation ‘Under God’ and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from ‘the God who gave us liberty.’

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

We believe that every single human being is a child of God. We are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are ‘thrown into the world all equal and alike.’

The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that Century’s terrible wars — no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: ‘For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me…’

My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

Today’s generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation’s forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired, so grand , so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too ‘enlightened’ to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom. . . killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion. Rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. ‘They were too divided in religious sentiments’, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God …they founded this great nation.

In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine ‘author of liberty.’ And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, ‘with freedom’s holy light.’

God bless the United States of America.”

Burden of Proof: Why Most American Evangelicals Reject Long-Earth Evolution

On May 14, noted philanthropist and neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson is scheduled to give the commencement address at Emory University and receive an honorary degree.  But there is a problem. In recent weeks, some Emory faculty and students have expressed concerns that the University invited Dr. Carson because he is a critic of evolutionary theory and advocate of creationism. Faculty and staff have written that Dr. Carson’s “great achievements in medicine allow him to be viewed as someone who ‘understands science.’” This background, they say, poses a direct threat to science that “rests squarely on the shoulders of evolution.”

The anti-Carson letter describes how there is “overwhelming” evidence of “ape-human transitional fossils” and how this evolution process has advanced an ability to develop animal models for disease and that even “the work of Dr. Carson himself is based on scientific advances fostered by an understanding of evolution.” The letter then argues that “the theory of evolution is as strongly supported as the theory of gravity and the theory that infectious diseases are caused by micro-organisms.”

In 2010, Gallup released a poll that found that 40% of Americans believe in strict creationism, the idea that humans were created by God in their present form within the past 10,000 years.  Thirty-eight percent believe that God guided the process of human evolution from lower life forms over millions of years , and only 16% believe that humans evolved without divine intervention. Sixty percent of those who attend church weekly believe that we were created less than 10,000 years ago. Gallup notes that the numbers have remained generally stable for the past 28 years.

That the number of adherents of creationism remains so strong, even though Charles Darwin’s book, “On the Origin of Species” has been around since 1859 and has been taught in most public schools since the 1960s, is a testament to the persistent strength of American religious belief and faith over contradictory concepts. 

Earlier this week, Forbes magazine staff writer Alex Knapp wrote an essay entitled, “Why Some Christians Reject Evolution,” arguing that many Christians reject evolutionary theory because it conflicts with the Protestant view of the doctrines of original sin and salvation.

Original sin is the idea that God created an absolutely perfect “good” world and a single sin against God committed by one person marred the purity of creation and implicated all of humanity in the act. The Christian gospel teaches that the pre-existing penalty for act of separation from God was eternal death. Being that humanity could not save itself from this penalty, Jesus Christ, a member of the Holy Trinity, personally came to earth, lived a pure life, died, and was resurrected, reconciling fallen humanity to God, thus closing the sin-caused gap between humans and God. Human beings who accept this death as substitution for their own prospective penalty will be given eternal life in a new earth.

Perhaps the only way to explain how evolved human beings would end up with a soul is expressed in the hybrid evolution-creation concept advanced by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis (1950).  Pius XII writes, “For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.”

In Catholic thought, this has been interpreted to provide room for the concept that the bodies of humans were created over millions of years through evolution, and that God ultimately provided separately-created souls which were infused into humans. These souls reconnect to God through practicing the sacraments. 

In contrast, American evangelicals tend to view Adam and Eve as actual living people, who were literally created by God as clay forms into which God breathed the breath of life.  There was no death before the fall of humanity.  The time frames are important because they rely on the Biblical chronologies Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-28 to prove that Jesus was in the prophetically-designated ancestral line of David, and draw the genealogical line all the way back to Adam, the first created human being.

Many evangelicals reject the hybrid view of creation and evolution because it would necessarily require them to regard creation, as discussed in the books of Genesis and of a new earth in Revelation, as allegory and submit the pervasive teachings of the Bible referencing Creation and other supernatural activity to the realm of mythology or cultural contextualism. Acceptance of “scientific” views of evolution would then, by necessity, require a major reconfiguration of matters of faith – and that is something that most adherents to strict creationism are unwilling to do.

Knapp, whose own religious beliefs are not indicated, notes that while some churches have found ways to incorporate the idea of change over time into their belief systems, “for many Christians, evolution isn’t a minor fact of science that can be resolved into the mythos of their faith. It is, rather, a fundamental attack on their faith and many things that they believe.”

There have been a number of heated arguments on the campuses of a diverse array of religious universities regarding how issues of origins should be taught. Some have tried to walk the middle line of teaching “intelligent design” as an alternative to creationism and evolution. Critics of those teaching intelligent design point out that trying to split the issue down the middle does no favors to either side and in the end is nothing but a weakened form of creationism, and an explanation that is of no value to secular science.

Within the larger context of American Protestant Christianity the debate continues without resolution. Among Christians, creationists are often asked to consider various forms of evidence of a long-history of the earth, but those advocating for a long-earth have largely ignored discussion of the genealogies of the New Testament and the concepts of original sin and salvation. Christian evolutionists have failed to provide a verse-by-verse rebuttal to the Biblical Creation narrative or to acknowledge the extent to which acceptance of creation would impact theology.

Instead theistic evolutionists operate on the supposition that Creationists will eventually bifurcate their religious beliefs from scientific understanding, because incompatibilities must be resolved in favor of science. This places faith directly in conflict with science and any resultant battle on these issues will take centuries if true academic freedom is to be granted, but can resolve faster if the voices of religious dissent are silenced and those who have openly criticized evolution are denied a seat at the academic table.

The attempt to “purify” academia by silencing the voices of critics such as Dr. Carson would be the first step toward a secular Dark Ages. So far, it appears that despite the controversy, Emory University’s commencement ceremony will go forward as planned.

###

In response to the controversy at Emory, as of this writing nearly 2,000 people have signed a Petition to reaffirm “Dr. Ben Carson’s Welcome and Defend His Right to Express His Views.”  Click here to view the Petition. 

Letter from Pastor Youcef Thanks Supporters and Urges Prayer | Iran, American Center for Law and Justice ACLJ

http://ACLJ.org/iran/letter-pastor-youcef-thanks-supporters-urges-prayer

Ronald Reagan on Preserving the Sacred Fire of Human Liberty

Remarks of President Ronald Reagan on the 200th anniversary of Signing of the the U.S. Constitution on September 18, 1987.

As we stand here today before Independence Hall, we can easily imagine that day, Sept. 17, 1787, when the delegates rose from their chairs and arranged themselves according to the geography of their states, beginning with New Hampshire and moving south to Georgia.

They had labored for four months through the terrible heat of that Philadelphia summer, but they knew as they moved forward to sign their names to that new document that in many ways their work had just begun. This new Constitution, this new plan of government, faced a skeptical, even hostile reception in much of the country.

To look back on that time, at the difficulties faced – and surmounted -can only give us perspective on the present. Each generation, every age, I imagine, is prone to think itself beset by unusual and particularly threatening difficulties, to look back on the past as a golden age, when issues were not so complex and politics not so divisive, when problems did not seem so intractable.

Sometimes we’re tempted to think of the birth of our country as one such golden age – a time characterized primarily by harmony and cooperation.

In fact, the Constitution and our government were born in crisis. The years leading up to our constitutional convention were some of the most difficult our nation ever endured. This young nation, threatened on every side by hostile powers, was on the verge of economic collapse. In some states, inflation raged out of control. Debt was crushing. In Massachusetts, ruinously high taxes provoked an uprising of poor farmers led by a former Revolutionary War captain, Daniel Shays.

Perilous State of Confederacy

Trade disputes between the states were bitter and sometimes violent, threatening not only the economy, but even the peace. No one thought him guilty of exaggeration when Edmund Randolph described the perilous state of the confederacy. ”Look at the public countenance,” he said, ”from New Hampshire to Georgia. Are we not on the eve of war, which is only prevented by the hopes from this convention?”

Yes, but these hopes were matched in many others by equally strong suspicions. Wasn’t this convention just designed to steal from the states their sovereignty, to usurp the freedoms so recently fought for? Patrick Henry, the famed orator of the revolution, thought so. He refused to attend the convention, saying, with his usual talent for understatement, that he ”smelt a rat.”

The Articles of Confederation, all could see, were not strong enough to hold this new nation together. But there was no general agreement on how a stronger Federal government should be constituted – or, indeed, whether one should be constituted at all. There were strong secessionist feelings in many parts of the country; in Boston, some were calling for a separate nation of New England. Others felt the 13 states should divide into three independent nations. And it came as a shock to George Washington, recently traveling in New England, to find that sentiment in favor of returning to a monarchy still ran strong in that region.

No, it wasn’t the absence of problems that won the day in 1787. It wasn’t the absence of division and difficulty. It was the presence of something higher – the vision of democratic government founded upon those self-evident truths that still resounded in Independence Hall. It was that ideal, proclaimed so proudly in this hall a decade earlier, that enabled them to rise above politics and self-interest, to transcend their differences and together create this document, this Constitution that would profoundly and forever alter, not just these United States, but the world.

When Revolution Truly Began

In a very real sense, it was then -in 1787 – that the revolution truly began. For it was with the writing of our Constitution, setting down the architecture of democratic government, that the noble sentiments and brave rhetoric of 1776 took on substance, that the hopes and dreams of the revolutionists could become a living, enduring reality.

All men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights. Until that moment some might have said that was just a high-blown sentiment, the dreams of a few philosophers and their hot-headed followers. But could one really construct a government, run a country, with such idealistic notions?

But once those ideals took root in living, functioning institutions, once those notions became a nation, well, then, as I said, the revolution could really begin, not just in America, but around the world, a revolution to free man from tyranny of every sort and secure his freedom the only way possible in this world – through the checks and balances and institutions of limited, democratic government.

Checks and balances; limited government – the genius of our constitutional system is its recognition that no one branch of government alone could be relied on to preserve our freedoms. The great safeguard of our liberty is the totality of the constitutional system, with no one part getting the upper hand. That is why the judiciary must be independent. And that is why it also must exercise restraint.

If our Constitution has endured, through times perilous as well as prosperous, it has not been simply as a plan of government, no matter how ingenious or inspired that might be. This document that we honor today has always been something more to us, filled us with a deeper feeling than one of simple admiration – a feeling, one might say, more of reverence.

Covenant With Mankind

One scholar described our Constitution as a kind of covenant. It is a covenant we have made not only with ourselves, but with all of mankind. As John Quincy Adams promises, ”Whenever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will be America’s heart, her benedictions, and her prayers.” It is a human covenant, yes, and beyond that, a covenant with the Supreme Being to whom our founding fathers did constantly appeal for assistance.

It is an oath of allegiance to that in man that is truly universal, that core of being that exists before and beyond distinctions of class, race or national origin. It is a dedication of faith to the humanity we all share, that part of each man and woman that most closely touches on the divine.

And it was perhaps from that divine source that the men who came together in this hall 200 years ago drew the inspiration and strength to face the crisis of their great hopes and overcome their many divisions.

After all, both Madison and Washington were to refer to the outcome of the Constitutional Convention as a miracle; and miracles, of course, have only one origin.

”No people,” said George Washington in his inaugural address, ”can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some providential agency.”

No doubt he was thinking of the great and good fortune of this young land: the abundant and fertile continent given us, far from the warring powers of Europe, the successful struggle against the greatest power of that day, England, the happy outcome of the Constitutional Convention and the debate over ratification.

America’s Solemn Duty

But he knew, too, as he also said, that there is an ”indissoluble union” between duty and advantage, and that the guiding hand of providence did not create this new nation of America for ourselves alone, but for a higher cause – the preservation and extension of the sacred fire of human liberty. That is America’s solemn duty.

During the summer of 1787, as the delegates clashed and debated, Washington left the heat of Philadelphia, and with his trout fishing companion, Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, made a pilgrimage to Valley Forge. Ten years before, his Continental Army had been camped there through the winter. Food was low, medical supplies nonexistent, his soldiers had to go ”half in rags in the killing cold, their torn feet leaving bloodstains as they walked shoeless on the icy ground.”

Gouverneur Morris reported that the general was silent throughout the trip. He did not confide his emotions as he surveyed the scene of past hardship. One can imagine that his conversation was with someone else -that it took more than the form of prayer for this new nation, that such sacrifice be not in vain, that the hope and promise that survived such a terrible winter of suffering not be allowed to wither now that it was summer.

One imagines that he also did what we do today in this gathering and celebration, what will always be America’s foremost duty – to constantly renew that covenant with humanity, with a world yearning to breathe free; to complete the work begun 200 years ago, that grand, noble work that is America’s particular calling – the triumph of human freedom – the triumph of human freedom under God.

###

Robbing God: The Essence of a Church-State Union

By Jason Hines -

In Luke chapter 20, Jesus recounts an interesting parable. In it a man plants a vineyard and rents it out to husbandmen before going on a long journey. At the time of harvest he sends servants to collect from the husbandmen. Instead of giving the landlord what is rightfully his, they beat the servant and send him back. Each servant who comes to collect is beaten. Finally, the man sends his son, thinking that they will treat the son with respect. They do just the opposite and kill the son of the man.

Editor’s Southern Hometown Repeals Blue Law Prohibiting Alcohol Sale on Sunday

Giving An Account: William Wilberforce and the Abolition of the Slave Trade

By David C. Read -

William Wilberforce (1759-1833) was the grandson of a British merchant who had made his fortune trading with the Baltic nations. William’s father died when William was nine, and his temporarily overwhelmed mother sent him to live with an aunt and uncle who were Methodists. At the age of 17, William was sent to study at Cambridge, and the deaths of his grandfather and uncle in the next couple of years left him independently wealthy while still a teenager.

In those days, wealthy gentlemen students pursued cards, drinking and theater more avidly than studies, and young Wilberforce was no exception. He excelled socially, however, and became friends with William Pitt, the younger, who was to become prime minister just a few years later (at age 24!) and who talked Wilberforce into a career in politics.  Wilberforce stood for parliament at age 20, while still at Cambridge, and obtained his seat, as was the custom, by spending a princely sum of money buying votes.  His political career did not impinge on his primary activities of cards, drinking and socializing in circles appropriate to a man of his standing.  The influential salon hostess Germaine de Staël called Wilberforce “the wittiest man in England,” and he must have had a fine singing voice, as Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, remarked that the Prince of Wales would go anywhere to hear Wilberforce sing.

In 1785, while on a tour of the European continent, Wilberforce read, “The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul” by a leading non-conformist minister, Philip Doddridge.  He resolved to give his life to Christ.  He began to rise early in the morning to pray and study the Bible, and he began keeping a journal.  The upper classes of Wilberforce’s England considered religious fervor a faux pas, and stigmatized it.  Wilberforce wondered if he should even continue in public life, and sought advice from John Newton, a former slaver and the author of the hymn “Amazing Grace.”  Both Newton and William Pitt advised Wilberforce to remain in parliament and allow his religious convictions to inform his legislative work.

In the previous article, we saw how slavery gradually withered away in Christendom and was replaced by the feudal system.  Unfortunately, a few centuries later the nations of Christendom became involved with slavery in the “New World.”  It soon became apparent to the Spanish, Portuguese, French, English and Dutch colonizers of the Americas and “West Indies” that the best opportunity for gain came from growing sugar cane and other warm weather crops not grown in Europe.  It was believed that Africans would be best suited to the back-breaking labor necessary to operate the plantations, and more resistant to the tropical diseases that took a heavy toll on Europeans.  Slavery was well established in Africa; the Islamic ummah had been buying African slaves for several centuries.  Europeans found many localities, especially in West Africa, where they could purchase slaves from African slave-dealers.  A triangular trade route developed in which British ships took manufactured goods from Britain to Africa to be traded for slaves, then delivered the slaves from Africa to the West Indies for sale to plantation owners—the infamous “middle passage” of the triangular route—and finally delivered sugar, rum, molasses, or tobacco from the Americas and West Indies to Europe.  This terrible triangular traffic was to continue for centuries.

By the late 18th Century, the stark inhumanity of the trans-Atlantic slave traffic was becoming widely known.  In 1787, many of the drafters of the United States Constitution wanted to outlaw the traffic, but southern slave-holding interests negotiated a compromise which postponed any ban until 1808, at the earliest.  (Article 1, section 9)  On March 2, 1807, congress passed a bill that was signed into law the next day by President Thomas Jefferson (a southerner and slave owner) forbidding the importation of slaves into the United States, effective January 1, 1808, the first constitutionally permissible date.  The disdain for the slave traffic was so great, however, that by 1808 every state except South Carolina had already banned the importation of slaves.

The year 1787 marks the beginning of William Wilberforce’s campaign to outlaw the slave traffic in the British Empire.  He wrote in his journal, “God almighty has set before me  . . . the suppression of the slave trade.”  He met with Thomas Clarkson, a Christian abolitionist who had been studying and researching the slave trade for many years, and who was to provide the witnesses and other evidence supporting Wilberforce’s legislative efforts.  Wilberforce met with the newly formed “Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade,” a group of Quakers and like-minded abolitionist Anglicans.  He met with Prime Minister William Pitt and future Prime Minister William Grenville, and both encouraged him to introduce a bill banning the slave trade.  In 1788, however, Wilberforce became seriously ill and had to leave London to convalesce at Bath.  During his absence, Pitt ordered the privy council to investigate the slave trade and report to parliament.  In 1789, a recovered Wilberforce gave his first major speech against the slave trade, and introduced his first anti-slave trade bill.  Opponents sidelined the bill with two years of absurdly drawn out hearings, after which the bill was defeated, 163 to 88.

Wilberforce would annually re-introduce the anti-slave trade bill every year through 1799.  In 1793, his measure failed by only 8 votes, but the radical phase of the French Revolution and war between Britain and France put the cause on the back burner.  In 1796, the measure failed by only 4 votes; at least six abolitionist members chose that day to see a new Italian comic opera playing in London.  Wilberforce wrote in his diary: “Enough at the Opera to have carried it.  I am permanently hurt about the Slave Trade.”

William’s lack of success in ending the slave trade was ameliorated by happiness in his personal life.  In 1797, Wilberforce was introduced to Barbara Ann Spooner as a possible wife.  Wilberforce was instantly infatuated, and proposed marriage only 8 days later.  The couple were married six weeks later, and had six children over the next 10 years.

In 1804, Wilberforce introduced his bill for the first time since 1799; this time it passed the House of Commons but died in the House of Lords, as Wilberforce mistakenly trusted men not as committed to the cause as he was.  Thanks to constant, unflagging efforts of Wilberforce, Thomas Clarkson and many other Christian activists, the slave trade was a prominent issue in the Parliamentary election of 1806, which returned a good number of abolitionists to the House of Commons.  In 1807, Lord Grenville introduced the anti-slave trade bill, it again passed the House of Commons, and Grenville guided it through the House of Lords, which approved it and returned it to  Commons for final passage.  On February 23, 1807, after many members of parliament rose to speak and salute Wilberforce’s tireless efforts, the bill to ban the slave trade was overwhelmingly passed, 283 to 16. Wilberforce’s face streamed with tears as the final tally was taken.

After at last winning the two-decades-long fight to ban the slave traffic, Wilberforce did not immediately call for abolition of slavery, feeling that the slaves were ill-prepared to fend for themselves.  In 1816, however, Wilberforce began to denounce slavery itself.  In 1823, Wilberforce at last lent his considerable prestige to the cause of total abolition of slavery within the British Empire.  He published a tract entitled, “Appeal to the Religion, Justice and Humanity of the Inhabitants of the British Empire in Behalf of the Negro Slaves in the West Indies.”  In June 1824, Wilberforce gave his last speech in Parliament, calling for the abolition of slavery.  Declining health forced his resignation from Parliament in 1825, although he continue to be active in the anti-slavery movement.  The bill to abolish slavery in the empire passed one month after Wilberforce’s death on July 29, 1833; he died knowing it would pass.  He was buried in Westminster Abbey, near his good friend William Pitt.

Christianity was the animating force behind the movement to abolish the slave trade, and also behind the incomparable career of William Wilberforce.  “A man who acts from the principles I profess,” he said, “reflects that he is to give an account of his political conduct at the judgment seat of Christ.”

David C. Reed is a graduate of Southwestern Adventist University and the University of Texas School of Law. He has practiced law in Texas and California, but is now the director of an independent apologetics ministry. This article originally appeared at the ADvindicate website where Read is a frequent contributor. It is reprinted by permission of the author.

Smelling an Old Man’s Feet: Reflections on Footwashing, the Ordinance of Humility

By Martin Surridge -

As a pastor’s kid growing up in the Adventist church, every thirteenth Sabbath was a special day. I was not actually interested in communion itself, given that I did not participate before my baptism, and I had heard my father tell the story of the Lord’s Supper so frequently that my brother and I would often recite, “Let us now eat together!” while snacking at home. Instead, I was excited about the fifteen minute break just before the sermon, when adults would wash each others feet.

I remember loving that part of the service, often called the ordinance of humility, because it meant I could have fun with my friends in the sanctuary, while my parents and others went off to the beige side rooms to play with hand towels and shallow water tubs. While there was always a general warning to be quiet and remain reverent during this time, we rarely listened. Talking loudly during church often led me into trouble—my dad once stopped a sermon half way through and told me to get up and sit on the other side of the sanctuary.

Now that I’m older, that quarter hour remains my favorite part of church but for a different reason. Today, I join the other grownups in the Sabbath School rooms and participate. As I grew up, and once I started at PUC, I really enjoyed and appreciated the symbolic significance of foot-washing—an act of humility and service based on Christ’s own example.

During Sabbaths at the college church in Angwin or the Elmshaven Church in St. Helena, I would partner with a friend or classmate, but no matter how well I knew them, it was always pretty uncomfortable. Unless you work as a podiatrist or a pedicurist, there is nothing else like foot-washing, no other moment in life when we stoop down to clean another person’s toes and heels, so often the dirtiest part of the body. Most of my closest friends at PUC were basketball players, including my roommate, who spent half the week expelling liters of sweat from their pruny feet into their socks and sneakers.

After I graduated from PUC, and there wasn’t always a close friend with whom to participate, foot-washing became a spiritual adventure. Foot-washing with a stranger was incredibly awkward, or at least it was at first. There are few comfortable conversation topics to engage in while peeling back the dress sock off an elderly man’s foot and handling his callused toes. It’s not appropriate to discuss sports, since we’re in church and everyone around us is humming hymns and praying. We usually chat about the weather or talk about our mutual acquaintance in the fourth pew. While the state of some feet and certain odors might not be too pleasant, some are downright ugly; the ritual itself is incredibly beautiful. I am reminded of both Christ washing our sins away and the spiritual importance of serving the elderly and helping others. It makes me sad when I see how many people skip out on this opportunity because of feelings of embarrassment. I won’t argue that the process isn’t uncomfortable; however, there is incredible value in such discomfort. The words of Christ—turning the other cheek, loving our enemies, rejecting the ways of the world—are not supposed to be an easy set of  instructions.

Years later, my roommate from PUC would be the first person whose feet I washed after the sudden death of my father, a man who had washed my own feet several times, and the emotions of that moment nearly brought me to tears. So for a few embarrassing, quiet minutes every thirteenth Sabbath, surrounded by children’s Sabbath school felts, I awkwardly pick the lint from in-between someone’s toes, and I get to experience a bond with that person unlike anything I have experienced in church or anywhere else. By the end of it, I am proud and honored when the elderly gentleman, who was a stranger to me only minutes before, stands up, straightens his pressed suit pants, prays with me, shakes my hand, and calls me “Brother Martin.”

This article will appear as “My ViewPoint” in the Spring 2012 issue of Pacific Union College’s ViewPoint Magazine.

Next Page »