by Roy H. Ryan
BIO ~ ROY RYAN
A United Methodist Minister, now retired, and a native Mississippian, Roy Ryan lives in Tupelo, Mississippi. He is a graduate of Millsaps College, BA in Sociology-Anthropology and of Emory University (Theology), M. Div focus on New Testament studies. He is also a graduate of Southern Methodist University (Theology) STM in Adult Christian Education and Vanderbilt University (Theology) D. Min in Theological Ethics. Roy has written eight books on Christian education and numerous articles for church and secular journals. He is presently teaching this course on "Christ and Culture" in First United Methodist Church in Tupelo.
LESSON 2
The Nation With the Soul of a Church
Many of the early immigrants who came to the colonies in North America came for religious freedom. Thus, there was a kind of religious undergirding in the developing of the nation. Most of the Founders who developed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights believed in a Creator. Some of them might be called Christians, others were Deists. For instance, John Adams, according to biographer David McCulough was an active church member-Christian. On the other hand, Thomas Jefferson could not be called an evangelical Christian because he looked upon Jesus as a wise teacher, but he chose to develop his own version of the New Testament leaving out any miracles and other parts that did not agree with his viewpoints.
A famous Englishmen, G.K. Chesterton, was asked, "What is America?" His response was, "It is a Nation with the Soul of a Church." He went on to say that it was the only nation in the world based on a creed claiming that "all men are created equal" and that government exists to give them justice. And the authority for this idea clearly names a Creator as the ultimate authority from whom these equal rights are derived.
In the early stages of development of the nation, two people became very important in shaping the way religion and government should be related. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, two Virginians, did more than any others to enunciate the principle of freedom of religion and "the separation of church and state." Most of the founding fathers had migrated from England where there was a State Church (The Church of England where the King or Queen is Head of the Church and the State supports the church). Virginia was one of the colonies that had an "established church." So Jefferson and Madison realized that an "established church" would not work in a new nation where there were several different religious groups who would be seeking the support of the state and thus obtaining a status of superiority over other religions. Benjamin Franklin was also very much in this school of thought. He felt that all "religions" had merit and went so far as to contribute to any religious group seeking his support for building a house of worship.
The metaphor that Jefferson used for his idea of separation of church and state was "a Wall of separation." That conjures up a strong separation -- where neither one could easily get at the other!
Madison used a less rigid metaphor. He talked about "the line of separation." In both cases, there was a clear cut separation. The Constitution and the First Amendment laid down as guidelines very general abstract principles in terms of "no religious test for national office," "no establishment of religion" and no prohibition of the "free exercise thereof."
Today we have many more "religious groups" than was the case in the 1780's. Not only do we have perhaps 300 different Christian sects and denominations, but we also have many citizens of the Jewish faith, the Muslim faith, Hinduism, et. al.
One of the issues today has to do with "prayer in public schools" or the idea of Intelligent Design Theory being taught as science. One needs to ask, who will decide what kinds of prayer will be used?
Many people would certainly feel that Intelligent Design or Creationism (I realize that many proponents of ID say they are not talking about Creationism, but to this observer, they look similiar) has a place in courses like philosophy of objective study of religions of the world, but hardly in the science classroom.
We can be grateful to our Founders for their wisdom and foresight in recognizing and planning for "freedom of religion" that could not be usurped by the State, and the free exercise of ideas. This does not mean that religious groups should not seek to make the society better by supporting policies and programs that help the government be more "just" and "more compassionate." Justice William O. Douglas (writing in the opinion of the Girourd Case) said, "Throughout the ages men have suffered death rather than subordinate allegiance to God to the authority of the State. Freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment is the product of that struggle."
In order to maintain this important part of our heritage, people of all religious convictions and loyalties should thank their God that we live in a nation that respects our differences and guarantees that no one religious group shall dominate. That is the meaning of Pluralism in a nutshell. Thank God we moved from "State Church to Pluralism." Let's do what we can to keep it that way.
For further study:
Sidney Mead - THE NATION WITH THE SOUL OF A CHURCH
Robert N. Bellah, et al - THE GOOD SOCIETY
Jimmy Carter - OUR ENDANGERED VALUES
Russell E. Richey, ed. - AMERICAN CIVIL RELIGION
Part I... Part II... Part III... Part IV... Part V... Part VI... Part VII... Part VIII... Part IX... Part X
Visit the USADS Message Board
or write Ye Editor at bethjacks@hotmail.com.
Please check our submissions page for guidelines.
Back to USADEEPSOUTH - I index page
Back to USADEEPSOUTH - II index page