By Bill Leonard
On Aug. 6, thousands of Christians will join in a day of prayer and fasting at “The Response,” a “solemn assembly” at Reliant Stadium in Houston. Its purpose, leaders say, is “to pray for a historic breakthrough for our country and a renewed sense of moral purpose. We want the presence, power and person of Christ to fill our nation and turn the hearts of millions to righteousness, peace and joy in Him.”
The organizers’ concerns for America are unapologetically Christ-centered. Sponsors reflect a largely evangelical coalition from various churches, denominations and faith-based programs. Preparations have the feel of a revival crusade, aimed at exalting Jesus and promoting a particular Christian witness in the public square.
So why does that witness require sanction and support from the governor of Texas, who is listed as the “Initiator of The Response?” If the event’s primary purpose involves “a recognition of the power and might of Jesus to save all who call on His great name,” why depend on the prestige and politics of a governor’s office?
Certainly state officials could attend, even offering public testimony to their faith. Is Christianity so needy, so limited in vision that it requires political privilege to undergird its message? And why did the governor favor only one prayer tradition? Is “The Response” also a symbolic reaffirmation of America as “Christian nation?”
The website offers “historical precedents” for such a day of prayer, referencing proclamations from certain 18th and 19th century politicians. Some invoke the deity at large, while others call “Christian people” and “Christians of all denominations” to prayer.
The citations reflect the politics and piety of America less as a “Christian nation” than as a Protestant one where religious minorities — Baptists, Quakers, Jews, Catholics, Mormons, Muslims — were often merely “tolerated” by a governmentally advantaged Protestant majority. Colonial politicos themselves differed on the appropriateness of such proclamations.
Pluralism complicates American religion and politics both then and now. Concern over the governor’s sponsorship of “The Response” provoked a legal challenge, but a federal judge dismissed the case, writing that the governor’s invitations were “requests, not commands,” and that offended persons could refuse to attend or could offer critiques based on their First Amendment rights.
Exercising my First Amendment rights and old-timey Baptist conscience I must dissent against a sitting governor’s endorsement of an explicitly Christian endeavor. It is an action that reflects implicit religious establishmentarianism, politicization of prayer and a state-based hindrance to the real power of faith.
Why don’t “The Response” promoters simply trust the gospel instead of relying on government privilege? Perhaps they fear that without such favored status, Protestantism as they know it can no longer make its case in pluralistic America.
Paradoxically, the founding fathers, even those who called for government-sanctioned Christian “assemblies,” forged an environment where religious liberty and diversity would ultimately require an end to such favored status. Thus the gathering in Houston is not simply about the governor of Texas. It marks the death rattle of Protestant privilege in the United States — a Protestantism now on its own.
Baptist historian Robert Handy observed that during the two previous centuries: “Protestants, though denominationally divided, were collectively in the majority, were convinced that theirs was a ‘Christian’ (by which they meant a ‘Protestant’) nation, and were confident that the religious future belonged to them.”
As early as 1960, Baptist scholar Winthrop Hudson insisted that although the “Protestant ethos” remained strong, it was clear that “the United States has become a pluralistic society in which Protestantism has ceased to enjoy its old predominance and near monopoly in the religious life of the nation.” The loss of favored status required a new sense of identity among Protestants. Hudson warned: “When churches succumb to the pressures of secular life and fail to exhibit a distinctive quality of faith and life, the separation of church and state with its clearly distinguished spheres of responsibility loses its point.”
Simply put, the gospel does not need government privilege to be good news. Governors do not invite the gospel “in,” rather it is the other way around.
Since many of “The Response” sponsors want government out of multiple aspects of American life, why not start here? A religious community that benefits from one governor’s invitation today is only one election away from being on the outside tomorrow. Governmental sponsorship of one kind of prayer is a bad precedent. In the end, perhaps there really are no Christian nations, only Christian people, bound to Christ not by citizenship but by faith.
So here is one old-timey Baptist’s recommendation to the folks at “The Response” — turn loose the gospel. If it is as transforming to individuals and cultures as we say then it needs no help from the principalities and powers of the present age.
Anyway, the gospel suggests that even “tax collectors” can enter God’s Kingdom, so maybe Democrats can too. It also welcomes “publicans,” so surely Re-publicans have a chance. There is always hope.