Omitting the Divine in Prayer
[Editor's note: Two members of the congregation were disturbed by a column in Tuesday's Orlando Sentinel and made sure that I received a copy of it in order to respond to it. The column was titled, "Why the High Court's Ruling on Prayer Won't Affect All Christians," and it was written by James Coffin, executive director of the Interfaith Council of Central Florida. All quotes and information are from page A11 on November 5, 2013.]
The thesis of the article under review is that, when called upon to lead a prayer for government meetings, a minister can do so in such a way as to not alienate anyone. Even atheists can be spared have their feelings hurt (and we all know how important that is). It is of no great surprise that someone posing as a Christian would set forth the position that one finds in this column, but exception must be taken when a person tortures and twists the Scriptures to try and support his opinion.
Apparently, this article was prompted by a case before the Supreme Court—Greece v. Galloway. The court will decide if it is constitutional to include prayer as part of a government meeting. The fact that the founding fathers (who did precisely that and were aware of the first amendment they authored) obviously thought it was constitutional. Of course, what makes sense to the vast majority of Americans will probably have no bearing on the court.
This time they are going to decide whether the 1983 ruling in Marsh v. Chambers was correct—that all prayers must be nonsectarian and that praying in the name of Jesus cannot be allowed. Having introduced this matter as a hot-button issue, Coffin then says the decision will not affect him or his prayers at such gatherings. He says that he always tries to imagine what Jesus would do; not remarkably Jesus would do what Coffin does.
Unsavory Types
Coffin begins the justification of his view by noting that Jesus often responded to situations in a way that was the opposite of what was expected, which is true, but He did not do so just to be noticed or to fool people, but rather because He was operating on the basis of doing God's will rather than man's. "He openly hung out with unsavory types." What kind of impression does this leave with the reader? Was Jesus living in a crack house or holed up in the hideout of robbers? No, He did eat a meal with a tax collector (Luke 19:1-10), and His teaching caused a woman who was "a sinner" (possibly a prostitute) to leave her sinful ways (Luke 7:36-50). The goal of Jesus was to bring to salvation these "unsavory types"—not give approval to them in their sins, which "hanging out" implies.
"He wasn't big on religious rituals." This statement is either blatantly false or, at best, tremendously deceptive. Jesus observed the Passover and the Sabbath, which are not rituals but remembrances of important events. The only rituals that Jesus did not feel compelled to keep were the traditions begun and maintained by the Pharisees (Mark 7:1-4). He excoriated the Pharisees for their sophistry, their game-playing mentality which minimized the Law of God (Matt. 23).
"He broke a few rules." It was taken for granted by most of the Jews that what the Pharisees practiced was correct. Jesus did not respect the traditions of men—especially when they contradicted the Law of God (Matt. 15). Therefore, He did things that were unexpected and unorthodox, such as eating with unwashed hands. When He spoke with a Samaritan woman at a well in John 4, it defied the social custom of the day, but the evangelistic opportunity was greater than the current cultural convention. When men invent certain proprieties (rather than God); they may be violated that a greater purpose might be served.
The Adulterous Woman
The woman whose story appears in John 8 is cited as an example of Jesus doing the unexpected, and He did, but Coffin does not explain the context. Those who brought her before the Lord cared nothing about the Law of Moses and even less about the woman. Their only goal was to trap Jesus. If He said to stone her, He would be in trouble with the Roman government which did not allow the Jews to exercise capital punishment. If He therefore said to release her, He would have violated the punishment stated in the Law of Moses. They were convinced that they had Him cornered no matter which horn of the dilemma He took.
Coffin is correct when he says that Jesus "did not bad-mouth Moses" and that He also failed to "apply Moses' law." He just omits giving the reason for avoiding both actions. What Jesus did not only extricated Him from the dilemma, it showed that a person needs the opportunity to have a second chance. He gave them an opportunity to apply the Law of Moses; He just asked that the first person to cast a stone at her be without sin. However, Jesus clearly told her to "sin no more." He never indicated approval of the sin.
David and the Consecrated Bread
And he talked positively about King David's having eaten consecrated bread from the sanctuary—because of human need—even though that, too, was forbidden.
It sounds as though Coffin has been reading Joseph Fletcher rather than the Scriptures. Jesus never spoke positively of David's action; He simply used it to confound His adversaries. In Matthew 12:1-8, we read that the Pharisees were critical of Jesus' disciples for plucking and eating grain on the Sabbath day. That this action constituted work was a matter of tradition (their opinion)—not something that was stated in the Law of Moses. So Jesus made an argument to reveal their hypocrisy to them.
Then He said to them, "Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? (Matt. 12:3-4).
Jesus is not exonerating David's actions; He is simply pointing out that David was their hero, and they did not condemn him for a direct violation of the Law. Jesus' disciples, by way of contrast, were not violating a Law of God—only a manmade tradition. The Pharisees, therefore, did not mind an actual transgression of the Law by David, but criticized the disciples for only stepping on one of their traditions. The disciples were not breaking God's Law by eating the grain, and Jesus makes that clear when He says that if they truly knew the Law of God, they "would not have condemned the guiltless" (v. 7). They did not trespass against God.
Situation Ethics
Jesus seems to have taken seriously King Solomon's declaration in Ecclesiastes 3 that there's a time for everything: "What's totally right for one situation may be totally wrong for another, and vice versa.
This is nothing more than codswallop. Coffin should reread Ecclesiastes 3. Where does Solomon say there is a time to violate God's Law? What verse says, "There is a time to obey and a time to transgress"? Right! None exists. The above statement reflects pure situation ethics and would allow a person to justify anything. Joseph Fletcher justified stealing and adultery. These sins, condemned in the New Testament as well as in the Ten Commandments, could be violated in certain situations, according to Fletcher. What Coffin ignores is the fact that God's explicit teaching is right in every situation. True principles do not change just because difficult situations develop.
The Golden Rule
Coffin thinks that "all spiritual obligation is summed up" in the principle that Jesus set forth in Matthew 7:12: "Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets." If that idea is properly applied, he might have a point, but some may misapply it or push it to an extreme that was never intended. Notice that the principle is intended to be applied on a personal level, when one interacts with another. Even Jesus Himself did not apply this tenet in a public forum.
In the example of the Pharisees trying to circumvent God's laws referenced earlier, Jesus told the Pharisees that their heart was far from God and that their worship was vain (Matt. 15:8-9). Guess what? They were offended by what He said (v. 12). So what? Most people are offended when they hear the truth; should we maintain perpetual silence so they will not be offended? Satan would like nothing better than for Christians to be silent when they ought to speak.
Praying in Jesus' Name
In light of Jesus' teaching about the Golden Rule, Coffin says he is "baffled by the tenacity with which we Christians demand the right to pray in Jesus' name when interacting with non-Christians." Baffled? Why should a Christian not want to exercise his freedom of religion? Mr. Coffin admits that we ought to pray in the Lord's name, but then he notes what he thinks is an exception: he observes that we do not tack on "in Jesus' name" when we pray the Lord's prayer. This is a poor argument. In the first place, many Christians do not pray "the Lord's prayer" because we understand that He gave it as a model—not something to be repeated verbatim.
Second, it includes one item that no longer needs to be prayed for. Jesus taught them to pray for the kingdom to come, but the kingdom is now here and has been since the first century. In Mark 9:1, Jesus assured His followers that some would "not taste death till they" saw the kingdom of God having come with power. We know that, when Jesus ascended into heaven, He received His kingdom (Dan. 7:13-14; Acts 2:33). It was established on the Day of Pentecost, and Christians have been made part of it ever since (Col. 1:13-14). So now, we pray—not for the coming of the kingdom—but for it to grow.
Third, Jesus did not say that His disciples should pray through His name at the time He gave them the model prayer because they were all still living under the old covenant, and Jesus would not be high priest until He ascended into heaven after His death, burial, and resurrection. He did not, therefore, mention this additional principle until His last conversation with them the night He was betrayed, when He said: "And in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you" (John 16:23). That day refers to the time of His resurrection. Jesus could hardly have commanded them to pray in His name in the model prayer, therefore, while He was still with them. Christians do not pray the model prayer because of these two changes.
Minorities
The basis for Coffin's omission of "in Jesus' name," therefore, has been discredited, but he continues:
If Christians were in the minority, would we want prayers at government-organized, tax-funded events directed to the majority religion's God? How do American Christians feel about nations where the government is the enforcement arm for the majority religion?
These complaints are not only ridiculous, the two situations are not even comparable. First of all, if we were living in a Muslim country, for example, we would expect everything to revolve around Allah and Muhammad. Why would we be offended that the predominant religious view (even though wrong) had the top priority? We would expect it. What outrages us is that they do not allow freedom of religion. In some of those countries, Bibles are destroyed, Christians are not allowed to meet, and if they attempt to evangelize, they may be put in jail or deported (or worse). In the United States, other religions have the freedom to operate freely—to build mosques and practice their religion. What upsets Americans is that Muslim nations do not grant Christianity the same respect. Coffin should have remained silent on this issue; he loses the argument in a huge way.
Then he argues that, based on the golden rule, we should consider the feelings of agnostics and atheists and omit the expression, in Jesus' name. Hello, they are atheists! Don't they object to us praying, period? Does adding that phrase really make that much difference to them?
Besides, who might be offended more—10% of the nation who do not believe in God or Jesus or the 90% who do and are offended by wimpy, over-sensitive ministers who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings? Jesus hurt the Pharisees' feelings, as mentioned previously. Is there a constitutional guarantee that no one ever gets his feelings hurt? Certainly, the Bible does not guarantee such a thing. Furthermore, are their atheistic convictions so shallow they feel threatened by someone's belief in a God they are convinced does not exist?
Going Where Jesus Never Went
In multifaith settings, I'll pray theistic prayers that aren't deity-specific, seeking through my words to inspire and unify all while excluding none.
This description goes where Jesus never went. He did not seek to inspire the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Herodians, and the zealots to be unified on any other basis than the truth. The only way people can be unified is to give up their errors and misconceptions in favor of the truth. When Jesus prayed on the night of His betrayal, he fervently prayed for unity among His followers (John 17:20-21). But He first prayed: "Sanctify them by Your truth; Your word is truth" (v. 17).
Neither Jesus nor His apostles attended multifaith settings and prayed to some nondescript, vague deity whom none of the atheists would respect anyway. Jesus stated clearly to Jews who did not accept Him: "…for if you do not believe that I am He, you will die in your sins" (John 8:24). Peter and John said to the Jewish council: "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Christ and His followers had too much respect for the truth than to water down their message for some vain attempt to attain unity.
No words that Mr. Coffin could possibly summon up could inspire genuine Christians to have unity with Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or atheists. All of them reject Christ as the Son of God, and Christians cannot give up the truth concerning Him—especially since this truth is the rock upon which Christianity rests (Matt. 16:13-18)! Refusing to compromise does not mean that we do not love all mankind or desire that all be saved (2 Peter 3:9); it simply means that we are determined to stand up for the only One Who can save all mankind.
Christianity is an exclusive religion. It excludes those who refuse to confess Jesus to be the Son of God. It excludes those who refuse to give up sin. It excludes those who are self-righteous and trust in their own wisdom rather than God's. It excludes those who refuse to obey (Matt. 7:21-23; Heb. 5:9). Coffin says we should concentrate on "crucial values we all share." Such as the sanctity of human life? Such as marriage involving one man and one woman for life? What are those values that we all share, one wonders? Only when all people have respect for the truth will true unity exist—which does not seem likely in the foreseeable future.