I have started praying the evening prayer under “Family Prayers” in the 1928 American BCP as a bedtime, or compline prayer, and something it has written is “Bless all in authority over us; and so rule their hearts and strengthen their hands, that they may punish wickedness and vice, and maintain thy true religion and virtue.” Should we as Christians be concerned, not so much that our leaders in government are doing the opposite of what we are praying for, but that there are almost doctrinal beliefs in the west that forbid government authorities from maintaining Christ’s true religion and virtue?
Yes indeed, it is the definition of modern Western politics, to advance politics which contravene (and even forbid) Christ's true religion and virtue... However that does not mean we must not stop to pray for them and put it on God to convert them from their hearts of stone, in His due time and Providence
Of course. It is very concerning that such an anti-God, anti-religion sentiment has gained great control. All the more reason to pray for those in authority. "Those in authority" includes not just the elected officials but also the appointed bureaucrats. The federal govt. in particular is so swollen with administrative people creating and enforcing rules no one ever voted upon, they affect and control many areas of our lives more than the politicians do. I pray regularly that our Lord will give them all the wisdom and knowledge they need to make right, good, godly decisions for the good of all the people. If they have wisdom and knowledge from God, although many of them will still do the wrong thing, at least they'll know it is wrong (and hopefully feel convicted). But some will turn from their greed and self-interest, I believe.
Am I correct in my interpretation that wickedness and vice includes false religion? I am not implying here that authorities need to be tyrants, as how one should punish wickedness and vice is up to the wisdom of the authority depending on circumstances. Nevertheless, it seems that we are praying for at least a public recognition that Christ is King, all worship is due to him, and any other religion but Christianity is false. Therefore, at most a false religion should be tolerated, but never given equal footing as Christianity.
I think you are correct from a moral standpoint. False religions lead people toward perdition, so they are inherently evil. But if you refer to a legal standpoint, in the USA all religions (as well as no religion) stand upon an equal legal footing under current court interpretations of the Constitution.
That's actually not technically true. As a constitutional concept it existed only since the Supreme Court ruling in the 1950s, where the separation of church and state was established. (I can find the exact case if anyone wants.) The big problem with that ruling is that it 'read into' the Constitution this principle, in the same way that in the 1970s it 'read into' the Constitution the right for abortion. These were highly polemical decisions, made by social progressives rather than strict Constitutionalists, who had no interest in the accurate and healthy intent of our Constitutional documents. Now that being said, obviously there has never been a Church established upon America from Washington DC. And yet, there were established churches in most of the colonies, even after the passing of the Constitution, long into the 19th century. Rhode Island had a legally established congregationalism. Virginia had a legally established Anglicanism. Massachusetts had a form of legally established puritanism. None of these had ever been considered unconstitutional. From a legal perspective, the United States is not a country, but a corporation of various states. It's the States which are actually sovereign governments. Obviously none of this is mainstream legal opinion since the 1950s (and arguably since the Civil War, when the states sovereignty was suppressed due to the issue of slavery). But it is nevertheless legally accurate. Therefore, the States can have an established religion, but the federal government cannot. We have a federal system, subsidiarity, imperium in imperio. As for the OP, even the federal government may in fact pray for the reign of Christ the King, and it does not constitute the establishment of a religion. We have had prayers in Congress from the very inception in 1791, and those were Christian prayers, not Muslim or Hindu. Prayers do not constitute an establishment. The first amendment does not prohibit the mention of religion to the federal government; only the establishment thereof.
Note that I was careful to say, "under current court interpretations..." As you observe, federal control has strayed far from where it should be (and so, I might add, has most citizens' understanding of the founders' intent).
I guess what I am trying to say is that if wickedness=false religion, then the BCP directs us to pray for authorities to punish false religion. And if we are praying this we should also truly believe that authorities should punish false religion. The problem is that, based on my experience, most Christians do not believe authorities should punish false religion. Most Christians that I know would say that freedom of religion is a God given right, meaning that God has given every individual the privilege of worshiping the God of their choice, and that authorities are to defend this right. In my opinion, what most Christians believe derives from enlightenment thought and contradicts the prayer in the BCP. Should this concern us? What is the best way to approach this issue? What I have found is this topic is almost impossible to discuss and usually results in people getting upset with very negative reactions. Is it best to never bring it up and let God take care of it?
That's definitely not what is intended there. The prayer does not intend to present a geometric contrast between "wickedness and vice" and "true religion and virtue"; if that was intended, then it would have said "false religion and vice". The prayer seeks to suppress public moral transgressions, such as theft, extortion, fraud, libel, public drunkenness. It is an exhortation for the laws of the land to be just.
I am defining wickedness per the Ten Commandments, not based on the prayer itself. I would interpret the first commandment as a universal duty for all men to believe in and worship the true God. Any worship of a false god or even atheism is wicked.
It sounds like you would interpret the Bible itself as commanding the suppression of false religions and of atheism. But under no Christian era was it illegal to be an atheist. You've basically got two models of politics in Christian history: -coexistence of religions on a secular level -Christian dominance on the secular level Both have approval in Christian history. The Scriptures certainly do not command one or the other, and the Anglican tradition has literally embodied both models in its history.
Yes, I interpret scripture to command the suppression of false religions and of atheism. I would qualify that by saying how it is done and to what degree is determined by the wisdom of the authority and the circumstances involved. For example, “suppressing a false religion” could be as simple as making public authoritative statements that Christ is reigning as King, that Christianity is the one true religion, and all others are false. It might not go any further than that. Tolerance of false beliefs and religion is reasonable because there are situations when trying to forbid a certain worship could end up causing more harm (weighing positives vs negatives). But tolerance is much different than claiming all religions are equal, supporting all equally, and trying to be unbiased. In the end, every Christian has the duty to advance Christ’s kingdom using the authority given them, whether a parent over children, a mayor over a town, or a king over a nation. I would not advocate making it “illegal to be an atheist” as that would be impossible to enforce. Would you agree that it is lawful (but not required) for a Christian authority to do the following, depending on the circumstances: -Require church attendance -Forbid false religions from building places of worship -Tolerate certain false religions having a visible place of worship while forbidding others -Putting a fine on false worship (I believe I read in an article once that Alfred the Great fined pagan worship) -Forbid the open and public proselytizing of false religion -Regulating education to promote Christianity -Censor information and entertainment to support and promote Christianity -Enforce blasphemy laws (today blasphemy is called hate speech)
I have no difficulty in praying for those in authority. I am in the UK not the USA but we face similar problems from our political overlords. I think that those who work for the state, elected or employed, have need for our prayers now more than ever before.
As I mentioned above, Christian history contains two political theories: 1. one where the goals and objectives of the Church are pursued and enacted by the civil government 2. the other where the goals and objectives of the Church are pursued and enacted independently of civil government You advocate position 1, which is a perfectly validated position in Church history. However I side with position 2, which is also a perfectly validated position in Church history (and I'd argue in greater accord with Christian principles). Therefore I do not agree with you that all of the things you listed are lawful (although some could be). Fundamentally, the question we have to ask is, could it ever be just to infringe upon an individual, in order to get him to accept the gospel? I would argue no.
Rom.13 requires disciples of Christ to be submissive to authority because all authority comes from God. The Roman authority in control when Paul wrote that was distinctly Pagan and polytheistic, with the emperor claiming to be a God. Paul obviously tolerated this at the time. But if that was not false religion I will admit I don't know what the true definition of false religion might be. So prayer for Governments to exhibit true religion and virtue must also include the discouragement of 'false' religion, but not by governmental edict, nor by force of arms. Only by virtuous behaviour, knowledge of God, prayer of the church and the example of the saints. In the UK certain religious 'deeds' are forbidden by law, which are patently 'false religion' as far as Christianity is concerned. These 'deeds' though are also criminal offences under the secular criminal law and usually involve the suppression of cruelty to minors or physical mutilation under duress. In the case of the Thuggee sect, it would also include, murder and similar serious offences against the person or persons. .
I advocate some of both. Christian life should not be about choosing between positions 1 and 2. Position 1, for example, would include electing godly Christians to government offices (which requires godly Christians to actually run for office), who would in turn appoint godly Christians to other governing positions (bureaucracy, judiciary, etc.) and who would exchange godly laws for ungodly ones. Overturning Roe v. Wade and stopping millions of murders of unborn children, for example, will only be accomplished through #1 and not by #2. But both are important, and both can be carried out simultaneously.
Your example leaves you with another dichotomy though, doesn't it? Which 'individual' should a 'Christian' politician to compel to submit to the Christian ethic, the adult mother or the unborn child. The mother can be consulted concerning the issue but the unborn can't, but medical circumstances may be life threatening for both. Perhaps this is why the imposition of specifically Christian ethics may sometimes violate the free will of non-Christians counter to the Gospel message of freedom; the gospel being an invitation to be freed from sin, never the imposition of the law. .
First, before I respond back on this, I want to let you know that I am writing in good will. Sometimes I am worried that in my writing this is not clear. So, please know that I am not trying to be disrespectful in any way. “Fundamentally, the question we have to ask is, could it ever be just to infringe upon an individual, in order to get him to accept the gospel? I would argue no.” I used to agree with you on this (I used to be a libertarian) but my experiences as a parent have moved me to my current position. As a parent and husband I am constantly considering how to govern my family properly and I strive to make the best decisions I can for them. What I have realized is my children are individuals and I infringe upon them quite a bit. My children must attend church and they must participate in our family prayers for example, they do not have a choice. I would never allow them to openly worship a false god in our home regardless of their beliefs. Even if a child of mine openly declared their rejection of Christ, as their father I would still require them to go to church and behave themselves while there. I don’t think this is oppressive in any way (we are a happy family), and I believe that my children and my family as a whole have been blessed because I enforce these rules. I once shared with a non-Christian coworker how I make my children go to church and he strongly disagreed saying that I am imposing on the sanctity of their individual choice. He actually got quite upset about it. My response was our current government forces children to go to school, why not church? Why is it that atheist “school” is ok to impose but not church? Clearly, if it is morally just for me to impose on my children as individuals then your statement above has to be qualified. For example, we could say that it is not morally just to impose on an individual unless they are our children. But is that true? How do I define children here? Is there a specific age range where this applies? I can imagine a scenario say, hypothetically, that servitude or slavery was legal. If I had a servant, I would make that individual attend church with my family. I would treat that individual like a member of the family and do everything I could to lead him/her to Christ. I would do it for the same reasons as I do for my children. Would it be unjust to do so? What is it that would make it ok for my children but not for an adult servant? What if I had many servants? The circumstances would be different but I would still want to do everything I could in my position to encourage a true worship of Christ. Another problem is trying to define what it means to “infringe” upon. Some would say they are being infringed upon if certain recreational drugs are illegal. Women believe they are being infringed upon if abortion is illegal. It is much too vague as all law infringes on us and restricts our freedom. The question comes down to how do we define good and evil from which we create our law.
I see no dichotomy. Unquestionably, when a human being is incapacitated, the caretaker is responsible for (and owes a duty to) that human being. So, of course the adult mother is the one who must be compelled to fulfill her duties and responsibilities. I have noticed that some people mistakenly characterize the 'right to life' movement as a matter of Christian ethics. Actually, it is a matter of science, logic, and human ethics and morals. 1. The unborn child is not a plant, animal, parasite, or whatever. His or her DNA is human DNA, so the child is human. 2. The unborn child is not dead, but living. His or her tissues and developing organs all have life in them; cells are splitting, etc. 3. Therefore, the unborn child is a living human. 4. The unborn child is not merely a part of the mother's body. Every human being has unique DNA that sets him or her apart from every other human being. The unborn child has its own DNA, different from the mother's DNA. The unborn child might not even have the same blood type as the mother. 5. Therefore, the unborn child is a discrete individual human being, distinguishable from but residing within the mother's body. 6. Since the unborn child is not simply a portion of the mother, the argument of "my body, my choice" is null and void. 7. A woman who carries an unborn human individual within her womb owes that individual a high duty of reasonable care, just as any caretaker of an incapacitated human being owes that person a duty (and cannot simply decide to kill him or her for convenience' sake). I would argue that this duty is akin to or on the level of a fiduciary duty. 8. Abortion is a breach of that duty. 9. Abortion ends the life of the unborn human individual. 10. Willingly ending the life of a human individual is homicide. This is universally understood and accepted among virtually all human beings (not just Christians). 11. Unjustified, intentional homicide is illegal, and is a violation of ethics and morals, virtually everywhere in the world and among virtually all societies.
All of which has obviously been carefully thought through. However if, as you suggest, the foetus is a human being, (and I don't disagree), then it also has some responsibility for its mother's welfare. (5) and (7) seem to apply here reciprocally. In some rare cases the foetus's continued existence and development, (with our current understanding of medicine), could cause the death of its mother, unless surgeons intervene. There may be other legitimate reasons for intervention, just as there are equally reasons why intervention would be unethical from a Christian point of view. All this makes the framing of 'Law' complicated and far from 'simple'. Often the 'caretaker' cannot perform their 'responsibilities' adequately and will receive little help from 'Christian' society to do so. This makes termination seem the more viable option under the circumstances some mothers believe themselves to be in thrall to. Perhaps more single mothers would willingly go to full term if given the financial and social support required, than if the option of termination were simply made illegal. (Their circumstances would remain the same, they would just seek illegal means of circumventing the law). The imposition of 'Abortion Law' should not be contemplated merely as a cheap means of dealing with ignorance, poverty and irresponsible procreation. Education, equitable distribution of wealth and inculcation of a sense of personal responsibility, (as encouraged by true Christian religion and virtue), would probably be far more effective at achieving the objective of reducing the appalling numbers of terminations of pregnancy in the USA. .