The harms that "Heritage America" will do to the Church, our Gospel witness, and our republic.

American Progress (1872) by John Gast

Heritage America: Wise Men Have Left Us an Inheritance Ben R. Crenshaw, August 23, 2024 at Americanreformer.org

Ben R. Crenshaw is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the Declaration of Independence Center at the University of Mississippi. He is a Ph.D. candidate in Politics at the Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College.

I came across this article by Ben Crenshaw posted at Americanreformer.org while reading an article about the effort (unserious as it may be) of some complementarian pastors to revoke the 19th Amendment because they believe that women are too empathetic to be trusted with the right to vote.  Needless to say, I reject that sexist view as utter nonsense {The folly of the "Sin of Empathy" - A self-inflicted wound to Christian Fundamentalism or The deplorable shame of using Potiphar's Wife to discount sex abuse victims: A refutation of Pastor Doug Wilson}as have other Christian thinkers {The American Crisis of Selective Empathy And how it reaches into the church. David French}.  While thinking about how foolish some pastors willing to rail against women voters have become in mixing their politics and adherence to the Culture War with their responsibility before God to preach the Gospel, I decided to click on the link in the article about a term that I've seen thrown around of late: Heritage Americans.

I would imagine that some who use the term "Heritage Americans" are full-on "blood and soil" racists no different than yesterday's Klan members, and some others may use it out of a love for American culture and history without any racial overtones or designs on wielding power over others, Crenshaw's article leans toward the former, even though he denies that it is so.  In the end, this entire concept of "real Americans" is dangerous to the Church, our Gospel witness, and ultimately our Republic.  Let's look at some quotes of particular concern:

"Not all people merely by virtue of being human are capable of self-government. In fact, self-government is rare in human history, as most people are too poor, slavish, stupid, or vicious to establish good government and run it well. They are instead better fit to be ruled without, and even against, their consent." 

This line of thinking is the same sort of racism that was rampant during the era of Colonialism.  Crenshaw seems to think that Englishmen (and those like them) are the only ones capable of good government and self-rule {He says as much in the article), the world's other "inferior" people are best ruled against their consent.  His views are ugly, immoral, and entirely ahistorical.  In other words, this should be condemned plainly and as often as necessary to get the point across.

This racial viewpoint offered by Crenshaw is also poison to the Gospel.  God didn't create tiers of people, some inherently different than others, to suggest otherwise is to malign the goodness of God or to call into question his ability as Creator.  If that were not bad enough, this view would also taint evangelism because how could one expect a people who are too "slavish" and "stupid" to govern themselves to be able to understand / accept the Gospel, and even if they do, how could such lesser people make good disciples?  This whole pit of racism is revolting, it has nothing to do with a theology actually derived from scripture.

"Heritage America is unique in that it is not merely a Christian people seeking to govern themselves well, but to order themselves under intentional Christian government and civil law. To be a Heritage American, then, is to accept this form of religious polity and be willing to submit to laws and institutions that are explicitly Christian in their origin, nature, and purposes."

The problem with this is, as it is with all 'Christian' Nationalism, a question of who gets to decide which civil laws are "Christian" and which are not.  What Crenshaw wants to do is blur the line between theology and politics so thoroughly that all civil lawmaking becomes a theological exercise.  As we will see later, he also wants to limit that exercise to Protestant Christians with little regard for our Catholic and Orthodox brothers and sisters in Christ, let alone any regard to those who are not followers of Jesus.

In addition to the problem one can see with a legal code that is supposedly endorsed by Christianity with respect to who makes that definition and who it leaves out in the cold, we also have the little problem of Church History.  We have tried this game before, and it did not end well, at all, for the Church.  From the time of Constantine until the rise of modern nation-states, the Church was intertwined with the power of various kingdoms and empires.  This embrace of power over others rather than Jesus' power under others via a servanthood model {See my 6 hour seminar for a very deep dive: The Church and Politics} redefines Christian discipleship as a matter not of serving others and showing them the value of the Gospel, but instead one of compelling by force and punishing those who do not accept the Gospel.  In the past this resulted in the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition and the burning of heretics at the stake.  Needless to say, as a Baptist who believes in the freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and who considers Rogers Williams to be a hero worth emulating, this lust for power on the part of those who think they are helping the Church is terrifying.

"As already mentioned, the Americans were overwhelmingly Christian, and so religious liberty and tolerance was more specifically Christian liberty and Christian tolerance. That tolerance was intolerant toward many world religions and religious practices judged to be harmful to soul and body; instead, toleration was primarily extended toward overcoming denominational differences among Protestants."

Tellingly, Crenshaw admits that the Heritage Americans he so much admires and wants to give power to failed to give liberty or freedom to anyone that didn't fit within their own definition of being "one of us."  Honestly, he's giving them too much credit.  There was a reason why Roger Williams was forced to flee Massachusetts Bay Colony and found Rhode Island, the Puritans with power in the colony abused it just as any student of human nature could have predicted. 

"Heritage Americans must love liberty in its fullest sense—freedom from external tyranny and internal despotism—and seek spiritual freedom in community with family, friends, and neighbors. Heritage America embraces religious liberty and tolerance toward Christian differences, and might even tolerate Christian-adjacent religions if its adherents agree to live according to Christian civil laws, norms, and cultural expectations."

We have seen this fail miserably in John Calvin's Geneva, in the slaughter of the Thirty Years War, and in the rise of antisemitism that ran parallel to the launch of the Crusades.  It doesn't work.  Freedom for us, but not for you if you disagree, is a recipe for disaster.  It will result in oppression, violence, and evil done in the name of defending Christ and the Church.  The thing is, never once did Jesus Christ ask his disciples to force anyone to follow him.  Never once did Jesus tell his disciples to seize civil power and enforce "laws, norms, and cultural expectations."  This quest for power is popular among today's 'Christian' Nationalists, like Crenshaw, but it is foreign to the work and words of Jesus in the Gospels, and it has harmed the Church each and every time it has been tried.

"These traits are what constitute Heritage America. You might formally be an American citizen by birth or naturalization, but unless you understand these deeply-rooted and traditional aspects of American identity, you cannot be a Heritage American—a true American. Nor is it the case that one can merely pay lip service to these ideals. Instead, what is outlined above is a description of a tangible way of life. Because Heritage America is a habit of living, those outside the tradition can be grafted in. The concept of engrafting—of adopting and integrating into the trunk of a tree branches that are foreign to it such that what was once separate becomes one—is the best way to think about becoming a Heritage American if you are not one currently. It is a particular way of life that is proud and exclusive, but it is welcoming to those who want to live in this manner"

And here is where Crenshaw's racism moves beyond harming the Church and our Gospel witness to threatening the future of the Republic.  The moment we allow there to be an ideological test for "true Americans" we've lost.  If one must pass a test of beliefs in order to be considered a "real" American, the 1st Amendment is a joke.  This trend toward those in the Blue and Red partisan camps viewing each other as un-American (or even, as "enemies of the state") has already caused violence and a dramatic erosion of kindness and decency in our politics.  Rather than seeking to heal this partisan divide, Crenshaw and the concept of "Heritage Americans" would purposefully rupture it further.

"Can you be a Heritage American if you’re not a Christian? What if you are a Jew, a Muslim, or an atheist? Ideally, of course, all Americans would be Christians, whether sincerely or nominally. However, a polity of pure saints is not practical or likely, and so toleration of those who dissent is necessary. There is a balance that must be struck on this point. Non-Christians can be tolerated, as long as they acquiesce to living in an unashamedly Christian America (i.e., submitting to Christian civil law, government support for Christianity, Christian moral, civil, and religious norms and customs, etc.). At the same time, both public and private citizens should be concerned to help the Christian Church flourish in our nation, since a collapse of Christian conversions, church plants, and influence will mark the end of America. Toleration of non-conformists thus presupposes cultural and religious dominance of some sort. This dominant culture ought to be Christian culture."

The end of the second sentence tells you everything you need to know about why this is absolute madness for Christianity and the Church: "whether sincerely or nominally." That is exactly what doomed the expressions of Christianity in Europe prior to WWII.  Everyone was "nominally" a Christian, but many were just paying lip service to that faith, or were counted as being a part of the Church with zero evidence that they even wanted to be.  This Cheap Grace horrified Dietrich Bonhoeffer, to have faith in Jesus Christ reduced to something that one could simply claim with zero discipleship simply because a person was meeting "cultural expectations" is a slap in the face of the Gospel.  The truth is, I don't want nominal Christians in my Church, and nor should any pastor worth his/her salt.  We need committed Christians, we need men and women willing to embrace self-sacrifice and service for the sake of others, we need people willing to pray for their enemies, and willing to turn the other cheek.  'Christian' Nationalists will eventually say the quite part out loud if you give them a chance.  Here Crenshaw has admitted that "nominal" Christians (i.e. ones without real saving faith) are good enough to be Heritage Americans, the Gospel of Jesus Christ has a much higher bar for inclusion: real genuine life-altering, Fruit of the Spirit producing, faith.

By the way, I don't want government support for Christianity.  That support is a Faustian Bargain, the costs are in the fine print.  Far better to have a government that is neutral, that protects the rights of all, and allows the Gospel to compete in the marketplace of ideas.  On a level playing field, the Gospel has nothing to worry about.

In the end, an article such as this one will garner enthusiastic cheers from those whose primary concern is earthly power for people who look, act, and think just like "us."  It should also make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up if you happen to look, act, or think outside of the mythical Heritage American mold.  The concept of Heritage Americans could be rejected solely on the basis of how it dismisses the slaughter of Native Americans, enslavement of Blacks, and contributions to American history of those who weren't White or didn't speak English.  On that basis alone this idea ought to be soundly rejected as an ugly relic of the racism of the past.  However, the way in which Crenshaw, and many others like him, present this as a boon to Christianity and the Church only enhances the danger that these ideas pose.  Make no mistake about it, there is no room at the Cross of Jesus Christ for racists, and no need for the Gospel to wield power over others.

For further reading, see also:

The Kingdom, The Power, and The Glory, by Tim Alberta: A book review

Why plans to build a "Christian" Nationalist Retreat Center in Franklin, PA is not a good idea for the local churches or our town.

Jesus and John Wayne: A few responses to a thought provoking book

The Watchman Decree: 'Christian' Nationalism's 'name it and claim it' dangerous prayer

The posts in my ongoing "Scripture refutes Christian Nationalism" series

Sermon Video: In the beginning God - Genesis 1:1-2

Why did Moses write Genesis 1-3, and why did the Holy Spirit inspire him to do so?  The answer to that question isn't to satisfy modern Western reader's desires to know how and when God created, but rather to speak to the Ancient Near Eastern culture's thirst for the answer to the questions of who and why.  In the end, that's what Genesis will give us because it is about the relationship between God and humanity, and ultimately between God and his chosen people.  For them, the who was the same God who had led them up out of Egypt to Sinai, and the why they already were experiencing as God laid forth his covenant with them, building on the covenant with Abraham.

Is the earth 6,000 years old or 6 billion?  That's not a question Genesis is trying to answer.  Did God use evolutionary processes or not?  That's not on its radar either.  What we do find in Genesis 1-3 is the foundation to answer the most important questions of life: Who am I?  Why am I here?

Under Jerusalem by Andrew Lawler: A book review

 

Having taken the trip of a lifetime to visit Israel and the Holy Land this previous May, I instantly ordered this book when I came across it this fall.  What then are my takeaways about Lawler's book?

1. He isn't writing from a Christian, Muslim, or Jewish perspective, this book isn't designed to bolster the claims of universal truth from any of them.

Archaeology being what it is, one part science and one part storytelling, Lawler's approach serves him well on this front.  He is able to talk honestly about both the finds that confirmed the narratives of each group, and the ones that confounded them, as well as present the characters who organized, funded, analyzed, or protested the digs under Jerusalem beginning in the 19th century according to the reputation their actions have earned, whether that be of a villain or a hero.

2. Even if you have visited Jerusalem, as I have, there is bound to be something shocking and/or wonderful in this book for you to still learn.

Part of me wishes I had read the book before we went, so I could have looked for some of the sites whose digs he describes, another part of me is glad I went there with less pre-conceived notions so I was able to soak in whatever my eyes were telling me.

3. While the book is written and published, the story of archeology under Jerusalem is, if anything, accelerating.

It was remarkable how much of the book takes place in the 21st century, and how many of the excavations he describes are still ongoing to this day.  More "shocking discoveries" in Jerusalem are inevitable, as are, sadly, more explosions of anger and violence because of them.

4.  Our tour guide in Israel emphasized over and over the layered nature of the area's history, how the new was built on top of the old again and again.  In Jerusalem, as emphasized in my recent seminar {What Every Christian Should Know About: The Holy Land} the layers run very deep, and each tells a story even if those digging are only interested in a fraction of it.

Overall, I'd highly recommend this book to anyone seeking to better understand the city in which much of the Bible's events take place, and the place where many of its pages were written.

Sermon Video: A God honoring rebellion? Romans 13:1-2

In these verses the Apostle Paul lays out our responsibility as Christians to the human governments that we live under.  His statements are general principles rather than specific applications, and are based upon the reality that all authority ultimately rests with God (thus every human authority is a delegated one).

Church history has examples for us of the Church working to maintain the status quo, even when that state was unjust to most of its people, and examples of the Church standing with the oppressed and rebels, and bearing the consequences.

Rather than firm answers, this passage reminds us of the prayer, study, and deliberation that ought to go into our desire to live out our calling to be Christ-like in this world.  God-honoring Christians may arrive at different answers to these questions, what we all must do is respect God's authority enough to wrestle with them when we choose to act either for or against a particular governing authority.

The Stories We Choose to Tell: God’s use of The Exodus

 

My beautiful wife Nicole and I have been married for 21 years and counting.  Early on in our married life she began a habit of asking, “tell me a story” at the end of our day.  Aside from an occasional foray into fiction, my go-to response was to tell her about how we had met, about our first kiss, reminding her that she asked me to kiss her, and how we had subsequently fallen in love. 

Along with these origin stories about how our union came to be, which she enjoyed even though they lacked any radioactive spider bites or experiments with gamma radiation, I recounted to her the tales of road trips we had taken together to Texas, Virginia, Glacier National Park and Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain National Park, and once more to Glacier National Park, and the various adventures, and misadventures that accompanied them. 

For example, “Do you remember the time we pulled a pop-up camper to RMNP, only to discover while we tried to set it up in the dark at the end of the first day that we’d left two of the poles behind, necessitating making new ones from some pipe purchased at a Lowe’s the next day, have the stove be unusable because the gas line was clogged with a wasp nest, discover the hard way that misquotes had multiple ways inside that we needed to plug, have a flat on the car in Colorado and on the trailer in MN, and finally have the lift mechanism stuck in the up position while I beat on it with a rubber hammer at Tahquamenon Falls State Park in MI’s U.P.?  Ah, fun times.”  FYI, that was the only trip we took with that trailer, sold it the next summer.

For Christmas 2007, I created a journal of memories to give to Nicole that covered our relationship from 1999 when we first met until then.  It was a leather-bound journal with the written version of the stories from my point of view that I had been telling her at night, in my dubious handwriting, but also with stickers representing the various events in our lives together and places we had visited in it that I had purchased at a craft store to give it some flare.

In 2014, when Nicole and I returned to Glacier National Park, hiking to some of the same places as we had in 2004 like Avalanche Lake, but adding a 13.6-mile round trip trail with 3,526 feet of elevation gain to Sperry Chalet, the last mile or so on top of the still six or seven feet deep snow that remained in mid-June.  It was a climb that seemed endless to Nicole, especially since you can’t see the goal to know if you’re getting close or not until you’re almost to it.  After that trip, Nicole took it upon herself to one-up my effort of commemoration by making this professional looking book on the computer and printing it on Shutterfly.

The thing is, we both knew the stories that we were telling each other, or writing about, already.  It wasn’t new information the first time we told it to each other, let alone on subsequent retellings, so why did Nicole want me to share with her those same memories over and over again? 

The reason has to do with the value we place on the stories we choose to tell about the past.  There was a reason why she didn’t ask me to, and I didn’t choose to, recount boring everyday stories, things from work, traumas, or sorrows, but rather focused upon those seminal moments, those vivid, comic, and happy memories that we shared together.  Our shared stories are instrumental in explaining how we became who we are now, the experiences themselves having molded and shaped us along the way.

It turns out, God does much the same thing by choosing to share, and reshare, specific stories about the past in the scriptures.  One moment in time stands out as the example par excellence: The Exodus. 

The first time God tells Moses that The Exodus is going to be a recurring theme occurs during the instructions about the Passover,

Exodus 12:14     New International Version

“This is a day you are to commemorate; for the generations to come you shall celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—a lasting ordinance.

Even before it had happened, God told Moses that his people would be required to commemorate this display of God’s power and covenantal faithfulness with a yearly ceremony in perpetuity.

It was much less than one year before the story of The Exodus was brought back up, even before the Israelites arrived at Mt. Sinai, God needed to remind them of the plagues that had befallen Egypt, this first time using the story to put a stop to their grumbling along the way.

In fact, Moses used the story of The Exodus when talking to God, who certainly hadn’t forgotten about it, in his plea for mercy upon the Israelites following the Golden Calf debacle.

Exodus 32:11-12     New International Version

11 But Moses sought the favor of the Lord his God. “Lord,” he said, “why should your anger burn against your people, whom you brought out of Egypt with great power and a mighty hand? 12 Why should the Egyptians say, ‘It was with evil intent that he brought them out, to kill them in the mountains and to wipe them off the face of the earth’? Turn from your fierce anger; relent and do not bring disaster on your people.

Thus begins a pattern repeated many, many times in the remaining books of the Hebrew Scriptures as well as in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament, of God, the psalmists, the prophets, Jesus, the Apostles, and more making direct references and easily identifiable allusions to God’s actions in The Exodus. 

The Exodus in subsequent portions of scripture becomes a catch-all capable of both admonishing the people when they go astray from the covenant and encouraging the people during times of oppression.  While pointing to the past, references to The Exodus also become the basis for promises about what God will do for his people in the future, with the ultimate culmination being the Messianic fulfillment of Jesus whose life and ministry is steeped in Exodus imagery highlighted by a Passover meal at the beginning of his Passion.

The past, for God, is a tool capable of teaching his people what he needs them to know in a variety of settings and circumstances.  It is not meant to be forgotten, but remembered and learned from not once, but multiple times.

What then do we do with what God has done in our lives, individually, our families, as a local congregation, and as a region of the American Baptist Churches?  Commemoration and celebration are certainly in order, as is storytelling and preservation of that history that allows it to be shared now and in the future. 

Following the biblical examples of how The Exodus is used, perhaps the most important things we can do with our knowledge of what God has done for us and through us in the past, is use it to help us confront, and by God’s grace overcome, the challenges of the present.  Have we strayed?  Remembering how God forgave our past can guide us to repentance again.  Are we burdened?  Recalling how God provided in our past can comfort us and give us hope.  Do we need motivation? Praising God for the outpouring of his amazing grace in living memory can help us find it.

What stories do you need to tell of the love of God manifested in your church and your family?

The stories I can choose to tell to Nicole in the present have a new character in them since she made “Nicole and Randy’s Big Adventure” in 2014: our precious Clara Marie.  And while we were already aware of God’s presence in the first 14 years of our journey as husband and wife, especially the difficult years that led step by step to our decision to move to PA in 2012, and while we have already given him glory for seeing us through those days, parenthood is often God’s way of saying, “you ain’t seen nothing yet.”  We have so many stories to tell of God’s love and faithfulness.

On the Anti-Woke hit list: Reading While Black by Esau McCaulley (a review & response, part 1)

Having been singled out in the original petition that started off the "Grove City College is going 'woke'" scare, I thought it worthwhile to read for myself what is contained in Reading While Black by Anglican Priest and Wheaton College professor, Esau McCaulley (I've heard him interviewed previously on the HolyPost podcast and been impressed).  What dangerous ideas are contained herein, or is it all just Culture War smoke?  Is there not value in having students at a college that is 94% white with only one Black professor (himself singled out by the resultant committee as part of the problem)??

That being said, let me share the first passage that made me set the book down and think (from page 11, it didn't take long):

In my evangelical seminary almost all the authors we read were white men...It seemed that whatever was going on among Black Christians had little to do with real biblical interpretation.  I swam in this disdain, and even when I rejected it vocally, the doubt seeped into my subconscious.  Eventually I started to notice a few things.  While I was at home with much of the theology in evangelicalism, there were real disconnects.  First, there was the portrayal of the Black church in these circles.  I was told that the social gospel had corrupted Black Christianity.  Rather than placing my hope there, I should look to the golden age of theology, either in the early years of this country, or during the postwar boom of American Protestantism.  But the historian in me couldn't help but realize that these apexes of theological faithfulness coincided with nadirs of Black freedom. (p. 11)

As someone who grew up in a county that was 95% white, going to a school that was 99% white and a church that was 100% white, I had no direct knowledge of the state of the Black Church in America, but Esau's observation that much of Evangelicalism has written off the Black Church as hopelessly tainted by the Social Gospel is an accurate reflection of the vibe that I felt as a young person.  I can't point to a specific moment or person who advanced that notion, but it was there.

While it is true that the theology of any era of the Church could be tainted by the failures of that era in specific areas of sin, and the failures of a culture do not necessarily infect individuals within it {For example: Bonhoeffer rising above the Nazi-tainted theology of the Germany he grew up in}, that being said, the connection between leading American theologians and the dehumanizing treatment of Blacks should not be papered over.  How could it be a Golden Age when so much of the American Church was acquiescent to, or even championing, such injustice?  How can Evangelicalism be healthy if we don't reckon with this history, or worse yet, try to dismiss it?  {For example: The troubling whitewashing of Jonathan Edwards' ownership of slaves by John Piper}

I learned that too often alongside the four pillars of evangelicalism...were unspoken fifth and sixth pillars.  These are a general agreement on a certain reading of American history that downplayed injustice and a gentlemen's agreement to remain largely silent on current issues of racism and systematic injustice.  How could I exist comfortably in a tradition that too often valorizes a period of time when my people couldn't buy homes in the neighborhood that they wanted or attend the schools that their skills gave them access to?  How could I accept a place in a community if the cost for a seat at the table was silence? (p. 11-12)

And here is where the strong push-back against the idea of racial reconciliation following the murder of George Floyd comes into play.  McCaulley's book was published in 2020, since then the amount of conversation and effort poured into being 'anti-woke' and anti-CRT, including official statements from the seminary presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention, speaks to the truth of the 'unspoken pillars' that he refers to.  Efforts to speak to some of the true horrors of American history or efforts to understand and combat the racism that still infects our society today, have been condemned as threats against Christianity {thanks, in part, to the merging of Church and State in Christian Nationalism, to be a 'good Christian' one must be a patriotic American}.  In his analysis, Esau McCaulley is speaking the truth, but it isn't one that many within Evangelical circles want to hear, hence the drive to purge Christian Colleges of such viewpoints.

{Further reading: When the shameful past of Racism hits close to home, a response to Richard Rothstein's The Color of Law which details the history of Redlining (the practice of keeping minorities out of white neighborhoods)}

I had difficulty with how the Bible functioned in parts of evangelicalism.  For many, the Bible had been reduced to the arena on which we fought an endless war about the finer points of Paul's doctrine of justification...But I wondered what the Bible had to say about how we might live as Christians and citizens of God's kingdom...what about the exploitation of my people?  What about our suffering, our struggle? (p. 12)

Here too I can relate to his observations about much of Evangelicalism.  There is great emphasis on getting theology exactly right, but much less emphasis on the practical implications of that theology in the lives of disciples of Jesus.  The social ethic of millions of American Christians {American is put first for a reason, it reflects part of the sickness} has been reduced to Pro-life (narrowly defined), anti-LGBTQ, and whatever Culture War topic is dominating the punditry at the moment.  Does not the Bible have things to say to us about far more topics than these?  Our call as followers of Jesus is supposed to be all-encompassing, yet only a handful of issues dominate all discussion and passions, and racial injustice is decidedly not one of them.

Rather than being a voice that Christian college students should be sheltered from, Esau McCaulley is sharing hard truth that the Church needs to hear, another indicator that the controversy at Grove City College is far more about politics than theology.

Biblical and wise thoughts of Esau McCaulley that I interacted with in October 2021: We ignore "repay evil with blessing" at our peril: the Culture War, politics, and 9/11

Would Americans accept Martin Luther today, or dismiss him for his 'radical' economic views?

It seems almost axiomatic that had Martin Luther King Jr. not been assassinated in 1968 at the age of 39, but instead lived and crusaded against the racism affecting minorities in America for decades longer, that he would have ended his days not as a beloved figure appreciated by even those who disliked his politics and/or theology, but as a 'radical liberal' dismissed by most white American Christians.  Martyrdom has made Martin Luther King Jr. more acceptable to American than are his contemporaries and those carrying on his legacy on behalf of the poor and mistreated.

I wonder, however, if the same isn't true of Martin Luther as well.  Has 500 years taken the 'edge' off of Martin Luther in similar fashion to what has transpired with Martin Luther King Jr? 

As an example, consider the words written by Martin Luther in a 1524 sermon, "On Trading and Usury":

"Buying and selling are necessary.  They cannot be dispensed with and can be practiced in a Christian manner, especially when the articles of trade serve a necessary and honorable purpose...Even the patriarchs bought and sold cattle, wool, grain, butter, milk and other goods.  These are gifts of God, which He bestows out of the earth and distributes among men.  But foreign trade, which brings from Calcutta, India, and such places, wares like costly silks, gold-work and spices, which minister only to luxury and serve no useful purpose, and which drains away the wealth of land and people - this trade ought not be permitted..."

At first, Luther sounds like a Free Market advocate, extoling the virtue of trade as a profession, but then he speaks of governmental controls on the trade of luxury goods, advocating an outright ban on some of these, and worrying about the affect of trade upon the 'land and people'.  Martin Luther didn't live in a democratic society, nor did he experience a modern economy, so perhaps he would have adapted his views to the times.  That being said, could we really expect Martin Luther to forsake his concern about purposeless luxury and his care for how our economic activity affects the 'land and people'?

Luther continued, "The merchants have among themselves one common rule...They say: I may sell my goods as dear as I can.  This they think their right.  Lo, that is giving place to avarice and opening every door and window to hell.  What does it mean? Only this: 'I care nothing about my neighbor, so long as I have my profit and satisfy my greed, what affair is it of mine if it does my neighbor 10 injuries at once?'  There you see how shamelessly this maxim flies squarely in the face not only of Christian love, but of natural law..."

Once again, the precise nature of Luther's objections wouldn't be exactly the same in a Free Market Economy, but the principle of absolute property rights (I can do whatever I want with what I own) that is championed by many Americans (and others of wealth and power around the world) seems hardly to fit with Luther's reminder that a true Christian cares about how his business practices affect his neighbor.

So, how would Luther respond to the economic injustices that he witnessed?  It is only speculation, but he wouldn't likely put his trust in the 'invisible hand' of the Free Market.  Luther's sermon continued with, "The best and safest way would be for the temporal authorities to appoint over this matter wise and honest men who would appraise the cost of all sorts of wares and fix accordingly the outside price at which the merchant would get his due and have an honest living...the next best thing is to hold our wares at the price which they bring in the common market or which is customary in the neighborhood...But when the price of goods is not fixed either by law or custom, and you must fix it yourself, then indeed no one can give you any other instructions except to lay it upon your conscience to be careful and not overcharge your neighbor, and seek not avaricious gain, but only an honest living."

Would Martin Luther's theology be respected by his theological descendants if they came in the same package as calls for governmental price controls, fair market rates, and above all else, conscience as a limit upon business profits?

To what end this musing?  The question struck me in part because of how fiercely Pope Francis is consistently attacked for his economic views about justice for the poor or care for the environment.  Were Martin Luther, or Martin Luther King Jr. alive today, would they not be treated the same way?

Two forces are at work here, both of which tend toward corruption/abuse: 

1. We smooth the rough edges off of figures of the past, making them more palatable to our ears, and thus their wisdom less cogent.

2. We tend to run theology and ethics through our political and economic lens, and not the other way around.

A Moral Hierarchy: A refutation of William Barr's, "Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history."

Speaking at Hillsdale College on September 16th, Attorney General Willaim Barr responded to a question about religious freedom and COVID-19 restrictions with the following, "Other than slavery, which was a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history." {Barr under fire over comparison of virus lock-in to slavery - by Eric Tucker, AP}  I will not evaluate the legal aspects of that statement, which would require examining the COVID-19 restrictions put in place by 50 governors, hundreds of mayors, and thousands of municipalities, each operating under 50 separate state constitutions.  The vast majority of challenges to the restrictions have been denied in court, so let the lawyers argue that point. {In 5-4 Split, US Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to California's COVID-19 Restrictions on Religious Services - by Cheryl Miller of Law.com}  I will also not examine the restrictions from a medical standpoint, preferring to take my medical advice from the likes of Dr. Fauci, Dr. Redfield, Dr. Birx and the collective wisdom of the medical profession, rather than that of a lawyer like William Barr.  Instead, I will examine William Barr's statement from a moral perspective.

The Christian moral hierarchy is reflected in Jesus' response to the question of which of the commandments in the Law of Moses (the rabbis counted 613 of them) was the greatest? 

Matthew 22:36-40 (NIV)  36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”  37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Christianity is not alone in considering the question of moral hierarchy, virtually every philosophy and religion contains inherent within it (stated in a variety of ways) a moral hierarchy.  How we define Good and Evil, and how we view relative grades of both, is a question of utmost importance.  For the United States, our national moral hierarchy is reflected in the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The order of the unalienable Rights in the Declaration is no accident, Life comes before Liberty, which comes before the pursuit of Happiness.  The reason is simple: Life is more valuable than Liberty which is more valuable than Happiness (a catch all for things such as property rights, workers' rights, etc).  As such, if a government were to deprive its citizens (or anyone within its power) of Life, that would by necessity be a more egregious violation than if that same government were to deprive those same people of Liberty (for example through imprisonment), which would in turn be more egregious than if that same government were to deprive those same people of the pursuit of Happiness.  It would thus follow that in order for a government to be acting in a morally acceptable way, it would need a more compelling reason to take a life than it would to take liberty than it would to take property.  This basic understanding of morality is enshrined in American jurisprudence and is reflected in our laws at every level.

Thus we see a government could be morally at fault on three ascending levels.  It is on this basis that the actions of a government should be evaluated when comparing one (potential) violation against another (and also when weighing the cost vs. benefits of laws and policies).

The COVID-19 restrictions were designed to protect Life (a highest order) at the expense of Liberty (home 'confinement') and Happiness (loss of business, loss of work, loss of entertainment).  On the surface, this is what we want from our government, protecting Life above other concerns.  But let us for a moment concede {although I certainly do not} that William Barr is correct and that the COVID-19 restrictions (he didn't specify which ones from which governors, cities, etc) were unconstitutional and an 'intrusion on civil liberties'.  Even if we concede William Barr's assertion, from a historical perspective, there have been many examples, other than slavery, of the American government (federal, state, or local) violating rights that would be more morally significant than the pandemic response.

The following are offered as examples, it is sadly far from an exhaustive list:

The Trail of Tears

The Sand Creek Massacre

The Wounded Knee Massacre

The 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre

Japanese-American internment during WWII

The Tuskegee Syphilis Study

4,743 Lynchings between 1882 and 1968

100 Years of Jim Crow Laws

The denial of GI Bill benefits to a million Black WWII veterans

Decades of deliberate federal housing racial discrimination

Police Brutality during the Civil Rights Movement

The exoneration of 172 former death-row inmates since 1973

For a more comprehensive list of massacres in American History: Massacres in US History

It would not do each of the examples I've listed justice if I tried to summarize them in a few sentences.  The links provide the horrific details of each of them, all of which were morally far more significant than any restrictions that have been put in place in response to COVID-19.  In case you're wondering, similar restrictions were put in place during the Spanish Flu pandemic, these also were not mentioned by William Barr.

I don't know why William Barr ignored these far more significant examples of 'intrusion on civil liberties', only allowing that Slavery was more significant than the COVID-19 restrictions, but in doing so he made an assertion that is demonstrably morally false.

When we elevate deprivations of property above purposeful and deliberate massacres we not only weaken our moral compass, but denigrate those who lost their lives. (Scale matters to an extent, taking property from a million people weighed against taking liberty from a thousand, versus taking life from one, for example.)  This same principle holds true with Holocaust Denial, the refusal to call the killings of Armenians during WWI a genocide, or the downplaying of the horror of South African Apartheid, to highlight a few examples.  The way in which we morally evaluate history impacts the way in which we act in the present.  No matter how unnecessary or unconstitutional a person may view the restrictions put in place because of the COVID-19 pandemic {again, conceding a point that has not been proven}, there is no morally justifiable way to view these as more significant than a long list of times when the government of the United States deprived large numbers of people of life, nor of the times that it deprived a large number of people of liberty, nor indeed even above many other instances of the government depriving people of property.  William Bar is wrong.

Systemic Racism: The casual racism of the phrase "Black on Black crime"

 I grew up in a county that was 95%+ white, I live today in a county that is 97% white, and yet, I have never heard anyone complain following a dramatic drug bust, armed robbery, rape, or murder about "White on White crime".  The same isn't true about the phrase, "Black on Black crime".  I've heard it many, many times, from casual use by white people I know, to pundits, provocateurs, and politicians.  When I was younger, and ignorant of the actual truth of the matter, I even used the phrase myself, and why not, everybody was saying that "Black on Black crime" was a particularly significant problem. Unfortunately for my past self, and for many people today, the concept of "Black on Black crime" being unique or particularly egregious comes not from crime statistics, but racism.
1. Most crime is committed against one own's racial/ethnic group.
Race and Hispanic Origin of Victims and Offenders 2012-2015 - Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Dept. of Justic
In 2014, 89% of Black murder victims were killed by Black offenders, 82% of White murder victims were killed by White offenders {55% for smaller minority groups, less likely to live in homogeneous neighborhoods, Indian, Asian, or Pacific Islanders} 2014 Crime in the United States report - F.B.I.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' 2019 crime victimization statistics report shows those who commit violent acts tend to commit them against members of the same race as the offender.  Offenders were white in 62% of violent incidents committed against white victims, Black in 70% of incidents committed against Black victims and Hispanic in 45% of incidents committed against Hispanic victims, according to the BJS report. {Crime Victimization, 2018 - Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice}
Why do most violent crimes occur against one's own racial/ethnic group?  The answer is simple, most crime is committed within one's own social circle and/or within one's own neighborhood, which leads to the next point.
2. Most Americans (and most people worldwide) live in segregated neighborhoods.
The Racial Segregation of American Cities Was Anything But Accidental - By Katie Nodjimbadem, Smithsonian Magazine
"Despite these declines, residential segregation was still higher for African Americans than for the other groups across all measures. Hispanics or Latinos were generally the next most highly segregated, followed by Asians and Pacific Islanders, and then American Indians and Alaska Natives, across a majority of the measures." {2000 Census Report}
The data proves that school segregation is getting worse - by Alvin Chang, Vox.com

The short cartoon below on racism, segregation, and schools is very helpful in framing the issues.

The short video above explains how modern segregation came to be.

The reasons why America became a very segregated nation post WWII are clear and well documented, it was official Federal Government policy to encourage Whites to move to the suburbs and to ban Blacks and other minorities from joining them.  These policies had a lasting impact on minority communities still being felt to this day. {Redlining's legacy: Maps are gone, but the problem hasn't disappeared -by Kristopher J. Brooks, CBS News}  In addition to its affect upon crime statistics, segregated neighborhoods have had a massive impact upon public education.  In the wake of Brown vs. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the idea of "separate but equal" school was no longer legal, but outlawing purposeful segregation in the schools hasn't made schools equal.  The majority of public schools are funded by property taxes in the neighborhoods in which they reside.  Thus segregation has also brought us poor urban schools, primarily minority, and relatively affluent suburban/rural schools, primarily White.

3. Black crime rates are comparable to White crime rates, incarceration rates are not.

The conclusions about the Criminal Justice System below are from the Sentencing Project's 2018 report, each claim has a footnote in the article for those wishing to judge the data for themselves.  While somewhat higher crime rates for Blacks and Latinos correlates well with higher poverty rates (Poor Whites commit crimes at higher rates than affluent ones, poverty rates are higher in minority communities), the disparities in how those crime are dealt with by the Justice System based on the race of the offender, cannot be ignored.
Report to the United Nations on Racial Disparities in the U.S. Criminal Justice System - The Sentencing Project
More than one in four people arrested for drug law violations in 2015 was black, although drug use rates do not differ substantially by race and ethnicity and drug users generally purchase drugs from people of the same race or ethnicity.  For example, the ACLU found that blacks were 3.7 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than whites in 2010, even though their rate of marijuana usage was comparable.
African Americans were incarcerated in local jails at a rate 3.5 times that of non-Hispanic whites in 2016.
Pretrial detention has been shown to increase the odds of conviction, and people who are detained awaiting trial are also more likely to accept less favorable plea deals, to be sentenced to prison, and to receive longer sentences. Seventy percent of pretrial releases require money bond, an especially high hurdle for low-income defendants, who are disproportionately people of color.
Although African Americans and Latinos comprise 29% of the U.S. population, they make up 57% of the U.S. prison population. This results in imprisonment rates for African-American and Hispanic adults that are 5.9 and 3.1 times the rate for white adults, respectively—and at far higher levels in some states.
Of the 277,000 people imprisoned nationwide for a drug offense, over half (56%) are African American or Latino.
Nearly half (48%) of the 206,000 people serving life and “virtual life” prison sentences are African American and another 15% are Latino.
Prosecutors are more likely to charge people of color with crimes that carry heavier sentences than whites. Federal prosecutors, for example, are twice as likely to charge African Americans with offenses that carry a mandatory minimum sentence than similarly situated whites. State prosecutors are also more likely to charge black rather than similar white defendants under habitual offender laws.
Disenfranchisement patterns have also reflected the dramatic growth and disproportionate impact of criminal convictions. A record 6.1 million Americans were forbidden from voting because of their felony record in 2016, rising from 1.2 million in 1976. Felony disenfranchisement rates for voting-age African Americans reached 7.4% in 2016—four times the rate of non-African Americans (1.8%). In three states, more than one in five voting-age African Americans is disenfranchised: Florida, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The majority of disenfranchised Americans are living in their communities, having fully completed their sentences or remaining supervised while on probation or parole.
Read the whole report from the Sentencing Project, the picture it paints is bone chilling, as each of these statistics represents real people whose lives have been affected by the racial inequities in the American Criminal Justice System.  Also, look at the recommendations they make for addressing this disparity, they are, at the very least, worth consideration and discussion.
The video by Phil Vischer touches on the topics addressed here, and more, please watch both of them.

4. If your explanation crime statistics, or the wage and wealth gap in America between Black and White families involves characteristics inherent to Black DNA, Black intelligence, or Black culture, that is racism.
These are only 4 pieces of a large and complicated puzzle.  To understand the past and present of racial issues in America is no small task, to advocate for policies and laws that will help rather than hurt, likewise requires both a breadth and depth of understanding.  What we cannot sustain as a society, and especially as an American Church, is a continuation of racist attitudes that offer simplistic explanations of racial inferiority devoid of connection to reality.  To my fellow White American Christians: Stop pretending that it is 'their' problem and not our problem, stop blaming 'them' instead of looking to see how we can help. 
"There but for the grace of God, go I" was famously said in the 16th century by the Englishman John Bradford as he watched condemned prisoners being led to the gallows.  Bradford understood that Grace played a far more important role in the outcomes of our lives than we were willing to admit, that it is far less our merit that determines the road we travel than our pride would claim.  Human beings are the same, not matter what they look like on the outside.  If the shoe were on the other foot, if we were the minority facing a history of oppression and injustice and an ongoing legacy of discriminatory policies forcing us to walk uphill, how would we be any different?  To think our thoughts, attitudes, and actions would be different is not only to ignore human nature, but to indulge in racism.

The Absurdity and Danger of analogies to the Holocaust

The proliferation of memes suggesting a connection to current events with the Holocaust ought to give us pause as citizens of a Republic who have the right to Free Speech, and it ought to trouble us further as Christians called to be light in a world of darkness.

1. Every analogy is by definition a minimization of the true horror of the Holocaust.
In theology it is difficult to convey accurate analogies about God because God is unique, nothing truly compares.  Fortunately, the Scriptures contain a number of analogies offered by God, such as that of Father or Shepherd, which we can use without fear that we're straying too far from reality.
When the Holocaust is used as part of an analogy, whichever thing is being compared to it must be of a lesser degree because no event in history can match the Holocaust in terms of the totality of the evil involved, its depth and breadth, its purposefulness {See: The Final Solution}, how many people willingly assisted it {See: Hitler's Willing Executioners}, as well as the danger of those working to deny its reality {See: Holocaust Denial}.  There may be no minimization intended by the creator or the one sharing a meme that uses the Holocaust as its point of comparison, but by drawing a connection between two unequal things, minimization will often be the result.  In the end, the Nazis and their willing accomplices purposefully and systematically murdered six million Jews, eight million Soviet citizens (including civilians and POW's), nearly two million Poles, hundreds of thousands of Serbs, Roma, and the disabled.  Nothing of this magnitude has every happened in human history, whatever thing is upsetting you, it is no Holocaust.

* Exceptions to the rule: Other acts of genocide like that which took place in Rwanda in 1994, against the Armenians during WWI, or those perpetuated against American Indians after 1492.  A sober minded and fact conscious comparison of acts of genocide to each other (sadly, the three examples only scratch the surface in human history) can help us understand how and why this inhumanity has occurred and perhaps even work to stop (or mitigate) such evil in the future.  Let's be honest, comparisons between the Holocaust and the Cultural Revolution seeking to understand their similarities and differences are not what are flooding social media.

2. No American political leader (past or present) has anything like the vision or will of Hitler's embrace of pure evil.
I get it, you don't like (fill in the blank) politician and you're convinced he/she is plotting to destroy our Republic.  Even if that were true (and it isn't) he/she would be a far cry from the next Hitler/Stalin/Mao.  Along the same lines, you may despise this or that creator of news/propaganda, but he/she/they are not remotely in the same league as Joseph Goebbels.  The truth is, for all our failures as a nation, America has rarely produced people as vile as those who propelled the Third Reich, and even more rarely have such evil would-be villains gained true power here.  For example, while there is little positive to say about Senator Joseph McCarthy today, in the end his obsession with finding Communist subversives was defeated through the normal political process and the application of public opinion.  For the most part, America has rejected demagogues, leaving men like KKK founder Nathan Bedford Forrest as a cautionary tale, not a hero.  When we jump to the comparison of the person(s) we don't like as Hitler or Nazis, we once again minimize how truly evil they were, and we wrongly associate that evil with fellow Americans with whom we disagree.

3. America is not a few steps away from Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia.
One of the things that these memes and analogies assume is that we are but a few steps away from either a fascist dictatorship or a communist totalitarian state.  In other words, they view our Republic as an extremely fragile thing, discount those who would refuse to be led in that direction, and assume that millions of brave men and women that wear the uniform as soldiers, police, and other government agents would go along with the nefarious plans of the liberal or conservative threat that you're afraid of.  Those two countries, and others who have fallen prey to authoritarianism, had significant historical and societal differences from the United States, differences that matter.
In addition, if the analogies to Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia were anything close to the truth, the Church in America would need to be an entirely ineffective force, brittle and ripe for takeover.  These comparisons are not only a sign of a deep pessimism about our country, but about the Church here as well.  Thankfully, pessimism about both America and the Church here is overblown.

4. Holocaust, Hitler, and Nazi memes/analogies shut down dialogue, deepen already existing divisions, and make violence and civil disorder more likely.
Self-fulfilling prophecy is a dangerous thing.  The more we declare that our political adversaries in America are evil enemies who must be stopped at all cost before they enslave and murder us all, the more likely it is that somebody will hear that rhetoric and follow through with violence.  After all, what is the point of attempting to peacefully coexist with genocidal maniacs?  In addition, it is now well known that foreign countries, those who consider themselves to be our geopolitical rivals, are actively using social media to inflame the passions of Americans against each other utilizing fake stories.  The sad thing is, they hardly need bother at times as Americans themselves seem all too eager to proclaim that fellow citizens of this nation are so evil they should be incarcerated, if not lynched.

This trajectory is unsustainable.  Either we will, as a nation, pull back from this destructive path as we have in the past or we will continue to lurch forward toward making our own fears a reality.

The theology of mandated/compulsory prayer in public schools is atrocious, its implementation would be worse.

Prayer is not a "to whom it may concern" letter.  Prayer is a conversation with God on the part of those who have a relationship with him, not a magic formula that if said by enough people will cause God rain down blessings on a land.

I write this knowing that a number of my brothers and sisters in Christ, whose motives I am not assuming or judging, will strongly disagree with this assessment of prayer in public schools.  This issue is, however, connected to numerous others respecting the separation of Church and State, the impact of politics and political tactics upon the Church, and our intended role as Christians first and Americans second.

Note: I put the word compulsory in the title alongside mandated because any practical application of mandating that prayer must be administered by public schools would naturally entail a compulsory element to force compliance upon the schools themselves (the most likely thing being the threat to withhold federal education funding) and the students (detentions, expulsions for those who refuse?).

Why is mandated/compulsory prayer in our public schools such a bad idea?

1. Prayer is already in public schools, each time a teacher or student chooses to pray.

Contrary to what you may have heard, prayer in schools (or anywhere else) has never been illegal.  How could it be?  Prayer is a conversation between yourself and God, one that nobody else is privy to, nor able to control.  In addition to the continued availability of private prayer, prayer that is student initiated and student led (See You At the Pole for example) has always been, and will remain perfectly legal.  {No, having a student lead a prayer over the loudspeaker while students are required to be quiet and listen is not the same thing}

2. We have no need to be led in prayer.

I'm not talking about corporate worship, when the people of God are gathered together and one person leads either a pre-written or spontaneous prayer, as that individual (pastor or otherwise) is acting as a spokesperson for us and focusing our group prayer in one direction; we are praying with him/her, they're not praying on our behalf; that's an important distinction.  With that caveat in place, it is absolutely clear in Scripture that because of the nature of the New Covenant, with Jesus serving as our mediator, that we can approach God directly in prayer.  We have direct access to the Father. 

Ephesians 3:12 New International Version

In him and through faith in him we may approach God with freedom and confidence.

Hebrews 4:16 New International Version

Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.

Romans 8:14-15 New International Version

For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”

3. Rote, compelled, and thus insincere prayer (like worship) is not only not honoring to God, it actually offends and angers God.

What would mandated/compulsory prayer in public schools actually be?  Would it be sincere acts of worship?  How could it be for the millions of school children (and teachers) told to pray to a God in whom they do not believe, or told to pray in a way contrary to the dictates of their conscience?  How could these prayers possibly be genuine and from the heart?  What they would actually be is a repeated affront to God, as if God is compelled to bless our nation because we've required everyone to pray, as if God is beholden to us, and not the other way around.  God will not be manipulated, and God will not be mocked.

Jeremiah 7:9-11 New International Version

“‘Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, 10 and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my Name, and say, “We are safe”—safe to do all these detestable things? 11 Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching! declares the Lord.

Hosea 6:6 New International Version

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Isaiah 1:11-15 New International Version

“The multitude of your sacrifices—
    what are they to me?” says the Lord.
“I have more than enough of burnt offerings,
    of rams and the fat of fattened animals;
I have no pleasure
    in the blood of bulls and lambs and goats.
12 When you come to appear before me,
    who has asked this of you,
    this trampling of my courts?
13 Stop bringing meaningless offerings!
    Your incense is detestable to me.
New Moons, Sabbaths and convocations—
    I cannot bear your worthless assemblies.
14 Your New Moon feasts and your appointed festivals
    I hate with all my being.
They have become a burden to me;
    I am weary of bearing them.
15 When you spread out your hands in prayer,
    I hide my eyes from you;
even when you offer many prayers,
    I am not listening.

Your hands are full of blood!

4. Requiring non-Christians to pray a Christian prayer hurts evangelism.

How does evangelism work?  What are the most effective methods for sharing the Good News that Jesus Christ has died for our sins and been raised from the dead for our justification?  An important question, and one studied and debated by those engaging in missions and evangelism both here in America and throughout the world.  The answer to that question is never: force people to read the Bible, pray, and attend church.  Why not?  Because it doesn't work.  Only God can make a planted seed grow, only the Holy Spirit can soften the hard heart of human rebellion.  The only thing that compulsory participation, in a religion that you don't believe in, consistently causes in those it is forced upon, is resentment and anger.  State mandated 'Christian' prayer demonstrates to Muslims, Hindus, or Atheists that we do not respect them as Americans, let alone as human beings, how exactly are we creating an opportunity for them to hear the Gospel?

5. A one-size-fits all prayer to God(s) that tries to please everybody, is the most likely outcome.

The last thing I want is a politician or a government employee writing the prayers that our children are required to listen to, and/or recite.  A prayer not directed at God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit is not a Christian prayer.  What kind of prayer would we be talking about?  It would have to be one mandated/written by the Federal government at the Department of Education, and thus one designed to please Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, Agnostics, Atheists, and thus equally offensive to all and pleasing to nobody.  I absolutely believe in intra-faith prayer, Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox Christians can and should pray together.  I absolutely do NOT believe in inter-faith prayer, for how can we pray together when we don't agree upon who we're praying to?

6. Focus on prayer in schools is thinking like an American 1st, a Christian 2nd.

This may be hard for some to accept, but as a Christian my citizenship is in Heaven.  That I am an American, while being an honor and a blessing for which I give thanks and a responsibility that carries with it civic duties that I take very seriously, is still in the end, only incidental compared to knowing that my soul has been redeemed by the Blood of the Lamb.  As such, I must always consider what is right in God's eyes, what is beneficial to the Church and its mission to share the Gospel, before considering what I think is right for America.  Often the two are compatible, but there is a divergence more often than many of us are willing to admit.  For example: It may benefit (at least in the short-term) America to 'win' at the expense of another nation economically or militarily, but those who live in that land are human beings just like me, created in the image of God, and thus either fellow followers of Jesus Christ, or those in need of the Gospel.  Either way, as a Christian I look at the world, and my nation's place within it, differently when I consider myself a Christian 1st and an American 2nd.  We call this a Christian Worldview, and it is something more Christians need to embrace.  Trying to revitalize Christendom, through official governmental pronouncements and symbols like prayer in schools, is a nation centric-view, not a Christ-centered view.

7. Societies with compulsory Christian behavior were NOT more Christian in their outcomes.

History teaches us, clearly, that requiring Christian behavior like baptisms, church attendance, and public confessions doesn't create the thoroughly Christian society that the outward appearance projects.  This is not a question of public morality, and has nothing to do with marriage, abortion, or other topics where Christian morality is in conflict with a secular viewpoint.  Morality is a different issue that requires a different theological basis.  We have already seen from Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea (which Jesus quotes) that insincere public acts of worship have the opposite affect of what is intended by those who do them or require them.  This is born out by the clear cut examples of Spain following the Reconquista in which the Inquisition utilized threats and torture to force Muslims and Jews to convert to Christianity, and the more recent example of Dietrich Bonhoeffer's Germany, where nearly everyone was a 'Christian', having been baptized at birth, supporting the Church through taxes, and in his words so fooled by "cheap grace" that their unredeemed hearts still enthralled to sin readily swallowed the godless hatred of the Nazis.  Where did the Holocaust occur?  In the heart of 'Christian' Europe, with the help of millions of people who would have claimed that they were Christians.  Are more examples needed?  Calvin's Geneva, where the Church literally ran the town, was not sustainable (and burned heretics at the stake), nor was the Pilgrim's isolated community (Witch Trails being the most well known flaw).  As we have seen time and time again with the Amish, compelled behavior leads to rebellion, even among those who do believe.

8. Our ancestors in the faith died as martyrs to governments that tried to compel them to not worship, or to worship against their conscience; how can we do that to anyone else?

As a Baptist, this is the final nail in the coffin regarding mandated/compulsory prayer in public schools.  The Roman Empire persecuted Christians because they would not worship the Emperor, murdering untold numbers of them, often in purposefully cruel ways.  During the Reformation, and especially during the horrors of the Thirty Years War, Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed Christians all were willing to persecute the Anabaptists who insistence upon believer baptism (the idea that the Church is not everyone in town, only those who demonstrate genuine faith) offended all sides equally.  Many of them were drowned in rivers, by those claiming to be 'good Christians' in mockery of their embrace of immersion baptism.  Sadly, years later when the Puritans came to America and finally had power over their own society, they immediately began persecuting anyone showing signs of dissent.  The United States of America was a bold social experiment in that at the time it was one of the few nations in the history of the world to not have an official state religion.  More than that, religious tolerance was enshrined in the Bill of Rights, protecting the Church from the State, and the State from the Church.
I find it ironic that many of the same voices crying out for a ban on Sharia Law in the United States (where it is not even a remote possibility with the Muslim population at 1%), and who, correctly, decry the oppression faced by our brothers and sisters in Christ in Muslim countries and in Communist China, will then turn around and call for the shoe to be on the other foot here in America.  The degree of compulsion may not be the same, nor the penalties for stepping out of line, but the idea of mandating religious behavior is.  What is morally wrong in other countries ought to be morally wrong here as well. 

Kids and teachers pray in school every day that the school is in session, when they choose to.  God is not asking us to pretend that America is a Christian nation through insincere public acts, but to transform our families, churches, and communities through deep commitments to righteous living and sustained efforts at evangelism.  What will propel the Church in America forward is not policies foisted upon an unwilling or indifferent public, but sincere worship, servant's hearts, and morally upright living on the part of God's people.  If you want to transform America, start with the Church.