To Pray or Not to Pray: That Is the Question
Dr. John Tamilio III
The church I am proud to serve, the Congregational Church of Canton (in Massachusetts), has been in the news as of late. Some background to the story is needed.
I was invited to deliver the prayer of invocation at the Canton High School Class of 2018 commencement ceremony. The prayer follows:
Holy, loving, and most gracious God, we gather this evening with the Canton High School class of 2018 to celebrate four years of academic and extracurricular accomplishments that culminate in this moment of pomp and circumstance. Bless these fine young men and women, O God. They stand on the threshold of tomorrow, hearts brimming with hope, hands overflowing with possibilities that cannot be enumerated. As they spread their wings…as they venture into the future that You have carved for them, we ask you to consecrate all that they do. Give them the wisdom and fortitude, the love and gratitude, to serve others in the service of you, seeing the entirety of their lives as a ministry of love, truth, courage, and reconciliation. Wherever their future education and vocations lead them, may they embody a spirit of compassion, acceptance, and affinity for all that is good, for all that is just, and for all that gives life. We ask this, and all things, in your sacred name, O Creator of all — and may the people offer a joyous “Amen.”
Less than a month after I offered this prayer, Canton’s Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Jennifer Fischer-Mueller, received a demand letter from the atheist-led Freedom from Religion Foundation in Madison, Wisconsin. They warned the town that they were in violation of the United States Constitution and numerous legal precedents. They asked the superintendent to inform them “in writing the steps Canton Public Schools will take to ensure that religious rituals are not part of graduation ceremonies or any other school-sponsored events” in the future.
The superintendent swiftly caved, saying that “there will be no prayers or religious rituals as part of any school ceremony…or any other school-sponsored event.” She even thanked them for “bringing the issue to my attention.”
After being informed of this by the high school principal, I felt as if a constructive dialogue was averted, that the Freedom from Religion Foundation forestalled a much-needed conversation. The fact that the superintendent acquiesced so quickly gave me great pause. I could not sit still.
I called my friend Dan Rea, the host of the popular Boston radio program Night Side. He invited me to be a guest (the third time he has done so) and we discussed this issue on the air. The next day, I was interviewed by the local Boston NBC news channel. The story went viral on social media and was covered by the local papers.
Here is my polemic: the Freedom from Religion Foundation — their name is a misnomer, because the US Constitution ensures freedom of religion, not freedom from it — is aligned with what Dr. C. Stephen Evans calls the New Atheism. New Atheism is led by a cadre of pseudo-philosophers, such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and the late Christopher Hitchens, who want to expunge religion from society, because they feel that faith in God is dangerous. On the surface, they advocate for the separation of church and state and want to prevent America from becoming a theocracy. I couldn’t agree more. However, their real agenda is deeper and darker. They think that belief in God is pernicious and want to excise God from the public square.
I stood in the pulpit a couple of days later and defended my position to my flock. I read the above prayer to them and highlighted that it is as generic as possible: I do not mention Jesus, Christianity, or the Trinity. I was sensitive to the diversity of attendees and did not want to alienate anyone. I also told then that when I shuffle off this mortal coil and come face to face with Jesus, I can imagine him citing Matthew 10:33 saying, “Remember when I said, ‘whoever denies me before others, I will also deny before my Father who is in heaven’? How well did you follow this, Dr. John?” I never denied Jesus, but if I do not defend him publicly, then I basically have. I cannot and I will not do this.
Why is this organization targeting a small town on the South Shore of Massachusetts? Can’t they put their time, energy, and money to better use? If they are really in favor of keeping a rigid demarcation between the sacred and the secular, why don’t they ask the Federal Reserve to remove “In God We Trust” from our currency? Why don’t they seek a revision of the Declaration of Independence asking for the words “God” and “Creator” to be removed? Why don’t they try to convince the US Senate and House of Representative (as well as our State senates and representatives) not to open each daily session with prayer? Why are they not pushing for Presidential (and other) Inaugurations to not include prayer and a “swearing in” on the Bible? And while they are at it, why not push to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance? Aren’t there bigger fish to fry?
The reason is clear: small towns fear expensive lawsuits and so they quickly kowtow when the atheist bully strong-arms them. Would Canton (and other communities) have surrendered this historic practice so quickly if they were aware that there are numerous legal organizations — such as the Rutherford Institute, the Religious Freedom Institute, and the Center for Religious Expression — that will offer pro bono representation to communities and congregations under attack by groups like the Freedom from Religion Foundation? The Freedom from Religion crusaders attack small towns, because they can get the most bang for their buck: frighten small town America and their beloved institutions and you can route God more effectively than if you attack the “big boys” who roam the corridors of power.
Are we supposed to keep out faith under a bushel basket? Should we cloister our beliefs so as not to “offend” those who disagree with us, as if expressing faith in God is offensive?
Maybe the mainline Church is in such a state of decline, because we’ve let secular humanism and evangelical atheism (the latter is my friend Dan Rea’s term) dominate public discourse. Maybe we are to blame for not having the gumption to stand up and proclaim the truth of the Gospel — that through Jesus, God came to save the world (all of it) from the sin in which we chose to be mired, rather than embracing the grace and reconciliation that only Christ can offer.
As a seminarian, I fell in love with systematic theology so much that I earned a Ph.D. in this field. Never did I think that I would become an apologist! Yet here I am, wanting to shout my love of God from the rooftop, because others want to silence me — and the cost of “giving in” is too great. I cannot afford to submit to the Nietzscheans among us who are sure that “God is dead.”
Maybe there is a bigger opportunity here. Maybe the NACCC can loudly proclaim, “We are a denomination that isn’t afraid to confess what we know to be true. We are a place where all people are welcome and will be nurtured in a love like none other — a love that is found in a God of infinite grace, love, and peace.”
Maybe the populace has given up on the mainline Church, because we have given up on them. Maybe we haven’t been as bold as we should be — ready to shine our light to illumine the dark, to say that there is hope to a world that embraces despondency as if it were a virtue.
- Ernest Nichol had an answer. He wrote the chestnut, “We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations.” What would that hymn sound like if it were called, “We’ve a Story to Tell to the Nations, But We Better Not Because It Might Offend Someone”?
The Gospel is offensive. It is counter-cultural. It offers a Word that contests the greed and isolationism, the violence and degradation that dominate our culture — and thank God it does!