This decision is good news, and comes as something of a relief -- especially considering the fact that the Ninth Circuit is involved. There is no substance to the claim that these two phrases violate the Constitution. Furthermore, they represent only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to such questions. This kind of language pervades official discourse - extending even to the phrase "the year of our Lord" in the dating of many government documents.Mohler then notes that the court determined that the phrases have "no theological significance:"
The court has ruled, in effect, that the language of these contested phrases represents what is rightly called "civil religion." In essence, civil religion is the mass religion that serves the purposes of the state and the culture as a unifying force -- a rather bland and diffused religiosity -- an innocuous theology with little specificity.Mohler is obviously obfuscating here. Civil religion is deadly and dangerous. Civil religion fashions a god that is subservient to the State and uses religion to bolster an idolatrous form of nationalism. Mohler clearly perceives that this is what the Supreme Court has done in this ruling, yet he praises it as "good news."
Christians must never confuse civil religion with the real thing. When our fellow citizens recite the pledge, it is not to be taken as a statement of personal faith in God. In that sense, Christians are rightly concerned that we make clear what authentic faith in God requires and means. Confusing civil religion with Christianity is deadly dangerous.
On the other hand, Christians are well aware of the constant danger of idolatry, and no entity rivals a powerful government in terms of the idolatrous temptation. In that sense, it is healthy and good that we employ language that relativizes the power and authority of the state. It is both important and healthy that our motto places trust in God, and not in the state. And the knowledge that the nation exists "under God" is no small matter.
This decision is not good news, it is bad news for people of genuine faith and conviction. It makes Christians not only complicit but active promoters of a sin for which God warns he will not hold us guiltless.
Only a false prophet eager to accomodate the itching ears of an idolatrous people could find anthing commendable in news that one of the highest courts in the land has officially declared that the name of God has no theological meaning.
The 9th Circuit, following the U.S. Supreme Court, has legalized what the third command of the Ten Commandments expressly prohibits: "Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain."
Mohler also managed to write a book on the Ten Commandments, Words From the Fire, that failed to comprehend and address the Supreme Court's violation of the the third commandment in its 1984 Lynch vs. Donnelly decision.
3 comments:
It is the nature of any government, whether it attempts to serve all of its constituents or only serves the interests of a few, that it is incompetent when it comes to the questions of religious faith. The Supreme Court's view that "under God" has "no theological significance" is a very good example of government's incompetence in this area. It would be much better than the government no say anything about God or religious faith. Government inevitably tries to put religious faith to its own use and purpose thereby distorting, corrupting, or homogenizing it until the point that religious faith has been drained of any significance at all, except only as a tool of the powers and principalities of this world.
Bruce,
I'm a little confused as to why you referred to the Supreme Court multiple times in this blog post. As you rightly noted at the top of the post, these decisions were handed down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals not the Supreme Court
While I agree that Mohler is obfuscating here and civil religion can certainly become idolatrous, I think it should be pointed out that the "no theological...impact" of this decision was simply a word-for-word reaffirmation by the Ninth Circuit of a portion of a previous Ninth Circuit decision from Aronow v. United States (1970).
So, the Ninth Circuit as been on record since 1970 with the belief that the motto "In God We Trust" (which seems to be a bit different than the name of God) has "no theological or ritualistic impact."
Big Daddy,
Thanks for the heads up.
I've been challenging the Supreme Court's Lynch vs. Donnelly so long that, my thinking automatically refers back to that.
The 9th circuit's decision on this case complies with the Lynch decision.
I will revise this entry to correct this problem.
Post a Comment