Proposition 4: Public Acknowledgement of God

On March 2nd Proposition 4 will be on the ballet. If you haven’t voted yet you may want to take note of it. It reads:

Ballot Proposition 4: Public Acknowledgement of God
The use of the word "God", prayers, and the Ten Commandments should be allowed at public gatherings and public educational institutions, as well as be permitted on government buildings and property.

The key is to allow the public acknowledgement of God from becoming a thing of the past. There are some who argue that this proposition is a prop for the republicans and is questionable constitutionally. However, this is not unconstitutional because of what it is attempting to do. The purpose is not an attempt to set one religion over another, but to guarantee religious freedom. Over the last forty seven years we have seen many things dealing with a public display of faith erode in our culture. First it started in schools, then moved to the work place, from there it impassionedly passed to even private relationships. Now it is attempting to erase any acknowledgement of a Universal Sovereign from history itself, which includes governmental monuments that are 50 to 200 years old.
I do not believe that this eroding has been an accident or the results of multiculturalism. It has been a very strong attempt to eradicate the first amendment right which has been around since the conception of the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. The attempt to make the Constitution a living, growing document rather than a historical liberty giving by law and nature, is a gross misplacement of inspiration.

One blogger (The Whited Sepulcher-[www.thewhitedsepulchre.blogspot.com]) has outlined some of the arguments against this proposition. While I find the writer very intelligent, logical and thoughtful with their assessment against this proposition, I find myself in strong disagreement with them on several grounds. I would also like to employ the fact that there are several areas which The Whited Sepulcher brings up that needs to be heeded.

Allow me to start by explaining my agreements with The Whited Sepulcher. First, I agree with the need for those of us who are Christians to view life through the seers of Scripture. Far too often Evangelical Christians have used experiences verses hard truth to explain what they believe and why they believe it. Second, I agree with the overt warning which The Whited Sepulcher brings up and that is the misuse of God’s name in public, or for that fact at anytime. Many in the political and public spectrum will call on deity to justify their stance or to gain a growing following. They are guilty as charged and will face divine judgment when the time comes. Last, I agree with the idea that we should first be people of relational (private) prayer before we become proclaimers in the public square. As many have argued (and rightly so) why should we care about prayer in school, when there is no prayer in the home. Having said all of that I find none of these arguments substantial enough to be in opposition to Proposition 4.

In the areas of disagreements which I have with The Whited Sepulcher, I am sure that I will be accused by some of being unkind. Allow me to establish first that I find The Whited Sepulcher’s disagreements totally thought worthy, totally understandable and equally constitutional. I have no personal vendetta against this blogger. We are fellows who are doing and consecrating on the same thing, attempting to get our thoughts out into the public arena for discussion and debate.

First, I disagree with the final application from Exodus 20:10. I agree with the interpretation but think that the use of this passage as an argument against this proposition is both straining at its true meaning and ignores the fact that we cannot judge the true reason someone will use God’s name in the public square.

Second, I’m not real comfortable with the argument that we should not allow God’s name to be proclaimed in public because of those who will misuse it. It is His name and He expects us to call on Him (publically and privately) for help, reassurance, and to give Him praise for all the great things He has done. His name is also to be defended. Anyone who has had their character smeared by someone else understands the issue of defending their “good name.” What those in opposition of public proclamation of God’s name don’t understand is that they are, in fact, doing the very thing they claim to be defending, misusing His name.

Third, there can be many different understandings of who God is when His name is used in public. If we are truly a pluralistic society, then it should not matter if the name of God is used. Since we are suppose to be this great post-modern society of thought, using the name God should not hurt anybody because of the ambiguous way each religion uses “God” as a term and not a person. While I do not agree with that use, because I am what is known as a Trinitarian theist (the belief in one God in three persons [Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], and the three persons as one God), it is still better that God’s name be in the open for discussion verses He not be mentioned at all. There is plenty of historical material regarding the founding fathers and what they believed (or didn’t believe) religiously. Their intent was for religion to be discussed in the public fair, not to attempt to make things fair by squashing it. Simple research on many historical documents and letters from the framers of the Constitution will reveal this as the case.

Finally, I believe that Matthew 6:5 is being relied on a bit too much by those in opposition of the public prayer. The point Jesus is making, is that public prayer should not be the only time we pray. Prayer (public or private) should be based on a relationship with God Himself through Jesus Christ His Son. We also have to be willing to define public. We can no longer pray in the public schools, met openly for prayer at government facilities, have open Bible studies (in our own time) at jobsites, or even have religious references in many public forums. In fact in some cities we cannot even have home Bible studies, because “it disturbs the neighborhood.” These are the same neighborhoods that are being harassed by gangs and violence, but you can’t have a Bible study in your home because it may disturb and upset the balance. My thought with that logic is, “????” So does public praying include small Bible studies? Does it include Sunday Schools? Can it include church assembly, mosque, areas of meditation, or even synagogues? What about the disciples in Acts chapters 1 and 12 who met in a house for prayer meetings? In the book of John Jesus prayed publicly before breaking the bread to feed the five thousand (6:11) If those last two examples weren’t public I don’t know what is! And the last example in particular was not held in any private venue.

So as can be seen the argument against the public proclamation of God’s name and prayer breaks down pretty quick. In fact it breaks down so quickly that if it is not protected, those against public prayer will begin to intrude on your personal life. Believe me when I say that this is actually becoming the case in many areas of our nation.

In fact I may actually be able to say that this proposition is truly the most Biblical proposition I have ever seen. Regardless if you like it or not simply, “…let your statement be, ‘Yes, yes’ and ‘No, no...” (Matthew 5:37; James 5:12).

Let me know what you think.

God Bless,

Steven Swaim

(All Bible quotations come from the New American Standard Version)