In recent years we have been seriously concerned, in the United States, with the preservation of our religious liberties. For the most part this interest has expressed itself in our urgent attention to the problems of minority groups, whose rights have sometimes been imperiled—the Jehovah’s Witnesses are a case in point here. More and more, within the past few years, another aspect of the problem has been posed—the way in which certain religious groups have appeared to invade the territory that by our national traditions has not been exposed to denominational control. The cases that have been argued in certain of the Southwestern states, and the unprecedented demands that have been made for provision of federal or state funds for denominational schools, have had our attention. Lovers of the American tradition have concentrated their interest so much on matters of this sort that the “other side” of the question of religious liberty may not have been as vividly and plainly before their eyes as it might well have been. 
The “other side,” then, is the way in which the liberties of religious bodies in America have seemed to be imperiled by a new kind of threat—new at least in our own country. This is the increasing substitution of an adulation of our national welfare, our American way of life, and our democratic institutions in the place of the religious orientation that all the great traditions represented in our land have stressed as central. In the earliest days of Christianity this very same threat faced the primitive church: the Roman Empire demanding and expecting to receive the reverence, even the worship, of its citizens. The early Christians were faced with the choice of worship of God, as they found Him revealed in Jesus Christ, or worship of Caesar under the name of “the genius of the Roman Empire.” It was such a little thing: just to drop a grain of incense before the statue of the emperor. But the Christians refused and were prepared to go to martyrdom rather than give up their worship of the one true God. Not even by a look or gesture would they be disloyal.
In Hitlerian Germany the German Volk and their destiny were held up as the unconditional object of adoration, and a German citizen who was unwilling to make this gesture of reverence to the spirit of the German people imperiled his life. A not dissimilar practice obtained in Japan, where the Mikado—who represented the ethos of the Japanese people, and was supposed to be a descendant of the sun goddess—received the same sort of veneration as part of a state cult. Now, it may seem far-fetched, but there are many of us who fear that the pressures of our international situation and the confidence that Americans have in their national place and destiny may lead to something of the same sort in our own land.
More than one illustration could be given; the most startling is perhaps the way in which such documents as the recently issued guide for chaplains of the armed services, which the writer has had the opportunity of studying, appear to place the national American values and the democratic way of life in a position equal to, if not by implication superior to, the particular religious groups that the chaplains may represent. Or again, the plain statement by educational leaders who, like Dr. Meiklejohn in his book Education Between Two Worlds, would have us believe that religion is no longer a possibility, and that the aim of education is to produce good citizens of the democracy whose meaning for life will be found in their understanding participation in the life of the country. And it may not be amiss to remark that the fashion in which certain patriotic exercises have now more and more acquired an almost religious fervor, is related to this same tendency.
Many years ago Professor Carleton Hayes wrote a book in which he said that there was real danger that in America “nationalism would be our new religion.” He spoke of the new holy days, which are our national holidays; the new sacred scriptures, which are the writings of the Founders; the religious rites, which are the various patriotic ceremonies in which we engage. He might have mentioned the religious heresies, which today seem to demand that what used to be called religion shall be subordinate to loyalty to the nation.
It all seemed a little silly, a little impossible, when Professor Hayes wrote the book. But there are signs that it is not so silly, not so impossible as it then seemed. Perhaps the best thing that any one of us can do is to watch out carefully and see that we are not letting our young people or (if we are ministers) our congregation come to believe that Christianity is important, and indeed has value, solely because it is the bulwark of America, and therefore is adjectival to what is taken to be the real substantive: the nation and its destiny.
In other words, we have a twofold war to wage in these days. We must see to it that no religious group, however powerful in numbers, assumes the position of dictator; on the other hand, we must see to it that the national culture, the genius of the American people, and the values that rightly we esteem are kept in their proper places. America cannot be our religion; it cannot take the place that belongs to God alone. We can support and defend our nation, and we must be ready to do this, but we dare not let it take the place in our thought and in our reverence that belongs to the God of creation and redemption alone.
Some people may think that all of this concern is evidence of an unbalanced mind or token of a false perspective. And yet if we attempt to read the signs of the times and note the way the wind is blowing, we shall see that the danger is with us. We shall be ready to do all in our power to curb the encroachment of national pride, power, and position upon the sphere that belongs to God only. We shall say, vigorously and bravely, that we owe to Caesar only the things that are Caesar’s, and that Caesar holds his place only under God. No created thing can rightfully claim, not even our beloved country, the final allegiance that belongs to God.
Let us, then, keep our eyes open, our ears alert. While we must not for a moment abate our effort to secure freedom of religious allegiance and freedom of religious expression, let us remember that we must also fight to maintain freedom for religious commitment to God; and let us insist, in season and out of season, that no state, no national pride, no values of a mundane sort, no way of life that is not God’s, can ask from us the reverence that belongs only to Him who has created us and who (as we Christians believe) has also redeemed us.
Somebody once said to the writer, “You are an Episcopalian, and yet on this church and state business you talk like a Baptist.” Well, the answer to that comment is simply that names do not matter, and that any Christian who recognizes the true significance of his faith, no matter what his name or his particular denominational loyalty may be, cannot be quiet when he sees the sovereignty of God threatened or questioned. As American citizens, we have the right and duty to see to it that our nation shall recognize the fact that religious liberty means freedom to worship God and to accord Him that supreme place which belongs to no man, to no nation. None of this means any lack of love for or loyalty to our land. It simply means that God is supreme and that this fact must never be overlooked or forgotten.
___________________________
An article from Liberty magazine, 1950
___________________________
|
TOP LEVEL
Past Issues
Printer-friendly page
Send this page to a friend