Prayer is no longer allowed in schools; or when it is, it is pushed into the confines of club day.  “In God we trust” is now being omitted from the mint’s more recent coinage designs.  Sporting events rarely include even a moment of silence—that is only now for special occasions.  Greetings of “Merry Christmas!” have been replaced with “Happy holidays,” and time off from school or work for Passover, Easter, or Good Friday is now simply called “Spring break.”  The phrase “one nation under God” is constantly being challenged as a legitimate addition to the Pledge of Allegiance.  Public areas such as courthouses are no longer allowed to have displays containing religious symbolism, at least of the majority’s type of religion, for fear of oppressing the minority.

            But in case you consider the above to be making of mountains out of molehills, consider these recent events:  in Denver, a woman holding a Bible study in her own home was presented with a “cease-and-desist” order from the local zoning commission, which found her in violation of a city ordinance which only permits one “prayer meeting” at any private residence per month.  A man in Bedford County, Virginia received a notice of violation because he hosted worship services of the “Cowboy Church” in his own barn, ostensibly because his agricultural property is not zoned for religious use.  In Palm Bay, Florida, the Church of Iron Oak was the target of a malicious slander campaign which resulted in the local zoning board issuing citations against their holding (you guessed it) prayer meetings in their own homes.  In Prince George County, Maryland, a law was recently enacted which requires that anyone who wishes to use their own home for a Sunday worship meeting undergo an extensive re-zoning process.

            If you think the above examples are exceptions to the rule, it may be that it is only because I prefer not to use more space here to regale you with the true tales about the Ellisons of Marietta, Georgia, or the Gilmores of Onalaska, Wisconsin, both of whom have received zoning citations because they hosted prayer meetings in their homes.  Or the Milwaukee ordinance which allows pamphlets for advertising or other purposes to be placed on cars in public parking lots but prohibits any type of religious literature from the same distribution method.  Or the church in Hollywood which was warned that they could not legally ban certain disruptive persons from their services.  Or the Pleasanton, California church that had to get permission from the local planning commission to hold activities at any time other than Sundays and evenings.  There are plenty more similar to those—in less than one hour of surfing the web I found at least 32 reports of abuse of Christians through such means (I have some of these references listed on the citations page, of course), and interestingly, most seem to be based on zoning or parking ordinances rather than overt persecution or something that would make more sense.

            Tolerance these days is little more than a hypocritical buzzword, especially for those people who are intolerant of the intolerant.  The usual excuse given is that the open discussion of religion is potentially offensive to some, and needs therefore to be avoided in the public sector.  The argument usually continues that the proper way to “interpret” the First Amendment is to confine the idea to freedom of thought, but that any outward expression thereof is inherently dangerous.  The most stupid of all arguments (and the one most often put forward by the ACLU) confuses the allowing of the display of a symbol of religion in a public place to be tantamount to governmental endorsement of a particular faith.  However, the real burr in the saddle for most people is that the framers of the American Constitution expected us to tolerate the rights of others, and specifically named among those the right to free religious expression.  To get all this straightened out, we need to examine two of the factors that are key to a proper understanding—the first being the philosophical basis for the “free exercise clause” of the First Amendment, and the other being a rarely discussed Biblical Christian concept which relates to our current situation.

Let’s be accurate

            The actual wording of the First Amendment with regard to religion is as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  This wording is consistent with the attitude that motivated the way the Bill of Rights was constructed.  History records the fact that there was much debate among the Founding Fathers about the need for having a Bill of Rights in the first place; many argued that over time the people might begin to believe that only those rights specified in the document were reserved for the people, and they were adamant that the implication should never be allowed which might lead citizens to think that their rights were limited to those stated.  This “enumerated powers doctrine” concerning governmental authority was stated outright in the ninth and tenth amendments; for many of that time, those two amendments became the condition so that those who dissented would give agreement to include the first eight amendments as well.

            So in the first place, the famous “wall of separation between the Church and the state” was more intended to protect the religious rights of the populace than to prevent their interference with government.  If this could be misconstrued to be interpreted that religious persons should stay separated from government action, then it could follow that the vote could be denied to those of any religion on such a basis.  Perhaps you can institutionally separate the Church from the state, but you cannot separate the religious belief from the statesman.

            We would be mistaken also if we decided that this only applies to a person’s conscience.  The amendment does NOT say “the private exercise thereof;” if it will truly be free exercise, then the public sphere must tolerate it.  Yet the movement afoot by certain atheistic groups to remove all mention of anything religious from the public arena relies heavily on the argument that religion should only be practiced in a private setting.  Free exercise cannot be free at all if it is confined behind the four walls of a temple, synagogue, cathedral, or a home group’s residential setting.

            To be fair, the shoe must be on the other foot as well.  All religions as well as non-religions must have liberty and space for their free exercise also.  The Founding Fathers may or may not have thought that Christianity would always remain the dominant faith in the United States, but nevertheless they worded the Constitution so that all diverse faiths would also have the same rights and privileges.

Let’s be specific

            Many would protest, “But the Bible tells you Christians not to offend anyone, doesn’t it?”  The Bible makes no such blanket statement; in fact, the Bible is much more pointed in the wording of its commands on this topic.  It does not say that we are required to refrain from offending anyone, although that certainly would be a noble achievement.  A more thorough examination of the relevant passages, if read without prejudice, will reveal a more specific directive as the desired goal.

            If we look at the words of Jesus as recorded in Matthew 18:1-14 (especially v. 6); or the other versions of the same statement as recorded in Mark 9:42 or in Luke 17:1-2, we see that He gives strong warnings about certain offenses by saying, “whoever shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me …” (verse 6, emphasis mine).  He then strengthens His case in verse 10: “take heed that you despise not one of these little ones;” (again, my emphasis) and again in verse 14 it clearly is not the will of God for any “little one” to perish.  Is this reference to be taken to mean that He is simply on the topic of children, but He means for these warnings to apply to all?  Certainly not, since He continually returns to the “little ones” as His objects.  Luke’s version briefly mentions the “little ones” before going on to the topic of trespasses against brethren, and Mark states it even more succinctly, yet leaves intact the reference to the “little ones.”

            The Apostle Paul follows the same pattern in two sections in his epistles: Romans 14:1-3 (taken in the context of the entire chapter) and First Corinthians 8:7-13.  In Romans, his directives concern those who are “weak in the faith;” or as he puts it later in verse 21, it is offensive to do certain things when a less informed brother might find cause to “stumble,” or otherwise “is offended, or is made weak.”  Previous to that in verse 20, he specifies that the object of concern is again someone who is not instructed in their liberty in Christ, and may therefore misinterpret an act of liberty as an occasion to take offence.  His singling out of those who are prone to offense is likewise restricted in the First Corinthians passage to a “weak brother” with a “weak conscience.”

            By now it should be clear—we must take care not to offend the weak, immature, young, untrained, or novice Christian.  But is this all?  Surely we must watch ourselves around everyone, shouldn’t we?  When we look at the contrast given between the young and the mature in Scripture, another distinction comes to light.  The thirteenth chapter of First Corinthians gives a grand description of Christian love, and throughout the New Testament love is portrayed as the pinnacle of the Christian life—it is the hallmark of our spiritual maturity.  Verse five of that chapter tells us that love is “not easily provoked,” or in some modern translations “not easily offended;” the original language will easily support that rendering.  In other words, someone who is mature is not prone to being offended; it takes a lot, if in fact it is possible at all.

Let’s be resilient

            We are entirely correct when we, as a society, seek to protect our young from the harm of offense.  Children or others who may be immature or somehow handicapped must be shielded from anything that could cause their “young skulls full of mush” (as one commentator puts it) to enter a state of confusion or hurl them into any sort of situation where there could be damage to their development.  But when we are in the company of adults, we should be at liberty to use our freedom of expression without the worry of causing a grown-up to take offense at our honest articulations of our opinions or our mindset.

            Another concept that needs to be sorted out in our vocabulary is the distinction between being offended and being insulted.  Sadly, disparaging remarks and unjustified reproaches are commonplace these days, not to mention cheap shots and boorish attempts at humor.  But life experience teaches us (or at least should teach us) how to let them roll off us and not take such things personally.  The distinction between insult and offense really lies in our reaction to it.  Again, alternate translations of Biblical passages can help us with this—when Jesus makes reference to a hand or foot or eye offending you, and that you should “pluck it out and cast it from you,” He certainly does not have some sort of insult in mind.  Some other translations say that if the body part “causes you to stumble,” that you would be better off taking action to remove it.  The context of the usage of the word here defines the term offense as the result of your negative reaction to a situation, despite the intentions of the perpetrator or whatever happened to cause the situation in the first place.

Let’s be grown-ups

            The fact that so many people in the modern West claim offense so easily is a sad commentary on the state of our corporate lack of personal maturity.  Such shamefully childish responses to challenging remarks or circumstances only serves to perpetuate the too-frequent and unnecessary hurt feelings and bad attitudes that prevail in our litigious society.  Thankfully, there are no laws that render offensiveness as illegal, but given the politically-correct atmosphere in which we all are expected to participate, you wouldn’t know it.

            This “culture of the cry-baby” that has developed all around us is clearly evident in the so-called outrage which shows itself in the pop culture’s reaction to any legitimate free exercise of religion in America.  The news media is lightning-quick to point out every failing of every televangelist and salacious minister, yet unbearably slow to highlight the good deeds of the thousands of true believers that are the daily accomplishments of a life lived in genuine devotion.  The world of entertainment is sadly predictable in its portrayal of the religious character as the one who is a psychotic, a con artist, or at the least a misguided air-head.  No small wonder that good religion gets a bad rap, and the paranoid prejudice against true Christian faith produces such childish reactions among those who lack the character or fortitude to allow intelligent discourse on a subject which the First Amendment goes so far to encourage in open exercise.

Let’s be free

            With a government that has somehow become determined to micro-manage our every word and deed, the challenge to remain free to exercise a living faith will become an increasingly complex problem.  The balance-point between maintaining a Christian attitude of meekness with the humility to know when to turn the other cheek and the expectation of the good citizen who invokes and defends his or her constitutional rights will become more difficult to define.  Yet neither of these aspects of the life of faith in America is a disposable quality; the eyes of the outside world are watching the way in which the Church successfully demonstrates both.