On 11 October 1521 the Bishop of Rome, Pope Leo X, recognized a work published by King Henry VIII entitled "Declaration of the Seven Sacraments Against Martin Luther." For this work, Leo X bestowed on Henry VIII the title "Defender of the Faith." (Anglophiles and Francophiles should continue to debate whether this title is better than the title of "most Christian" that belonged to the king of France.)
Since the mid-fourth century, the Church has recognized the capacity for kings, queens, and parliaments to "defend the faith." In some places, as with Henry VIII, the defence made by monarchs is a defence of orthodoxy: Martin Luther had been declared a heretic and thus Henry's Declaration upheld Catholic doctrine. In some places and times, "defence of the faith" might be interpreted to mean association with or affirmation of Christianity more broadly. The crown or Parliament supports or encourages the beliefs and work of the Church, and backs up that support with arms.
Contemporary Americans live in a democracy, so we do not have a monarch to take the personal title, "Defender of the Faith." And we have a constitution that forbids the establishment of any religion by the state. Instead of upholding one particular religious system, the American system prides itself on defending freedom of religion: folks in the United States are free to believe and practice any religion they choose. So "defender of the faith" changes, for us, into "defender of the right to practice any faith."
I have heard many people give thanks--to God in prayer and to each other--that we live in a country where we are free to practice our faith unmolested. I am also thankful that we are not imprisoned for our faith, or otherwise persecuted for what we believe or how we practice our religion. I think that giving thanks to God for these blessings, as with all blessings, is good. Any freedom we have is a gift from God and ought to be recognized as such.
I think, however, that we sometimes cleave to a mirror-image understanding of our freedom of religion. Such an understanding shows up on t-shirts, sweatshirts, and other paraphernalia in the phrase, "Land of the free because of the brave." While this phrase speaks truth in a materialistic sense, it fails to recognize that victory only comes to the brave if God wills it; and it may come to pass that no bravery will bring about what God does not will. If we say that freedom of religion results only from national effort, we can then go one more step and assert that the Church owes something to the nation because it is the nation that provides opportunity for Christians to practice their faith.
I wonder if the placement of the flag in Christian sanctuaries doesn't, for some of us, signify an understanding that it is only because we are Americans that we are practicing Christians. Take away the protection of the American system of government (and military, etc), and the Church would fall to ruin. So Christian faith, for its survival, needs to recognize the flag.
I see two problems with this perspective. First, having the fullness of life for the Church depend on something other than God would seem to make that other thing sovereign and God less than sovereign. Which means Jesus isn't lord of all--he's lord of everything that America gives him to lord over. Second, it belies the experience of so many Christians around the world whose faith flourishes without legal freedom of religion. In fact, there may be cases in which the faith and community of the Church are stronger because protection from the forces of the world is not guaranteed.
It is a strong faith that gives thanks to God for every blessing we experience. It is a weaker faith that cannot survive without material protection.
~ emrys
No comments:
Post a Comment