OPINION: Prayers at meetings of lawmakers: What would Jesus think?
On July 12, the Henrico County Board of Supervisors decided to stop having public prayers at its meetings. As one might expect, the decision has generated controversy. Let us assume, however, that a plan could be devised whereby a large percentage of the sectarian prayers would be delivered by Christian clergy and that the courts would approve of it. Should Christians approve of it? Would Jesus Christ approve of it?
On July 12, the Henrico County Board of Supervisors decided to stop having public prayers at its meetings. As one might expect, the decision has generated controversy. The editors of the Richmond Times-Dispatch expressed approval of the decision; a few days later Ben Sparks, a retired Presbyterian minister, expressed disapproval and letters to the editor of the newspaper have been divided in their opinions.
Why did the supervisors make the decision? Some federal courts have held that only non-sectarian prayers—i.e., prayers that would be acceptable to persons of any religion—can be delivered at official government meetings without violating the religion clauses of the First Amendment. At one of the supervisors’ previous meetings a Christian prayer was delivered, and Muslims who were present at the meeting complained and hinted that they might sue the county for violating their constitutional rights.
Given these facts, the supervisors were faced with a dilemma. Although they could have decided to continue opening their meetings with non-sectarian prayers, they knew that if they did, many of those asked to say the prayers would object to having to “water-down” their prayers so they would be non-sectarian. Faced with this dilemma, the supervisors opted for no prayers at all.
Did the supervisors make the right decision? Not according to Rev. Sparks. He believes that the dilemma could have been avoided if the supervisors had decided to allow sectarian prayers but also to make sure that clergy from “all faith traditions” were asked to pray on behalf of the government.
Would, however, such a policy be upheld by the courts? Rev. Sparks presents no reason to think that it would. He apparently assumes that such a policy would meet the constitutional requirement of government neutrality toward all religions, but whether it would depends on its specifics. If all Christian denominations were considered to be “faith traditions” and their clergy, along with those of non-Christian religions, took turns leading prayers, then the overwhelming majority of the sectarian prayers would be Christian. Such a policy would be unlikely to be acceptable to the courts or to the adherents of minority religions.
Another alternative would be to treat Christianity as just one religion, along with Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and a few others, which would mean that its clergy would pray only once every five or six times the supervisors met. That might be acceptable to the courts, but it would certainly not be acceptable to most citizens of Henrico County and would likely lead to more religious conflict in the county.
Let us assume, however, that a plan could be devised whereby a large percentage of the sectarian prayers would be delivered by Christian clergy and that the courts would approve of it. Should Christians approve of it? Would Jesus Christ approve of it?
In Jesus’ day, the Pharisees functioned as both religious and civic leaders; Jesus said they sat “in the chair of Moses.” He also repeatedly condemned them for being “hypocrites,” persons whose prayers and good deeds were done to impress others but who were “dead” inside. (See Matthew 23.)
With them in mind, Jesus said to his disciples, “Be careful not to make a show of your religion before men” because God ignores it. He advised them not to pray in public, but “in secret” and in “a room by yourself” where God is present and will hear their prayers (Matthew 6: 1-6).
These passages suggest that Jesus, if alive today, would not approve of public prayers at meetings of lawmakers. Granted, the lawmakers themselves do not say the prayers, but they are responsible and receive credit for them.
Notice, however, Jesus would not necessarily disapprove of all prayers by or for legislators. If they sincerely wanted to ask God to guide their deliberations and decision-making, there is a way they could do so without appearing to be insincere or currying favor with their constituents. They could have prayers, led either by themselves or invited clergy, before their meetings start and in a private room rather than in front of the citizens at their meetings. Such prayers could be sectarian, and attendance by officials would be voluntary. Above all, they would be more likely to be authentic than prayers prayed in the presence of the lawmakers’ constituents.
Jesus advised his disciples, however, on the assumption that they sincerely wanted to pray. What if the reason for public prayers at meetings of lawmakers is not to ask for God’s guidance, but is to send a civic message to those present and to the wider community? It is on this basis that Rev. Sparks justifies public prayers before legislative bodies. If done inclusively, he says, they would “signal” that the lawmakers believe in religious tolerance and in being accountable to a higher power.
Would Jesus be impressed with this rationale for the prayers? Not likely. Although he would surely want lawmakers to feel accountable to God and promote religious tolerance, would he favor using public prayers sponsored by lawmakers as the way to attain these worthy goals? Notice that under such a rationale, all that matters is that the prayers come from a wide range of religions and imply that the lawmakers are accountable to some higher power. It does not matter whether any lawmaker believes what is said in the prayers or even prays. Even if the clergyperson saying the prayers is sincere, the reason for the prayers is not to reach God, but to indoctrinate.
In short, using public prayer to express and promote civic values constitutes a perversion of prayer. Does the promotion of important civic values justify such an outcome? I think I know what Jesus would answer.
Ellis West, emeritus professor of political science at the University of Richmond, is a member of River Road Church, Baptist, in Richmond, Va.
