Christian Prayer Our Heritage

By Pastor H. Wayne Williams

 

Many clergy, when asked to open the legislative sessions in prayer at our state Capitol, have ended their prayers in the name of Jesus Christ. In the Jan. 8 Journal (Religion page), Mary Garrigan reported in her article entitled, "A question of inclusion," that Rep. Stan Adelstein is offended by this practice and has asked the clergy to stop using the name of Jesus when they pray.

 

I believe Rep. Adelstein to be honest and sincere when saying he feels excluded as a Jew. He is not asking that prayer be stopped, but only that prayer in the name of Jesus Christ be stopped because it offends him as a Jew. He feels "excluded" in what he calls the "Christian-specific" prayers of Christian pastors.

 

These clergy have a foundation in historic civil law. The First Virginia Charter (1606), The Second Virginia (1609) and The Third Virginia Charter (1612), as well as The Mayflower Compact (1620), not only endorsed Christianity but also The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639) used the "Christian-specific" name of Jesus! It reads in part: "... Enter into Combination and Confederation together, to maintain and preserve the liberty and purity of the Gospel of our Lord Jesus which we now profess, as also, the discipline of the Churches, which according to the truth of the said Gospel is now practiced amongst us."

 

The first Thanksgiving Proclamation (June 20, 1676) not only called for the giving of thanks for the bountiful blessings in the colony, but their prayers of thanksgiving would mention the "Christian-specific" name of Jesus Christ: "Beseeching that being persuaded by the mercies of God we may all, even this whole people offer up our bodies and souls as a living and acceptable Service unto God by Jesus Christ."

 

With the words, "Sundays excepted," in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, the drafters did not establish a religion; they merely acknowledged the day most Americans had set aside for worship and rest since 1606. Christianity was the majority religion in 1787, and the Constitution simply reflected the people's deeply held "Christian-specific" day of worship and rest.

 

America's presidents have placed their hands on a "Christian-specific" Bible (Old and New Testaments) when taking the Oath of Office. This practice since George Washington first made use of it makes a very powerful statement about the role of Christianity in our constitutional civil government!

 

The U.S. Constitution concludes: "Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven." Employing the phrase, "in the Year of our Lord," the drafters of the Constitution wrote into the language of the Constitution itself a "Christian-specific" term used by civil leaders for many years. 1787 was the year of the "Christian-specific" calendar. The "Lord" of the Constitution was Jesus Christ, and that is very much "Christian-specific"! Is the U.S. Constitution itself "unconstitutional"?

 

In the 1892 U.S. Supreme Court case, The Church of the Holy Trinity vs. United States, Justice David J. Brewer wrote: "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people ... This is a Christian nation." Here is a "Christian-specific" term being used in a legal decision by the highest court of the land!

 

The clergy in Pierre who pray "Christian-specific" prayers are simply continuing something which has been practiced in the public arena by the majority since 1606! Based on the "Free Exercise" clause of the First Amendment, no Christian pastor can be prohibited by the power of government from praying in the name of Jesus Christ, any more than a Jew can be prohibited to pray in the name of Jehovah, or a Muslim prohibited to pray in the name of Allah, or a Buddhist prohibited to pray in the name of Buddha, or any atheist to pray in his own name!

 

Rep. Adelstein would not surrender any part of his Judaism to avoid offending Christians, nor should he! In like fashion, he should not expect Christian clergy to surrender their "Christian-specific" prayers so that he does not feel uncomfortable when they pray.

 

In today's world, Jews need the prayers of Christians, and Christians need the prayers of Jews, and the state Legislature certainly needs the prayers of both! Let us get on with our praying!