Rancho Bernardo Community Presbyterian Church

Acts 15: 37-41, Matthew 22:15-22

"The truth will make you free. " John 8:32

This patriotic weekend, with the sounds of fireworks still in our ears, I want to move beyond the Declaration of Independence and 1776. Instead of focusing on what the patriots together in the Declaration of Independence, I want to move us ten years later to the debates over the Constitution.

Historian and author Joseph Ellis, in his book American Creation: Triumphs and Tragedies at the Founding of the Republic, suggests that the debates over the Constitution set the tone for a new kind of nation. As individual states ratified the Constitution in 1788, it all came down to the debate in Virginia between James Madison and Patrick Henry.

As important as the Madison-Henry debate was, I’m guessing most of us have never learned about it. Let me set the stage. Patrick Henry (the "give me liberty or give me death" famous orator) was tall, good looking, persuasive with his booming revivalist preacher’s style voice. He spoke without notes directly to people’s hearts. Those taking notes for the state of Virginia several times forgot to continue writing because they became so enamored with Patrick Henry’s persuasive style. In contrast, the short, sickly looking Madison (considered by George Washington to be the smartest of the founders) responded in such a soft voice that those keeping the notes on the debate several times could not hear what he was saying. He spoke in a calm, reasoned presentation using his notes.

Both of these men were devoted followers of Jesus and active in their faith, yet they strongly disagreed with each other on a vision of what the new nation should become. This patriotic weekend, I want us to go back into the founding of our nation and explore the idea that deeply committed Christians can disagree over politics.

Tribute to Caesar

Then the Pharisees went and plotted together how they might trap Him in what He said.

And they sent their disciples to Him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that You are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any.

"Tell us then, what do You think? Is it lawful to give a poll-tax to Caesar, or not?"

But Jesus perceived their malice, and said, "Why are you testing Me, you hypocrites?

"Show Me the coin used for the poll-tax." And they brought Him a denarius.

And He said to them, "Whose likeness and inscription is this?"

They said to Him, "Caesar’s." Then He said to them, "Then render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s."

And hearing this, they were amazed, and leaving Him, they went away.

Matthew 22:15-22

I enjoy those funny bloopers that elementary students put in their history papers. Some of my favorites regarding early American history are these: "The Revolutionary War was caused because the English put tacks in the tea." "Thomas Jefferson, a Virgin, and Benjamin Franklin were singers of the Declaration of Independence." "George Washington’s farewell address was Mount Vernon." Moving "four score and seventeen years" later in American history students tell us that "Abraham Lincoln wrote the Gettysburg Address while riding from Washington to Gettysburg on the back of an envelope." (I hope he didn’t get a paper cut on that ride.) And finally, "He freed the slaves by signing the Emasculation Proclamation."

While we can smile at these unintentional rewrites of American history, I want to take this patriotic weekend to explore the intentions of the founders regarding religious liberty. Some modern Christian patriots argue that the founders who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution intended that Christianity should be our national religion. They can point to Christian founders like Patrick Henry, who argued that state taxes could be used to support state churches.

Others point to founders such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson as examples of those who believed our nation’s government was intended to be secular and non-religious. Thomas Jefferson was comfortable with the Declaration of Independence referring to "Providence" and "Nature’s God," but he rejected Christianity for his own blend of Deism. James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," even though he was a devout Christian, agreed with Thomas Jefferson’s view of the new nation as a secular government. Madison excluded any reference to God in that founding document. Did they consider including God in the Constitution? Indeed they did. They considered it and rejected it.

We have a record of the moment in the Constitutional Convention when Benjamin Franklin made his appeal that the delegates take time each day for a prayer before their proceedings. The aged Franklin, sensing the group unable to get past some of its personal agendas spoke up. He reminded them of their success in the Revolutionary War years before. "In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for the divine protection! Our prayers, sir, were heard…" Later in his impassioned speech he added, "I have lived, sir, a long time; and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men!... I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel…." Franklin made a motion to include daily prayer in their deliberations. It failed due to a lack of funding as well as indecision about which denominational clergy would be selected.

James Madison purposely kept God out of the Constitution. Patrick Henry supported Christianity as a state religion. The two faced off in the debate as to whether Virginia would ratify the Constitution in June of 1788.

Patrick Henry took the floor and argued over several hours that the Constitution made a mockery of the Revolutionary War for liberty. According to Henry liberty meant separate states. How dare the Constitution begin with the words, "We, the people"? Nobody had the authority to speak for the people as a whole. It should say, "We, the states." He argued that the Articles of Confederation were working just fine and that any attempt to restrict the states’ rights involved giving up precious liberties for which the Revolutionary War was fought. He warned like a prophet of ancient Israel that the rise of a federal government would bring about taxes used for a standing army and navy. Did the people really want to carry an additional tax burden for this new government?

James Madison gave his logical, reasoned rebuttal point by point over the next couple of days. Madison revealed what this new Constitution offered. The Constitution did not solve the issues of states rights versus federal strength. Rather it created a way for the young nation to continue its debates about the role of self-government. What the Constitution offered was a way to institutionalize a series of checks and balances that would assure that the political debate about what our nation should be would never end.

Both men held onto their faith in Christ even though they clearly disagreed about the role of government. Sadly, these two followers of Jesus let their different political philosophies rupture their friendship beyond repair. Having formerly served together and supported each other through the American Revolution, they grew to despise each other. In 1791 Madison rebuffed Patrick Henry’s offer to start up some correspondence with each other. A few years later a mutual friend tried to broker a meeting of reconciliation. Neither of them showed up at the arranged meeting.

How sad. Two followers of Jesus—both American patriots. They forgot that the things that belong to Caesar are not eternal. They let their political opinions destroy their Christian love.

It is always dangerous when we get Caesar mixed up with Christ in our minds. We can begin to think that God shares our political viewpoints. We think Jesus must agree with us.

This can happen not only in our national government’s political process, but also in the politics of Christian denominations. Last week our Presbyterian denomination held its national meeting. Pastor Neal returned with shocking reports about some surprisingly sweeping actions. My initial response is that I don’t agree with most of the national denomination recent statements. However, I believe that our denomination as a human institution is not the same as the true Church of Jesus Christ. Our human institutions are a reflection of our best attempts to govern ourselves. Within Christianity we need to keep clear the difference between our human governments and the kingdom of God.

Baptists can agree to disagree with Methodists over infant baptism. Presbyterians can agree to disagree with Catholics over the pronouncements of the Pope. In this same way we can agree to disagree with each other within the same denomination. While I am on the conservative, evangelical end of the spectrum, I can love those with whom I strongly disagree.

So what happens when we realize the politics of this life are not eternal? Maybe we learn to keep them a little more in perspective. I like the way Will Campbell describes his political views as a Christian. In his book, Soul Among Lions: Musings of Bootleg Preacher, he writes about government, "I watch the political process pretty much as I watch baseball. I have a favorite team, but I know that ultimately it makes no difference who wins." He comments that watching what our leaders do is good for comic relief, but it is unlikely that our politicians will solve the world’s problems.

It’s okay to cheer for our team. But when the game is over, can we still love each other?