Day of Prayer? Neither Here Nor There

Thanksgiving is one of my favorite holidays: it is not too commercial; is low-pressured except when gathered families have tensions; evokes worship on the part of worshipers; attracts sports fans to football; is a "feel-good" time for America; it is so generic that the thanksgiving of the day is often directed "to whom it may concern" if it is directed at all ("be thankful for. . . .usually exhausts the editorial writers).

Presidents have been calling for days of Thanksgiving through many decades and administrations. Someone in the White House spends hours crafting the proclamations which no reads with care. Quick, now: can you quote one line or refer to the substance of any of them? But let them keep calling for it. Giving thanks is such an intrinsically valuable thing to do, that any doing of it is probably better than not doing it. Christians often say "Keep Christ in Christmas." We might say "keep thanks in thanksgiving" or, better, keep "giving in thanksgiving." Why kill off a pleasant tradition?

Presidents calling a day of prayer also have bought into a habit that is mildly welcomed by many, noticed by fewer, observed by still fewer, and argued over most vigorously by the fewest. As one who, in the Protestant Christian tradition, is nervous whenever the federal government privileges religion, even of the generic and would-be universal kind, I could live just as happily without the president, acting as president, using the power of office to commend such a day. But I am not nervous enough to raise a fuss; there are too many other issues on the church-and-state front which can and should agitate people on all sides of issues. This is not that big a deal.

The churches, borrowing from the stoics, used to talk about "adiaphora," "things indifferent." These were usually moral issues, but also, sometimes, theological issues Declaring something to be adiaphora meant that no one was going to charge up the inquisitors and heresy-hunters or, conversely, to give merit badges or medals of freedom to those on the other side. The issue or the practice is "neither here nor there." Abraham Lincoln talked about such matters of taste: "for those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they do like."

Don't get me wrong, I plead wanly, though it's neither here nor there how you react on adiaphora. I'm all for prayer, am at ease when all presidents of all parties are people of prayer, but I'd prefer the encouragement to be informal. Such as, "When I became president, I did not surrender any part of my faith, and I am pleased when others also pray. I am not issuing a legal decree or embossed declarations. I would rather say that as a private citizen--even one as visible as I am--I think it would be a good idea if those of my fellow citizens who believe in prayer would pray, perhaps on the same day.

Note: this is not the U.S. government ordering you to pray or commending prayer. It is a member of the First Family who has a taste for this and who will feel good if you join in. And, if not, if you are committed to a generous way of life, and if it is reinforced by your faith-commitment, as with "faith in God," you will have no trouble finding a half million or a million houses of worship which will be open, welcoming, and equipped to help give yo a meanginful language of prayer. Let us pray . . . ,

By Martin Marty  |  November 19, 2008; 2:37 AM ET
Share This: Technorati | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Expressing or Legislating Religion | Next: Not Occasions for Government to Push Piety

Posted by: Anonymous | November 20, 2008 10:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Posted by: Anonymous | November 19, 2008 9:58 AM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.