Spontaneous Prayer Could Be Unconstitutional

A report and comment on religious trends and events being covered by the media.  This week’s item is from the Charisma News Service, August 2000, with a headline:  “Spontaneous Prayer Guerilla Movement Set to Challenge Supreme Court Ban.”  Christians across the country are being asked to join a spontaneous public recital of the Lord’s Prayer, to defy a ban on high school prayer.  The guerilla action is being endorsed by two groups following the June ruling by the Supreme Court that a Texas school district’s policy of allowing voluntary pre-game prayer was unconstitutional.  Now Christian students and spectators are being challenged to join in saying the Lord’s Prayer after the playing of the National Anthem.  “Of course we know that the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, will go berserk,” said Donald Wildmon, President of the American Family Association, or AFA.  “But, on the other hand, there is no way the Supreme Court can stop this because it is simply individuals participating on their own, without any leader.”  The AFA is promoting the stand through its “Action Alert” mailing, and its 200 strong radio network.  “The Constitution says that Congress shall not prohibit the free exercise of religion,” Wildmon says.  “This is a form of that free exercise, albeit a symbolic one.”  The “spontaneous prayer” effort is also being advocated by the leaders of We Still Pray, a movement begun by a group of pastors and Christians leaders in Asheville, North Carolina.  A week ago, they drew around 35,000 people to a public prayer rally that caused gridlock in city streets for hours.  Since then, they have been contacted by groups wanting to start similar efforts in other parts of the country. 

The Lord’s Prayer recitation was “not in defiance of the Supreme Court,” said Wendell Runion, owner of a Christian radio station in Asheville, who helped organize last week’s rally.  He told The Ashville Citizen Times: “If the fans break out in spontaneous prayer, there is no Supreme Court ruling against that.”  Paul Ott, a Mississippi radio host, who has spread the word about the prayer stand in five states on his radio show, told the Associated Press that participants should avoid a legal confrontation.  “We don’t think this is breaking the law, but if it is...I don’t think they’re going to take thousands of people to jail.”  David Ingebretson of the ACLU questioned the legality of the approach.  “It seems to be that a planned spontaneous prayer cannot be spontaneous, and it violates the court’s ruling,” he told the AP.  “If this planned, spontaneous prayer happens, it forces everyone there to hear that prayer or to participate.”

Tom:

Dave, this article seems to be indicative of, seems to me at least, problems on both sides, we’re in a day and an age in which there are certain things that we ought to be able to do that we can’t do.  On the other hand, there are things that we do sometimes thinking that this would please the Lord.  We have a prayer group that’s shut down traffic for a while.  We’ve had, not just from this article, but indications of kids being bold on their campus and anointing the school windows with oil and burying prayer stakes on the football field, too.

Dave:

Tom, maybe you need to explain what was the problem to begin with, what was the Supreme Court ruling about?  Was this the prayer with the football team, or was it public prayer before an athletic event, what was it?

Tom:

Yes, that’s what it was. It began with teams having group prayer before a game.  They were statements by the Texas government saying, no you can’t do that, it’s not constitutional.  Then it went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court reinforced this idea that you could not have what they believe would be forced or non spontaneous prayer, organized prayer through a secular institution.  

Dave:

Yeah, well it seems to be ridiculous because it ought to be up to the individuals and the individual team.  If a team wanted to pray together, a number of the players wanted to pray together—

Tom:

Yeah, but what about the atheists?

Dave;

Well then, let them cover their ears, or go somewhere else.  You see, it’s not being forced, but I don’ think that a person should force it upon atheists.  So we don’t want the atheist to pray with us, they have no God to pray to, so it just would seem to be a matter of common sense and courtesy, not something that the Supreme Court of a state would get involved in.  And then, I would have to agree with the ACLU, at least to this extent, planned prayer can’t be spontaneous.  There’s not a sudden spontaneous outburst of prayer when you have planned to do it.  And then what is the point?  Suppose all the atheists tried to out shout you?  Everybody in the stands or a few thousand people in the stands are praying the Lord’s Prayer, and supposing a lot of the atheists try to out shout you?  What’s the point?  What’s the point of trying to do this?  You want to pray, pray, prayer is between the individual and God, and it doesn’t make it any better if a lot of people in the stands are quoting the Lord’s Prayer.  Furthermore, the Lord’s Prayer is not a prayer to pray from my understanding of it.  The disciples said, Lord, teach us to pray, and Jesus didn’t say recite this prayer.  Jesus said, “After this manner, pray ye: Our Father who art in heaven….” and so forth.  So, the Lord’s Prayer was something that Jesus gave to his disciples as a pattern of prayer, not to be recited by rote over and over and over, and the more times you would recite it the more point points you would get with God, or whatever.  But I think that is part of the idea that people have about the Lord’s Prayer.  So, I’m sorry I would not, and maybe some of the radio stations that were on or participating in this, I don’t see the point of stopping traffic and chanting the Lord’s Prayer in a public place.  I think Jesus said, “When you pray, go into your closet, talk to your Father in secret.”  And I think this is turning prayer into something that prayer was not intended to be.

Tom:

Dave, I think that’s the heart of our concern here.  These are articles that come down through news service and we picked them up.  It gives us an idea of what’s going on throughout the country.  But our concern here, as it is with every issue that we look at: Is this according to God’s Word, is this how the scriptures would have us go about things?  So, if these things are consistent with God’s Word, then we’re for it.  But if they somehow corrupt, they are pervert or pushed something beyond the envelope, as it were, with regard to prayer, then it’s an exercise in futility no matter how seemingly righteous it might be.  God’s not going to hear, it’s not going to be effective it’s not going to please Him, and that’s our concern.