Gail Pepin is a nurse in the Chicago suburb of Rosemont. Like all of us, she has felt the pain a nation following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Like the rest of us, she has mourned the dead and worried about the future. Yet Gail Pepin also has found some of what has taken place aftermath disturbing. Gail Pepin is an atheist. She has been uncomfortable with leaders calling for prayer and with virtually every gathering singing "God Bless America."

"I’m feeling very excluded from this," she told the Associated Press. "There’s this big unity, but it’s all under God."

Now generally, I don’t give atheists free publicity. Actually, I don’t give atheism much thought. I don’t find it to be a great threat to the church. But the article in which Gail Pepin is quoted was interesting because atheist leaders raised questions about the relationship between the state and the church. They have asked, in one way or another, about the appropriateness of President Bush calling for a national day of prayer or of government officials leading religious events, such as the worship service at the National Cathedral last month. Should they do so? Are they blurring the lines between state and church?

Now most of us probably haven’t lost sleep over such questions. In fact, from the conversations I have had and the emails I have received, most folks seem pleased with the moral, even religious, leadership that the nation’s leaders have sought to offer. But I wonder if the combination of flag waving and hymn singing doesn’t raise for us another question. The question is not what is the role of the government in promoting or discouraging religious devotion, but what is the role of the faithful, the role of religious people, in what happens in their city, state or nation? What is our role in the larger culture in which we live?

BRIDGE

Of course, this is not a new question. But the circumstances suggest it might be a timely. What is our role in relationship to the larger culture?

Some Christians believe that to protect the faith we ought to withdraw from the larger culture, that Christians ought to focus their full time and energy on spirituality.

Such an approach might seem strange to us, but it has merit, particularly for those who believe that the culture in which we live corrodes the faith.

In a video we were watching for our Harried with Children Class, the mother of a couple of young children said that the primary focus of culture today is "consumerism." The culture tells our children that they have no value unless they wear certain labels and play with certain toys. To counteract that cultural influence, her family does not watch any commercial television. They have withdrawn from the culture to protect their faith and their children’s faith.

The same is true of some in the Home Schooling Movement. Jane and Warren Andrew identify themselves as born-again Christians. They told a newspaper reporter that it was the "humanistic philosophy" of their public schools that lead them to home school their six children. Now Jane, who taught public school for 10 years, guides her children through subjects as diverse as Latin, piano, Bible and geography. And she is not alone. Estimates suggest that there are as many as 2 million home-schooled children, many of them religiously motivated.

While withdrawing from the culture may protect the faith, it is not without its dangers. For one, it can be escapist, simply a way to ignore the larger problems of society, problems like poverty, illiteracy or racism. It can also become self-centered and arrogant. Many religious groups, be they sects or denominations, conclude that they are the only true Christians and reflect a narrow, judgmental attitude that betrays the grace of God. Worst yet, they can deny that Christ came to redeem all people, not just them, and all creation, not just their little part of it. We could never be content with that.

Of course, withdrawal is not the only option. H. Richard Niebuhr said the other extreme is accommodation to the culture. In this view, there is no real distinction or problem between the culture in which one lives and the faith one possesses. What is good for one is good for the other.

A few weeks ago, I participated in a worship service at the Corpus Christi Cathedral. When we entered, members of the Knights of Columbus were waiting. They were lined up like the Beefeaters in our Boar’s Head and Yule Log Festival. Later I was asked about them, and I didn’t really know much about them. So I went on the web to find out. What I discovered was that the Knights of Columbus define themselves as "Catholic gentlemen committed to the exemplification of charity, unity, fraternity, patriotism, and defense of the priesthood." Notice that weaving together of civic and religious commitments. Devotion to country and defense of the clergy stand side by side. The suggestion is that what is good for one is inevitably good for the other.

Or consider another example. George Barna is a researcher, similar to George Gallup. One difference is that Barna focuses his studies on religious attitudes and issues. Recently one of his studies found that Christians in the United States "think of themselves as individuals first, Americans second, and Christians third." He doesn’t draw this conclusion, but others have suggested that such a view leads people to see the primary role of the church as an underwriter of American democracy—to bless the values of our nation, to support what the nation supports.

But accommodation can also be dangerous. When we look back at World War II, many of us like to point to the courageous Christians of the Confessing Church in Germany. Their stand against Hitler was Christianity at its best. Unfortunately, what we often ignore is the fact that many German Christians—maybe most of them—were so immersed into their culture that they thought doing the Fuhrer business was God’s work. They couldn’t tell the difference between what was good for their country and what good for the faith.

And what happened there could happen anywhere. In fact, many suggest it has happened here. They suggest that mainline churches like ours, historically liberal churches filled with middle and upper-middle class Anglos, have a hard time distinguishing biblical values and cultural ones, often surrendering the former to the latter. And that won’t do either.

POINT

So if neither withdrawal nor accommodation is the answer, what should be the relationship between our faith and our culture? What role do we have as people of faith in the place in which we live?

The prophet Jeremiah offers what may be the best answer. In March of 597, the Babylonian king, Nebuchandnessar II quelled a rebellion in Jerusalem. To make sure it didn’t happen again, he exiled many of the nation’s leaders, including the king, his mother, court officials, military leaders, artisans and craftspeople. All that was left were the poorest of the poor, including the Prophet Jeremiah.

While the distance between those left behind and the exiles was great, communication flowed freely between them. And in time Jeremiah learned that some were expecting a short end to the exile. Some had even attempted to rebel against Babylon while in captivity. It was in that context that he received and delivered a word from God. He gave them this message: He told them to build houses and live in them, to plant gardens and eat from them, to take wives and have children, to marry off their sons and daughters. He tells them, "multiply there, and do not decrease. But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf."

Jeremiah makes two points. First, they are to maintain their identity. To do that they must carry on, they must establish their community within the Babylonian culture. That means putting down roots, marrying among themselves, having children, and rearing families in the faith. They are to make sure that even those born and reared in exile know that they are Israelites, the children of God, heirs of the promise made to Abraham and Sarah. They must multiply and not decrease. They must hold fast to their identity.

But they are not allowed to withdrawal from the Babylonian culture. They cannot create an Israelite ghetto. Instead, they are, while maintaining their identity, to seek the best for the city and country in which they are living. They are to pray for Babylon. They are to do what they can to help their new homeland.

That is the balance that we as people of faith are still called to find. We are called to maintain our identify as Christians, to hold fast to the values and virtues and beliefs that make us who we are, and then without compromising our identity seek the best for the larger culture. We are to engage the culture, but as Christians.

EXAMPLES

There is no question that such an approach is more difficult than either withdrawal or accommodation. It means we have to be clear about our faith—know what we believe and why. It also means saying "no" to maybe even good causes if they violate our faith. But it can be done.

Like many urban missions, this one in Memphis took in the poorest of the poor, providing meals not only for the people living on the streets but for some who lived in the run-down apartments in the surrounding area. Like many urban missions, a church ran this one. The work it did was so effective that it was encouraged to expand, to seek a government grant to help provide for the needy. And it did. The grant was received and it was more money than they normally received in a year. Here was an opportunity to make a difference in the lives of hundreds of lives, to seek the best for the city of Memphis.

But then they got the fine print. No worship services, no prayers or no money. The church wanted to do what was best for the people, for the city, for the impoverished area in which it worked, but it couldn’t—no, wouldn’t—sacrifice its identity as a Christian mission to do it. And so it returned the money. Oh, it was hard, but they knew they had to balance the need to maintain their identity and their desire to seek the best for the city.

Consider another example. Jim Wallis is the editor of Sojourner magazine. He has been active in politics for years. He has a particular passion for the issues of social justice and human rights. As a skilled writer, effective communicator and significant leader, he was always welcomed into the camp of those who shared his vision. What often wasn’t welcomed was the basis for his vision. While people welcomed his support, they were often uncomfortable with the fact the he believed in social justice because of the teachings of the prophets and Jesus Christ. They wanted him as part of the movement, but were not terrible pleased when he would link his motives to his religions. What he discovered was that they wanted his support, but they also wanted him to soft-sell or even mute his evangelistic faith. They wanted him to work for the good of the society, but to surrender his identity as a Christian in the process. And he couldn’t--no, wouldn’t--do it. Today he heads "Call to Renewal," a organization that seeks to help Christians of all sorts re-enter the public square, to work for the good of society, but to do so as people of faith.

SO WHAT?

It no easy thing to balance our love of God with our love of country. Times such as these can make it even more difficult. But while we all want what is best for the land in which we live, we are called to hold fast to the faith, to ask if this is indeed what Jesus would do, to ask if this is what God would want for every Christians regardless of where she or he might live. We are called to that to which Jeremiah called the exiles. We are called to first and foremost hold on our identity and then as the people of God seek the good for all those around us. May we take that charge to heart.