"appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions”

In addition to the backyard BBQ, the touch football game and the
spectacular fireworks show, here’s another way to celebrate the Fourth
of July: Do a reading of the Declaration of Independence. (Reading the
entire Declaration out loud takes less than eight minutes.) More
importantly, join in its prayer at the end.

I’ll get to the prayer part in a minute, but first, let me make a case
for the reading: Not only does the Declaration state clearly the reasons our nation exists, but it also details the philosophy that underlies that existence. Most importantly, the Declaration demonstrates how God and His will are at the center of that philosophy.

For me, the best part of the Declaration is one phrase toward the end,
“appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our
intentions”. This is what I call, The Prayer of the Declaration. According to the
Oxford Dictionary (the best source we have for the meaning of English
words as they were defined when the American Founders employed them),
“to appeal” means, among other things, “a serious or urgent request.”

The Founders were making a serious and urgent request to whom? “The
Supreme Judge of the World.” Is there anything ambiguous about who
this “Supreme Judge” might be? It’s obvious on it’s face; this was a
serious and urgent request to God, and for what? “For the rectitude of
our intentions.” This clause, “rectitude of our intentions” means,
again according to the Oxford, “morally correct behavior or thinking;
righteousness.” In other words, the writers and intended signers of
the instrument that would bring the United States of America into
existence ended their monumental Declaration with a prayer. They asked
God to help them do what was morally correct and righteous.

That’s pretty powerful stuff! When the Signers put pen to paper, they
were saying “Amen” to this prayer. On this July 4th, I hope and pray
all Americans will join in this great foundational prayer of our
Nation. Perhaps we could express it this way: Holy God, may all we do
as a people be morally correct and righteous in Your sight; You who
are the One, Supreme Judge of the World.

“God is a righteous judge” Psalm 7:11a, ESV.

She could have been my cousin!

Elena Kagan, President Obama’s most recent nominee to the Supreme Court, looks and sounds like anyone of my cousins. Maybe that makes her less scary to me. She’s so familiar—from the mild pinch in her voice, to the soft r’s in her speech, to her facial features and even to her body morph. Even more so, it’s Miss Kagan’s worldview—her philosophy of life—that pervaded my own upbringing. So, in that way, she’s definitely one of my “peeps.” For me, the only thing that is unusual about her is that her idiosyncrasies—unlike those of my cousins—could, very soon, become the law of the land.

What I learned about Elena Kagan this week was, well, at the same time a lot—and nothing at all. What I learned was, again, oh so familiar. She’s the quintessential Northeastern liberal–make that, the epitome of the New England liberal, cast in an ethnically Jewish personality. (During my growing up years, my father’s side was almost entirely in Connecticut.) At the same time, on the legal front, none of us really learned anything at all. What people saw was a likable and unflappable personality (she stuttered in only a couple of exchanges), but she largely deflected the pointed questions and gave only bland and ambiguous answers on the really salient subjects.

One certainty I think anyone one of us could take away from the committee inquiry is that Miss Kagan engaged, at least at one time, in pro-abortion activism. This point is quite significant. We haven’t really had an unapologetic, politically oriented abortion activist on the Court since the late Harry Blackmun, the author of Roe v. Wade. (And he didn’t start out his professional career that way, as Miss Kagan apparently did.)  So, Miss Kagan, as “Justice Kagan,” could turn out to be Harry Blackmun revivified on the High Bench—and then some. That would be a bad thing. Having said that, though, let me tell you what I harbor in my heart for the likely and near-future Justice Kagan.

Although (we’re told), Miss Kagan had a falling out with the Orthodox Judaism of her childhood, she still has a Jewish conscience in her soul. (There is no indication she has utterly repudiated her Jewish roots—culturally or religiously.) This is hopeful. The Great Apostle Paul (and former Rabbi Saul) wrote of those who may not apparently know God, “the work of the law [is] written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness” (see Romans 2:15). A seed of conscience can always be nurtured. I’m convinced for most of us, the older we get, the richer is the soil of our hearts and, therefore, the better are the chances the seed of conscience can sprout—and even grow.

Should the Judiciary Committee vote this month to recommend Miss Kagan to the full Senate for a vote; and should she subsequently receive a majority of “Yea” votes in August (both outcomes are a virtual fait accompli), she will be sworn in as the next sitting associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. That’s when our work begins. Faith and Action will call the people of God to pray for Justice Kagan, and we will do everything God enables us to do to persuade her to return to the roots of her conscience, which are found in God’s Word, and epitomized in the Great Commandments.

The success of this endeavor is predicated on building an amicable relationship with Miss Kagan, starting now. So, at the expense of criticism from our friends and allies, we will continue to treat Nominee Kagan (the presumptive Justice Kagan) with all due respect, deference and generosity. For those who think we are compromising by doing so, I would hope they would consult the entirety of God’s Word on the treatment of others—including enemies—before rendering a final verdict on us.

To review or catch up with the Kagan confirmation, be sure to go to http://www.c-span.org/Special/Supreme-Court-Kagan-Senate-Confirmation-Hearing.aspx.

Rob +

This two-word verse from John 11:35 is for me one of the most profound in the Bible. It says our Lord felt emotion as much as any of us. That’s why when news reached me that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had lost her beloved husband of 56 years, I knew our Lord wept for her, too. I know some people will struggle with that, because they mix up their feelings about her judicial philosophy with the person behind it.

Somehow we get the impression that these powerful people in government are not humans like the rest of us. I would argue that reducing public figures we don’t care for to something other than just people is to deny them their humanity. That’s the same sin that abortion commits against the unborn child. I can tell you from my muerous encounters with Justice Ginsburg that she is every bit as human as you and me, and she feels the same pain anyone of us would experience losing a loved one.

Frankly, I don’t care whether we agree with Justice Ginsburg or not, we’re equally obligated to pray for her and demonstrate to her God’s love. I hope you’ll do that by first praying for her and her family in their grief. You can also send her a personal message through our office at info@faithandaction.org. We’ll make sure it’s hand-delivered to her.

In His great Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” If you were in Justice Ginsburg’s place, you would want and need the love of God’s people. Let’s give it to her lavishly during her time of grief.

More later on the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee and prospective colleague to Justice Ginsburg, Elena Kagan.

Rob +

This past Monday I received a great honor: I was officially recognized as “chaplain” of the Capitol Hill Executive Service Club, a unique private association that has met inside the US Capitol for almost 40 years. I’ve been a member for ten of those years, and I”m grateful to God for it.

The “Club,” as we affectionately know it, is made up of some of the most interesting–and I might add, kind and thoughtful–people in Washington. They are mostly retired now, but from distinguished careers in the White House, the Congress, the courts, and the military (we have both generals and admirals among us). Some made history–like our much beloved and late General Milnor Roberts, for whom, not long ago, I had the bitter-sweet honor of presiding at his funeral. General Roberts was a true American hero. He stormed the beaches Normandy, fought his way up a bluff under direct enemy fire, penetrated behind lines and went on the fight at the Battle of the Bulge. OK, I digress–but it’s easy to get carried away about this crowd!

Back to being named Chaplain . . .

Receiving this honor was humbling and long-awaited. I’ve come to love these folks with whom I have breakfast almost every Monday morning. They are people much like my late father. Though we do have newer and younger members, for the most part the demographic places the average member somewhere in the seventh and eighth decades of life. They came up at another time and at another place in the world–with strong values centered on duty, devotion and service. That’s a lot of experience–and knowledge–and I draw on it routinely.

As demonstrated by the wide array of speakers we host each week, our members not only have an insatiable thirst for more knowledge, they can effectively engage any subject. One week it will be a Supreme Court justice addressing some nuance of constitutional jurisprudence; the next week the chief engineer in charge of protecting spacecrafts from space debris. It may even be–well, a newly appointed chaplain talking about the importance of “body, soul and spirit.” (They were extraordinarily attentive during my acceptance speech on Monday!)

Of course, becoming the “official chaplain” to these very, very interesting and interested people leaves me with a big challenge. Pastors will always find the needs and demands of their congregations unique–but this one, well . . . it goes on ad infinitum!  Having said that, on Monday I told my new “parishioners” that come the beginning of each week, I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else–or be anything else, but their chaplain.

“I’m grateful for what I’ve experienced on Capitol Hill,” I said. “For ministry moments with presidents, leaders of Congress and with Supreme Court justices. Yet, I’m equally grateful for having come to know each of you–and for the way you’ve invited me into your lives.”

I meant every word of it.

Just call me Chappy . . .

Rob +

Each week our ministry helps to host a weekly breakfast conference held in the US Capitol. This gathering is one of our richest fields of personal ministry. I often give the opening prayer–which is by itself extraordinary and exceedingly valuable ministry. This week, though, my responsibility was to introduce the guest speaker, so another member gave the prayer. It was a beautiful, meaningful and majestic old prayer. Our group was deeply moved by it, so I thought I’d share it with you:

“Almighty God, who hast given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of thy favor and glad to do thy will. Bless our land with honorable industry, sound learning, and pure manners. Save us from violence, discord, and confusion; from pride and arrogancy, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues. endue with the spirit of wisdom those whom in thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that, through obedience to thy law, we may show forth thy praise among the nations of the earth. In the time of prosperity, full our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. ”

Considering that in Washington we often hear meaningless platitudes disguised as prayers, this one was powerful and consummately effective. Thanks to our breakfast conference member who brought it to us!

Rob +

About the recent federal court order declaring the National Day of Prayer supremely illegal (well, that’s what “unconstitutional” really means): The President has filed a formal “intent to appeal.” This means he has notified Federal District Judge Barbara Crabb that her decision striking down the National Day of Prayer will be challenged. At the same time, the President’s lawyers at the Department of Justice have not indicated what they will say in their defense.

Now, here’s how these things work: When the President or his actions are “enjoined” (or prohibited) by a court, as in this case, he orders the Department of Justice to assign one or more of its many lawyers to legally defend his position. Inside the Department of Justice a decision is then made whether this matter is important, or really important. Really important means the best and most experienced lawyers are tapped and the most prominent personalities–like the Solicitor General (the nation’s top civil attorney) herself–or at least her deputies–are visible and vocal on the matter.

So far, I haven’t seen or heard from the Solicitor General or one of her deputies. (I may have missed it. If so, please bring my attention to it.) This could mean the matter is only in its preliminary stages, or . . . it’s just important, but not really important. Please pardon my cynicism, but after 16 years in Washington, I always give the benefit of the doubt–both ways. During the three presidential administrations I’ve observed up close (two Democrat and one Republican), I’ve seen an awful lot of horse and pony shows. In other words, legal window dressing. I’ve also seen presidents “throw the fight,” so-to-speak. It can be very convenient for an administration to blame-shift to the courts. On the campaign trail it sounds something like this, “Well, we tried to do the right thing, but the courts wouldn’t let us.”

Time will tell what President Obama plans to do with this legal contest. I hope and pray he’ll mount a vigorous defense of the constitutionality of the National Day of Prayer. Even more so, I hope and pray he’ll remind the court why prayer is so important to our nation and its well-being.

Regardless of how the President and his lawyers approach this, Faith and Action will mount its own vigorous effort. It’s why we’ve launched a new facebook page, “Defend the National Day of Prayer.” I hope you’ll sign on to it to show your support. By doing so, you’ll also be included in our own Faith and Action legal brief to be filed with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals–and maybe even with the United States Supreme Court, should it get that far. You can also sign up to be listed on the legal defense at our website: www.faithandaction.org. (Use the National Day of Prayer Amicus Brief tab at upper left.)

It’s important for the courts to know what American citizens think about the National Day of Prayer. While it’s true the federal courts are to be free and independent of political pressure, they also want to contemplate the sentiments of the American people when deliberating their decisions. Let’s show them strong sentiments for the National Day of Prayer!

If you haven’t done it already, please go to our new facebook page now: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Defend-the-National-Day-of-Prayer/113264075374172?ref=ts and press the “Like” button at the top right-hand side of the page. Then, pass along the link and information to all your facebook friends. Thanks for helping us send a strong message to the courts: Americans want and need the National Day of Prayer!

Rob +

Here’s an exhortation for the members of Congress that I will stand with today when they defend the National Day of Prayer:

“. . . they shall not profane the holy things . . .” Leviticus 22:15.

This is a reminder to me and to everyone involved that prayer is a holy thing and should not be exploited for political advantage. I’ve been around Capitol Hill long enough to know there are probably some who are already thinking, “Gee, this is a wedge issue we can use in the upcoming elections.” Republicans will be tempted to paint Democrats as ungodly and the GOP as sacred because it supports the National Day of Prayer legislation. Democrats will be tempted to say, “We’re not jumping on board with this because it’s going to be used against us at election time.”

Either position is wrong-headed and wrong-hearted.

Prayer is sacred and transcends every political consideration. Both parties have historically violated this holy trust. God reminds us through the prophet Isaiah:

“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9)

When we profane the things of God by dragging them into the rough and tumble of our earthly politics, we only remind ourselves how far we are from the Holy.

Rob +

Below is an article that will post later this morning at www.faithandaction.org on last night’s declaration by a federal judge prohibiting President Obama from recognizing the National Day of Prayer on May 6. In her order, Judge Barbara Crabb compared recognition of the National Day of Prayer to the practice of “rune magic.”

National prayer observances date back to George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt. All recent presidents, including President Obama, have issued National Day of Prayer proclamations. It’s uncertain how the ruling will affect the 1952 law passed by Congress creating the National Day of Prayer, and its modification in 1988, signed by Ronald Reagan, that set the first Thursday in each May for its observance.

This ruling shouldn’t shock anyone. Atheist activist and lawyer Michael Newdow, with whom I’ve had a couple of face-to-face ministry moments, has for years been relentlessly filing lawsuits against every public acknowledgement of God. It was inevitable he would find a federal judge somewhere to agree with him. He did in the Madison, Wisconsin based Judge Barbara Crabb. What really matters are two things: Whether President Obama will order his Justice Department to appeal the ruling and ardently defend the National Day of Prayer, or, whether he will simply let it stand. Another option he has is to “throw the fight,” by offering only a tepid, half-hearted defense.

Lamentably, President Obama cancelled last year’s White House observance of National Day of Prayer, saying it’s better for citizens to stay home and privately observe it. That doesn’t suggest he’s up for a vigorous fight to preserve this long and enormously meaningful American tradition.

Much more importantly, it focuses attention on the President’s nominee for the Supreme Court to fill the vacancy created by Justice John Paul Stevens when he retires this June. I will urge my friends and allies in the US Senate to be sure to ask any candidate for the post where he or she stands on the constitutionality of calling out to God for blessing on our land.

Here’s our news item on it . . .

FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS OBAMA NOT TO RECOGNIZE NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER

A federal judge in Wisconsin has ordered President Obama not to issue a Presidential Proclamation recognizing the National Day of Prayer which Congress has set as the first Thursday of each May. In the same opinion, Judge Barbara Crabb declared the annual observance in America to be unconstitutional, writing that the government’s acknowledgement of the importance of prayer is no different than if it were to recognize “rune magic.”

Judge Crabb issued her injunction against the National Day of Prayer in response to a lawsuit filed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, an atheist organization co-founded by a former Pentecostal minister. One of the group’s champions is infamous atheist activist and “mail order minister” turned-lawyer Michael Newdow, who unsuccessfully argued before the Supreme Court against the Pledge of Allegiance (because of its clause, “one nation, under God”). Newdow has also filed lawsuits against the National Motto, “In God We Trust,” and against displays of the Ten Commandments.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation has amassed more than $5 million in cash to continue it’s campaign against the National Day of Prayer.

“Faith and Action and its allied partners, including the National Clergy Council and the Christian Defense Coalition, will urge President Obama to order the Justice Department to immediately appeal this outrageous order and to defend the long history of America’s calls to prayer that date back to Presidents Washington, Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and even President Obama himself,” said Rev. Rob Schenck, president of Faith and Action and its lead missionary.

Rev. Schenck and Rev. Pat Mahoney plan a national news conference at the White House early next week to appeal to the President to take urgent action, as the National Day of Prayer events are only 3 weeks away.

President Obama with Justice John Paul Stevens

A few weeks ago, I hosted a group of pastors at our ministry center on Capitol Hill. As part of their all-day experience with us, I took them over to the US Senate to meet a long-time friend, Tom Jipping, who works for another friend, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah. Tom is an attorney and advises Senator Hatch on, among other things, nominees for appointment to the federal courts, including to the US Supreme Court.

For those not familiar with the process, let me explain it in brief: All federal judges are, at least in theory, appointed to their seats on the bench by the President of the United States. Now, with judges in the lower courts (like district courts, where trials take place), presidents often defer to others, like senators, to recommend someone for appointment. On the higher levels, though, including, of course, the highest, that is the US Supreme Court, the president tasks a search committee inside the White House to propose candidates. He then picks the one he thinks is best and presents that nominee to the US Senate for confirmation. This is based on Article II, Section II, Paragraph II of the US Constitution,

“[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.”

This means the President must gain the “stamp of approval” for his court appointments from the US Senate. The process begins with the US Senate Judiciary Committee. They will do research on the president’s nominee, circulate dossiers on that person, then schedule a hearing at which the nominee and others who know that person are asked questions about their knowledge and approach to the law, the Constitution, certain cases and situations. The committee then votes whether to refer the nomination to the entire senate for a vote of Yea or Nay. Sometimes the nominee will be approved in the committee, sometimes not. In some instances, the pressure on the nominee is so great, or the information on them so embarrassing or damaging to the nominee or the president, that the nominee is either pressured to withdraw or withdraws voluntarily.

If the nomination proceeds out of the committee to the entire US Senate, a vote is scheduled. Leading up to the actual vote, senators will debate the merits of the nominee and recommend their colleagues vote yes or no. Theoretically, this debate can go on forever, but certain actions are taken to limit it. When the vote is finally taken, all it requires is a simple majority to approve a nominee, after which that person is sworn in to their judicial post either publicly or privately. The Constitution allows for federal judges to serve without interference for an indefinite period and “hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” This phrase has been widely interpreted to mean a federal judge may serve for life, provided he or she does not commit an egregious act or lose their mental capacities. Only the Congress may remove  a federal judge, based on Article I, Sections II and III of the Constitution, “all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

The terms, “high crimes and misdemeanors” are largely up to interpretation, and so, are somewhat vague and undefined. The result is that very few judges have ever been charged, (or “impeached”), and even fewer have ever been convicted and removed. Only one US Supreme Court justice in history has ever been forcibly removed from the bench.

All this to say that the process to bring about the appointment of a new Supreme Court justice to fill the seat to be vacated soon by retiring associate justice John Paul Stevens, is complex and is already well-underway. Generally Supreme Court justices will remain in place until their successor is approved by the US Senate. No one ever knows precisely when that will happen, but it could happen as soon as June or as late as this fall. Almost always it will be finalized by the start of the High Court’s next annual term, which begins on the first Monday of each October.

And this brings me back to Tom Jipping. I believe Tom is the most brilliant expert in the US Senate when it comes to judicial appointments and what makes for a good Supreme Court nominee. He told our pastors’ group when it comes to the US Supreme Court, it’s not whether the nominee is pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, or pro-anything. The sine qua non of judicial fitness for office is whether that nominee possesses a credible judicial philosophy that upholds the integrity and plain meaning of the US Constitution. I agree. The Constitution secures the God-given rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, among them “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” (How can anyone enjoy any rights if they do not enjoy the first right to life? That settles that matter right there! )

Please pray for Tim Jipping and other behind-the-scenes advisors like him that will help their US Senators to evaluate President Obama’s nominees for this crucial opening on the US Supreme Court. Pray that God will give Tom and others wisdom, knowledge, insight and understanding (Proverbs 2:6) as they investigate, then advise their bosses on the interview process, the questioning during the hearing process, the debate before the vote, and ultimately how each Senator should cast his or her vote. Pray also for the President and his advisors, the White House staff tasked with the selection process, and, of course, for the nominee(s).

As I have in the past, I will go to the hearing room itself to symbolically consecrate the process to the Lord in prayer. Let’s remember, ultimately, “The authorities that exist have been established by God.” (Romans 13: 1b, NIV) I routinely remind US Supreme Court justices, and everyone else that serves in government, that they are as ordained of God to their posts as I am to mine. That means each is held accountable to God, as much as to the Constitution, for the discharge of their offices. One of our (better) US Supreme Court justices once gave a talk to a small group of us in a private gathering on why judges and justices swear their oaths with the phrase, “So help me God.” He made it quite clear it’s because that is where their ultimate accountability lies.

More on this as the process advances . . .

Rob +

With Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota

Unless you live in Minnesota, you may not know the name Tim Pawlenty, but if you watch the news, you’ve probably seen his face.

Pawlenty is the governor of Minnesota and a former state legislator there. The reason you’ve likely seen him is because he’s making the rounds inside the Republican Party and on the talk shows as an “unannounced” presidential “pre-candidate.” That’s my way of saying he’s clearly testing the political waters for a potential presidential run in 2012.

I caught up with Governor Pawlenty when he came to town this week to address the Susan B. Anthony List, an organization that supports principally pro-life women candidates.  (I know what you’re thinking: So why aren’t they supporting Sarah Palin instead of Tim Pawlenty? Answer: They aren’t supporting anyone at this stage—and she’s speaking at their annual breakfast next month.)

The reason I went to the dinner was specifically to ask the Governor one question: What church does he attend? I knew everything else about him—well, everything else that can be known—but I didn’t know exactly about his church affiliation. When I huddled with him away from the crowd, he told me: Woodale Church of Eden, Minnesota. He’s attended there since the early 1980’s.

Born, baptized and raised Catholic, he moved over to the then Baptist church (it’s since become non-denominational Evangelical) after he met his wife, who had been raised in the congregation.

The Pawlentys’ pastor is the Reverend Dr. Leith Anderson, whom I’ve met several times. He’s an author, former Christian college president and now president of the National Association of Evangelicals. He’s also a fellow signer with me (and hundreds of others) of the Manhattan Declaration, a document stating that the signers pledge not to comply with rules and laws forcing us to accept abortion, same-sex marriage and other ideals that go against our religious consciences.

Keep an eye and a prayer on Tim Pawlenty. If nothing else, he’s a refreshing voice of conscience in the political arena.