Of mosques, drum sets and legalism

So Imam Rauf wants to build a mosque and Islamic cultural center in the shadow (or what would have been the shadow) of the World Trade Center. What do Americans think of such a thing, and why?

Some are ardently in favor of the concept. Others strongly oppose it. Still others may not like the idea, but neither are they minded to make a fuss. “It’s their money, their mosque. As long as they aren’t breaking any laws, who are we to stand in the way?”

Those who support putting a Muslim house of worship near Ground Zero point to the law. As President Obama articulated, “Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

As far as I understand the law and the U.S. Constitution, supporters of the mosque have a solid legal argument. There is no law against it.

Those who oppose the building of the mosque at that location so close to Ground Zero agree, for the most part, that there is no law against it. And yet they still say, “It shouldn’t be built there.”

In the ecclesiastical lingo of the Church Growth Movement, these opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque would be called, “Legalists.”

A “legalist,” as he is sometimes defined, is a person who attempts to make a law where God (or in this case, the United States government) has not made a law. The argument goes that, if God does not directly prohibit something, it is, therefore, free to be done at the discretion of the individual who wishes to do it. Anyone who dares to call such a thing “wrong” has dared to set up a new law.

And yet, it is not on the basis of law that the opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque oppose it. Some oppose it because they question the motives of the imam. Others oppose it because, no matter what the intentions of the imam may be, it will stand as a monument declaring the victory of the Islamic terrorists who brought down the twin towers, and as such, it will embolden the enemies of the United States. Still others oppose it simply because it’s so insensitive to the people of New York and to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11, to put up in that place a symbol of the god in whose name their loved ones were murdered. As former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, said in a radio interview with Laura Ingraham, “It’s not a question of the First Amendment. It’s a question of appropriateness.”

Americans are quickly losing any sense of “appropriateness” or “propriety” that they once had. (Everything from apparel to gay marriage – Do I really need to come up with examples?) Laws once made in the context of such propriety are now being heralded as the very instruments that permit perversity, because the context of propriety is no longer recognized.

Still, most Americans, 70% according to some polls, have enough sense to oppose the building of the mosque in the proposed location, not on the basis of the law or prejudice or hatred, but on the basis of propriety.

Christians in these modern/post-modern times are quickly losing their sense of “propriety,” too. Propriety, like morality in general, has become subjective, so that if some Christians consider something to be proper, then it is proper for them. No one else has the right to label anything “improper” for someone else.

Is there a law in the Bible prohibiting the use of drum sets in a church service, or the pastor in baggy jeans and untucked shirt, or the popcorn popper or the movie (aka Power Point) screen? No. And yet, I will dare to say, “Those things shouldn’t be there.” For that, I will be labeled by some as a “Legalist” (or perhaps also “Pharisee” or “Sadducee” or “Judaizer”).

But I am not the one pointing to the law. They are the ones who are quick to hold up the law and drag it into the discussion to justify whatever new methodology they want to try or whatever new style they wish to impose. I am not creating a law. I am speaking of “appropriateness” or “propriety.”

“But propriety is subjective! It’s just a matter of opinion!” No, it isn’t, not in its context. In the context of first century Corinth, for example, there was nothing subjective about the propriety of a woman praying with her head uncovered. Such a practice, in that context, was objectively “inappropriate,” because it undermined the headship role of the man.

In our 21st century American context, a drum set, combined with the “upbeat” philosophy of “what worship ought to be” (notice how they use the “ought to be,” too, when it fits their agenda), sends the message that we have caved to the entertainment culture, that sectarian preachers are the role models to be followed, that “church” and “rock concert” are synonymous, that the Divine Service is no longer for the purpose of receiving the “divine service” of God giving Christ’s benefits to you, but for the purpose of you jammin’ your heart out for Jesus.

As an American citizen, I am in favor of Muslims having the legal right to build mosques. But not in the vicinity of Ground Zero. As a Christian, I am in favor of Christians playing electric guitars and drum sets, dressing in baggy jeans, eating popcorn and watching movies. But not during the Divine Service. Even if there’s no law against it, it’s entirely inappropriate, especially for those who wish to call themselves “confessional Lutherans.”