Norwood's main point is that the FFRF itself violates the rights of those who believe in Christ and prayer. He expresses his admiration for Mariakas and a very real feeling that enough is enough when it comes to attacks on prayer. His main concern, however, is that these attempts to limit prayer will become more and more invasive over time. Soon, Christians won't be able to pray in restaurants before a meal, and eventually there could be raids on private homes to break up prayer groups. He writes, "We must beware the faith-stealers, for that is exactly what they want to do — steal our faith and have us join them in their unbelief." Norwood, however, also believes that God is involved in all of these events and wonders what it is that God is calling on Christians to do in response to them. He expresses his sadness for those who do not have a saving faith, and he affirms what for his is the fact that in the end faith will win. He says, "...there is good news. I've read the back of the Book and we do win in the end."
In this column, Norwood sees a point and misses a point. The point he raises is that people have a right to pray and historically the United States has been a praying nation. If public prayer causes some distress, its absence cause distress to others. The actual point for those living in Walker County is that the majority believe in prayer and believe it is important to approach public as well private matters in prayer. They have a long tradition of public prayer. Isn't it a violation of the rights of the majority to force that to change?
In principle, those of us who share his faith (but not his theology) might well agree. The problem here is, however, the point that Norwood does not speak to—the local issue having to do specifically with Coach Mariakas. IF the FFRF is correct, then the coach does seem to be in danger of imposing his faith on some who do not share it or want it. As I wrote in the last posting, Mariakas in relationship to his players is a power figure. It is, thus, one thing for a group of players to pray together on their own but another thing for the coach to "invite" the whole team to pray. In the power relationship, one can reasonably argue that the coach is not reflecting the love and the humility of Christ nor actual concern for the well-being of all of his players.
Beyond the constitutional and legal issues involved, the issue for us as followers of Christ is how we best reflect his love for those around us. As a rule, mainline church goers seldom take opportunities to share their faith and evangelical church goers do so too often. The one doesn't talk enough and the other talks too much. Finding a balance in particular real-life situations is difficult and requires both sensitivity and courage. Mainliners need courage to speak more often, and evangelicals need the courage to know when to share by example rather than words.
One final thought. Taken in faith, the FFRF in this case can be seen as an angel, that is as an agency that opens doors to a deeper faith in God in Christ. Angels tend to be unlooked for and "inconvenient". They tend to push us outside of our comfort zone and demand that we think outside the box. Norwood does ask the right question when he wonders what God is up to in all of this. He fails to see that the FFRF may well hold the answer to his question.
