The problem of religion and politics defines another set of issues. Church and state deals with the relationship of institutions that are independent of each other. Religion and politics has to do with two spheres of activities in the life of the same persons. Citizens who belong to religious groups are also members of the secular society, and this dual association generates complications. Religious beliefs have moral and social implications, and it is appropriate for people of faith to express these through their activities as citizens in the political order. The fact that ethical convictions are rooted in religious faith does not disqualify them from the political realm. However, they do not have secular validity merely because they are thought by their exponents to be religiously authorized. They must be argued for in appropriate social and political terms in harmony with national values.
In both cases, we should be prepared to deal with complexities,
ambiguities,
and overlapping realms in which practical discernment must find
workable
principles to guide us that are as compatible with fundamental
Constitutional
imperatives as human reason can devise.
As a Christian you Question
are opposed to capital
punishment.
Could you be Attorney General of
Texas?
believed in racial integration
when
Could you be Attorney General of
segregation was the
law.
Georgia in 1950?
believe that illegal drugs like
marijuana
Could you be Attorney General of
and cocaine should be
decriminalized.
New York?
believe that abortion is
immoral
Could you be Attorney General of
and should be against the
law.
the United States?
If you say yes to all of the above, why should not John Ashcroft be Attorney General of the United States? If you say yes, is there any point at which you draw the line and say no? If you say no, then how do you propose to live in this sinful world with respect to the prevailing political order?
Emil Brunner, one of the great Christian ethicists of the 20th century, said that if we are to participate in politics, we have to do so in terms defined by current society for the role we play. We must operate with the standards of justice and law that prevail at that time and place. A Christian's duty is to introduce love into the interstices of the social network, to show mercy and compassion within the spaces of the institutional frameworks operating then and there. A Christian judge would pronounce the death sentence but look for some way to show love toward the criminal. Brunner maintained that we should also try to reform social structures and make them better. He was cautious, however, since he feared that such efforts might introduce even greater disorder and injustice. He so stressed the goodness of any social order in so far as it was order that he urged its maintenance unless the better society can be "immediately realized without any break in continuity." Brunner regarded the "created orders," the state, e. g., as dykes against sin to restrain the chaotic impulses of sinful, fallen humanity (Romans 13).
This social pessimism prompted Reinhold Niebuhr to suggest that Brunner was motivated more by the fear of disorder than by love of justice. Niebuhr himself recognized that any justice achieved in giant collectives like the state would be partial and full of ambiguities. His brother Richard suggested that "Christ" should transform "culture." That is my preferred stance, but what are the chances of converting enough Baptists and Methodists in Texas (who run things there) to turn against capital punishment within any foreseeable future? What do we do in the meantime? Do we serve in Texas as Attorney General or not if we are a Christian opposed to the death penalty? Of course, you would never be elected to that office holding that view, but that is another point that gives some credence to Brunner's position. Maybe you should accept capital punishment and work within the interstices of the social order to introduce a little love and compassion where possible. That might include trying to see to it that no innocent person was ever executed and maybe even working for a moratorium until poor defendants can be represented by competent attorneys instead of by inept drunks who go to sleep during the trial.
I think Emil, Reinhold, and Richard all have a point, depending on how we discern the signs of the times (Matthew 16:3).
I wrestled with all this when I was a pastor in Georgia during the 1950's when the Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation came out. Pastors who hated segregation struggled to know what to do when 98% of their congregation hated integration. What was a Christian politician to do? Running on an integrationist platform meant sure and catastrophic defeat. Those who did suffered exactly that fate. Could the effort be justified as a moral witness to transcendent ideals of truth and justice beyond any present possibility of being actualized? I think there is a place for that. Was there a role also for Christian moderates who would be close enough to the prevailing consensus to get elected as Governor or Attorney General and who would then work within the interstices of the political order (Brunner) to introduce a little restraint on the worst impulses that were abroad. They might work, say, for the preservation of the public schools instead of closing them like the extremists wanted to do. If not, what do we propose as the role of Christians in politics in such situations? We could join a "sect" (Troeltsch) and seek to live a life of holiness in isolation from as much of the world as possible.
To get more personal, much of John Ashcroft's politics is distasteful to me. I wish he had been rejected. But I know of no reason why he as a Christian is not entitled to serve as Attorney General. Moreover, he is entitled to work for a change in the law, even if he keeps his word and enforces the laws that are now in effect. Many of the Democrats who voted to confirm were from states that Bush carried handily. If they are better than anyone who might replace them, I hesitate a little to argue against their vote? I struggle constantly to find the right mix of idealism and realism. Pragmatically, I might justify a vote for him because Republican elephants have long memories. Being too much of a purist could come back to haunt me when a new president appoints an Attorney General that I like a lot. As one Republican said, "If I could vote for Janet Reno, why can't you vote for John Ashcroft?" Is it ever OK to say, "You vote for mine, and I'll vote for yours?" Let us ponder the zoological images of Matthew 10:16. My solution to the John Ashcroft problem now that he is confirmed is to oppose his wrong moves as AG and make sure that Dubya is a one-term president. If no better option comes along, we could reelect Al Gore.
Was that a violation of church and state? Strictly speaking, since this was an official state occasion, it certainly has the faint odor of state sponsorship of a particular religion. Even if not, it was, in the words of the Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, "inappropriate and insensitive."
If you are ordained and invited to pray on this occasion, would you accept? If you did, would you pray in the name of Jesus Christ? If not, how would you pray? Would you abhor any specific Christian references and address the Deity without much fussiness about which God you had in mind. You could in the name of what Benjamin Franklin called the "publick theology" speak of God with no more specificity than to suggest that God was Creator and in favor of justice. But if you are going the route of "civil religion," (Bellah), why do you need a Christian minister to pray in this general fashion? Should a Christian be expected to shed his/her particular identity in order to be an exponent of the "religion of the Republic" (Meade) with its broad identification with the Semitic traditions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity but not congenial to conceptions of Ultimacy in the great religions of the East conceive of Ultimacy. Don't Buddhist citizens count?
Dilemma: In the interests of inclusiveness, how can we avoid a general slide down to the lowest common denominator that becomes so vapid as to lose all merit? Vague piety probably deserves the fate of lukewarm water as specified in Revelation 3:15-16. Including everybody has a price. Yet being specific and letting Franklin Graham be who he is threatens Jefferson's wall of separation or is at least, as Lynn said, "inappropriate and insensitive."
Solution: Don't have prayers at the Inauguration because there is no attractive third way between empty universalism and offensive particularity. That way even atheists can feel included.
Barry Lynn went on to chide the Rev. Graham for asking God's assistance in helping the President reject what was contrary to "Your statutes and holy law." He was putting God's law above the country's law, according to the leader of AUSCS. "In a secular society, that is wrong." Now, as we professionals say, that surely requires some unpacking, or if we are avant-garde or post-modern, calls for some parsing. Surely Lynn, never a shrinking violet, does not mean that Christian believers should not appeal to their understanding of God to criticize governmental policy even among themselves. But even in a public, political context, his point must be qualified.
All law is based on something. "Civil religion" itself holds that certain principles and some human rights are grounded in the Law of Nature and of Nature's God. The Declaration of Independence is explicit about this. Abolitionists and women's rights advocates in the 19th century appealed to Natural Law, i. e., God's law. Calling this a Christian nation is going too far, but references to God are embedded in the national fabric, even if some Deistic fibers are woven into the mix. Our coins say, "In God we trust." Appeals to God in the political arena, however, should be based on public reason, i. e., principles open in principle to everyone and not on the religious tenets of a specific religion or denomination. Neither secular humanism nor religious doctrine is privileged. If somebody does appeal to the Bible or to the Pope as God's mouthpiece and convinces other on this basis, well, that's just the way it goes in this messy democracy. However, whatever we believe in our hearts and in church, it is better in the political realm not to appeal to God but to justify law because it enhances liberty and equality, promotes justice, and increases the common good. On this basis atheists can make their pitch along with us Baptists. Maybe that is all Lynn meant.
Let us not get too persnickety about ideological purity. What about the chaplains who pray to the Congress (although in form they are addressing a Higher Power)? Don't we pay Christian military chaplains to serve communion in the name of Jesus?
And what about those tax deductions we ministers get for housing allowance? Is that state support of religion? Sounds suspiciously like it to me. It certainly is as unjust and indefensible as it gets. No rebellion among the masses of the ministerial troops has come to my attention. I take every penny of mine.
The issue of government support for faith-based human services is full of complications, dangers, ambiguities, and subtleties. The beauty of religiously-oriented social ministries is the potential for dealing with people as whole selves, i. e., giving them food for the soul as well as for the body. But this very unity poses the problem of how it is Constitutionally licit for the government to enable the providing of secular bread without funding sectarian religion. If, on the other hand, the delivery of goods and services to the needy is totally divorced from the religious dimension, in what meaningful sense is it any longer faith-based, apart from merely being sponsored by a religious group? Why shouldn't the government fund a church soup kitchen if all that is dispensed is soup? Because, we say, what the church would spend on soup can now be spent on the church bus. But maybe they would just serve more soup. Maybe the soup itself is a witness to the faith behind it, but if it is, is that not a sponsorship of religion? Would the government discriminate against some religious groups? Would giving government money to churches tend to dull the prophetic urge to be critical of the state? Would the government require conformity to certain rules that would restrict church autonomy? What is a religious group? What does faith-based mean? Can we think our way through this thicket without falling into confusion?
A strict and purist position on these matters is impossible in practical terms. Many lines have to be drawn in shades of gray. We have to do a lot of British "muddling through." Those who look for absolutely clear prescriptions requiring no delicate balancing acts are doomed to perpetual frustration. Or they may be tempted to resort to desperate efforts to find purity of doctrine by suppressing legitimate elements in the total ensemble of principles that govern the nation.
Baptist Joint Committee
Americans United for the Separation of
Church and State
This is one in a series of essays on theological and ethical topics. The best place to start is:
Presently, the following essays are available:
| |