At the invitation of Pete Simpson, I spoke at a town hall
meeting recently in Cody. The topic was religion and politics. Pete’s grandmother
believed the two didn’t mix. Politics and religion were to be avoided at her
dinner table. What about the pulpit? Do political discussions belong in church?
As a way of understanding the issue, Pete recommended the
assembled citizens read Jon Meacham’s 2006 book entitled “American Gospel.” The
book chronicles the development of the first clause of the 1st
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. It reads, “Congress shall
make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.”
The drafters can be quoted saying many things, but the
language they placed into the Constitution did not bar politics from the
pulpit. The U.S. tax code, however, does place limitations on political speech
and activities in which a church may engage.
A church cannot endorse candidates or parties or contribute
financially to them. Nothing in the code prevents faith communities from
speaking about political issues. Churches may even lobby their elected
officials so long as that sort of witness does not consume a substantial
portion of their time or resources.
That is called free speech, also protected by the 1st
Amendment. It is likewise what the Founders called “the free exercise” of
religion.
In the Presbyterian tradition, as with many others, bearing
such witness is an expectation of members. Faithful membership is defined to
include an expectation that Presbyterians work to secure certain inalienable
rights to “peace, justice, freedom, and human fulfillment.”
Meacham’s history details the struggle of the new country to
figure out the question of religion. The struggle leading to the writing of the
Constitution is not unlike that which continues yet today.
Twenty-first century Americans have as much trouble agreeing
how or whether to separate church from state as did those of the 18th
century who wrote the Bill of Rights. Meacham believes it would be useful to
understand that, in the United States, there is both a “public religion” and a
“private religion.”
Our public religion is built around a nearly-common
understanding that there is a God who, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, created all
of us to be equals of one another, a “Creator” who endowed us with “certain
inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.”
Jefferson and others among the founders thought that applied
regardless of how individual citizens practice what he called “private
religion, which is practiced in the personal choices we are entitled to make
about the path we choose to finding that whom we understand to be the Divine.
Meacham concludes the founders “wanted God in American
public life” but saw wisdom in “distinguishing between private and public
religion.” Thus, no official state religion, no teacher-led prayers in public
schools, no tax-free dollars supporting church-endorsed candidates. It also
means we can judge elected officials by what they do for the least of these.
The wall between church and state was never built to
separate religious from political speech. The obligation of faith leaders to
speak on matters of justice is established by scripture. The Old Testament
devotes entire books to the political speech of the Hebrew prophets. They
risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to challenge abuses of the
government just as did the founders of our nation.
Theologian Robin Meyers’ book “Saving Jesus From the
Church,” imagines a gathering of folks far more like those who don’t attend
church today than those who do. They have never heard the creeds and church
doctrine. One has a “pocket version” of the Sermon on the Mount. She starts
reading. Everything changes. The gathered are motivated. The politicians are
nervous. Such a meeting, he surmised, would be important while being dangerous.
So, it should be with the church.
Far be it for me to disagree with Grandma Simpson, but
politics belong at the dinner table, in the pulpit, and anywhere else
thoughtful people gather.
It’s pretty rare that I read something online that changes my opinion about a topic. Your blog post has done exactly that. I appreciate the quality of the arguments made here. Thank you.
ReplyDelete