Religious Voices in the Political World

While looking over the previous topics for this blog, I noticed that I have addressed the issue of religion in politics more than any other topic. And… tonight I’m starting a five session study group looking at Religion in Politics, making use of Jim Wallis’s book, God’s Politics. Either I have developed a personal obsession with this topic or it’s just that I’m fascinated by reading about how the political and religious worlds are rethinking their relationship.

Just this morning, there is a new report from the Pew Research Center regarding how conservatives are changing the way they see the participation of the church in politics.

Half of self-described conservatives now express the view that churches and other houses of worship should stay out of politics; four years ago, only 30% of conservatives expressed this view. Overall, a new national survey by the Pew Research Center finds a narrow majority of the public (52%) now says that churches and other houses of worship should keep out of political matters and not express their views on day-to-day social and political matters.

And furthermore:

There are other signs in the new poll about a potential change in the climate of opinion about mixing religion and politics. First, the survey finds a small but significant increase since 2004 in the percentage of respondents saying that they are uncomfortable when they hear politicians talk about how religious they are -- from 40% to 46%. Again, the increase in negative sentiment about religion and politics is much more apparent among Republicans than among Democrats.

So what’s going on here? And does Healthy Liberal Christianity have anything to say about this issue?

We have to begin by remembering that religion and politics can interface in more than one way. Over the last 20 years, the influence of religion into politics has been primarily moralistic. A perception had grown within conservative Christianity that the liberals were using their freedom to change the social structure and undermine the church’s moral authority. Much of the energy for Jerry Falwell’s “Moral Majority” grew out of the belief that the wider culture needed religious guidance or it would destroy itself. Apart from the manipulative use of this movement by the political far right, the motivation itself for many ordinary church-goers had a legitimate base. Sadly, the issues that came to define the Moral Majority” were restricted to opposition to abortion and homosexuality, and (incredibly) to their support for war. Even though these issues seem to be strange bedfellows, they make sense when we remember that they all are based in fear. And nothing has come clearer than the realization that fear works better than anything else if you want to manipulate your constituents.

Now, in my humble opinion, the fact that this particular use of the religious perspective was narrow-minded, judgmental, and mean-spirited does not mean that every voice raised in the political arena necessarily suffers from those same qualities. There is a vast difference between using religious passion to manipulate social behavior and using religious wisdom to enlighten and broaden political discourse.

I think political discourse desperately needs the perspectives that can come from a careful reading of religious traditions. Karen Armstrong has argued that some form of the “Golden Rule” is foundational for most of the world’s major religions. In the political and economic world today, “doing unto others as you would have them do unto you” has been modified in the unhealthiest of ways. It now reads: “Do unto others before they have a chance to do it to you.” This could even be a functional definition of Bush’s Doctrine of preemptive strikes. Still, such a dog-eat-dog philosophy of life can only result in the destruction of us all. So we need thoughtful religious voices to shine the light back on what will help us create a community of health rather than a community of death.

It is important for us to remember that politics has always tried to keep religious wisdom out of its business (unless it could be manipulated selfishly). For a long time, religion had its “teeth pulled out” by restricting itself to heaven, the afterlife, and how souls were to be saved for eternal reward. Preachers could say anything they wanted to about heaven, but they were prohibited from addressing issues like poverty, hunger, and racism in any but the most patronizing ways. In other words, it was fine for religious people to feed the hungry, but they were not allowed to challenge the systems that supported the well being of the few at the expense of the masses.

My fear now is that many important religious voices will be silenced because some highly vocal religious groups have used their voices inappropriately. I think we need to be reminded that the care of the poor and disenfranchised has a long tradition in religious belief. I think we need to be reminded that we exist as a community with its own life and integrity and that we are not simply a collection of selfish units who compete with one another over limited resources. I think the religious voices must continue to lift up issues of fairness, respect, liberation, and relationship.

“Heaven” is in God’s hands, but life on this planet is in ours. We need voices to remind us of our sacred responsibility to care for one another and to care for the many resources we have available to us.

I guess this topic will come up again and again.

As always, I am interested in hearing what you think.

Wayne Gustafson
Interim Minister, The Park Church

“No matter who you are or where you are in life’s journey,
you’re welcome here!”
The United Church___of Christ