What Have We Learned So Far About Religion and Politics?

What we have learned so far in this presidential campaign about the interaction of religion and politics? And what should we do with that knowledge?  The following comments are a few thoughts on these topics.  I offer them to provoke thought and conversation, certainly not to say that I have everything figured out.

 

We have learned that the media and others will no longer ignore the views of religious leaders who are pursued by the campaign or brought into the campaign in other ways.  That’s basically fair.  We essentially treat secular endorsers that way, and religious endorsers should not be treated differently, for the most part.  That kind of scrutiny can go off the rails in a variety of ways, but the basic principle is sound.

 

For this reason, campaigns have learned that they cannot just chase after certain religious leaders for their endorsements without vetting them.  They must study and know religious communities and personalities, just like they must study and know nonreligious communities and personalities.  If they fail to do so, that failure may very well come back to bite them.   On the flip side, religious leaders should count the potential cost before endorsing.

 

We have learned that a candidate’s house of worship can become a political target and a media magnet.  That is a serious problem, but that’s not to say that I don’t understand some of the reasons why we are where we are. 

Moving forward, it seems to me that it would be better for all sides to take steps to remove the pastor and the church from campaign scrutiny: the candidate would do this by refraining from seeking the endorsement of his or her pastor (or otherwise bringing the pastor into the campaign); the pastor would do it by refraining from playing a role in the campaign; and the media and others would do it by stepping back from combing over a pastor’s sermons, calling church shut-ins and the like. If we could get that kind of gentleperson’s agreement on all sides, we would move toward a more healthy relationship between religion and politics.  (I know this is complicated by the fact that sermons are now widely available and there are always some who would comb over each statement in any case, trying to score political points. But if others agree to these basic parameters, it may be more difficult for these folks to get much traction for their efforts.)

 

If we get this kind of gentleperson's agreement, it should provide some insulation for the church and the pastor from the campaign.  That insulation is required if we are to have prophetic preaching, preaching that speaks truth to power, for example.  That insulation is required if the church is to be the church, not some horrible You-Tubification or sorry spectacle on CNN.  That insulation is required if we are to ensure that a candidate who is so inclined will have a community of faith where he or she can go to be challenged and renewed.  We should all want that for our presidents who are so inclined and for our religious communities that, at their best, can serve as independent check on government.

 

(Of course, even under the scenario I describe, there still may be some cases where legitimate questions arise for the candidate about a pastor’s or church's public views.  In other words, there still may be times when it is appropriate to ask the candidate what impact, if any, the statement of his or her pastor or the stance of his or her church would have on the candidate's governance.  In that case, the candidate can be asked about those views, but then the focus can and should stay on the candidate, rather than the church or the pastor.  In other words, one of the mistakes I think we’ve made here is to create or tolerate some general presumption that the views of the pastor are the views of the candidate-congregant and to focus on the pastor’s views even after the candidate has said he or she disagrees with the pastor’s views.)

We have learned that many in the media and others do not understand the nature of the decision to join a church.   The decision to join a church should not be taken as a sign that a person sees eye-to-eye with a pastor on all things.  It's a much more complex decision that has to do not only with the pastor at the time but also with the church's programs and services, one's sense of spiritual calling, and the feelings and beliefs of one's family members.  Further, one may disagree with a number of things one's pastor says, and still view him or her as an excellent pastor in terms of how he or she causes one to think, cares for the congregation, and ministers to it it in other ways.  In short, joining a church is not like joining the NRA or Planned Parenthood, and we ought not regard these decisions as such. 

We have learned that some people feel free to tell others what they should do or should have done regarding church membership.  That's a problem.  As I've said, this decision is complex, and it is terribly presumptuous for anyone else to assume that they know what it is like to stand in another's shoes in this context or to attempt to instruct them about what they should do about this kind of decision.  We don't know, and we shouldn't say.  Church membership decisions are between a person and God, and they ought to stay that way.  In short, I'd like to get to the place where it is considered extremely inappropriate for a person to say what he or she would have done regarding the church membership of someone else or to attempt to instruct another person on this subject. 

We have learned that some clergy of various political stripes have succumbed to the temptation of engaging in hardball partisan politics and personal attacks, even from the pulpit.  That has not been pretty.  But there is always the possibility for redemption for all of us, whether our sins are quite public or private. Thanks be to God.

We have learned that much of what is said in a religious forum does not translate well to a political forum.  There are some dangers when the media and others pick some juicy soundbites from sermons and then suggest that they would apply in a particular way in the political realm.  That may not be the case.  To the extent religious leaders also aspire to engage in policy and politics, it is perfectly appropriate to ask about statements that have political implications, but we should not simply assume that statements made in a religious context have a particular policy or political meaning.   

Comments

[Michael Westmoreland-White]

Excellent summary, Melissa. I have awarded you the title "A Blog That Makes My Day" here: http://levellers.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/blogs-that-make-my-day/

Enjoy the award and keep up the great work.

[Melissa Rogers]

Michael, thanks so much. What a nice award. I greatly appreciate your kind words. Thanks for the terrific work you do over at Levellers!

[Darin]

Melissa,
excellent post. very clearly written. In regards to your final observation; this is what I find difficult about sermons that engage faith with popular/political topics, say a sermon on the debate on undocumented workers, and the biblical mandate of hospitality to 'aliens'. The idea that the speech in worship is meant to address the Kingdom of God and not the nation and that it may be critical of the nation is a challenging concept both for me and for some of my congregants. 'For God and Country' seems to be a very popular ethic for addressing popular political issues. When there is a contrast between the two or criticism of country by the bible, that can be difficult to manage.
thanks for your thoughts

[Melissa Rogers]

Great point, Darin. Indeed, those discussions are tricky, partly because we really do need to have them in church sometimes.

When a very challenging matter does need to be addressed, I often wonder whether it would be better to address it first at a Wednesday night dinner, a Sunday night panel discussion, or at some other time where responses can be given and conversation can happen. Sermons are tough because they don't allow conversation and response. I'm not saying sermons should never be used to address these issues, but I think people in the pew appreciate the chance to weigh in when they disagree or when they need to ask questions, especially when a challenging and sensitive topic is being raised for the first time.

[Darin]

they do weigh in during my sermons
Oh, do they weigh in!!!
(he types with a smile)
But, as you say, its not really a conversation in the classic sense. We tend to do the conversing at 'coffee hour' after worship
peace
can't wait for more of your thoughts

[Melissa Rogers]

Ah yes, you are quite right to sharpen the distinction. Feedback on sermons comes in loud and clear, but sermons don't function as two-way discussions. It's that latter aspect that I often find to be so helpful when taking up a tough and sensitive topic.

I don't know how your "coffee hours" are, but ours aren't really conducive to serious give-and-take and congregation-wide discussion. So I tend to prefer a panel-type thing or open-mike discussion where people are explicitly given permission to ask serious questions and to disagree (agreeably, of course).

All of this is much easier said than done, to be sure. But I think we all profit from these kinds of discussions, and I wish we had more of them in church.

In any case, I look forward to continuing this discussion with you.

[Texas in Africa]

Great post, Melissa. Would you mind if I included some of your points in my lecture on religion & politics to my first year intro American government students?

[Melissa Rogers]

Thanks, TIA. That's fine with me.