Religion and Politics
Religion
and
Politics
January
20,
2008
I
Corinthians
1:1-9
Most
mainline
churches
tend
to
avoid
talking
about
politics
--
and
for
some
valid
reasons.
Inevitably,
it
is
controversial,
and
it
can
become
divisive.
Notice
that
"controversial"
and
"divisive"
are
not
the
same.
I
will
say
more
about
that
distinction
later.
However,
the
presidential
elections
make
it
difficult
to
avoid
the
topic
of
religion
and
politics.
Barack
Obama's
membership
in
a
Chicago
United
Church
of
Christ
has
won
him
both
praise
and
blame.
Mitt
Romney's
Mormon
faith
was
controversial
enough
that
he
had
to
address
the
issue.
However,
as
several
commentators
pointed
out,
his
speech
fell
far
short
of
John
Kennedy's
1960
address
to
the
Houston
Ministerial
Association.
Kennedy
emphasized
the
American
tradition
of
the
separation
of
church
and
state,
and
he
assured
his
audience
that
the
Pope
would
not
be
dictating
his
decisions.
Interestingly,
he
began
his
speech
by
saying
that
there
were
far
more
pressing
issues
in
the
campaign
than
his
religious
beliefs.
He
mentioned
the
Communist
menace
first,
and
then
went
on
to
list
"the
hungry
children
I
saw
in
West
Virginia,
the
old
people
who
cannot
pay
their
doctor
bills,
the
families
forced
to
give
up
their
farms--an
America
with
too
many
slums,
with
too
few
schools."
Then,
he
said,
"I
believe
in
an
America
where
religious
intolerance
will
someday
end--where
all
men
and
all
churches
are
treated
as
equal--where
every
man
has
the
same
right
to
attend
or
not
attend
the
church
of
his
choice."
Romney
could
have
made
that
point
more
emphatically.
After
all,
his
Church
of
Jesus
Christ
of
Latter
Day
Saints
has
been
persecuted
more
than
any
religious
group
in
America.
The
founder,
Joseph
Smith,
was
murdered
in
Nauvoo,
IL,
before
his
followers
fled
to
Utah.
President
Buchanan
declared
the
Utah
Territory
to
be
in
rebellion
and
sent
federal
troops
to
remove
Brigham
Young
as
governor.(1)
To
me,
one
of
the
most
interesting
features
of
the
presidential
campaigns
has
been
the
way
Governor
Huckabee
has
added
another
dimension
to
the
debate
about
religion
and
politics.
Previously,
most
appeals
to
values
voters
have
centered
on
abortion
and
sexual
orientation.
Huckabee,
a
Baptist
minister,
says
that
his
Christian
faith
makes
him
more
concerned
about
issues
of
justice
and
poverty.
That
has
won
him
criticism
from
radio
talk-show
hosts
and
at
least
one
of
his
rivals
for
being
too
liberal.
Let
me
start
with
a
little
autobiography.
I
have
been
interested
in
the
relationship
between
religion
and
politics
ever
since
I
was
in
college.
I
remember
going
to
a
national
conference
of
the
Student
YMCA-YWCA
at
the
University
of
Kansas.
We
were
debating
whether
Alaska
and
Hawaii
should
be
admitted
as
states.
And
I
remember
thinking,
who
is
going
to
care
what
1,000
college
students
think
about
this?
The
same
thought
passed
through
my
mind
about
some
of
the
resolutions
being
debated
at
the
UCC
General
Synod
last
summer.
However,
I
became
convinced
early
on
that
the
Christian
faith
is
about
more
than
individual
salvation
when
we
die.
It
is
relevant
to
all
of
life,
including
our
community
life
and
its
political
and
economic
dimensions.
Remember
that
Jesus
was
not
executed
for
religious
reasons.
The
Romans
considered
him
guilty
of
treason,
a
political
crime.
The
Romans
were
generally
tolerant
of
the
religious
beliefs
of
conquered
peoples,
as
long
as
those
beliefs
did
not
threaten
their
rule.
Someone
who
could
attract
large
crowds
and
was
called
King
of
the
Jews
could
not
be
tolerated.
I
think
I
could
make
a
case
that
nothing
in
secular
in
Christian
theology.
The
whole
world
was
created
by
God
and
subject
to
him.
It
is
no
accident
that
the
Civil
Rights
movement
was
led
by
clergy,
both
black
and
white.
To
say
that
all
are
created
in
the
image
of
God
imposes
some
obligations
on
us.
Then,
both
in
seminary
and
in
my
doctoral
studies,
I
specialized
in
the
OT.
That
made
it
difficult
to
avoid
political
issues,
though
always
in
a
historical
context
very
different
from
ours.
Genesis,
Leviticus,
Numbers
do
not
have
an
obvious
political
message,
but
Samuel,
Kings
and
nearly
all
the
prophets
deal
with
political
matters
almost
as
much
as
religion.
Even
a
large
number
of
the
Psalms
are
prayers
for
the
king.
There
are
some
limits,
of
course,
to
the
relationship
between
religion
and
politics.
I
am
a
strong
supporter
of
a
sharp
separation
between
church
and
state.
The
First
Amendment
precludes
any
government
involvement
in
religion.
The
United
States
is
one
of
the
most
religious
countries
in
the
world
precisely
because
religion
is
voluntary.
Does
that
mean
that
churches
should
stay
out
of
politics?
It
certainly
means
that
we
should
be
non-partisan.
Churches
risk
their
tax-exempt
status
if
they
tell
their
members
whom
to
vote
for,
and
with
good
reason.
However,
some
issues
are
moral
issues,
and
Christians
should
vote
the
way
they
think
God
wants
them
to
vote.
But
we
vote
as
individuals,
not
as
churches
or
groups
of
any
kind.
And
individuals
will
differ.
I
was
a
young
pastor
in
Illinois
in
1962
when
the
Supreme
Court
ruled
that
government-sponsored
prayer
in
the
public
schools
was
a
violation
of
the
First
Amendment.
Most
of
my
colleagues
strongly
objected,
but
it
seemed
eminently
sensible
to
me
--
perhaps
because
I
had
grown
up
in
California,
where
there
was
never
any
prayer
in
public
schools.
I
did
not
know
it
at
the
time,
but
my
later
career
depended
upon
that
case
and
a
related
one
decided
in
1963.
In
that
latter
case,
Justice
Arthur
Goldberg
(1963)
wrote:
"And
it
seems
clear
to
me
from
the
opinions
in
the
present
and
past
cases
that
the
Court
would
recognize
the
propriety
of
providing
military
chaplains
and
of
the
teaching
about
religion,
as
distinguished
from
the
teaching
of
religion,
in
the
public
schools."(2)
That
one
sentence
opened
up
the
academic
study
of
religion
in
new
ways.
Prior
to
that
time,
nearly
all
public
colleges
and
universities
were
fearful
that
any
study
of
religion
might
be
a
violation
of
the
First
Amendment.
Rather
than
risk
controversy,
they
simply
ignored
it.
Prior
to
that
time,
the
few
jobs
for
Ph.D.'s
in
religion
were
in
seminaries
or
church-related
colleges
and
universities.
Justice
Goldberg's
distinction
between
study
about
religion
and
the
promotion
of
religious
practice
resolved
those
fears.
All
over
the
country,
programs
and
departments
in
religious
studies
were
created.
When
California
State
College,
Bakersfield,
opened
in
1970,
no
one
challenged
the
propriety
of
including
RS.
Then,
three
years
later,
I
arrived.
There
is
another
reason,
I
think,
that
churches
have
avoided
discussion
of
politics.
Perhaps
influenced
by
the
values
of
our
western
frontier,
we
have
stressed
individualism
over
the
needs
of
society
at
large.
Frontier
revival
meetings
preached
individual
salvation.
Churches
are
still
more
comfortable
dealing
with
the
needs
of
their
individual
members
than
with
the
needs
of
their
communities
or
the
world.
Meeting
individual
needs
is
certainly
important.
However,
it
is
only
part
of
what
we
are
called
to
do
if
we
want
to
be
followers
of
Christ.
I
believe
it
was
during
the
1940's
when
Pope
Pius
XII
preached
a
sermon
on
the
Good
Samaritan
story.
He
made
the
obvious
point
that
the
Samaritan
was
being
a
good
neighbor
to
the
victim
who
needed
help
(Luke
10:25-37).
The
Samaritan
responded
to
the
emergency.
Then,
the
Pope
went
on
to
ask
why
the
Samaritan
did
not
go
to
the
city
councils
of
Jerusalem
and
Jericho
to
petition
them
to
put
street
lights
on
the
road
and
to
strengthen
the
police
patrols
in
order
to
reduce
such
crimes
in
the
future.
And
that
would
be
political.
Our
United
Church
of
Christ
has
a
long
history
of
involvement
in
important
social
issues,
many
of
them
with
political
implications.
Around
1700
a
Congregational
clergyman
wrote
the
first
anti-slavery
pamphlet.(3)
The
Boston
Tea
Party
was
organized
in
Old
South
Church.
The
Liberty
Bell
was
hidden
in
Zion
Reformed
Church
when
the
British
occupied
Philadelphia.
In
1897,
Washington
Gladden
was
one
of
the
first
leaders
of
the
Social
Gospel
movement.
This
movement
took
literally
the
commandment
of
Jesus
to
"love
your
neighbor
as
yourself."
Gladden
and
others
denounced
injustice
and
the
exploitation
of
the
poor.
Reinhold
Niebuhr
continued
that
tradition.
Fifty
years
ago,
when
southern
television
stations
imposed
a
news
blackout
on
the
growing
civil
rights
movement,
Martin
Luther
King
Jr.
asked
the
UCC
to
intervene.
The
UCC
Office
of
Communication
organized
churches
and
won
a
Federal
court
a
ruling
that
the
airwaves
are
public,
not
private
property.(4)
And
each
one
of
those
issues
was
controversial,
and
church
members
disagreed
about
them.
My
real
subject
today
is
not
religion
and
politics.
That
topic
is
part
of
a
much
larger
issue,
how
does
a
church
deal
with
controversy?
That
is
a
more
important
question,
in
my
opinion.
There
may
be
a
few
churches
somewhere
in
the
world
where
everyone
agrees
about
everything,
but
I
think
such
a
church
would
be
pretty
boring.
And
it
would
offer
no
opportunity
for
people
to
learn
from
one
another
or
to
grow
spiritually.
It
was
said
that
in
the
Victorian
Age,
no
one
would
discuss
religion,
politics
or
sex
in
polite
society.
I'm
not
sure
what
they
did
talk
about
beside
the
weather.
If
a
church
avoids
those
topics,
it
is
pretty
irrelevant,
because
they
are
three
of
the
most
important
features
of
human
life.
Sometimes
church
members
even
avoid
talking
about
religion
for
fear
that
not
everyone
will
agree.
They
expect
the
pastor
to
talk
about
religion
for
them,
just
as
long
as
he/she
does
not
mention
anything
controversial.
I
am
glad
that
does
not
apply
to
our
congregation.
We
can
do
better
than
that.
Traditionally,
Jews
have
been
more
willing
than
Christians
to
deal
with
controversy.
The
cliché
is
that
wherever
there
are
three
Jews,
there
are
four
opinions.
One
of
the
strengths
of
Judaism
has
been
their
ability
to
disagree
without
anger
and
without
splitting
apart.
They
have
tolerated
a
variety
of
opinions,
even
about
important
religious
beliefs.
They
are
richer
for
it.
No
one
assumes
that
they
should
agree.
They
know
that
people
do
not
need
to
be
offended
by
differing
positions.
My
hope
would
be
that
Christians
could
develop
the
same
kind
of
toleration
for
one
another
and
to
listen
to
one
another
with
respect.
Is
it
possible
to
somehow
create
a
safe
space
in
which
strong
opinions
can
be
expressed
without
fear
of
offending
someone?
Can
we
learn
to
trust
one
another
enough
to
maintain
mutual
respect
in
spite
of
differences,
whether
about
religion,
sex
or
politics?
I
am
convinced
that
that
would
make
for
a
more
vibrant,
vital
congregation,
a
congregation
more
involved
in
the
community,
a
congregation
in
which
we
could
be
open
enough
to
learn
from
one
another.
Newcomers
would
feel
more
welcome
if
they
did
not
think
that
they
needed
to
conform
to
some
group
consensus
or
to
hide
their
opinions.
There
were
certainly
controversies
in
the
early
church.
Much
of
Paul's
letters
are
either
arguing
for
one
point
of
view
or
another
--
or
settling
disputes.
He
is
certainly
not
shy
about
scolding
the
Corinthians
for
a
host
of
reasons.
Yet
he
can
say,
"I
give
thanks
to
my
God
always
for
you
because
of
the
grace
of
God
that
has
been
given
you
in
Christ
Jesus"
(I
Corinthians
1:4).
And
he
writes
in
chapter
12,
"The
body
does
not
consist
of
one
member
but
of
many.
.
.
.
The
eye
cannot
say
to
the
hand,
'I
have
no
need
of
you.'"
(12:14,
21).
If
we
are
many,
we
will
be
different.
And
we
need
one
another.
I
hope
I
do
not
sound
naive.
I
know
how
hard
it
is
to
understand
why
someone
else
holds
a
contrary
position,
much
less
to
respect
such
a
person.
I
don't
even
understand
why
some
people
prefer
Apple
computers.
However,
naive
or
not,
I
am
convinced
that
it
is
an
effort
I
should
make.
Doing
so
will
make
me
a
better
person.
Ultimately,
if
more
of
us
do
it,
it
can
make
the
world
a
better
place.
And
--
naive
or
not
--
I
am
forced
to
admit
that
no
one
has
a
monopoly
on
the
truth,
not
even
me.
Perhaps
that
is
the
most
important
point.
I
have
lived
long
enough
to
see
many
examples
in
which
God
has
used
people
on
both
sides
of
an
argument.
If
you
look
at
the
nearly
2,000-year
history
of
the
church,
most
of
the
heresies
that
have
troubled
the
church
have
arisen
because
someone
took
one
part
of
the
truth
and
stressed
it
to
the
neglect
of
other
parts.
Not
that
the
heretics
were
wrong.
Rather,
their
truth
was
partial,
incomplete.
We
need
each
other
in
order
to
maintain
a
balance
among
varying
emphases.
And
the
body
of
Christ
needs
all
of
us
in
order
to
achieve
his
purposes.
I
said
at
the
beginning
that
"controversial"
and
"divisive"
are
not
the
same.
Controversy
can
be
helpful,
as
we
help
one
another
see
the
larger
truths.
Division
arises
when
there
is
no
respect
for
opposing
views,
when
we
want
only
to
win
and
not
to
learn
from
one
another.
In
my
wife's
church,
there
is
a
little
affirmation
at
the
end
of
the
service
every
week,
just
before
the
benediction.
They
say
"May
this
congregation
always
be
dedicated
to
the
proposition
that
behind
all
our
differences,
beneath
all
our
diversity,
there
is
a
unity
that
makes
us
one."
On
the
one
hand,
that
is
a
recognition
that
there
will
always
be
differences
every
time
a
group
gathers.
On
the
other,
it
affirms
their
determination
that
those
differences
will
not
destroy
their
essential
unity.
I
think
that
is
a
good
balance.
____________________
1
Steven
Conn,
in
a
story
for
History
News
Service,
The
Bakersfield
Californian,
December
18,
2007.
2
Justice
Arthur
Goldberg,
in
a
concurring
opinion,
joined
by
Justice
Harlan,
in
Abingdon
v.
Schemp
(1963).
3
Samuel
Sewell,
"The
Selling
of
Joseph."
4
These
examples
come
from
www.ucc.org.
5 Real Road (corner of Stockdale & Real)
Bakersfield, CA 93309
Phone: 661-327-1609
FAX: 661-327-4443
Sunday Services & Church School: 10 AM
(Services last about an hour, dress is casual)
Nursery care available
E-mail: firstcong(at)postoffice.igalaxy.net
Webpage editor: dinah.campbell(at)gmail.com)
Free Counter | |
