Church and State II

A Sermon by Donel McClellan
First Congregational United Church of Christ
Bellingham, Washington

Last week we the constitutional separation between church and state in America. It is based upon the Supreme Court interpretation of the first amendment claiming that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The implications of this relationship are complex and will be worked out in public debate and in the courts for many years to come. This morning I would like to venture into the waters of speculation about what a proper relationship of the institutional church and the secular state might look like.

But first, I must note that in the overall history of political systems to have the freedom, in this sanctuary, to discuss our civil government with candor.

Dr. Kenneth Hoover has been kind enough to share his newest book, The Future of Identity, with me. As a political scientist, Ken has compiled an enormous base of scholarship on what constitutes a proper political environment to nurture civic life in all of its aspects.

On the other hand, his lifelong study of human identity and the complex environments which nurture strong, freely chosen identities, has given him a sense of what a good political system can and cannot hope to accomplish.

All human persons forge their identities out of several definable components. It is to the benefit of everyone in a society that this formation of identity be nurtured and not hindered by the culture or political system. In his article, What Democracies Should Do About Identity? Ken suggests several ways in which the human condition might be improved. These are strategies appropriate for political structures:

. . .the provision of constructive life choices,; the legitimation of genuine competencies, communities, and commitments; the prevention of harmful behavior towards others arising from individual maladies of identity formation; and the protection of individual rights against abuses by states, corporations, groups, and persons.^{^[1]}

Beyond providing a context of freedom in which human persons and groups can forge strong identities, and protecting those persons and groups from harm or coercion exerted by others, the government can do little more to help shape personal identities.

Should the government move into the areas of defining what values should be legitimized in developing personal identities, it would be invading an arena appropriately the domain of other groups in society: families, communities, churches, ethnic groups and the like.

The areas of interaction between church and state are many. Let us look at just a few.

First is the fascinating area of faith and the presidential candidates. Our current political races are strongly influenced, positively or negatively, by religion. The Republican Campaign embraces religion clearly and visibly. President George Bush is not hesitant about sharing his faith or convictions as a Christian in his public statements. The Democratic campaign, on the other hand, seems to what to avoid any reference to religion. And when the subject comes up, it is often with embarrassment, as when Governor Dean, a member of the United Church of Christ claimed that Job was his favorite New Testament Book. We know that Senator Kerry is Roman Catholic but we have little sense of how his religious faith might effect his decision making as a president. Asked earlier about their religion and what difference it would make, Kerry, Edwards, and Dean said it would have no effect upon their decisions. One has to ask, what kind of faith is that?

Last week a news article noted that the Bush-Cheney campaign asked conservative churches to establish a “Coalition Coordinator” whose duties would be to: send the campaign their church directories and back lists of all non-registered church members and ‘pro-Bush’ conservatives, talk to their senior and “20-30" something groups, ask pastors to hold a citizenship Sunday and voter registration drive, identify another conservative church who “we can organize for Bush”, give a “party for the president” with other church members, etc.

Steve Schmidt, spokesman for the campaign confirmed that he had distributed the packets and said, “People of faith have as much right to participate in the political process and anybody else.”

On the other hand, this program has been criticized by both liberals and evangelicals as an inappropriate intrusion of partisan politics into the life of individual churches. In addition, churches jeopardize their tax-exempt status if they endorse a candidate in an election.

A news release from the Kerry/Edwards Campaign reveald that they recently hired a Director of Religions Outreach. Mara Vanderslice grew up as a Unitarian, studied at Earlham College, a Quaker institution where she was converted to Christianity through an evangelical Bible study group. She is now active in the United Church of Christ. She has written about her faith:

Ultimately, I can’t separate my Christianity from my values or my values from my politics. For me, being engaged in politics is an expression of my deepest held religious beliefs—it is about actualizing a collective commitment to protect the integrity of God’s creation, it’s about meeting the needs of the "least of these," and about our nation being a generous and trustworthy leader in the world. ^{^[2]}

No sooner had Mara been appointed, than the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights slammed her in a nasty editorial. It said, in part,

Mara Vanderslice was raised without any faith and didn’t become an evangelical Christian until she attended Earlham College, a Quaker school known for its adherence to pacifism. When in college, Mara was active in the Earlham Socialist Alliance, a group that . . . openly embraces Marxism-Leninism. . . . In 2000, she practiced civil disobedience when she took to the streets of Seattle in a protest against the World Trade Organization. In 2002, she tried to shut down Washington, D.C. in a protest against the IMF and the World Bank.^{^[3]}

With its usual foresight and courage, the Kerry/Edwards Campaign immediately backed away from Mara Vanderslice. Rather than defending her, they pulled her from contact with the press. The campaign seems to have decided that not to talk about religion is the best course of action—a very dangerous choice in in my opinion.

I would personally welcome candor about the presidential candidate’s personal religious beliefs. I would like to hear that their faith does have some bearing upon their decisions. And, I would be pleased to hear that they can separate out the ethical demands of their particular faith, and the political responsibility to be the president of all the people and not only of those who share a particular faith perspective.

Much current discussion between church and state has to do with federal support of religious institutions. Now, to be perfectly honest, all religious institutions receive federal and state benefits. We are non-profit corporations and do not pay property taxes. Our clergy receive tax breaks in the form of housing allowances, the same benefit given to career military. However these benefits are provided for all religious institutions and for many other non-profit corporations as well, from social service agencies to schools and universities.

The specific debate is over school vouchers and faith-based initiatives. Members of our congregation who send their children to Assumption School pay taxes to support public education and tuition at Assumption. Is that fair? On the other hand is it fair for the state or federal government to support schools which teach sectarian religious doctrine? At this point, I am not convinced that school vouchers will not worsen the imbalance between education for the comfortable and the poor. And I am concerned that the state might support schools which teach children to fear or discount people who are unlike them in some ways.

On the other hand our present administration is encouraging faith-based initiatives. These are social programs housed in churches which seek to meet some of the great needs in our society. The programs can include religious instruction or prayer as part of their training.

I have serious concerns about these programs for two reasons. First, I wonder if they will lead to a coalition of religious groups which support some current administration’s policies.

Two weeks ago there was an interesting story from the Associated Press. During the 2000 Republican Party national convention, the Rev. Herbert H. Lusk II, endorsed George W. Bush for president in a satellite television uplink from his church. Lusk has since been an enthusiastic advocate faith-based initiatives that fund church-run social service programs.

In June as President Bush was preparing to speak at Lusk's Greater Exodus Baptist Church on combating AIDS at home and abroad, the Associated Press reported that the church's charitable operation, People For People, has been awarded a nearly $1-million faith-based grant. The article also noted that Lusk hopes President Bush's faith-based agenda will help garner more black votes for the president's re-election bid. Lusk told the AP that Bush "is worthy of the African-American vote." ^{^[4]}

My first concern is that there could be a temptation for faith based grants to influence the political vision of a church.

My Second concern is that the Reagan, and now the Bush administration, significantly cut services to people in need. Our Bellingham Interfaith Coalition was formed by churches to address these unmet needs. Much of Interfaith’s work is supported by federal and state grants for health care and housing, but an important amount of funding is still provided by contributions from the supporting churches and outside fund-raising. Now with cuts in federal health reimbursements Interfaith Health Clinic faces a crisis in serving the people who cannot afford private health insurance.

I wonder why funding is cut to such existing agencies which have shown their effectiveness over the years and funding is increased for programs with no track record but with theological strings.

The church should not address the state in theological, biblical or sectarian terms. Our analysis of human need in the world may be based in our faith tradition, but it must be argued in the common ethical language of our secular government.

The church should not be campaigning for a candidate, but should be analyzing the issues of both political parties in terms of our faith.

The church should not ask the state to ratify theological positions in federal law. It is not the function of the state to define the ideal of marriage, in my opinion. That is the prerogative of the church. And, because churches disagree, there must be freedom for each to support their understanding. Likewise it is not the function of the church to ask the government to ratify it’s understanding of the important issue of when human life begins. That is a spiritual rather than a scientific determination. Because churches disagree, the government must remain impartial.

The church should not ask for or expect special consideration or recognition from the state. In my mind, it would be a worthwhile effort to work on a gradual untangling of the church from any special government support, even it’s tax exempt status. Any form of financial support brings the potential for a degree of influence or control.

The church should speak out when the state falls short of its highest vision of democratic life. When the directors of major corporations lie to increase their profit at the expense of the shareholders a voice must be raised. When abuse in prisons, at home or abroad becomes apparent, the church must raise a voice of concern. When impending genocide is clearly threatening the people of some country, the church must urge the state to take compassionate and protective action.

When public policy benefits the comfortable and afflicts the uncomfortable, the church is called to comment. When dialogue could become incendiary the church must comment. I remember William Sloan Coffin’s warning: Trent Lott, Gary Bauer, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell—all insist their words contribute nothing to tan atmosphere that might legitimate anti-gay violence. Don’t they know that the seed of disrespects often blossoms into hatred and violence?”

In times of war the church must hold fast to its vision of a peace. In times of polarization th church must remember its God who loves all nations and all peoples. In times of tragedy and fear, the church must remind the nation that the only antidote to fear is the generous and tough pursuit of love and justice.

Church and state—these are mutually necessary institutions in society. Their proper function is to be in passionate dialogue and mutual support in order to sustain a more perfect union.

[1]. Kenneth Hoover, “What Should Democracies Do about Identiry?”, in Kenneth Hoover, Ed., The Future of Identity: Centennial Reflections on th4e Legacy of Erik Erikson, Lexington Books, 2004, p. 103

[2]. Mara Vanderslice, Religious Democrats?, Sojourner Magazine, http://progressivetrail.org/articles/040428Vanderslice.shtml

[3]. Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, KERRY’S “RELIGION OUTREACH” DIRECTOR IS A GEM, June 14, 2004, http://www.catholicleague.org/04press_releases/quarter2/040614_mara.htm

[4]. Story from http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6755&abbr=pr&JServSessionIdr012=r82r92yno1.app7b&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241