A
Response to Political Attacks on my Faith
Isaiah 58:2-10; Matthew 7:21-23; Matthew 25:31-40;
Romans 14:1, 4, 10
Rev. Doug Van Doren
Today
is the first Sunday of Lent, the season of reflection and repentance as we
journey with Jesus toward the cross. I very much struggled with whether
to deal with the topic suggested by this morning's sermon or to stick with the
usual first Sunday of Lent passage - Jesus in the wilderness. I guess if
there is a connection with that passage and the sermon for today, it is that we
are in the midst of a political cycle, and that always feels very much like a
wilderness experience to me, except it lasts a lot longer than 40 days!
My
other reluctance is that I don't want to politicize worship. This is a
place where we generally want to get away from all that partisan political
wrangling. I am also very aware that the church, as a non-profit
organization, cannot engage in partisan politics. That is, endorsing a
particular party or candidate. (Though it is interesting to note that
Presidential Candidate, Rick Santorum spoke just recently at a mega-church in
Georgia and I doubt that it was devoid of politics!) However, a few weeks
ago during Questions For the Pastor, we talked about how to respond, and
that we need to respond, when the legitimacy of our religious perspective is
denied and when other religious perspectives act like they are the only ones.
So I think it is only appropriate and certainly within our rights as a church
to respond to the recent attacks on our faith perspective by Presidential
Candidate Rick Santorum. And besides, I'm mad!
I find
it fascinating that those like Mr. Santorum who attack the validity of
Christian perspectives different from their own, have pointed the finger at
President Obama, for allegedly tearing down the
separation of Church and State. The President
is "trampling on a constitutional right." "It is imposing his
ideology on a group of people expressing their theology, their moral
code," was Santorum's cry. This because of an administration
ruling, since altered, that religious institutions serving the public, functioning
as, and competing against, secular institutions had to provide birth control
coverage. The loudest cry came from Catholic hospitals, an overwhelming
majority of whose employees are not Catholic, and of those that are and are of
childbearing age, 68% use artificial birth control! Who is seeking to
impose their religious convictions on whom!
I find it hard to imagine that even Mr. Santorum would outwardly
attack another faith group, even Mr. Romney's faith as Church of the Latter Day
Saints. Maybe it is because other Christian perspectives,
especially long-established, main-stream Protestants, are seen as a real
threat. Tom Davis, a UCC clergy, pointed out in a recent article that in
conflicts in America, the side with the sacred symbols is favored over secular
ideas. He writes, "So [Santorum] is making an exclusive claim on the
sacred. He was implying that only the Roman Catholic Church and
evangelical churches like the Southern Baptists can claim the sacred. But
if mainstream Protestants also represent the sacred and they are on the side of
gay rights, marriage equality, and pro-choice positions, then they must be
discredited. President Obama's church, [our]
church, the United Church of Christ, cannot be a real church. It has to
be 'gone from the world of Christianity.'"
If we are legitimate, we are a threat to their exclusivist claim
on Christianity and on their vision of a theocracy dictated by a narrow
interpretation of Christianity and the Scripture. I think it is this, not
Muslim Sharia Law, that we
ought to be concerned about! Let us not kid ourselves. These are
culture wars. And Mr. Santorum seems to have ex-communicated from
Christianity upwards of 45 million mainstream Protestants along with President Obama, who has been involved with our denomination, the
United Church of Christ, since the 1980s. In his most recent statements,
Mr. Santorum said that "President Barack Obama undermines the United States' 'Judeo-Christian values' through his implementation of his
policies." Santorum told the crowd at
the Ohio Christian Alliance that the President's beliefs are based on "some phony theology," and "not based on the Bible." These statements
were made specifically against President Obama, but several
speeches delivered by Santorum in 2008 offer insight into how he delineates
between "real" theology (one "based on the Bible" in his
opinion) and Obama's "phony"
theology. Following his speech at the Oxford Centre for Religion and Public Life,
Santorum dismissed those Christians who do not hold an inerrant view of
scripture as being "a liberal something but not a Christian." He
went on to say, "We look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this
country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I
see it." I think if he applied the same yardstick to the
Catholic Church he'd have to come to the same conclusion.
This kind of
attack on another's faith for political gain is simply wrong. It is both
anti-American and anti-Christian. It threatens religious liberty. I
am convinced that those who scream the loudest about supposed attacks on the
separation of Church and State really want the State to do their bidding, to
promote their place in society.
The Justice
and Witness Ministries of the United Church of Christ is among a diverse
coalition of major national religious organizations that issued what they
entitled, "Religion in Political Campaigns - An Interfaith Statement of
Principles." In part, the statement says, "Candidates for public office
are, of course, free to worship as they choose. And they should feel
comfortable explaining their religious convictions to voters, commenting about
their own religious beliefs, explaining, if they wish to do so, how those beliefs
shape their policy perspectives, and how they would balance the principles of
their faith with their obligation to defend the Constitution if the two ever
came into conflict. There is a point, however, where an emphasis on
religion in a political campaign becomes inappropriate and even unsettling in a
religiously diverse society such as ours. Appealing to voters along
religious lines is divisive. It is contrary to the American ideal of
including all Americans in the political process, regardless of whether they
are members of large and powerful religious groups, religious minorities, or
subscribe to no faith tradition." The statement goes on to call upon all
candidates to:
·
"Attempt to fulfill the promise of America by seeking to
serve and be responsive to the full range of constituents, irrespective of
their religion.
·
Conduct their campaigns without appeals, overt or implicit, for
support based upon religion.
·
Reject appeals or messages to voters that reflect religious
prejudice, bias, or stereotyping.
·
Engage in vigorous debate on important and disputed issues,
without deliberately encouraging division in the electorate along religious
lines, or between voters who characterize themselves as religious and voters
who do not."
It is important
and appropriate for us to respond to Mr. Santorum's attacks on President Obama's faith and on mainstream Protestantism on the basis
that such tactics have no legitimate place in American politics. I think
it is more important, however, not simply to decry this tactic, but to use it
as an opportunity to defend, and to define, our faith. It is our
opportunity to articulate what we believe and the culture we believe would be
pleasing in God's sight.
You see, we
have been at this a while! We do not take a back seat to anyone in this
regard. We, the United Church of Christ, trace our roots to the first
permanent Christian settlers on these shores. We have come to this place
that some call a Liberal or Progressive faith through long experience, through
deep and prayerful study of the Scripture, through rigorous engagement with
societal structures, through communion with fellow Christians of great
diversity, and through ongoing prayer. Don't let anyone tell you that our
beliefs don't have deep, strong Biblical roots. We have come to this
place, not in spite of the Scriptures, but because of them.
We hear in the Scriptures about a God who cares for the whole creation: "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof." (Psalm 24:1) We hear of a God who sets up a covenant, a partnership with the people to be stewards, not rapists of the earth. Mr. Santorum says that President Obama-and all of us who see the Scripture in a similar way-puts the