A Slippery Church-State Slope (by Becky Garrison)
In the 2008 election, "change" has emerged as the new catch-all buzzword. I reported on the God's Politics blog a few of the positive signs of social change I've been observing recently as a religious satirist. When I was interviewed in a recent Living Church article profiling emerging churches, I quoted Diana Butler Bass' astute observations that "she finds vitality and growth in those mainline churches who are mining the resources of their tradition while tapping into a global spirit that infuses religion, politics and the culture at large, transcending organizations and individuals."
Lately, I am noticing a number of emergent church leaders who have interpreted this spiritual sea change by endorsing a particular candidate. While one can say that emergent is a conversation, once you are seen as a published author/pastor/spokesman of any religious enterprise, your words carry weight when uttered in any public forum, be it book or blog.
Something in my bones tells me we're on the precipice of a slippery slope where before we know it, certain groups will be perceived as political pawns. When I was researching my dysfunctional family tree I learned I'm a direct descendent of Rev. Roger Williams, the founder of the state of Rhode Island and a champion of religious freedom. The more I delve into my 12th and 13th great-grandfather's work, I realize we're very similar souls.
So perhaps Williams' writings can provide some added perspective here. Despite constant threats of persecution, book burnings, and other means of oppression employed by the crown, he continued to advocate for the preservation of "soul liberty," a term that means that neither the state nor the church can judge anyone's conscience regardless of their religious beliefs. According to Williams, individual conscience must be free from the tyranny of the majority. As he noted, state sponsorship of religion would yield an unhappy situation wherein "the whole world must rule and govern the Church." The merger of church and state remains "opposite to the souls of all men who by persecutions are ravished into a dissembled worship which their hearts embrace not."
So we don't all get seasick during this sea change, perhaps we should all we heed Williams' wisdom. So, what role should those seen as religious leaders and spokespersons assume during the 2008 presidential election? Should they express their presidential preferences in public forums like blogs and social networking sites like Facebook and MySpace? And on a more personal level, what if a church elder wants to wear a campaign button or T-shirt to the church picnic? How do we walk this fine line between preserving the right to free speech versus the need for the church and those seen as her leaders to be prophetic voices and not political pawns?
This bantering by all the candidates claiming to be the champion of change brings to mind previous campaign slogans such as "Compassionate Conservatism," "Putting People First," and "Kinder, Gentler Nation" that have been utilized to galvanize voters to rally behind a certain candidate. A quick run-through of the politics enacted during any president's term reveals that their rhetoric fell short of their results one they were in office and reality set in.
During the 2006 midterm elections, I commented on The Ooze how "this foolish quest to conform Christ's teachings to the whims of a particular political party has really started hitting the faith and it's been stinking up the local churches big time. I know Jesus was born in a barn but do churches have to smell like one as well? I dunno about you, but I think it's high time we started mucking out the stables." Tony Compolo's infamous quote about the mixing of church and politics should serve as a cautionary reminder here. "Evangelicalism getting wedded to any political party is like ice cream mixing with horse manure. It's not going to hurt the horse manure, but it sure will mess up the ice cream." 
Becky Garrison explores how the church can be a prophetic voice without becoming a political pawn in her books The New Atheist Crusaders and Red and Blue God, Black and Blue Church.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Since the evangelicals wedded themselves to politics I, as a person of faith, felt abandoned.
No longer was a church a refuge from everyday troubles. Instead it became a bully pulpit.
In a northern Wisconsin church I visited the minister exhorted the congregation to vote for certain social issues and for particular candidates then finished with a reminder that the separation between church and state should be dead. In urban Chicago another minister had another agenda with a few other twists.
I believe strongly in the separation between church and state. During the last almost eight years with the evangelicals pushing their social agenda down everyone's throat the highway to heaven became a toll road. Believe the way I do or you are not welcome in "our" sanctuary.
Of course people of faith should support social causes, but they should also be careful not to become a mob that offers only judgment for those who may differ with an approach. Group concensus does not make something right but tolerance of opinions does hold hands with grace.
Maybe we can return to churches as holy places where the spirit of the Lord resides and protects us with more love than we can possibly understand.I hope that finally churches can be separate from politics and each person's soul can remain his or her own.
Posted by: Sue | February 18, 2008 12:50 PM
Good article. One of the enticing things about the emergent church was their apparent rejection of partisan politics. Starting with the 2004 elections, which perhaps touched a nerve with those leaders possessing a certain political sensibility, that rejection seems no longer to exist.
Worse, I am not along in observing that leaders within the movement conforming their theologies to align with their politics. Do James Dobson and Pat Robertson do the same thing? Yes, which is why it should cause some measure of introspection.
Perhaps the movement would do well to finally address some of the extrernal criticisms it has received. There is nothing particularly conversational or open-ended about a political endorsement. I think the movement should make a decision as to whether it exists in support of Christ or in opposition to the Bush administration. The difference is not one of mutual exclusion, but one of preferred emphasis.
If this conversation is to remain real and substantive once the present administration is the stuff of textbooks, the movement would do well to emphasize the former. Posts like this one make me optimistic that this might become the case.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 18, 2008 1:19 PM
It seems to me that what is lacking is a good theology of how the church should be interacting with society. It seems both "the left and the right" have their own issues they want to see engaged in the political arena, but neither has communicated a well crafted theological case for it. "The Right" wants to legislate their own sexual ethic via laws about Gay Marriage, "the Left" wants to legislate their ideas of economic justice via a progressive-socialist state. How is this possible in a pluralistic society such as ours?
Is the solution to get out of politics altogether? Is it to impose an entirely Biblical theocracy? There must be a third option, but help me if the loudest voices can't seem to make a case. We need a good theology of the role of state as it refers to common good, reflecting the independent character of the church as distinct from the state, and with an understanding of a pluralist society.
Posted by: Matt K | February 18, 2008 1:28 PM
I think the only solution is something like Rowan Williams espoused in his highly misunderstood lecture recently. I am still shocked at just how beautiful his solution to living a pluralistic society is. However, I fear that secularists will fight to the death before they allow religion a voice in public life.
Posted by: JohnO | February 18, 2008 2:04 PM
Becky Garrison's article hits the nail on the head when it comes to Church/state issues. Our traditions need to infuse us with a moral compunction to be good citizen's, learn about and debate the issues, choose our candidates and vote. Specific candidate profiling that determines whether someone is for or against our faith's positions is a dangerous and slippery slope. I recently read about a group called Catholics for McCain that was credited with some of his lead in certain state primaries. As a believing Catholic, I agree with Becky's comments about the "freedom of the individual conscience" as supported by the Catholic Church's document on religious freedom from the Second Vatican Council.
Posted by: Bill Kessenich | February 18, 2008 3:23 PM
"I think the only solution is something like Rowan Williams espoused in his highly misunderstood lecture recently."
What was his solution? I couldn't make heads or tails of it, and neither could anyone else here, though the implications of it sure seemed scary.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 18, 2008 3:30 PM
Hooray for Becky Garrison! She said what I firmly believe so much better than I could. As an "old-fashioned Baptist" I adhere to the teaching of separation of church and state because it is good for both, to borrow the line from the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty bumper sticker on my car. Churches and church leaders have no business endorsing political candidates, and I am deeply offended by those who do, even if it is the candidate I favor. In my opinion, there is nothing so ridiculous as the idea of a "biblical theocracy," with which so many evangelicals are enamored nowadays. The theocrats alway impose their their own personal, ideologically determined social and political views and then hunt around in the Bible for prooftexts to reinforce them. We have a topic going here that Sojourners would be well-advised to address further. Becky has started us off in the correct direction.
Posted by: Dick Pierard | February 18, 2008 3:38 PM
This picture is very disturbing. I think they should take the kid out of it.
Posted by: lomagirl | February 18, 2008 3:50 PM
Oh My God. That picture is freaky!
Posted by: Jeff Gissing | February 18, 2008 4:01 PM
Becky Garrison has wrote an interesting article... it's easy to let our own ideological biases blind us to what a Biblical vision of social justice looks like. I think one of the previous posters was right when they said that Sojourners needs to spend more time on being Christ-centered, instead of simply anti-Bush.
In my opionion, both unrestrained free markets and a hegemonic federal government can destroy the ability of communities, churches, municipal, and state/provincial governments to act.
I found this Canadian NDP MP's dialogue on "The Future of Faith in Politics" to be an interesting read, even if I don't agree with it all!
Links : 1." NDP Faith and Justice Caucus Address
Notes from an address by the Hon. Bill Blaikie to the Faith and Social Justice workshop at the NDP Convention Quebec City September 9, 2006"
http://www.billblaikie.ca/node/665
2. " Does the free market foster the decline of virtue?
The following article appeared in the March 1st, 2007 edition of Christian Week newspaper as part of a series entitled “Does the free market foster the decline of virtue?”"
Link: http://www.billblaikie.ca/node/845
Although the Federal Government plays a key role in society, it must be kept in check by Provincial/State Governments, municipal governments, non-profit and volunteer groups. And of course, the church needs to be a prophetic voice, while Christians who get involved in politics need to be able to defend their stances with evidence, convinction, and such, and NOT just their opionions!
Posted by: Jordan | February 18, 2008 4:54 PM
"This picture is very disturbing. I think they should take the kid out of it."
Life on a Bulgarian playground.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 18, 2008 5:14 PM
"Life on a Bulgarian playground."
LOL
Posted by: carl copas | February 18, 2008 5:46 PM
Becky Garrison wrote: "Something in my bones tells me we're on the precipice of a slippery slope where before we know it, certain groups will be perceived as political pawns."
With all due respect, and with appreciation for your thoughtful article, that slippery slope has already been slid. Conservative Christians are already perceived as political pawns of the Republican Party. It's quite evident that Karl Rove and George W. Bush, for example, perceive conservative Christians as gullible, easily-manipulated political pawns.
Posted by: SecularAnimist | February 18, 2008 5:51 PM
BTW-I was referencing the formation of a slippery slope on the left as well. Sorry if that wasn't clearer.
Posted by: Becky | February 18, 2008 6:13 PM
Nice article, and I think you're concerns about the emergent church becoming a "political pawn" are spot on. One way to avoid this is to challenge the "talking points" when necessary. Are members of the emergent church willing to concede there is a legitimate case for school choice, for example, especially in areas such as Washington, D.C.? While emergents speak in support for a living wage, will they at least be willing to acknowledge the adverse impact this will have on unskilled workers and on individually-owned businesses?
Still, at the end of the day, the political process will get you only so far because it's driven by compromise while Christian action is driven by principle and conscience. The emergent church shouldn't walk away from political involvement, but it shouldn't place too much faith in it either. Look at the last "conservation bill." For all the activism around it, it turned out to be a massive break for the oil companies, more money for corn-based biofuels like Ethanol, which offer no net reduction in carbon emissions, and probably increase them, and a ban on incandescent light bulbs by 2012. I don't think this is the outcome you sought.
The energies of the emergent church are best directed into programs that tap the energy and passion of committed individuals willing to give their time, energy and passion to their social goals. You hit the mark: People are the real agents of change. The political process, in the end, will take care of itself.
Posted by: Steve | February 18, 2008 9:22 PM
Go Becky!
Posted by: christine | February 18, 2008 9:52 PM
I completely agree. It is ONE thing to express your opinion as an individual representing yourself. It is quite a different matter to to do if from a pulpit or wearing a T-shirt to a church picnic.
At that point, you are building a fence, installing a locked gate, slamming it shut - and leaving people out. You are saying that all who disagree with you are not welcome here.
I lived through that scenario in evangelical, Baptistic-type churches for years. I felt very, very alone and afraid to ever say what I really thought. Or share what I really saw in the Scriptures. There was only ONE point of view - and it was continually shoved down my throat.
And because of the loneliness and alienation I have experienced for so long - yes, for that VERY reason, I have no desire to recreate that SAME situation for anyone else. The body of Christ needs to be a safe, open place for people to discuss the Scriptures.
I have some light and some insight and many opinions - but they are all imperfect. And may we never allow the body of Christ to become so monochromatic ever again.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | February 19, 2008 1:09 AM
Religion and Politics. An age-old combination, to be sure. I just read a very thought-provoking "apocalyptic fiction" book entitled "Seven Trumpets". It scared the heck outa me. It details the steady decline of modern churches, the rise of terrorism, and a scenario where these things lead to worldwide chaos as the antichrist seizes control after Christ's return.
Just wondering if anyone else has read this book. I cannot stop thinking about the rapture and tribulation now. I found the author's website (seventrumpets.net) and saw he was offering $25,000 to anyone who could solve the Seven Trumpets "code" in the book. Just a spooky read that caused my spine to tingle with how it used real incidents to tell the story!
Posted by: James Wallace | February 19, 2008 8:50 AM
I completely agree Becky and would even take it one step further by suggesting that the Church in America needs to rethink its entire participation in democratic politics.
Posted by: Scott Lenger | February 19, 2008 1:06 PM
Historic tragedy: The trailblazers of "soul liberty" are railed against-sadly but rightly so-as a "Baptistic-type church" which doesn't allow for conviction based dissent. Thanks for being truly "Baptist" Becky. While Wallis et. al. struggle to reclaim the political conscience of America there is a group of hopeful Baptists struggling to rekindle a hijacked theology of Bible-based personal accountability to both God and others.
-Pastor Jeff Staples (ABC-USA)
Posted by: Jeff Staples | February 19, 2008 8:08 PM
It's important to remember that "separation of church and state," which originally came out of a Calvinist context, meant only that the church did not answer the state -- they had different functions. Because he fell victim to the Puritans, who of course were Reformed, Williams apparently expanded that definition.
As a somewhat political person, I have no problem with Christians being involved. My difficulty has always been with faith being used as a battering ram for the sake of votes and also focusing on who's "in" and who's "out." More important is not so much about "imposing Biblical values" as it is about benefiting others -- if we focus on that we'll portray an excellent witness.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 19, 2008 8:38 PM
Rick: It has been my understanding that Williams' thoughts are the logical outcome of Luther's "priesthood of the believer" reading of scripture. This leads to the conclusion of a "gathered" concept of the church with a democratic politic rather than simply a reaction to victimization by the Puritans who were all about creating Geneva in the New World. I'll be happy to be re-informed if you choose to respond. Thanks.
Pastor Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Staples | February 20, 2008 12:44 AM
It has been my understanding that Williams' thoughts are the logical outcome of Luther's "priesthood of the believer" reading of scripture.
I'm not sufficiently familiar with either Luther or Williams to confirm or rebut your statement, so I'll just leave it as is.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 20, 2008 10:16 AM
So just who do you emergent church folks stand for... besides just Jesus? I have a hard time getting tangible answers from your work. So we don't stand behind a certain party, but when it comes to choosing a candidate, they are typically split between vital issues.
So how do you interpret the candidate with the most Christlike qualities? To pick one issue: The one that "takes care" of the post-birth children or the one that protects the unborn child?
Posted by: Steve S | February 20, 2008 12:01 PM
I am a religious satirist not an Emergent Church leader. I am expressing a concern that I've noticed as I cover the 2008 election that a number of Emergent Church leaders have publicly endorsed a particular candidate on their blog.
The Q regarding what Emergent Village/Emergent Church believes needs to be directed towards Tony Jones.
Posted by: becky | February 20, 2008 12:33 PM
t's important to remember that "separation of church and state," which originally came out of a Calvinist context...
While Calvin certainly elaborated the "different functions" concept, don't forget that Calvin himself was more or less a civil magistrate in Geneva as well as a church leader and theologian.
It was actually the Anabaptists (e.g., Mennonites, Amish) who first preached and practiced full church-state separation.
D
Posted by: Don | February 20, 2008 1:07 PM
Becky, do you really think that just because Tony, or myself, or anyone else in the emerging church movement announces on their personal blog or personal Facebook page, that this somehow equals an official "Emergent" endorsement? I don't think it's right to treat the emerging church as if it is the same thing as previous institutionalized forms of Christianity. We are just a collection of friends joined in conversation. Tony is not our leader, nor is Brian, or anyone else you might point to. So if a few of those friends, even the ones with books or speaking gigs, want to speak up and say "You know, I really like this candidate", well, isn't that actually an expression of the kind of "soul liberty" you were talking about? It's not like any of us are claiming that those individuals speak for all of us. It's not like they are giving an official institutional endorsement. They are just expressing their opinion, the same as any of us have the right to.
For instance, who are you leaning towards voting for Becky? Or will you not say. After all you are an author and magazine editor. Perhaps that means you shouldn't be allowed to speak openly and honestly about your political opinions? Or perhaps you should. I think so. As long as you're not speaking officially on behalf of the The Door, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't have as much freedom to express your opinions in conversation as anyone else.
Sorry, but I just don't think a few emergent authors, speaking out as private citizens about who they are voting for, is really a huge cause for concern regarding the separation of church and state, nor even about emerging movement being coopted by partisanship. After all, voting for a particular candidate doesn't automatically make you a supporter of their entire party across the board. For instance, I am supporting Obama, but that doesn't make me a Democrat.
Just my .02...
Posted by: Mike Clawson | February 21, 2008 4:56 PM
I think it is unfortunate that folks identified as emerging church leaders are endorsing mainstream political candidates. It really paints a wrong image at a time when much greater political sensitivity is clearly called for. And, of course, establishment candidates like Obama clearly don't represent the values of Jesus Christ which really makes one wonder about the loyalties involved.
No, it's not a separation of church and state issue. It's an issue of how the church best engages society. Jumping on political bandwagons shows a lack of understanding. Instead, the church should be prophetic in speaking to the political world, which should flow organically from its involvement with people.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | February 21, 2008 9:28 PM
I repeat - like it or not "once you are seen as a published author/pastor/spokesman of any religious enterprise, your words carry weight when uttered in any public forum, be it book or blog."
One cannot market oneself as a spokesman for (Insert name of religious organization) and then say one speaks as a private citizen. This was the dilemma Dobson faced because as it's been aptly noted, no one believed that his endorsement didn't carry the stamp of approval from Focus on the Family. Why then should the same criteria should apply to those who are designated as spokesmen of other religious organizations?
As a religious satirist, I cannot remain objective if I endorse a particular candidate - that's why I've been a registered independent since 1994 (the year I sold my first article).
Posted by: becky | February 22, 2008 3:44 PM
My error - the sentence should read "Why then should the same criteria NOT apply to those who are designated as spokesmen of other religious organizations."
BTW-I am so closely identified with The Wittenburg Door that if I endorsed a candidate it would reflect on both the magazine, as well as my ability to satirize any religious figure who as Campolo notes mixes manure with the ice cream. And trust me, I see ample fodder no matter who moves into the White House come January 2009.
Posted by: becky | February 22, 2008 4:09 PM
I will be the first to tell you that endorsing a political candidate for public office has consequences. I'm the associate editor of the newspaper that once served the people of Crawford, Texas. In September 2004, our editorial board endorsed Sen. John Kerry for president in George W. Bush's adopted hometown. There were definitely pluses and minuses to our decision. On the one hand, the town's businesses and population refused to sell or buy our publication after that. On the other, we gained a little recognition for a short period of time and perhaps gave voters something to think about.
In the four years since, I found theological support for my part in the Kerry endorsement as well as for my views on political satire. What I discovered was that actions performed with faith in God are risky and rewarding to both the faithful actor and the powers-that-be. In other words, it's a heavy decision to put integrity on the line. Once sides are taken for or against the power establishment, it's all fair game. There's no hiding. No escape. So live the consequences - in Christ. As a radical Lutheran, though, I take no sides, well, unless it's sour kraut.
Posted by: Nathan Diebenow | February 22, 2008 7:03 PM
And who exactly is doing this? We don't have a spokesman Becky, and I don't think anyone is deliberately marketing themselves as one. If you think that's what Tony, or Brian, or anyone else is, well, then I think you're mistaking the nature of the emerging church for something far more institutional, which it decidedly is not. The old categories just don't apply.
Posted by: Mike Clawson | February 24, 2008 7:51 PM
There's a difference between international emerging church and Emergent Church (TM) that has been pointed out on numerous blogs - check out Andrew Jones (http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com) for starters. It is not within the scope of this posting to debate the points.
I have stated my view, you've stated yours - I'm happy to agree to disagree and then go out for libations.
As a satirist, I am seeing the start of a slippery slope here and simply sounding a warning bell for us all to be careful here.
Once one enters into the public arena as an author, teacher, pastor, speaker, etc., then one no longer speaks as a private citizen. I was counseled about this back in 1994 when I sold my first article. I admit that walking this line is very tricky - I cited the dilemma that Dobson found himself in when he endorsed Huckabee as the consequences here.
And BTW, given that Roger Williams left the Baptist church almost as soon as he founded it, methinks he wasn't pretty much a solo wanderer that wouldn't want to be tied to any organization whatsoever.
Posted by: becky | February 27, 2008 11:08 AM
Just saying "the old rules don't apply" does not make it so. There is a movement afoot, Tony serves as the National Coordinator, hence when he speaks people are going to attribute his remarks to the movement he "coordinates". Whether or not the rules apply is moot, until the rest of society is deconstructed Tony's remarks are fair game.
I would say that the political process is in more need of reform then the church and, sadly, the leaders of the emerging movement don't seem as bent out of shape with Washington as they do with Rome, Italy OR Georgia.
Posted by: Chris Enstad | March 7, 2008 10:51 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?