A Christian Perspective

Over the past few weeks, we have heard a great deal about the United States Supreme Court and Judge John Roberts, the nominee to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. A battle royale is raging, and it is making the long hot summer even hotter. We are being told by both conservatives and liberals that the stakes are very high with this nomination—religious liberty, civil rights, free speech, environmental protections, privacy rights, affirmative action, protections for workers—the list goes on. I’m sure you have your own views on these subjects. Today, I would like to talk about something that concerns us all as citizens and as people of faith, whatever our political views. And this is our moral responsibility to be engaged, aware, and active in expressing our views about the direction of the country and, at this time, the direction of the Court.

But, you may ask, what about separation of church and state? I believe we can—and must—express both our religious beliefs and political ideals. They can’t be separated into compartments. Both are part of who we are as individuals and as people of faith and members of a faith community. Our faith calls on us to be active in the world. Our faith also calls on us to respect differing traditions—not tolerate but respect.

This battle over the Supreme Court is a symptom of a nation that is more divided and polarized than at any time in memory. Our religious views and often our ethnic backgrounds are dividing us as much as our political views. Precisely because the stakes are so high in a Supreme Court nomination, the things that divide us are becoming more and more controversial. This only makes it more important for people of faith to speak out and be active. Separation of church and state does not mean the separation of religion and politics. Our political views are an expression of our deepest religious and moral values and ethical standards—an expression of our worldview. I believe there is a right way and a wrong way to engage our religious voices in the public square. The expression of our view should be tempered by respect for the views of others and the knowledge that a multiplicity of voices is crucial for the success of a democratic society, in this, the most religiously pluralistic nation in the world.

I believe that God calls us to establish and build responsible political community (source: Presbyterian Church USA statement). When God called Abraham and Sarah, it was to establish a great nation. When God led Moses and the Israelites out of Egypt , it was to liberate the people from political oppression, discipline them in the wilderness into a new community, and lead them to a land where that new human community could be lived out and developed. When God called the prophet Samuel to speak to King David, when God called all the prophets, it was to call the nation back to its covenant of faithful and just human community. When God led Jesus to Jerusalem , it was to confront the political powers of the day and to announce a new formation of human community.

The battle over the Supreme Court has brought us face to face with the question of where we draw the line between religion and politics, religion and government. We face that question partly because of the zealous nature of social conservatives—by that I mean national organizations that co-mingle politics and religion such as the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family—in their quest to move the court in the direction they want. You may have heard of Justice Sunday—the national telecast from a Louisville church, featuring Senate Majority Leader William Frist, which was shown in churches across the country. The stated purpose was to persuade people in the pews that opponents of President Bush’s federal judicial nominees were also opponents of Christians and Christianity. The Justice Sunday organizers made a number of outrageous statements. They said that those who do not support conservative judges are working undercover to “rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms.” They charged those who do not support their political views with “persecution of Christians.” They presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics.

How dare they suggest that they—and they alone—are religious. We all know that people of faith have differing positions on social and political issues such as reproductive choice, school prayer, equal rights for persons who are gay, stem cell research, government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics. Seeking to smear persons with differing views as immoral or lacking in faith is the antithesis of what religion teaches us. We can be critical of injustices and policies detrimental to the common good while being supportive of values, policies and practices that are good and just.

The same groups that produced the Justice Sunday telecast from Louisville are readying another telecast, to be shown August 14 from Nashville, to churches across the country. This second event is being labeled, “God save the courts.” This sounds to me like once again putting religion in the service of political ends. To assert that I know what God wants and you do not, that I know God's will and you do not, is certain to further polarize our nation, and it demonizes people of faith who hold differing political views. Religious and ethnic hatred is already there in the bigotry of some televangelists and talk shows, the “Judeo-Christian” cultural conservatives, and the bombers and murderers who target abortion clinics in the name of “God.” Unless there is a faithful effort to respect differing viewpoints and find common ground, this nation may experience the communal hatreds that have plagued other peoples and nations.

Former UN ambassador John Danforth, who was ordained as an Episcopal priest after many years representing Missouri in the United States Senate, wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times (July 1, 2005) that encouraged people of faith to be active in the public square while remaining respectful of differing views.

It is an eloquent and important statement of the importance of religious pluralism and respect. (It is reprinted here.)

“ST. LOUIS, Mo. _ It would be an oversimplification to say that America's culture wars are now between people of faith and nonbelievers. People of faith are not of one mind, whether on specific issues like stem cell research and government intervention in the case of Terri Schiavo, or the more general issue of how religion relates to politics.

In recent years, conservative Christians have presented themselves as representing the one authentic Christian perspective on politics. With due respect for our conservative friends, equally devout Christians come to very different conclusions.

It is important for those of us who are sometimes called moderates to make the case that we, too, have strongly held Christian convictions, that we speak from the depths of our beliefs, and that our approach to politics is at least as faithful as that of those who are more conservative. Our difference concerns the extent to which government should, or even can, translate religious beliefs into the laws of the state.

People of faith have the right, and perhaps the obligation, to bring their values to bear in politics. Many conservative Christians approach politics with a certainty that they know God's truth, and that they can advance the kingdom of God through governmental action.

So they have developed a political agenda that they believe advances God's kingdom, one that includes efforts to 'put God back' into the public square and to pass a constitutional amendment intended to protect marriage from the perceived threat of homosexuality.

Moderate Christians are less certain about when and how our beliefs can be translated into statutory form, not because of a lack of faith in God but because of a healthy acknowledgement of the limitations of human beings. Like conservative Christians, we attend church, read the Bible and say our prayers.

But for us, the only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves. Repeatedly in the Gospels, we find that the Love Commandment takes precedence when it conflicts with laws. We struggle to follow that commandment as we face the realities of everyday living, and we do not agree that our responsibility to live as Christians can be codified by legislators.

When, on television, we see a person in a persistent vegetative state, one who will never recover, we believe that allowing the natural and merciful end to her ordeal is more loving than imposing government power to keep her hooked up to a feeding tube.

When we see an opportunity to save our neighbors' lives through stem cell research, we believe that it is our duty to pursue that research, and to oppose legislation that would impede us from doing so.

We think that efforts to haul references of God into the public square, into schools and courthouses, are far more apt to divide Americans than to advance faith.

Following a Lord who reached out in compassion to all human beings, we oppose amending the Constitution in a way that would humiliate homosexuals.

For us, living the Love Commandment may be at odds with efforts to encapsulate Christianity in a political agenda. We strongly support the separation of church and state, both because that principle is essential to holding together a diverse country, and because the policies of the state always fall short of the demands of faith.

Aware that even our most passionate ventures into politics are efforts to carry the treasure of religion in the earthen vessel of government, we proceed in a spirit of humility lacking in our conservative colleagues.

In the decade since I left the Senate, American politics has been characterized by two phenomena: the increased activism of the Christian right, especially in the Republican Party, and the collapse of bipartisan collegiality. I do not think it is a stretch to suggest a relationship between the two.

To assert that I am on God's side and you are not, that I know God's will and you do not, and that I will use the power of government to advance my understanding of God's kingdom is certain to produce hostility.

By contrast, moderate Christians see ourselves, literally, as moderators. Far from claiming to possess God's truth, we claim only to be imperfect seekers of the truth.

We reject the notion that religion should present a series of wedge issues useful at election time for energizing a political base. We believe it is God's work to practice humility, to wear tolerance on our sleeves, to reach out to those with whom we disagree, and to overcome the meanness we see in today's politics.

For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people. We do not exclude from worship those whose opinions differ from ours.

Following a Lord who sat at the table with tax collectors and sinners, we welcome to the Lord's table all who would come. Following a Lord who cited love of God and love of neighbor as encompassing all the commandments, we reject a political agenda that displaces that love.

Christians who hold these convictions ought to add their clear voice of moderation to the debate on religion in politics.”

We look to the nine Justices of the Supreme Court to protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed us in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as they have developed through the last 200 years of precedent and interpretation. We expect, and have a right to demand, that jurists put forth as candidates for this lifetime appointment be people of honor and integrity, dedicated to furthering the cause of Justice and equal protection under the law for all.

The “Justice Sunday” organizers, in pushing for a Supreme Court that reflects their religious views above the views of others, seek to coerce and divide the people of America. They are on dangerous ground in setting one American against another. They disgrace all faiths and the work that we have done in the interfaith community to establish “common ground” that leads us to higher ground, regardless of political affiliation or faith. We must not join them in this course of action. Indeed, our faith tradition calls us to stand up to them, to stop them, to oppose their actions, to promote Justice and not hatred. This is the time for courage, not capitulation.

As people of faith, let us vow to do Justice Every Day. Let us vow to fight for equality, freedom, and Justice for all.

Sermon by Marjorie Signer, Director of Communications, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. For information, an electronic version of this sermon, or if you have any questions, contact msigner@rcrc.org.