Should a church be politically active? It's a question that comes up from time to time. And judging from the news media, especially in this election year, it seems that the answer for the Christian "Right" is a resounding yes. We have evangelical groups endorsing candidates and ministers as "honorary chairman" on national campaigns. We also have politicians vying to show just how "Christian" they are.
And for some candidates "Christian" means how anti-LGBT, anti-choice, anti-woman, anti-any other religion besides a conservative brand of Christianity, anti-poor, anti-foreigner. We have had national Christian candidates who are proud to state they would not have a Muslim in their cabinet, state that contraception is "a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be" and maintain that it would be ok if a state ruled that it would be illegal for even married couples to use contraception. We have leaders who sign pledges that state "a black child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African American baby born after the election of the USA's first African American President." We senators and governors who have staffers that question if women have a right to hold political office, who have donated tens of thousands of dollars to anti-LGBT groups, and who have signed their names to pledges that state they support "a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage, to appoint federal judges who don’t see a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and to back the Defense of Marriage Act." If we stand silent we allow these "leaders" to speak for us.
So what is a progressive Christian to do? I would posit that progressive Christians need to make their voices heard as loudly as possible. First, we need to stand up to defend the rights of all, to be voices for the disenfranchised. Second, we need to act as a counterbalance to the Christian "Right" and make sure that our political process is not take over by a small but vocal group. Third, we need to show Christians and non-Christians alike that there is more than one viewpoint on the Christian spectrum. There is a quote by Mohandas Gandhi that rings in my head constantly - "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.." As progressive Christians we need to strive to make the teachings of Christ an important point of reference in the political process.
And what are the responsibilities of a progressive church in regards to the politics? A progressive church needs to inform, educate, and encourage it members so that they have the tools they need to participate in the political process. This can include things such as voter registration and education, providing forums where candidates' platforms and pending legislation can be discussed, and providing information and access to politician's voting records. In short, progressive churches need to make it OK to talk about politics.
Does this mean we advocate religion should be inserted in government? No. But it does mean that we can view our candidates and legislation through the lens of our Christian faith and see if they measure up - and act accordingly.
Here are the views of a First Church minister on religion and politics.
"We have been hearing considerable discussion in recent years concerning the church and politics. So much so that the church seem to be faced by an impossible dilemma.
On the one hand are those who list the evils of the world and end by asking with withering contempt "Why doesn't religion do something about it?" Scoring the impotence of religion is the favorite indoor sport of this group.
On the other hand are those who view with alarm any reference in the pulpit to any form of government more recent than that of the Hebrew theocracy or to any law not thundered from Sinai. Whenever the church faces any present-day social problem this group wistfully wishes the preacher would stick to his BIble and avoid controversial subjects. This pious wish overlooks the fact that religion is much older than sacred literature. The Bible did not produce Christianity. Christianity produced the BIble. Christianity existed for a century before it wrote its Bible. Nor can one speak at all if he is to avoid all controversial subjects. Rene Descartes demonstrated three centuries ago that there is nothing which cannot be doubted except possible the fact of doubting.
Of course, what this practically amounts to is that preachers shall be permitted to play with toy problems, teething rings, and the like, but that the real problems of life shall be reserved for the superior wisdom of the press, the radio, and the political demagogue. It is small wonder that any mentally alert clergyman is likely to see red at this latter suggestion.
It is not the field into which we take religion that matters. The important thing is the kind of religion we take.
If one's religion be selfish, narrow, bigoted, ignorant, superstitious, and harsh it will be a blight in the home, church, school, and state. We have had all too numerous historical examples of religion which repressed the mind, barred the path to scientific progress and could practice the most inhuman cruelties all in the name of a supposed faith. Military leaders remind us that there is no war so brutal, so ruthless and so unbridled in its fury as a so-called "religious" war. The trouble, however, has not been with the field in which religion operated but with the dangerously decadent religion which entered those fields.
It is historically obvious that the most dangerous enemies of religion have never been atheists and agnostics but rather the misguided and mastaken zeal of self-styled "defenders of the faith." Religion's most serious foes have always been those of its own household. Religion which is misguided and heartless in its own realm, causing agonies of suffering and heartache there is certain to repeat its ruin when it lays its hold upon the other institutions of the world. From this kind of religion in politics-or anywhere else-dear Lord, deliver us!
But if our religion be one seeking freedom and light at any cost; one seeking to serve in the advancement of honesty, justice, integrity, and truth; and one seeking not its own interests but those of every person in the world, that religion can and must be the light of the world and the salt of the earth. This kind of religion will not be interested in party lines but in high principles. It will not ask whether a policy is traditional but only "Is it right?" It will not be lined up by political bosses but will follow only that which, by its own merits, impels approval.
Does our government need religion in politics? Undoubtedly. There is no denying the fact that our American democracy is sadly breaking down in our center of congested city population. Every large city in the country is ruled by small, anti-social, but very powerful groups. Each succeeding census shows that we are becoming more and more an urban nation. Logically and actually this means that our American democracy is becoming increasingly a failure. In order that this failure may not become complete our country must enlist the idealistic services of its best mind, its noblest hearts and it purest souls. We need such religion in government. Only such forces can preserve our national honor." -Rev. Norman I. Bromley, July 10, 1930. Rev. Bromley was the minister at First Congregational, Huntington, WV from 1944-1971
