June 22, 2005

church and state...liberal and conservative

[Editor: Here is another article about the same speech that suggests the kind of political strangeness that exists right now in W's relationship with the SBC. Thanks to Mike Kear for the heads up! You can find the text to W's speech here.]


Yesterday Susie sent me this link to a NY Times article/interview with Billy Graham. My grandfather, a life-long Baptist minister, was a huge fan of his. So, i am pretty familiar with Billy Graham's ideals and attitudes and his incredible integrity. Though I may not agree with him, he has always been able to impress me. He is humble and forthright. This passage from the article jumped out at me.

Mr. Graham promised not to talk about politics, and though several reporters tried to draw him into the subject with questions about evangelism's growing role in American political life and the pros and cons of international debt relief, he stayed on message till the end.

"If I get up and talk about some political issues," he said, "it divides the audience. What I want is a united audience to hear only the gospel. There are many times I went too far in talking about such issues. And I think that this time I want to stick only to the gospel."

What Graham is getting at and expressing is the same thing that I am aware of in our current political climate. Right now liberal and conservative alike are claiming (proclaiming?) the gospel. Some are claiming it as the sole property of their agenda. This is happening on both sides of the fence. Some are proclaiming that the other stands in opposition to the gospel.

Billy has it right. The gospel and American politics do not always mix. In fact, one can go to far and mistakenly preach a political platform and not the gospel. Billy admitted that he has done this. And, in his wisdom, suggested that it is a mistake to do so.

This leads me to another article. This article is from the ABC press. It is a report of the current President's speech to a Southern Baptist gathering. You can find the full text of the article in the extended link.

The exerpts from the speech challenged me on many levels, but the one that I found particularly interesting was the passage about compassion and helping the homeless etc...

"Finally, building a compassionate society requires that we mobilize our nation's armies of compassion to help the poor, the sick, and those who hurt." Faith-based institutions change hearts every day, but the government has discriminated against faith-based programs, he said. "That's why I signed an executive order that said that faith groups providing social services are entitled to the same access to federal money as other groups."
Now, I don't want to go into the whole separation of church and state debate too quickly. That quickly becomes an impossible morass to navigate. What interests me is what may be an attempt of the President to make helping "the poor, the sick, and those who hurt" the property of a specific political (read: conservative Republican) platform. Such social progressiveness has historically belonged to religious groups...liberal and conservative alike. Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement is a great example of just this kind of social gospel. Political issues such as the minimum wage, child labor laws and other political innovations are a reflection of the work of religious groups. Desegregation, prohibition, the abolition of slavery, and even the women's sufferage movements all are related to one or more religious groups. These movements are not the property of a political platform...

Bush is right to praise that work. What I wonder is if he will also go to the next UCC conference or even to a Habitat for Humanity gathering and praise them as well. One would assume he would. My fear is that the current trend for one party or the other, one political ideation or the other, to claim the "religious right" (Not the conservative Religious Right), will only serve to dislocate the church from social dialogue or make it even more the property of political pundits who are not necessarily interested in the Church but are instead interested in polling results.

Now, I don't know what Bush is interested in. I will not even begin to guess in this post. But I find myself watching with horror as Conservative pundits and Liberal pundits struggle for ecclesial squatters' rights. This is not some "land grab" but I see that we may be crafting one for ourselves.

Bush addresses SBC again, praises 'army of compassion'

By Tony Cartledge

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (ABP) -- Touting his desire to build a "more compassionate society," President George W. Bush thanked Southern Baptists June 21 for being "soldiers in the army of compassion" who make a difference in America and the world.

Bush spoke to the Southern Baptist Convention by live video from the
White House. This marked the fourth year in a row that Bush has
addressed SBC messengers -- all by live satellite except for 2003, when he sent a taped message.

Appearing relaxed, often smiling broadly at the cheers, shouts, whistles and applause he was receiving, Bush had to motion for quiet before he could begin his 11-minute speech.

Bush thanked SBC president Bobby Welch for his military service and
expressed appreciation for a Southern Baptist campaign to send postcards to troops in the field. "Our men and women appreciate it even more," he said.

He added that he and First Lady, Laura, "really appreciate your prayers, the prayers of our Baptist friends that have sustained us and uplifted us."

Bush quoted George Washington as saying that America's Baptists were the "firm friends of liberty." "Today another president George W. thanks you because more than two centuries later, you remain firm in your dedication to God and country."

"You believe that the ideal of religious liberty is a free church in a
free state," he said, defining freedom as "a divine gift that carries
serious responsibilities" to build a more compassionate society.

Bush touched on four elements known to resonate with many Southern
Baptists -- a proposed "family amendment" designed to prevent
homosexuals from marrying, continuing legislation to curtail the
practice of abortion, the appointment of more conservative judges, and
government aid for faith-based organizations.

"Building a more compassionate society begins with preserving the source of compassion: the family," he said. "Southern Baptists are practicing compassion by defending family and the sacred institution of marriage," he continued, to loud and sustained applause.

"Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be redefined by local officials and activist judges," he said, to another round of cheers.

"For the good of families and societies, I support a constitutional
amendment to protect the institution of marriage," he said, then paused for more extended applause.

"For the good of [the] legal system, I will continue to nominate federal judges who faithfully interpret the law and do not legislate from the bench," Bush said, calling for all of his nominees to get an up or down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate. He thanked Southern Baptists for their "strong support" in that effort.

"Building a compassionate society also depends on building a culture of life," Bush said, one that "defends its most vulnerable members at every stage of life" and "supports principles of ethical science."

Ethical science must preserve human dignity, Bush said, citing his
opposition to cloning and partial-birth abortion. "A compassionate
society will not sanction the creation of life only to destroy it," he
said.

"With your continued dedication and work we will continue to build a
culture of life in America, and America will be better off for it."

"Finally, building a compassionate society requires that we mobilize our nation's armies of compassion to help the poor, the sick, and those who hurt." Faith-based institutions change hearts every day, but the government has discriminated against faith-based programs, he said. "That's why I signed an executive order that said that faith groups providing social services are entitled to the same access to federal money as other groups."

Bush said billions of dollars had been made available to faith-based
groups, citing a $5.8 million grant to College Park Baptist Church in
Orlando, Fla., to build 68 homes for low-income seniors.

"Faith based groups should never have to forfeit their religious liberty to get federal dollars," he said. "We want your help, we want your love, but at the same time you do not have to forget the mission of faith or ignore the mission of faith that calls you to action in the first place."

"Southern Baptists are the soldiers in the armies of compassion at home and abroad," Bush said. He noted Southern Baptists' emphasis on sexual abstinence, which is credited with helping Uganda reduce HIV rates, and touted a recent $674 million government grant to provide emergency assistance in Africa.

"Service to others is a Baptist tradition," Bush said. "As you work to
feed the hungry and provide shelter for the homeless, you are changing
America and the world for the better -- one heart, one soul, and one
conscience at a time."

Messengers responded with a lengthy standing ovation.

They followed up Bush's speech with a "God and country" observance that included patriotic music and a pledge to the American flag.

Let me know what you guys think.

Posted by tripp at June 22, 2005 09:35 AM
Comments

Tripp, I think you're overstating religious influence over government policy in the past. These quotes from your post above suggest that to me.

"Right now liberal and conservative alike are claiming (proclaiming?) the gospel." Can you point me to a place where that explicit claim is coming from the political left?

"Such social progressiveness has historically belonged to religious groups" -- Belonged to? As in, exclusively? I don't think that's true. There have been socially progressive movements that come from specifically non-religious roots. Don't confuse similarity with causation. Ditto this later quote, "Political issues such as the minimum wage, child labor laws and other political innovations are a reflection of the work of religious groups. Desegregation, prohibition, the abolition of slavery, and even the women's sufferage movements all are related to one or more religious groups." Related to is one thing; caused by, or the exclusive property of, is another.

"What I wonder is if he will also go to the next UCC conference or even to a Habitat for Humanity gathering and praise them as well. One would assume he would." Why would you assume this? Are you assuming GWB is intelligent, or compassionate, or fair-minded, or willing to be uncomfortable, among people who disagree with him? I don't see any evidence of any of those qualities in GWB.

Posted by: Megan at June 22, 2005 10:54 AM

I may be overstating to some degree, but not by much. From the political left we have Sojourners, Christian Peacemaker Teams and other affiliate organizations. Riverside Church is still a huge voice in liberal politics. I admit that it ain't the 700 Club, but the different tactics still have great influence.

"Belonged to..." The invention of Sunday School led to the formation of the Public School System. The vast majority of the advocates for abolition of slavery were from Religious groups. Much of what motivated the ecumenical movement of the 1800's was shared interest in the abolition of slavery.

Certainly there were regional connotations, but the fact that the social movements of the day were religiously founded bears some weight in my argument.

"Exclusive property"...that was a little heavy-handed on my part. That's true enough. Heh. Nonetheless, as a clergyperson I feel the pressure from political forces to choose allegiances and I want to rebel and say "Sorry, I ain't for sale. If you want to feed the hungry, let's talk. But that won't necessarily earn you my vote come November."

Regarding W speaking to the UCC...well, I am trying to be kind. He will most likely not speak with them. But I remain hopeful.

Posted by: Tripp at June 22, 2005 11:42 AM

If you're trying to be kind about GWB, you're a better Christian than I am. Thanks for the reminder.

Meanwhile, Sojourners, Christian Peacemakers, etc. aren't leftists who are proclaiming the gospel; they're religious people who hold leftist political opinions. When the Green Party or some such starts saying "This is in the gospel, therefore we should do it," then your argument will hold a lot more weight.

The fact that the vast majority of abolitionists were members of religious groups does not, again, equal causation. Lots of people are church members. That doesn't mean squat concerning their political effectiveness or lack thereof.

Posted by: Megan at June 22, 2005 12:45 PM