I like seeing conscience related to politics. It resonates with both the theological and political genius of early Baptists like Roger Williams. It is a theme on which I frequently speak (look here, here, here and here for examples).
Some of Obama's words do demonstrate a sensitivity to the principle of separation of church and state:
So let's rededicate ourselves to a new kind of politics -- a politics of conscience. Let's come together -- Protestant and Catholic, Muslim and Hindu and Jew, believer and non-believer alike. We're not going to agree on everything, but we can disagree without being disagreeable. We can affirm our faith without endangering the separation of church and state, as long as we understand that when we're in the public square, we have to speak in universal terms that everyone can understand. And if we can do that -- if we can embrace a common destiny -- then I believe we'll not just help bring about a more hopeful day in America, we'll not just be caring for our own souls, we'll be doing God's work here on Earth.I'll reserve judgment on whether Obama's political actions match his rhetoric.
Judging from the report in the New York Times, the secular news media only perceives a new union of left-wing religion and politics, and UCC pastors like Chuck Currie who sign-on to publicly campaign for him can only lend credence to their perceptions.
4 comments:
You might note how I worded my endorsement statement:
"As a minister in the United Church of Christ, I trust deeply in the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state and my endorsement is therefore a personal one and does not reflect on the church I serve or my denomination. But as a citizen I believe that all Americans must engage in the political process as individuals for democracy to thrive. So I choose to add my voice today with millions of other Americans concerned about the direction of this nation."
www.chuckcurrie.com
Chuck,
I appreciate your affirmation of church-state separation.
I also affirm your right as a private individual to engage in the political process.
It worries me when a progressive minister and prominent blogger publicly announces that he has joined a political campaign.
I would prefer that those who speak prophetically within the church -- leaders like you -- would maintain a measure of independence from the secular political campaigns of specific candidates and parties.
Bruce,
Back in 1980, James Dunn actively campaigned for Jimmy Carter.
However, first he quit his job with the Texas CLC, took a few months off, did the campaigning, and then went to work with the BJC as their Executive Director AFTER the election....
I really like Obama but where exactly does he stand on faith-based initiatives (etc)? His close relationship with Jim Wallis worries me that Obama and I might not be on the same page on church-state issues. Maybe Rev. Currie can answer that question - if not, I'll be raising it on my blog shortly.
The new world of social networking that the Internet provides us does not really allow for a wall between private and public views. How careful can we be in our on-line conversations so as not to disclose our political views and leanings? In other words, what is not public if it is posted in cyberspace?
I, for one, would rather use this exceptional medium for a true interchange of ideas that allow us to form deeper opinions motivating significant action. I would hope that any endorsement of any candidate in any forum would always be conditional. Naturally, that is not usually the case in partisan politics, but why can't we agree to that in the blogosphere at least?
I'm a UCC pastor who is impressed with Obama and would consider giving him my vote. I'm also a member of the Green Party and will need to be very impressed in order to give my vote to a member of another party. Those are my personal views and position as of this moment. Does stating that in a comment on a blog constitute crossing the line between church and state? For the sake of democracy I hope not.
Post a Comment