Articles

Church and State: Friends and Foes in the Public Square

Remarks delivered to the Downtown Connector on October 8, 2005, St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, Atlanta.

I would like to thank the good people of St. Luke’s Church for their hospitality and the vision of Reverend Dan Matthews and those who comprise the host committee for the Downtown Connector project.

I’d like to offer one big observation about church-state relations and cite three examples wherein the two become adversaries. Then, I will conclude by asking why can’t they be friends, respectful but distant allies. Before proceeding, a word about terminology. I will employ the assigned term, “church” in a generic, inclusive sense referring to any recognized house of worship or religious tradition. When I mean specifically Christian congregations or traditions, I will note that.

A State with the Soul of a Church

First, my observation. Emory sociologist Stephen Tipton reminds us that during the past 150 years, American government has evolved to become more church-like or “religious” in function if not in character. At an earlier period in our nation’s past most American citizens referred jealously to their negative rights, that is the right not to be coerced, nor over-taxed, nor over-regulated, nor excessively monitored by government. Most citizens, that is white male property owners regarded government with suspicion and contempt. The less of it, the better. It was a minimalist and negative view of government.

But, during the mid-19 th century, a variety of social movements emerged and flourished fueled largely by Protestant evangelical ideology and public activism. In other words, through their action in the public square, people of faith influenced the state to shift from a minimalist, aloof stance into a posture of moral agency where the state would care for and discipline its citizens. The movements that moved American government include the abolitionist, feminist, temperance, child protection, settlement house, compulsory state financed public education, and the many initiatives spear-headed by FDR and LBJ. In each instance, the state took up the cause of moral and social activists who sought to elevate the acceptable standards of public morality and decency. The state became a virtual faith-based institution engaged in care-giving for the least advantaged members of the society. But, it did so with a certain restraint and respect for constitutional boundaries. In my judgment, that illustrates an inspiring and defensible exercise of the state’s responsibility to serve the common good.

So, that’s my foundational claim. The state became a quasi-church/synagogue/mosque/temple.

The Power of “We the People”

American government evolved from a minimalist to an active and generous agent. But, the important lesson is that the people made this happen. People who were motivated by their faith and values acted in the public square to influence government to be more responsive to the common good, especially the needs of our most vulnerable neighbors. The prosperous landowners who preferred minimal government didn’t need such help, although they needed something just as fundamental from government, namely, community and moral purpose. And, even more fascinating than the power of the people was the way in which social movements refrained from imposing Jewish or Christian values on American public life. Their faith was energetic and righteously impatient but it respected the boundaries of conscience of those who did not share their perspectives. Instead, our 19 th century forbearers strove to hold government accountable for creating cities, states, and public space that would be safe and affirming for all citizens, especially nonconformists, especially minority voices.

Church and State: Adversaries Offsides

As I understand the wisdom of the founding fathers, the church and state are different, should maintain some measure of social distance, and should relate to each other in a cooperative and respectful manner. They should never become excessively entangled in one another’s affairs. One historical and contemporary instance of breaching the wall of separation or being “offsides” (to use a football metaphor) occurs when the state and the political community come to regard “ faith as a credential rather than a virtue and the church as an instrument rather than a distant ally of the state.” In recent elections and as fresh as this week’s headlines regarding Supreme Court Justice nominee Harriet Miers, some citizens have asserted that because a particular candidate appears to be a devout person of faith, ipso facto that should count as an extra and primary qualifier for effective public service. Some religious leaders even proclaim from their pulpits that voting for a particular candidate who does not share their faith commitments jeopardizes the church member’s standing with God and the church. But, we should heed the wise words of Oliver Ellsworth who was a Connecticut delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Writing a series of letters to landholders in support of the constitutional clause that prohibits any religious test for public office, he wrote

“(some) have been afraid that this clause is unfavorable to religion. But, my countrymen, the sole purpose and effect of it is to exclude persecution and to secure to you the important right of religious liberty. We are almost the only people in the world who have a full enjoyment of this important right of human nature. In our country every man has a right to worship God in that way which is most agreeable to his conscience. If he be a good and peaceable person, he is liable to no penalties or incapacities on account of his religious sentiments; or, in other words, he is not subject to persecution” (Annals of America, “On a Religious Test for Holding Public Office,” Oliver Ellsworth, December 17, 1787, p. 169).

I am especially impressed with Ellsworth’s recognition that the separation clauses were among America’s most unique contributions to modern political philosophy and practice. With the possible exception of our fellow citizens who are atheists, I suspect that most Americans want to believe that faith adds value to the execution of one’s ordinary vocational responsibilities. But, it should be politically irrelevant. The nonprofit organization, Independent Sector, has documented that religious people tend to give more money, volunteer more time, and support a broader range of community enhancing activities than their nonreligious counterparts. That news is unremarkable. Indeed, Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated these findings as he traveled about during the 19 th century.

But, it is inappropriate to suggest that because one believes in God, he or she possesses a credential that should compel others to vote for her or him. For to do so would suggest that those who do not possess such faith are not qualified to serve the common good. This would be a profoundly un-American sentiment. It may seem odd, but I would contend that faith can be pure and vital and simultaneously politically irrelevant. For, we are not seeking to elect the caretakers of our souls, but rather those who understand, possess skills, and manifest a passion for serving the common good through civil government. This holds true for Al Sharpton as well as Ralph Reed, and all those scattered along the political spectrum.

A second boundary infraction occurs when “ faith stakes out absolute positions on public policy without humility or accountability.” Many of the great questions of human existence pose deep and complex ethical issues. Justice Brandeis once observed that all of the great questions of philosophy and theology must ultimately come to the law for resolution. Their complete resolution is beyond the capacity of any single institution, tradition, perspective, or individual. Indeed, humility, debate, and civil dialogue with others are essential for the best possible, but always tentative, positions on the hard questions. But, many in the church and state believe that absolute truth in all matters can be apprehended by a special few.

Consider the issues and questions that press in upon us today. Who should live? Who should be born? Who should die and when? Who is truly, fully human in the first place? Who should be permitted to marry whom? How far should science be permitted to go to prolong life or to enhance life or even duplicate a person? When is war just or unjust? What is the obligation of those who have benefited from the coerced, unpaid labor of others? What should we be permitted or not permitted to ingest or experience for therapeutic or pleasurable reasons? What claims do people living in poverty have upon those who have prospered? What claims do future generations have upon the choices of those alive today? What claims do animals or nature in general have upon the attention of humans? These are among the contemporary ethical questions and issues that spill over into the political arena which means they are multi-dimensional rather than one dimensional issues.

Recall that ethics is the discipline that asks for systematic and critical responses to such questions as: ‘what is good? What contributes to human flourishing and what compromises it? What is right, what is praiseworthy? What is a good life? What is a just community? And, how do we justify our responses? Or, according to whom, and in the name of which authority do we invoke our justifications?

These are among our core questions and they are ancient questions; the one’s we asked since the beginning of human civilization, and the ones we must ask in order to remain human.

Problems arise when some people of faith who may be accustomed to thinking in terms of moral and theological absolutes import that style of ethical reasoning into the more ambiguous zone of ethics in a scientific and pluralistic society. Again, the task is not to legislate morality for one’s church, a place where moral absolutism may or may not be appropriate, but rather, to puzzle out how people of faith can contribute to the public conversation about achieving the common good. This means that people of faith will win some and lose some policy battles. But, faith is not diminished because some people choose not to accept one’s reasons or testimony.

This is why humility and public accountability of church and state are so important. Life is dynamic, and science constantly reveals new realities that we must square with ancient truth. Although, speaking of humility reminds me of Israeli President Golda Meir’s comment to her defense minister Moshe Dayan, ‘don’t be so humble, you’re not that great.’ Religious leaders should actively teach their members to practice the virtue of humility, or in the words of that great prayer, “Lord, grant me the courage to change the things I can, the grace to accept the things I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference.”

Faith is not a political credential, and faith, properly understood, is lived with humility and in accountability to others. That’s what makes faith a social phenomenon. We are members of a community, a temple, a mosque, a church. And, that’s what makes the contemporary buzz about ‘personal spirituality’ vs. organized religion a bit suspicious. At first blush, detached spirituality appears to avoid social accountability. Thereby, it never has to provide reasons to other people who might, in turn, challenge or even refine those truth claims.

Yet a third boundary clash occurs when the entanglement of distant allies results in compromising the independence of the churches. Church independence is a social good purchased with the blood of many patriots. It is both unsophisticated and offensive to see it traded so easily for so little. Some state agencies actively seek to enlist houses of worship as quasi-governmental agencies or worse, as partisan political partners. This is an example of a foe that masquerades as a friend. And, it renders a faith based initiative, more in practice than in theory, a high risk enterprise.

Hear the words of James Madison who believed that separation was fundamental to the health of the nation as a whole. While he was president a bill came to him calling for the chartering of an Episcopal church in Alexandria, VA. He vetoed the bill and sent a letter to the House of Representatives on February 21, 1811. In it, he commented on provisions that are hauntingly familiar to our faith-based initiative sensitivities.

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty. (“The Civil and Religious Functions of Government,” Annals of America, 287)

We should stand with President James Madison in warning the church not to sacrifice its independence, and reminding the state of its “public and civil duties.” When high visibility clergy become defenders and interpreters of a particular president’s policies, as if they were members of that administration, they should at least admit that for personal reasons they have drifted far from the shores of ethical independence and can no longer be trusted to raise critical questions about state action. Nor can they be fully trusted to represent and interpret the high moral purposes of religion which will, at times, undermine their own political interests and status. Again, such religious leaders should be free to do as they please in the public square, but when they violate tried and proven American traditions of church-state separation, they should be disqualified as authentic representatives of faith. And, perhaps they should thereafter represent themselves as agents of the Republican or Democratic parties. Here, I am suggesting that the integrity and public effectiveness of faith communities depends upon greater not less independence from the state.

The state should not show favoritism towards any particular religious tradition. We have a simple litmus test for this. If, in a predominantly Christian society, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and other religious devotees feel that they have become second class citizens due to the state’s close interactions with Christian churches, then, we have lost ground in the long march toward authentic democracy and we have frustrated the noble vision crafted by Jefferson, Madison, and the other founders. Secular government, that is, a state that treats all faith traditions and those with no faith tradition as of equal value, is an extraordinary moral achievement. Secularism is a moral achievement and a legacy of our greatest leaders. Secularism is not anti-religious, it is indifferent to religion. It values faith insofar as faith supports and contributes important resources for authentic democracy. But, if and when faith communities cross the line and violate this secular moral legacy by, for instance, imposing Hebrew-Christian moral values upon everyone via public policy, then the secular moral legacy of separation is violated and the nation is diminished, ironically in the name of serving God.

Church and State: Why Can’t We Be Friends?

A final note about the friendship between church and state. I began these remarks with an historical observation regarding the history of American government becoming increasingly more ‘churchy’ in its approach to relating to citizens, especially its least advantaged ones. But, I’d like to move from this history to a normative claim, namely that we need the state in order to become better people. In order to create or approximate the good and just society, we need the moral authority and the regulative power of the state. History has demonstrated that left to ourselves and our comfortable and often parochial voluntary associations, we have tended to exclude and discriminate, and sometimes justify that behavior with religious warrants. We need some agency, a moral agency, outside of organized religion to keep it honest. Religion is too important to be left to the true believers. Religion must be a dialogue partner with other members of the democratic community. This is that fundamental good that a secular state can contribute to privileged citizens and to religious traditions.

Our own recent journey from Jim Crow segregation to a relatively open and inclusive society demonstrates that the state can and should help to establish public standards for morality that are independent of the social teachings of particular religions. The standards of decency and good citizenship should be the same for all of us, and they must be observed without regard to class position, race, education or creed.

The state should neither seek to privilege evangelical Christianity nor to punish it. The state should be indifferent to the religious substance of its many faith traditions. The state may benefit from having faith communities work on the same side to establish standards of public morality and goodness. But, it must not show favor to those institutions that are thrilled to collaborate with the state to achieve these ends. Nor is it necessary for the state to ignore or be hostile to religion’s social dimensions. This requires great care, thoughtfulness, and a willingness to engage in mutually corrective and constructive dialogue with those who disagree.

Indeed, the Regional Council of Churches and the Faith Alliance of Metro Atlanta are striving now to re-invigorate that distinctive brand of Atlanta religion that was embodied so fully in Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Rabbi Jacob Rothschild of The Temple. It is religion that works for social progress and equality, faith that respects the wall of separation between church and state, and that seeks to build bridges of understanding and active cooperation between different communities. It is ambitious and painstaking work, but I take comfort from the words of theologian Reinhold Niebuhr.

“Nothing that is worth doing can be completed in one lifetime, therefore we must be saved by hope. And nothing that is true or good or beautiful makes complete sense in any immediate context of history. Therefore, we must be saved by faith. And, no act, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone. Therefore, we must be saved by love.”

Robert M. Franklin, Ph.D., is the Presidential Distinguished Professor of Social Ethics, Emory University.

Copyright 2005 Robert M. Franklin

Fair Use Notice

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

For more information, visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.