Be that as it may, others have challenged his Christian faith by imputing Muslim convictions to him, perhaps because Hussein is his middle name, or because he lived as a child for some years in a country where Islam is the predominant religion, or because his father was a Muslim, or because President-elect Obama is just simply seen as being different, too different to be a Christian American. His faith did become a political issue, and the mainstream media made some attempts through a variety of articles to bring his story somewhat sympathetically to the light of day.
Now that he is the President-elect, Mr. Obama and his religiosity continue to be an object of public interest, but not without some controversy. His selection of Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church, an evangelical megachurch, to offer the invocation at the Inauguration has generated controversy, drawing scrutiny yet again of his statements on his faith. The choice of Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire and an openly gay man in a committed relationship, to offer the invocation at the opening event of the inaugural festivities, to some, signals either theological naiveté or relativism, political pandering, or a confirmation of President-elect Obama’s intention to talk with, listen to, and involve all people and groups. It is sometimes difficult to know whether we are dealing with religion and politics, the religification of politics, or the politicization of religion.
One clear result of this attention to President-elect Obama’s religiousness is another look at the question of the relation between religion and politics, faith in public, and penultimately, the church in the world. This question has historically exposed fault lines that mark the place where certain Christian traditions rub against one another. Progressive Christians who contributed to the development of the Social Gospel movement in the early twentieth century irritated their more conservative coreligionists both within and across denominational lines. Roman Catholics have a rich history of social teachings and encyclicals going back centuries, but one could start with Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII in 1891 and read encyclicals and pastoral letters up to Faithful Citizenship: A Catholic Call to Political Responsibility, a pastoral letter issued by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2003. These Christian views of the social responsibility and activity of communities of faith have not been uncontested, in or outside the church, so in many respects it is not all that remarkable that there continues to be debate and discussion on the role of the church in our common life.
This blog in the future will explore some of the issues affecting local congregations and the factors that enhance or inhibit an interest in participating in and advocating for issues of social justice, not only in their immediate community but also regionally and nationally. Religion and politics is here to stay as an issue of public and ecclesiastical discussion; the terms of the debate and the issues and strategies may change or vary from place to place, but as a nation and as a religious group within larger and more diverse religious communities, we are going to be dealing with this issue for a while yet.
Researchers at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life have recently completed and published the results of a major study of religion in American life, called the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. One finding in this study is that there is something of a reversal going on among the electorate on this question of religion and politics. In August, 2008, Pew reported that a survey in 1996 indicated that a majority of respondents believed that churches ought to be engaging social and political issues (54% to 43%), but that in 2008 those percentages had been reversed. Now a majority of respondents believe that churches should stay out of such matters (52% to 45%).
Apart from research issues like the survey sample, wording and order of the questions, and the particular political issues and personalities in the field at the time of the survey, it is interesting to note that the more politically and socially conservative types are the ones now calling for the withdrawal of the religious voice in public affairs. Why and how this is so is a matter of interpretation. What this reversal means for those who are more socially and politically liberal is also a matter of interpretation. Nonetheless, this research appears to suggest some ground shifting on the question of the relation between religion and politics, and what this shift portends is unclear.
Actually, the ground is shifting for Christian communities in several areas. Congregations with long histories and large buildings are closing while new churches are expanding more rapidly than their rented space can accommodate. Denominations and their judicatories are in retrenchment because of exigent circumstances shaped both by diminished resources and new articulations of mission. In place of some historic denominational ties, new associations of churches and agencies transcending denominations are appearing; a congregation can affiliate with both a particular denomination and a new associational network of like-minded and mission-oriented churches. Traditional and so-called mainline churches not only make their facilities available to other community, educational and social-service groups as an income stream, but also to new church starts, many of which are associated with the so-called emerging church movement. Now is not the time to discuss it, but attention should also be given to new religious movements and how many of these are born out of, or contribute to, issues of social justice.
We who are Christians in the United States may be working out our understanding of the most socially, politically and theologically effective way to be involved in the public world, and there may be profound differences of opinion on this. But according to Pew, among the voters in the electorate, it is important to three out of four of us that our president has strong religious beliefs. Where we differ as Republicans, Democrats and Independents, conservatives, liberals and libertarians, is over what those beliefs are, what their moral implications may be for social and political policy, and who best expresses those beliefs in leadership. Fortunately, we live in a political democracy where we are free to engage in this discussion and scrutinize our leaders and our selves for moral sensibility that shapes political action and public policy for the well being of all.
It would appear that President-elect Obama has strong religious beliefs. Some have even suggested that his election could mean the beginning of a renewal among social and religious progressives. Be that as it may, at the President-elect’s request, we who also have strong religious beliefs have the opportunity to work with him to bring those beliefs to bear on realizing the common good. In short, we have an opportunity to do religion and politics differently.
Peace,
Douglas Sharp
Posts
