« Anti-Americanism in Germany Twists Two Ways | Main | Zero Tolerance Policy Finds New Applications »
December 1, 2004
Just how separate are church and state?
In an editorial for the New Zealand Herald, Richard Randerson comments on the merging of religion and politics in both the United States and Australasia. Citing examples of the Family First Party in Australia, backed by members of the Assemblies of God, and the recently-established Destiny Party in New Zealand, with strong ties to the Destiny Church, he describes "the association of religion with the exercise of political, economic or military power [as] a risky business, yet one that is on the rise."
Randerson goes on to explain his view that it is almost impossible for a single political party to encompass the wide range of issues considered important by a particular church or religion, causing the party to ignore part of the religious group's agenda or, even worse, take "a stance in conflict with [their] religious values." The author does not directly link this idea to the recent reelection of George Bush. Randerson could be suggesting, however, that the President's popularity with religious groups may decline, despite their approval of his handling of controversial matters like abortion and civil unions, if he continues to enact policies at odds with those supporters' views on social issues such as poverty and justice.
Rihard Randerson is the assistant Anglican bishop of Auckland, New Zealand's largest city.
New Zealand Herald - Just how separate are church and state?
To claim divine endorsement for policies of national self-interest requires but a few short steps. A nation adopts a policy to further its own ends, but needs a publicly acceptable rationale to justify it. A rationale is developed based on values such as freedom, justice, peace and serving the best interests of all.
Since such values can easily be seen as having a religious base, the claim is made (with a little bit of spin and slippage) that God is on our side. In the lead-up to the assault on Fallujah both sides claimed divine support, and sought divine aid for victory.
Missing from the argument is a crucial factor of analysis of the context. In value judgments the basic values (freedom, justice, peace) are not difficult to agree on. The tricky part lies in figuring out what they mean in a given context.
In retrospect the allied invasion of Iraq displayed faulty analysis with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and in the development of an adequate post-invasion peace plan.
Questions of whose interests were being served leave much room for debate, and different conclusions.
The association of religion with the exercise of political, economic or military power is a risky business, yet one that is on the rise.
Political analysis of the American election suggests conservative religious votes played a significant role in the outcome.
In Australia the Family First Party, consisting of many members of the Assemblies of God, entered candidates in last month's election and assigned preferences to the Liberal Party.
Here, the establishment of the Destiny Party, with its links to the Destiny Church, has joined other Christian parties in seeking political power.
For Christians as individuals to stand for political office, and to exercise their votes as citizens, is entirely proper. Church members weigh the issues and cast votes according to their own judgment and conscience. But for a church or other religious body to align itself formally with a political party, or to establish one of its own, opens up a different set of issues.
No political party is likely to encompass the range of issues and perspectives held by a particular church or faith. In general terms, conservative churches tend to focus on issues of personal morality, and take a traditional stance on matters such as family values, abortion or civil unions. By contrast liberal churches emphasise broader social or international issues such as poverty and justice, race relations or global peace.
Political parties often follow the same divide, with George Bush's Republicans attracting more of the conservative church vote, while John Kerry's Democrats won the support of more liberal Christians.
But here is the dilemma: the Christian Gospel addresses both sets of issues, so for a religious group to identify officially with either party runs the risk of only addressing half of the Christian agenda. The dilemma is compounded when the platform of a given party not merely ignores the other half of the agenda but takes a stance in conflict with religious values.
President George W. Bush, for example, in emphasising the importance of marriage and family, expresses strong Christian values. But by denying the rights of others, or invading Iraq without justification, or placing lower emphasis on the needs of the poor, he would be seen by many as acting contrary to scriptural precept. Parties of the left can exhibit similar ambivalences.
Hence a church that identifies with a particular party identifies with a mixed bag of policies, some of which might be quite anti-Christian, or fail to address key issues that Christians regard as important. The church is compromised in the process, losing its independence, integrity and comprehensiveness.
The range of policies supported by churches is almost certainly spread among a variety of parties. Individuals make choices at election time, but churches as a whole need to avoid party linkages in order to maintain the capacity for objective reflection, and thoughtful advocacy of policies which display the optimum expression of values in the contemporary context. The primary question is which policy to support, and only secondarily which party.
Care is also required to distinguish between what a party says and what it does. Our politics are often described as secular. Much was made of the fact that grace was not said before dining at an official Government banquet. The omission of the religious observance was noted negatively in some quarters.
Yet many policies adopted by our governments, both National and Labour, reflect a commitment to values broadly consistent with those of religion. Our commitment to justice based on the Treaty of Waitangi, the promotion of the role of women, the independence retained over Iraq, a commitment to peace-keeping in the South Pacific and beyond, all reflect a commitment to basic values of justice, peace and the unity of the global family.
By contrast the US is marked by a greater degree of outward religious observance, but many would argue its domestic and international policies do not reflect religious values to the same extent that ours do. In Jesus' words: "By their fruits you shall know them."
In the midst of the American Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln said of the warring parties: "Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully." (Second Inaugural Address, 1865).
Lincoln displayed in many speeches the recognition that the will of God could not be assumed to lie with his own side, and that in exercising power the ability to think broadly about divine justice was a central ingredient. His was a healthy objectivity one might hope for in all political leaders.
Such objectivity is even more essential in the life of religious bodies, whose advocacy of ultimate objectives in human affairs is fatally compromised by aspirations to political power.
Posted by Lena Malcolm at December 1, 2004 11:11 AM