Reflections

Personal faith may court political controversy

By J. Brent Walker

April 2008

On April 4 — the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. — three of the Baptist Joint Committee’s affiliated bodies (Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc., National Baptist Convention of America, Inc., and National Missionary Baptist Convention, Inc.) released a press statement addressing the relationship between prophetic preaching and politics. The statement was prompted by the recent and, unfortunately, continuing controversy over the sermons and writings of Sen. Barack Obama’s former pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright. But the statement also addresses the right of Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain to choose their own church and worship as they please without paying a political price for what their spiritual leaders, present and former, might say from the pulpit and in newsletters.

The statement aptly concludes: “Freedom of religion, freedom of worship, freedom to hear whomever a person chooses is a fundamental right of all Americans. Attempts to make a candidate’s religious affiliation relevant to the candidate’s fitness for office should be viewed with skepticism.”

The National Baptists’ statement commemorating King’s assassination is helpful for at least two reasons. First, it highlights the close connection between religious liberty and civil rights. Our “first freedom,” religious liberty, is the source of all rights. Both religious liberty and civil rights are grounded in notions of fair dealing and respect for others — fundamental precepts in Baptist life and American democracy. King was not only a prophetic voice for civil rights, he — as a Baptist — understood the importance of religious liberty and church-state separation.

Moreover, the statement also helps us think more clearly about a candidate’s religion and how that faith commitment affects one’s fitness for the highest office in the land. The statement rightly points out that Article VI of the Constitution bans any religious test for public office. Although that provision addresses only legal disabilities based on religion and in the voting booth, citizens can and do take religion into account, we should make every effort to live up to the spirit as well as the letter of Article VI.

Learning something about candidates’ faith helps us to get to know who they are, understand what makes them tick, and examine what their moral code is like. A free and fluid discussion in the public square about a candidate’s religious convictions is not out of bounds and can enrich the public discourse during election season.

But it can also serve as a cudgel.

It is vitally important that the discussion about a candidate’s religion goes somewhere. It is not at all helpful — and is often hurtful — to have a theological discussion isolated from policy and governance. There must always be an inquiry launched and close connection made about how candidate’s religious views impact his or her public policy position or leadership style. Otherwise an examination of a candidate’s religion is little more than spiritual voyeurism and violates the spirit if not the letter of the clause banning religious tests.

So, the question of where one worships and whose preaching someone has sat under in the past are not irrelevant. However, I think the firestorm created by the statements in sermons and articles by Obama’s former pastor has gone way too far.

In my lifetime I have been a member of seven Baptist churches and sat under the preaching of 12 pastors. Every one of them has said in sermons and written in articles things I disagreed with — sometime vociferously. If a preacher is doing his or her job — preaching prophetically — their words can be controversial and sometimes seem outrageous. That does not mean that I agree with or embrace everything that I heard; but it also does not mean I leave the church every time something controversial is spoken from the pulpit.

The same is true with Sen. Obama. He has stated clearly his disagreement with the sometimes inflammatory remarks that Wright made. However, to make him suffer a political penalty for refusing to repudiate Wright himself — one who served as spiritual leader for years, married the senator and his wife and baptized their children — is to expect too much. And the same goes for present and former pastors of Sens. Clinton and McCain.

Our National Baptist friends said it right. While not unimportant, one’s religious beliefs should not qualify or disqualify a candidate for office. All the more when we are tempted to tell a candidate where not to go to church.