"God's Politics"

For religious liberals, the election of 2004 was yet another painful reminder of sharp and acrimonious differences in our nation. The fact that conservative Christianity played such an influential role left the rest of us - whatever our party - wondering whether our religious perspective had been permanently shut out of the public arena. For many of us the outcome confirmed that the political process should be strictly secular, without the intrusion of religious values or language. The only way to safeguard the religious pluralism that we cherish is to insist that faith remains private and personal.

The problem with that conclusion, however, is that religious faith cannot be compartmentalized in this way. As we know from our own tradition, faith inspires us to move beyond our individual concerns. Religious faith, at its best, has called on people to work for justice and peace, to overcome oppression, to heal the social wounds of poverty and discrimination. Martin Luther King invoked his tradition to uplift his followers and to educate his opponents. People of faith today pray for another King to come along soon. If he did, what would he do?

That is the question Jim Wallis explores in his new book, "God's Politics." It is good to hear from him right now. Jim Wallis is a Christian whose faith inspires him to work for justice, not for the installation of the Ten Commandments in every courthouse in the land. He reminds us that religious pluralism is alive and well, even among the evangelicals.

The problem with religion in our society, Wallis asserts, is how "modern fundamentalism has made the move to theocracy." Fundamentalists of all kinds - Christian, Jewish, and Muslim - "desire their religious agenda to be enforced through the power of the state." Wallis judges this position to be a serious betrayal of the biblical tradition in which these three faiths are rooted, a tradition that regards political power with suspicion and teaches against violence. Of course, everyone knows you can use the Bible to serve any purpose. "Southern slave masters," Wallis notes, "gave their captives the Bible to keep their eyes trained on heaven, instead of their plight on earth. But in the Bible those same slaves found Moses and Jesus, who became the foundations for their liberation struggle. We must always acknowledge that our religious traditions can be both a cause for oppression and an inspiration for liberation."

Jim Wallis believes that a critical and active religious faith must concern itself with public policy. Just as nineteenth century people of faith - evangelicals and liberals - worked for abolition and women's suffrage, so do our religious values call us to speak out on the issues of our day. As he says, the question should not be whetherwe will do it, buthow.

That question is more difficult for religious liberals, because our authority is grounded in conscience, not scripture. When we speak, we speak as individuals. A collective voice requires building consensus or voting in an election. We fear jeopardizing our own community every time we take a stand. We are reluctant to enter into the public arena as a group, preferring to come forward as citizen activists rather than as people of faith.

We are vigilant guardians of the separation of church and state, but there's a strange dissonance to that separation. For our tradition teaches us that religion is about being whole, about putting our ideals into action, and about working for the common good. Shouldn't that give us as much authority to speak from our faith as the bible gives Jerry Falwell?

What holds us back, Jim Wallis writes, is that many liberals are fundamentalists too: secular fundamentalists. His provocative insight is one we should consider. Secular fundamentalists "attack all political figures who dare to speak from the religious convictions. From the Anti-Defamation League, to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, to the ACLU and some of the political Left's most religion-fearing publications," Wallis writes, "a cry of alarm has gone up in response to anyone who has the audacity to be religious in public. These secular skeptics," Wallis continues, "often display an amazing lapse of historical memory when they suggest that religious language in politics is contrary to the 'American ideal.' The truth is just the opposite."

Secular fundamentalists, according to Wallis, "make a fundamental mistake. They believe that the separation of church and state ought to mean the separation of faith from public life." But there is a big difference, Wallis contends, between the fundamentalist move towards theocracy and the natural and healthy move to connect religious values with the common good.

Fundamentalists have it wrong. But what is a religious liberal supposed to do? It's time to ask ourselves that question. Even if we don't know exactly how to answer it yet.

I am uncomfortable with the invocation of religious platitudes at public events. I am dismayed by political speeches that end with a pious "God Bless America." I have turned down invitations to pray over public school graduations because I think prayer doesn't belong in public schools. I am a staunchly loyal member of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and I almost always agree with the hard line they draw on such issues. I'm sure I have more in common with the secular fundamentalists than any other kind.

But I have not given up on finding ways to put my faith into action and I don't think any of us shouldgive up. Here are two recent experiences I offer as examples. Just weeks ago, after a difficult and protracted year of negotiations, the hotel workers union here in Los Angeles won a very good contract. Several church members and I have been involved in this interfaith collaboration of clergy and laity with the workers, the union, and the hotels, to bring about a fair resolution. What we called a "David and Goliath" struggle resulted in an agreement that was far better than I would have predicted. Many factors were responsible for this happy outcome. One of them was the role of religious faith in action.

We were not as successful in winning enough votes to pass the "Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act" in the California legislature this spring. This bill would have made civil marriage legal for same sex couples in our state. When the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry co-sponsored an interfaith lobby day for this bill a couple of months ago, our affiliate minister Silvio Nardoni and I went to Sacramento to take part. The issue goes directly to our Unitarian Universalist principle affirming the inherent worth and dignity of every individual. We learned that many of the legislators who supported the bill did so because of their religious faith too, even though it was different from ours. The human need for love to be respected and validated by our social institutions cuts across many boundaries. Some day it will cut across all of them. In the meantime, I am heartened by how much people of faith can share, even around a controversial issue such as this one.

There are many ways for religious liberals to enter the public arena today. Our tradition gives us good role models: abolitionist and minister Theodore Parker, to name just one, who preached against slavery from his Boston pulpit. As Jim Wallis points out, "Of course, Martin Luther King Jr., did it best. With his Bible in one hand and the Constitution in the other, King persuaded, not just pronounced. He reminded us all of God's purposes for justice, for peace, and for the 'beloved community' where those always left out and behind get a front row seat. And he did it - bringing religion into public life - in a way that was always welcoming, inclusive, and inviting to all who care about moral, spiritual, or religious values. Nobody felt left out of the conversation."

We religious liberals should take heart in the legacy of our tradition and in the inspiration of religious leaders like Theodore Parker and Martin Luther King, that there is a way to let our light shine again. We believe that building the common good means including everyone; and that being a person of faith means putting our faith into action. Let us live our faith in this spirit, the spirit we know and yearn to share, in a world that needs us now more than ever.

The reference for this sermon is "God's Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," by Jim Wallis (New York: HarperCollins, 2005).