Baptist Perspectives On Saddleback Civil Forum

Mark McEntire is an Associate Professor of Religion at Belmont University in Nashville. In his recent column for EthicsDaily.com titled How Fast Can Rick Warren Spin?, McEntire argues that last Saturday's Civil Forum on the Presidency held at Saddleback Church and hosted by the Saddleback Civil Forum (not Saddleback Church) violates the separation of church and state.

McEntire writes:

Let me confess that I believed from the beginning that the so-called "Faith Forum" held on Aug. 16 at the Saddleback Church in California and hosted by its pastor, Rick Warren, was a bad idea.

First, the idea that the two major candidates for president can be summoned to the church of a prominent pastor to kiss his ring and receive his blessing violates both my commitment to the separation of church and state and the kind of communal humility the church ought to demonstrate.

Second, the whole idea of a "faith forum" is a violation of at least the spirit of Article VI of the United States Constitution, which says that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." We have now reached a place in American society where it would be simply impossible for a person who is not a practicing Christian to make a serious run for president, or for lesser offices in most places in our country. Not only must a candidate be a practicing Christian, but he or she must be willing to talk about religious faith endlessly.

Other Baptists were skeptical of the Saddleback forum as well. On his blog, Southern Seminary President Al Mohler wrote:

Suffice it to say that I was not very hopeful about the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency held at the California megachurch last Saturday night. In the first place, I am not really comfortable with the idea of hosting such a politically charged event in a church. No matter how the event is planned and projected, once the event starts it can turn into something far more politically volatile than planned. That is a truth I have learned by hard experience.

Welton Gaddy, another Baptist minister and Executive Director of The Interfaith Alliance, expressed sentiments similar to those of McEntire and Mohler. Gaddy writes:

I approached Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum with much anticipation, but without a clear idea of how he would handle the sensitive issues at the intersection of religion and politics. I believe Pastor Warren set an example of civility that I hope others will follow, but at the same time some of his questions crossed a line that makes this election seem as if we are electing a pastor-in-chief rather than a commander-in-chief.

Meanwhile, Brent Walker - the Executive Director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty - offers a different perspective over at Newsweek's ON FAITH religion blog. Walker, an ordained Baptist minister and lawyer writes:

It is good to hear a prominent, evangelical pastor profess his belief in the separation of church and state. I also applaud Rev. Rick Warren's suggestion that separation of church and state does not require a separation of faith and politics. Clearly, there was nothing wrong, as some have suggested, with holding the forum in a church.

Separation of church and state is simply a shorthand expression for the rights guaranteed by Article VI of the Constitution (no religious test for public office) and the First Amendment (no establishment of religion, and no prohibition on the free exercise of religion). What the separation of church and state does not mean is that Americans must - or even should - segregate faith from politics. Nothing in the Constitution or our political culture compels Americans to divorce the moral values born of their religious faith from their decision on which political candidates and policies to support. Answers to questions about a candidate's faith should always be followed up by questions about how that faith will influence governance. Rev. Warren did a pretty good job of doing this throughout the evening.

Southern Baptist layman Charles "Chuck" Colson of the Prison Fellowship ministry seems to concur with Walker. Colson declares that Warren "got Church-State Balance Right." Here is Colson:

Warren stated it exactly right: There's an institutional separation between church and state. But faith and politics deal with the same questions--how we organize our common lives together. And faith's job is to bring moral truth to the exercise of politics.

The forum was a spectacular success. Most believers gained a much better understanding of where the two candidates stand on issues vital to their faith

I absolutely agree with Brent Walker and Rick Warren. Keeping church and state separate does not mean that we need keep faith and politics separate. In our pluralistic democracy, we must understand that religion and politics will mix, must mix and should mix. But we should remember the wise words of Baptist activists for religious liberty like James Dunn who often declared that "mixing politics and religion is inevitable but merging church an state is inexcusable." We should be aware that there exists "A Proper Mix" between religion and politics. Fortunately, that "proper mix" does not require us to "segregate faith from politics" as Walker notes.

I also tend to agree with Welton Gaddy when he notes that some of Rick Warren's questions "crossed a line." The "what does it mean to trust in Christ" question was probably inappropriate for a Presidential forum. However, as Baptist church-state expert Melissa Rogers has noted, "Warren's questions were generally much better than the ones journalists asked at previous candidate forums that were sponsored by religious groups....Generally speaking, those journalists focused on abstract theological questions and rather sensationalistic questions about the candidates' personal religious practices or sins. "

I'll conclude with a great snippet from an op-ed written by Baptist journalist Ruth Ann Dailey of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Her op-ed can serve as a response to McEntire's claims. Here is Dailey:

One distraught caller to C-Span after the Saturday night forum objected to its entirety, citing Article VI of the Constitution: "No religious test shall ever be required as qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Her objection is illogical. Rick Warren is not the government, and he invited, rather than forced, the candidates to appear at his church....There's a considerable distance between a religious test for public office and a voter's inspection of a candidate. As the Rev. Warren said weeks before the event, "I believe in the separation of church and state, but I do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is simply a worldview, and everybody's got a worldview."

Anguished by the bitter church-state battles of my lifetime, I am grateful for Rick Warren's achievement. From the wall of separation's creation more than 350 years ago to its careful tending Saturday night, the Baptist tradition of the inviolability of the individual conscience has served the nation imperfectly, but well.

He Ain't No JFK

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America — the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "under God" and in God, we do indeed trust.

The original meaning? As opposed to original intent? It's interesting to note that Romney's church-state philosophy parts ways with the "jurisprudence of original intent" promoted by Christian Right leaders since the Reagan era. Everyone from former Attorney General Edwin Meese to the late Chief Justice Rehnquist to nutcases like David Barton have argued consistently that the Founders proscribed the establishment of only a National Church.

According to the Christian Right originalists, the religion clauses of the First Amendment were not intended to apply to the states. Thus, they rejected the historic decision of Everson v. Board of Education which applied (incorporated) the Establishment Clause to each state via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. With statements like "the founders proscribed the establishment of a State Religion" - Romney seems to part ways with the Christian Right by seemingly siding with ardent Baptist separationists like Hugo Black.

Or does he? Mitt's philosophy is ambiguous at best and inconsistent at worst. You'd think being the Mormon candidate trying to woo the evangelical wing of the Republican Party good ole Mitt would offer some consistency in this area?

And then he claims that those who adhere to the separation principle are seeking to remove religion from the public square. Give me a break.

Religion is cheapened when we try to secularize the sacred.

Does Mitt not realize that the Baby Christ is trivialized when placed next to Santa and Rudolph?

For someone who freely talks about his faith day in and day out, it seems a bit disingenuous to claim that religion has been given the boot from the public life of Americans everywhere.

Read more: Brent Walker of the BJC on Mitt Romney.

Baptist Senator's War On Prosperity Preachers

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and scheduled speaker at the upcoming Celebration of a New Baptist Covenant is investigating six prominent televangelists for possible financial misconduct. The six electronic preachers include Paula White, Joyce Meyer, Creflo Dollar, Eddie Long, Kenneth Copeland and Benny Hinn. Grassley is trying to determine whether or not these ministers and their ministries are improperly using their tax-exempt status as churches to shield lavish lifestyles.

In an article on Christianity Today Online, Joel Hunter the Florida megachurch pastor had this to say about Grassley's investigation:

"If your house is in order, you have nothing to fear and much to gain from this process,"

Others fear that Grassley's investigation could set a bad precedent.

Mr. Naked Public Square, Richard John Neuhaus commented:

"James Madison would be telling us, 'Take Alarm! Take Alarm!''' Richard John Neuhaus, editor of the journal First Things, told CT. "This is cause for alarm that a Senate committee would presume to directly exercise financial oversight of religious ministries."

And from Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center:

"There has kind of been an end-run here," contends Charles Haynes, director of the First Amendment Center. The Senate prying into church money matters could be a slippery slope, he said.

"It's legitimate for government to monitor whether or not the laws are being followed by ministries," said Haynes. "Having said that, this is an unusual approach. The danger here is that it can become a fishing expedition … into areas where the First Amendment protects ministries—for example, their beliefs and view of the gospel. They may be controversial or unorthodox or unpopular, but that is none of the business of government."'

This portion of the CT article was quite interesting:

While Grassley is not proposing any changes to the law or tax code, he's suggesting that he may do so after the investigation. "Based on initial review, the way ministries operate has changed significantly over the last 20 years to 25 years, while the tax laws governing them for the most part have not," his office said.

I'm hesitant to say that Grassley's investigation is a GOOD thing. The principle of separation requires that the government stay out of the business of the church. But a $23,000 commode? Private jets. Expensive toilets. Costly conference tables. Riding in style in Rolls Royces and Bentleys. The lavish lifestyles of these ministers is disturbing.

Nonetheless, perhaps Grassley should have allowed the IRS to investigate these mega-ministers. After all, the IRS is the body that determines if houses of worship are following the law as to their tax exempt status. I tend to agree with Roland Martin of CNN who observed that Grassley's investigation could potentially have a chilling effect on churches "because ANY politician who is ticked off with a church - maybe one where a pastor endorsed his or her rival - could use their influence to demand the records of a church." If you'll take a stroll down memory lane, you might recall that some accused the Bush Administration of using the IRS to go after congregations (All Saints Episcopal) that were quite outspoken in their opposition to the Iraq War

I'm quite sympathetic to this blogger who wrote:

Granted, any fiscal abuse within any church should be stopped. But isn't it the responsibility of those parishioners who give their money to the church to do so? And don't they usually do so? It seems a bit of a reach for the U.S. Senate to be involved in the private faith lives of individual Americans and their places of worship.

What say you?