• Home - America's Quilt of Faith
  • American Families of Faith Project
  • National Museum of American Religion
  • Pilot Virtue of Faith Survey
    • 2nd Mount Olive Baptist Church - Brownsville, VA
    • St. James Episcopal Church - Leesburg, VA
    • Northern Virginia Baha'i - Sterling, VA
  • Religion City, USA
  • FaithToSelfGovern BLOG
  • Religious Data - Interactive
  • Faith to Self Govern - documentary TV series proposal
  • American Pilgrimage Project

Mike McCurry and his faith - 2/21/14, Washington Post

2/22/2014

0 Comments

 
Former Clinton spokesman Mike McCurry finds his faith, marries it with politics

By Michelle Boorstein, Published: February 21

Mike McCurry was President Bill Clinton’s spokesman during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky years, so suffice to say he knows what it’s like to feel uncomfortable at a podium. But his typical audience these days scares him in a new way.

A few weeks ago, McCurry, 59, became a teacher in religion and politics at Wesley Theological Seminary, from where he graduated last spring. It marked his official transition from a hard-charging, super-political spin doctor who quietly attended church to a very public evangelizer for the idea that religious values can save “the frozen tundra” of today’s politics.

“I had no problem getting up and doing briefings before millions of people, but I am fearful in front of 12 students that I can’t really fake it,” says McCurry, who spent more than two decades as a political spokesman before going on to do communications for corporations and non-profits. “I’m laying it on the line about who I am and what I believe in a way that’s different. When you’re spokesman for someone else, they don’t care what you think.. These people want to know who I am.”

Who McCurry is is, in part, a hybrid: He derides the political scene but is still very much in it, as an advisor to left-leaning religious advocacy groups and candidates. He almost spits the word “spin doctor” but has remained in communications and image-making his entire life. He’s known both as the guy who prompted great skepticism by declaring himself “out of the loop” on the Clinton-Lewinsky relationship and as an elder statesman of respectful, frank dialogue. The whole point of his program at Wesley is to get seminarians - most of whom are on the progressive side -- to be comfortable merging to merge their faith and politics in the public square. And yet several of his closest friends say he never speaks to them about his own beliefs.

When he left the Clinton Administration in fall of 1998, McCurry wrote on White House stationery to a friend that he wanted to do “something that counts.” Yet his is not a story of some radical conversion, some Chuck Colson kind of thing on the left. It’s a more subtle tale of a guy who has always had both a faith life and a political life, but realized later that the two should be one.

Growing up in Northern California in the churning late 1960s, McCurry’s family was involved in the local Congregational church, which is part of the liberal United Church of Christ. While his parents focused on church music, McCurry eagerly participated in youth group trips to protest against the war in Berkeley. He loved politics.

“The church is what brought me to politics. But I thought: If the church is doing politics, I can go do politics on my own, which is what I did,” he said.

As high school newspaper editor, he had advocated for more racially integrated schools. When he was a senior, he chose to switch to the all-black high school “to attempt to prove the courage of my convictions.”

His father and grandfather worked for the government and he saw public service and politics as a noble calling, an expression of his values. At that point — and for a few decades — he didn’t give a lot of thought to what Christianity taught and what he believed. He also didn’t attend church once he left his parents’ home.

After graduating from Princeton University he went right to Washington to work as a press secretary for Democratic senators and a string of Democratic candidates for the White House (all lost, including Bruce Babbitt, Bob Kerrey and John Glenn).

McCurry was considered a gifted communicator, and even though he hadn’t been part of Clinton’s initial campaign crew (Kerrey was a competitor), in 1994 he was brought from the State Department to the White House.

At that point religion was largely associated in politics with the right wing, and as secular Americans became a larger part of the Democratic Party base, Democrats became increasingly uncomfortable framing their values in spiritual terms. By then, McCurry and his wife, Debra, were parents and had become regulars at St. Paul’s United Methodist church in Kensington, where he taught Sunday school and made the separation between religion and politics more formal.

“I went to church on Sundays but it never dawned on me - it never occurred to me that that should affect how I should behave,” McCurry says. “... “Church for me was a sanctuary away from the world of politics, where I could get away from it all, and have my own spiritual reflections. I wasn’t contemplating what scripture said about right and wrong. It was more like: How can I get through this day?” He never spoke about his faith at the White House.

Speaking openly about faith was not the Democrats’ way, but it wasn’t McCurry’s way either. He was - and is - somewhat private about his faith.

“He’s more likely to talk about John Boehner than John Wesley. I think that’s a side of himself he’s happy to share but reluctant to impose,” said Joe Simitian, a childhood friend with whom McCurry remains close and who went on to become mayor of Palo Alto. Other friends chuckled at the image of McCurry-as-choir-boy, talking about prayer or sitting around reading the Bible quietly.

But the scrutiny of the rough-and-tumble Clinton years began to wear on McCurry. He was a huge defender of the president and of their policies, but says he was hurt when editorial writers or others would question his character. Even though McCurry was popular with reporters, it was the nature of the job for him to evade, bully and sometimes even threaten.

In 1996 a New York Times editorial said McCurry’s “stonewall” on a campaign finance issue had left “his reliability in tatters.” McCurry and the emotional rollercoaster of being at the podium featured prominently in former Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz’s popular 1998 book “Spin Cycle.”

“For the first time in twenty years in public relations, his personal credibility was being questioned, and it hurt,” Kurtz wrote of the time around the editorial.

Meanwhile, his faith remained in a different compartment.

But he began to look at his role in a more critical way when longtime network correspondent Brit Hume “said I was the most political person who had ever been at that podium,” he said. “When Brit said that, it may have been the moment when I said: Am I dialed up too much?”

Ironically, McCurry was popular with the press - and the public - in part because he was seen as relatively transparent.

He remembered reading reporting about himself and thinking: ‘What have I done besides being a spin doctor that has created something important or some common good?”

When he left the White House in late 1998, his pastor said, now “you can do something important,” McCurry recalls. The pastor asked him to take a bigger leadership role at the Sunday School, but at that point, he recalls (in slightly more profane language), he didn’t know that much about Christianity. To fill that gap, he began taking courses at Wesley, a mainline Protestant seminary in Northwest affiliated with McCurry’s Methodist denomination.

He went into private communications consulting with the firm Public Strategies Washington and did some political advising, including at the tail end of John Kerry's 2004 campaign when the Swift Boat controversy was raging. By then his guidelines were clear.

“I said, I’ll do it, but I don’t want to be a mad-dog and say mean things about [George W.] Bush and the other side, ” McCurry says. “...I think that experience for me said: This Christian thing has a practical application, a lightbulb went off. We can have serious debate in this country, without always questioning the other side’s motives. It’s corrosive.”

The Wesley courses slowly shifted his perspective about the purpose of his church life – and of politics. He was fascinated to see how early Christians dealt with similar issues: power politics, sex scandals and the tension between pure morality and the pragmatic pursuit of policy change. And he thought about what he really believed for the first time.

“It brought out for me how you articulate what a creator God is for you. I don’t think I ever thought in those terms. I did my church thing, but as far as: What is God, how is God interacting with you, how is God affecting the world — those are profound questions I’d spent no time thinking about. I began a lifelong search for those answers,” he said.

As he slowly worked toward his degree he began doing some bipartisan presentations to groups like chiefs of staff or Senate staffers. He became increasingly convinced that what modern political life needs is an infusion of basic scriptural values, primarily: treat others with respect. He wanted to help both sides: infuse progressive religious types – such as many of his students – with the skills to be models of effective, and yet loving politics, and get sheer politicos to realize “you don’t need to blast your opponent every time they get a traffic ticket.”

McCurry’s place in Washington public life has changed quite a bit.

Since leaving the White House he has played the role of generous, wise mentor to a generation of progressive Christians. He has advised most of the advocacy organizations that have sprung up in the past decade to give voice to religious liberals who felt conservatives were unfairly claiming the Bible in politics. He began doing some bipartisan presentations to groups like chiefs-of-staff or Senate staffers.

“People are always deferential to him and just want to listen to whatever wisdom he has to share,” said Mara Vanderslice Kelly, who was a faith advisor to Kerry in 2004, a position unheard of at the time for a Democratic presidential candidate, but now slightly more common. “He is incredibly kind and generous. If there is a rough and tumble side to him, it certainly doesn’t come out anymore.”

Another thing that still doesn’t come out a lot is McCurry’s faith.

At a recent Monday afternoon class, he sat around a huge square table in his downtown office with Kelly and the 13 students in Wesley’s National Capitol Semester for Seminarians, which is geared toward students interested in politics or policy.

Kelly recently left the office at the White House that works with faith-based groups, and was telling students about her path. They were animated not by juicy details of the White House, but about her own coming to Christ.

McCurry sat watching, quiet.

“I am not an openly-professing evangelical Christian who tells people on the street: ‘Let me tell you about my pal Jesus.’ I don’t wear my religion out there,” he said later. “That has not been the vocabulary of my world. It’s a little outside the box for me. But I’m getting more comfortable.”

0 Comments

Orthodox Church in America Going Political - 3/20/2011 Washington Post

3/21/2011

0 Comments

 
Metropolitan Jonah goes to Washington By Julia Duin, Sunday, March 20, 11:13 AM They appeared at the edge of the crowd on the Mall, a group of men seemingly out of a distant century. Their heads were crowned with klobuks, the distinctive headgear of Orthodox clergy. Sporting black cassocks and untrimmed gray beards, with golden icons dangling from their necks on long chains, these visitors stood out among the crowd clad in jeans and winter coats. The man in their center carried a bejeweled walking stick.

Metropolitan Jonah, 51, leads the Orthodox Church in America, the second-largest Eastern Orthodox body in the United States. He was there to rally the huddled masses waiting in the freezing air to begin the March for Life, the annual demonstration protesting the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion nationwide. His aim was to boost Orthodox participation in political issues. But his efforts to change the OCA would spark a ferocious reaction from his own bishops one month later. At issue is the very nature of Orthodoxy in the New World.

The tensions began with Jonah’s surprise election as head (or “metropolitan”) of the OCA in late 2008. The new leader, who is the first native-born convert to head the church, wasted little time instituting change. He put word out to his bishops and seminarians that their presence was expected at the March for Life, held every January. It was time, he would later tell a reporter, for the Orthodox “to step out in the public square” on a number of social concerns, including abortion. To encourage such stepping out, Jonah also decided to move the offices of the OCA from its isolated Syosset, N.Y., chancery to St. Nicholas Cathedral in Northwest Washington.

On the morning of the march, Jonah preached an uncompromising Gospel at the cathedral. “We need to see and call things what they are and not in some disguised politically correct language,” he said, dressed in resplendent gold brocade vestments, his salt-and-pepper beard making him appear like an Old Testament prophet. “Abortion is the taking of human life.”

Jonah continued: “So often, people think that if we name sin for what it is, that we’re judging people. No, we’re just pointing out reality. It is not a matter of judgment to say abortion is a sin. It is not a matter of judgment to say that homosexual activity is a sin. It is a matter of simply stating the truth of the Gospel, the good news of Jesus Christ.”

A few hours later at the march — while 80 Orthodox seminarians from New York and Pennsylvania stood, shivering, underneath a large “Orthodox Christians for Life” sign — Jonah told his listeners to stand firm against “the plague of abortion.” He received a rousing ovation. As he swept away down the steps, various clergy kissed his hand, and Washington’s Cardinal Donald Wuerl came up to greet him.

“He is energetic and anxious to move quickly,” said the Rev. Chad Hatfield, chancellor of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary who had accompanied several dozen students to the rally. “Jonah is not as cautious as some people would like him to be. He is bold, forthright and speaks his mind.

“Sometimes that can be messy.”

As Metropolitan Jonah already has found out.

***

Jonah’s move to Washington strikes at the core of the traditional Eastern Orthodox reluctance to be on the front lines of the culture wars, much less political conflicts. The religion’s 1 million American adherents, who remain split into 20 separate ethnic groups, are more likely known to the general public as sponsors of bazaars featuring Slavic or Mediterranean food, crafts and dancing than as societal firebrands.

“Orthodox Christianity tends to be heavily theological and more concerned with matters of doctrine, liturgy and belief than evangelical Protestants and certainly the conservative Christian right,” said Rabbi Niles Goldstein, a senior fellow at the Utah-based Foundation for Interreligious Diplomacy. “They’re wrestling with how to find this balance between Christianity and activism, which makes it difficult for them to speak with a unified voice on social policy and foreign affairs.”

But Jonah sees American Orthodoxy at a crossroads where the choice is either to remain in ethnic enclaves and be irrelevant or jump into the stream of culture and politics and make a difference. He dreams of Orthodox Americans speaking out “as a conscience for the culture.” They would have clout in Congress, advocating for persecuted Orthodox around the world, such as the Egyptian Copts. They would stand equal with evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics in opposing abortion, same-sex marriage, cloning and euthanasia. St. Nicholas would be a hive of missionary work and outreach.

Jonah’s insistence that his church address the pressing issues of the day is a gauntlet thrown down before the feet of his fellow Orthodox leaders, and it has not sat well with the OCA’s governing bodies. In the last week of February, Jonah faced a revolt among his own bishops at a conclave in Santa Fe, N.M. According to an OCA news release, Jonah kept his job but was relieved of several duties and sent on a two-month retreat during Lent.

In reporting on the Santa Fe meeting, the news Web site Orthodox Christians for Accountability — an opposition voice against Jonah — assailed Jonah’s “leadership style, decisions, practices or actions.” Although many of the decisions in question had to do with internal church matters, the first one listed was Jonah’s move to Washington.

In an earlier interview, Web site editor Mark Stokoe, who is also a member of the church’s Metropolitan Council, or executive body, spoke out against the move. He called it “a major decision that should be considered carefully in the context of the finances and the strategic plan by the entire church. To play the game in Washington takes a lot of money, and the OCA is not a wealthy church.”

And Jonah says his mind is made up. The church’s drafty Syosset headquarters building, originally a summer cottage, is racking up enormous utility bills. And Washington, he adds, is the perfect home base for “a united Orthodox voice speaking out against iniquity or advocating good things.”

But just as not everyone believes the Orthodox should be speaking out, not everyone believes they need to be united.

***

The world’s Christians generally were united during their first millennium. The first break came in 1054, when medieval Christianity split in two over theological and papal issues. From then on, its western — or Latin — branch would be led by the bishop of Rome, otherwise known as the pope. Its eastern — or Greek — branch would fall under the bishop, or patriarch, of Constantinople, whose distant successor is Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, head of the Greek Orthodox Church in Istanbul.

These two expressions of world Christianity have vastly different rites and some diverging doctrines and practices. They disagree on the wording of the Nicene Creed, the major Christian profession of faith. The Orthodox allow married men to be priests; Catholics do not. Catholics believe in papal infallibility and primacy of the pope among the world’s bishops. The Orthodox do not.

Worldwide, there are 250 million Orthodox to 1 billion Roman Catholics. In the United States, the 1 million Orthodox are vastly outnumbered by about 68 million Catholics. The Orthodox took longer to anchor themselves in America than Catholics did, with multiple countries establishing their own national Orthodox churches on American soil, none of them wishing to merge.

In 1970, the Russians made their daughter church independent, naming it the Orthodox Church in America in the hope that other Orthodox bodies would unite under that title. The move infuriated several other Orthodox churches, especially the Greeks, the largest of America’s Orthodox branches at 477,000 members.

Of the top American Orthodox branches, the OCA, with about 85,000 members, has the highest percentage of Sunday service attenders at 40 percent weekly and has grown the most in the past decade, at 21 percent. Much of the growth has come from converts — evangelical Protestant ones at that — whose presence has helped steer the OCA in a more conservative direction.

***

Born in 1959 as James Paffhausen, Jonah was a church acolyte as a boy, says younger sister Laurie Paffhausen. Her brother was a tease, she remembers, who loved to cook and once served her octopus as a joke when they were teenagers. Even though their family roots were German, he was fascinated with Russian culture early on and painted icons in the family garage in La Jolla, Calif. “He is not the typical brother,” she said. “He’s got an amazing sense of humor. He’s driven.”

The Episcopal Church’s decision in 1976 to ordain women turned Jonah away from his denomination, she said, and he converted to Orthodoxy in 1978 as a college student at the University of California at San Diego. He got two master’s degrees from St. Vladimir’s, then began work on a doctorate. In 1993, after he turned 34, he took a year off from his job as a vice president of his father’s San Diego mortgage company to go to Russia.

At the time, Jonah had a girlfriend. If an Orthodox candidate for the priesthood wishes to marry, he must do so before ordination. Then, if his wife dies, he cannot remarry.

Jonah spent several months pondering his future at Valaam Monastery, north of St. Petersburg, where he was introduced to a venerable Orthodox elder known as Kyrill. “Should I get married, or should I become a monk?” he recalls asking Kyrill.

“Become a priest-monk,” the old man said.

Jonah was torn. “You count the cost and look to see if I could do this or not, and I decided yes, with God’s grace,” he says now. “Did I like the idea? Not particularly. I liked the world. I did want to get married and have a family. But I realized I had another path. The whole point of Christian practice of asceticism is you deny yourself what is good for what is better for you.”

As for the girlfriend?

“She did not react well.”

Jonah’s sojourn in Russia proved to be a smart career move. His contacts with the motherland, his reputation as an astute speaker at Orthodox spiritual retreats and his expertise as the founding abbot at St. John of San Francisco monastery in Manton, Calif., caught the eye of several dioceses. On Nov. 1, 2008, he was made bishop of Fort Worth.

Meanwhile, the OCA seemed bent on writing its own obituary. Scandalous news began leaking out in 2005: Its highest officials were accused of using at least $4.5 million in donations to cover personal credit card bills, pay sexual blackmail and support family members. By fall 2008, the church’s reigning leader, Metropolitan Herman, then 76 and in office for six years, had been forced out, a chancellor had been defrocked and many staff members in Syosset had been removed.

In November, shortly after Jonah’s appointment to Fort Worth, a council of stunned OCA leaders met in Pittsburgh to elect Herman’s successor. On Nov. 11, the little-known, newly appointed junior bishop gave an electrifying 31-minute speech calling for reform and talking bluntly about “corrupt” leaders who had “raped” the OCA and created a culture of “fear and intimidation” throughout the church.

“He was wildly received,” Metropolitan Council member Stokoe remembers. “Jonah clearly stood out after his speech the night before the election. At the end of the day, here was a fresh-faced bishop who had no involvement in the scandal.”

The next day, Nov. 12, more than two dozen names, including Jonah’s, were on the first ballot to elect a new metropolitan. The council gave Jonah a majority on the second ballot; he was elected in a final vote in which only the OCA bishops were allowed to cast ballots. When the waiting crowd saw its new metropolitan, vested in a light blue cape and white klobuk, it applauded passionately.

That evening, Jonah called his family to break the news. He seemed so ebullient that his sister remembers asking, “Are you tripping?”

“This is the biggest trip on the planet,” he told her.

***

Within months, Jonah was making waves inside and outside the church. At an Orthodox gathering at St. Seraphim Cathedral in Dallas in April 2009, Jonah called the leadership of Patriarch Bartholomew “a foreign patriarchate . . . under Islamic domination.”

Jonah said of his plan to unite Orthodox Americans, “I think we have a better solution.”

His remarks went viral, and criticism poured in; two days later, he apologized for his “uncharitable” statements. OCA leaders would continue to fume over Jonah’s lack of tact.

Last May, another controversial communication ended up on the Internet: a letter to the U.S. Armed Forces Chaplains Board about the proposed end to the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. Jonah threatened to pull his 26 OCA clergymen (more than half the total number of Orthodox chaplains) out of the military if they were forced to officiate at same-sex unions or to condone homosexual behavior. An Orthodox priest would minister to a gay person by calling on him or her “to repent, to change his or her lifestyle, to renounce the ‘gay identity’ and to embrace a Christian lifestyle of chastity, . . .” Jonah wrote. “The Orthodox Church firmly opposes the validation of homosexuality in any form.”

No other Orthodox leaders spoke up alongside him. He stood alone until the Rabbinical Alliance of America, an Orthodox Jewish group, issued a similar statement, as did Catholic Military Archbishop Timothy Broglio. To date, Jonah has not pulled any chaplains out of the military.

Not everyone agreed with his approach. “Many were embarrassed by it, for its overstatement,” Stokoe said of Jonah’s letter. “It is one thing to affirm a position, quite another to say, ‘It will be the end!’ when clearly, it will not be.”

Others said it was about time the head of a Christian denomination took a stand on this issue. “The word in OCA circles is that Jonah has angered some of the old guard by his outspokenness on hot-button culture-war issues like abortion and gay marriage,” said former Beliefnet.com columnist Rod Dreher, an Orthodox Christian from Philadelphia. “The teaching of the Orthodox Church on these points is crystal clear, and thank God, Jonah is making himself seen and heard. Where are the other Orthodox hierarchs? Christian witness in the public square requires more than showing up for kebabs and folk dancing.”

Added Dreher: “Jonah is not perfect, but he’s the leader we need right now.”

Hatfield, the seminary chancellor, thinks the “don’t ask, don’t tell” letter was merely Jonah’s opening salvo. “Jonah is coming to terms with a vision where he wants to take the church,” he said, “and it involves being high-profile in the vexing issues of the 21st century.”

But being high-profile has become a vexing issue for the OCA, some of whose members see Jonah as an inexperienced leader who has moved too fast and has made major miscalculations in trying to change his church. Their new metropolitan is not expected to make any further moves until the end of April, when his Lenten rest comes to an end.

The freshly chastened Jonah does not seem to be abandoning his principles, however. He appeared before worshipers at St. Nicholas Cathedral on the last Sunday in February, just after his disastrous meeting in New Mexico. Clutching his crosier in his left hand, his eyes cast down, he read from a statement denying “inaccurate reporting on the Internet stating that I had been deposed, that I had resigned or that I am on a leave of absence.” He would be going on retreat, he said, but this would be no hideout in an isolated monastery. Instead, he would be spending time with family and attending and celebrating liturgies at his Washington cathedral, the place he had made his new home.

“I am still your metropolitan,” he said. “I am still your diocesan bishop. I am still the active primate of the Orthodox Church of America. . . . l I love you. . . .” He then paused as he battled tears. “I thank you for your continued support and prayers. . . . Now, let us forget about what lies behind and push forward to what lies ahead.”



Julia Duin, whose most recent book is “Days of Fire and Glory,” is a religion writer living in Maryland. She can be reached at [email protected].

0 Comments

A Religious Test All Our Politicians Should Take - 9/19/10 Washington Post Article

9/23/2010

0 Comments

 
A religious test all our political candidates should take
By Damon Linker
Sunday, September 19, 2010; B01




Fifty years ago, in the midst of his presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, Sen. John F. Kennedy gave a speech to ease voters' concerns about his Catholic faith. Speaking in Houston, Kennedy emphasized that Article VI of the Constitution maintains that no "religious test" may keep a candidate from aspiring to political office. He went further, implying that his Catholicism should be off limits to public scrutiny. To treat a politician's religious beliefs as politically relevant was an affront to America's noblest civic traditions, he declared.

The speech was a huge success -- and not only because it helped Kennedy win. Its most enduring legacy was to persuade journalists, critics and citizens at large not to question the political implications of candidates' religious beliefs. While it was still acceptable to assess the dangers of generic "religion" in public life, evaluating particular faiths came to be viewed as bigotry.

No longer. Since the rise of the religious right in the late 1970s, traditionalist believers have actively injected faith into the political realm, pushing public figures to place their religious convictions at the core of their civic identities and political campaigns. From Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, U.S. presidents have made overt -- and largely innocuous -- gestures toward satisfying this expectation.

Today, President Obama's religious beliefs are at the forefront of public debate. While Fox News personality Glenn Beck decries Obama's alleged left-leaning Christianity as "liberation theology," nearly a fifth of the country believes, mistakenly, that the president is a Muslim. It is tempting to stick with the old Kennedy argument and respond that the president's faith is irrelevant as well as off limits. But it is neither.

The battles over an Islamic community center in Lower Manhattan and a Florida pastor's threat to burn the Koran on Sept. 11 underscore the relevance of political leaders' views on faith -- their own as well as others'. Instead of attempting the impossible task of abolishing faith from the political conversation, we need a new kind of religious test for our leaders. Unlike the tests proscribed by the Constitution, this one would not threaten to formally bar members of specific traditions from public office. But religious convictions do not always harmonize with the practice of democratic government, and allowing voters to explore the dissonance is legitimate.

Every religion is radically particular, with its own distinctive beliefs about God, human history and the world. These are specific, concrete claims -- about the status of the religious community in relation to other groups and to the nation as a whole, about the character of political and divine authority, about the place of prophecy in religious and political life, about the scope of human knowledge, about the providential role of God in human history, and about the moral and legal status of sex. Depending on where believers come down on such issues, their faith may or may not clash with the requirements of democratic politics. To help us make that determination, all candidates for high office should have to take the religious test, which would include the following questions:

How might the doctrines and practices of your religion conflict with the fulfillment of your official duties?

This question would be especially pertinent for evangelical Protestant candidates -- such as Mike Huckabee, an ordained Southern Baptist minister -- who belong to faith traditions that emphasize transforming the world in the image of their beliefs. The Southern Baptist confession of faith asserts, for instance, that "all Christians are under obligation to seek to make the will of Christ supreme . . . in human society." What would this mean for a Southern Baptist seeking to lead a nation that includes many millions of non-Christians?

Muslim candidates, meanwhile, should be asked to discuss their view of the proper place of sharia law in a religiously pluralistic society. Jewish candidates, too, should be questioned about their faith, as Sen. Joe Lieberman was during his 2000 campaign for the vice presidency, when he was asked to explain how he would negotiate the inevitable tension between the laws of religious observance (including the Sabbath) and serving the nation at its highest level.

How would you respond if your church issued an edict that clashed with the duties of your office?

This would apply primarily to candidates who belong to churches that make strong claims about the divine authority of their leaders. The Roman Catholic hierarchy, for example, has frequently asserted that the authority of the pope and bishops is binding in matters of faith and morals. As Sen. John F. Kerry learned during his 2004 presidential campaign, members of the hierarchy have begun to demand that Catholic politicians not only refrain from having abortions and encouraging women to procure them, but also work to outlaw the procedure -- even though the Supreme Court has declared it a constitutionally protected right, and even if the candidate's constituents are overwhelmingly pro-choice.

The dilemma faced by devout Mormon candidates is potentially greater. Mormons believe that the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a prophet of God, which seems to give his statements far greater weight than those of any earthly authority, including the president of the United States. In his campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, Mitt Romney skirted questions related to his Mormonism by playing down its theological distinctiveness. "The values that I have are the same values you will find in faiths across this country," Romney said in one debate. If he (or another Mormon) runs for the presidency in 2012 or beyond, he should explain how he would respond to a prophetic pronouncement that conflicted with his presidential duties.

What do you believe human beings can know about nature and history?

Many evangelical Protestants and Pentecostals believe in biblical inerrancy, which leads them to treat the findings of natural science (especially those of evolutionary biology) with suspicion. Many of these Christians also believe that God regularly intervenes in history, directing global events, guiding U.S. actions in the world for the sake of divine ends and perhaps even leading humanity toward an apocalyptic conflagration in the Middle East. Potential candidates who belong to churches associated with such thinking, such as the Pentecostal Sarah Palin, owe it to their fellow citizens to elaborate on their views of modern science and the U.S. role in the unfolding of the end times. Given the ominous implications of a person with strong eschatological convictions becoming the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, it would be profoundly irresponsible not to ask tough questions about the topic.

Do you believe the law should be used to impose and enforce religious views of sexual morality?

America's traditional religious consensus on sexual morality -- which supported laws against abortion and all forms of non-procreative sex, from masturbation to oral and anal sex, whether practiced by members of the same or different genders, inside or outside of marriage -- began to break down in the 1960s. The nation today is sharply divided between those whose views of sex are still grounded in the norms and customs of traditionalist religion and those who no longer feel bound by those norms and customs. Given this lack of consensus, the law has understandably retreated from enforcing religiously grounded views, leaving it up to individuals to decide how to regulate their sexual conduct.

The religious right hopes to reverse this retreat. That opens the troubling prospect of the state seeking to impose the sexual morals of some Americans on the nation as a whole. All candidates -- especially those who court the support of the religious right -- need to clarify where they stand on the issue. Above all, they need to indicate whether they believe it is possible or desirable to use the force of law to uphold a sexual morality affirmed by a fraction of the people.

Asking candidates about their faith should not be taken as a sign of anti-religious animus. On the contrary, this sort of questioning takes faith seriously -- certainly more seriously than most of our politicians and news media currently do. Candidates think they benefit from making a show of their faith, and journalists, aiming to avoid uncomfortable confrontations, usually allow them to leave their pronouncements at the level of platitudes. We need to go further.

Pastor Rick Warren's conversation with John McCain and Barack Obama during the 2008 presidential campaign was a move in the right direction, though Warren was such an anodyne interviewer that the candidates were permitted to speak mainly in bromides. Better, perhaps, would be a special presidential debate devoted to faith and morality, in which journalists and religious leaders would pose pointed questions about candidates' beliefs.

It matters quite a lot if, in the end, a politician's faith is merely an ecumenical expression of American civil religion -- or if, when taking the religious test, he forthrightly declares (as Kennedy did) that in the event of a clash between his spiritual and political allegiances, the Constitution would always come first. Those are the easy cases. In others -- when a politician denies the need to choose or explain, insisting simply that it's possible to marry his or her religious beliefs with democratic rule in a pluralistic society -- we need to dig deeper, to determine as best we can how the candidate is likely to think and act when the divergent demands of those two realms collide, as they inevitably will.

Obama's 2008 speech on the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his own Christian faith and its complicated intersection with the wrenching story of race in America stands as a particularly eloquent example of how to take -- and pass -- the religious test. Obama resisted giving the speech, but many Americans learned something important about the man and his mind as they listened to him talk through some of life's deepest moral, political and spiritual questions. A political process that compelled candidates to engage regularly in such thinking about the tensions and links between faith and governance just might foster increased religious understanding -- which, these days, feels in short supply.

[email protected]

Damon Linker, a contributing editor at the New Republic and a senior writing fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, is the author of "The Religious Test: Why We Must Question the Beliefs of Our Leaders."

var comments_url = "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/17/AR2010091702623_Comments.html" ; var article_id = "AR2010091702623" ;
0 Comments

    Author

    Chris Stevenson investigates the indispensability of faith to the American experiment in self-governance. 

    Archives

    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    August 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    April 2010
    February 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    July 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008

    Categories

    All
    Accountability
    American Civil War
    American Culture
    American Exceptionalism
    American History
    American Presidents
    American Religion
    Art
    Article Vi Of The Constitution
    Atheism
    Baseball
    Belief
    Belonging
    Bible
    Blur Laws
    Calamity
    Canada
    Catholicisim
    Chaplaincy
    Chaplains
    Charter Schools
    Chastity
    Children
    Christianity
    Christmas
    Church
    Church And State
    Church Attendance
    Church Construction
    Churches
    Church Schools
    Civil Rights
    Classroom
    Commandments
    Community
    Compassion
    Confidence
    Costs
    Creator
    Culture
    Denominationalism
    Devil
    Devotional
    Divisiveness
    Divorce
    Education
    Empathy
    Entertainment
    Episcopal Church
    Evangelism
    Evolution
    Extremism
    Faith
    Faith Healing
    Faith-healing
    Family
    Fidelity
    First Amendment
    Foreign Policy
    Forgiveness
    Freedom Of Conscience
    Gideons
    God
    Grandparents
    Haiti
    Harry Truman
    Healing
    Health
    Home
    Homeless
    Honesty
    Hope
    Humanitarianism
    Humanities
    Humility
    Humor
    Hungry
    Individualism
    Inmates
    Inner City
    Interfaith
    Interfaith Marriage
    Jesus Christ
    Jewish Faith
    Kindness
    Kingdom Of God
    Laws
    Leesburg Virginia
    Lent
    Light
    Love
    Lutheran Church
    Marriage
    Martin Luther King
    Mass Media
    Materialism
    Meaning
    Medicine
    Mennonite
    Miracles
    Mission
    Missionary
    Modesty
    Morality
    Moses
    Music
    Nationalism
    National Museum Of American Religion
    National Religious Monuments
    Nature
    Non-violence
    Orthodox Church In America
    Parenting
    Patriotism
    Places Of Faith
    Politics
    Poverty
    Prayer
    Prayer Groups
    Prisoners
    Prison Ministry
    Progress
    Promise
    Prophets
    Proselytizing
    Public Utility
    Punishment
    Purpose
    Racism
    Reconciliation
    Refugees
    Religion
    Religion And Liberty
    Religion And Politics
    Religion And War
    Religion In Europe
    Religious Clothing
    Religious Decline
    Religious Freedom
    Religious Liberty
    Religious Test
    Repentance
    Rewards
    Righteousness
    Sabbath Day
    Sacrifice
    School
    Scriptures
    Secularism
    Self Government
    Self-government
    Selfishness
    Selflessness
    Self-segregating
    Serpent-handling
    Social Capital
    Societal Cohesion
    Spirituality
    Sports
    Stem Cells
    Suffering
    Supreme Court
    Symbols
    Teaching
    Teaching Values
    Technology
    Ten Commandments
    Thanksgiving
    Theodore Roosevelt
    The Pope
    Tolerance
    TV
    Understanding
    Unitarian Universalism
    Unity
    Urban Decay
    U.S. Senate
    Values Education
    Violence
    Virtue
    Wall Of Separation
    War
    Wisconsin
    Witnessing
    World History
    World War II
    Ymca
    Youth

    RSS Feed

✕