Are We a Theocracy?
Sermon by Steve Edington
September 24, 2006
I got a notice a few days ago through the Nashua Area Interfaith Council website of a book signing next week at a Congregational church in Portsmouth. The author is Dr. Bob Edgar. He's the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, which is the umbrella organization for most mainline Protestant denominations in the United States. Before taking this post, as an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church, Mr. Edgar was a six term Member of Congress. Our own UUA has observer status with the National Council, but we're not full members since we are not a definitively Christian body.
Shortly before our invasion of Iraq Mr. Edgar organized a delegation of American religious leaders to go to Baghdad to gauge what the effect of an invasion would be on the Iraqi people. One of those making that trip was our former UUA President, Rev. John Buehrens. John subsequently gave a report on his trip - and his serious forebodings about what this war would mean - here in our sanctuary back in March of 2003. Much of what he and Mr. Edgar's delegation forecast has proven to be true in horribly tragic ways. I know that some of you here today were also here when Rev. Buehrens gave his presentation from this pulpit three and a half years ago.
Mr. Edgar's book is titled MIDDLE CHURCH: Reclaiming the Moral Values of the Faithful Majority from the Religious Right. His appearance in Portsmouth is being sponsored by the New Hampshire Council of Churches. Since his book has just been released I haven't had a chance to read it. But I can offer a few lines from the promotional material that gives a good idea of its tone and flavor:
"The moral issues that really matter to America's faithful majority - the 'Middle Church' - are peace, poverty, and planet Earth. Despite the Bible's emphasis upon social justice issues, the politics of faith have been captured in this country by a radical minority with a narrow and highly divisive agenda... In a stunning reversal of the historic role of religion in progressive change, faith has now been co-opted into a force for preventive war, indifference to the poor, and reckless environmental degradation... It was religious leaders who led movements to abolish slavery, enfranchise women, and achieve civil rights. Middle Church identifies the common ground on which people of faith can unite and shows how this faithful majority can put tolerance, social justice, and love at the top of the political agenda of this country again." I've put some flyers about Dr. Edgar's appearance on the Information Table.
I got this material as I was beginning to organize my thoughts for my sermon for today. And I tried to imagine how some of the leaders and spokespersons for some of the religious right organizations and causes in this country would respond to the charges Mr. Edgar is leveling at them - and the appeal he is making to persons of faith who are of a more moderate to liberal religious persuasion to bring their values to bear in the public and political arena. It would probably go like this: "Why is it when religious moderates and liberals try to have an impact on public policy it's always about such high-minded matters as peace and love and social justice and caring for the poor and the disenfranchised, and when we religious conservatives try to make our impact on public policy and on our civic life we get accused of trying to create, or impose, an American theocracy?" My sermon for today is about how I would respond to this question and charge. The title, as noted, is "Are We A Theocracy?"
Those of you who have been listening to me hold forth from this pulpit for lo these many years have probably already guessed that we've now come to the part where I say, "Let's take a few steps back now so we can gain some perspective on this issue." So, let's take a few steps back now so we can gain some perspective on this issue. For today the "few steps back" we're taking are to the time of the writing of our country's Constitution.
Our Constitution was written in the wake of a movement called the European Enlightenment; and its authors, by and large, were persons who had been strongly influenced by that movement. I can only give the Enlightenment a very superficial treatment in just a few minutes time. Entire college courses are devoted to it. But I'll try to hit of few of the high points. The Enlightenment, among many other things, was an affirmation of the use and power of human reason and rationality in human affairs - including how human beings could govern themselves. It was also a repudiation of the idea of "rule by religion", as exemplified in the principle of the Divine Right of a Monarch - the idea, that is, that a King or Queen ruled at the authority and behest of God and as such could do no wrong. It was because of the influence of the Enlightenment that George Washington refused an offer to be King of the newly independent America, and worked to implement a form of Constitutional government instead. Our Constitution, then, is an explicit rejection of theocratic rule. It was the values of the Enlightenment that also made possible the advent of the Scientific Era and what we now call the Modern Age.
The advocates of Enlightenment values and principles did not deny the many and often tragic flaws and failings of human beings which threaten and bedevil us to this day. And there are many aspects of this movement that can be rightly challenged in today's post-modern environment. But I continue to highly value the way the advocates of the Enlightenment placed a basic trust in the ability of human reason and human ability and knowledge and insight when it came to such things as governance and discovery and scientific investigation. The fact that our Constitution was written with no reference to a Deity at all is an indication that it is a strictly a secular document, and it reflects the humanistic principles of the Enlightenment.
A noticeable difference, however, between the European and American versions of the Enlightenment had to do with their differing attitudes towards religion. In Europe it was characterized by a certain amount of mistrust and suspicion, if not outright hostility, towards religion - reflecting, again in good measure, a reaction against the excessive power as well as the corruptions of the Catholic Church. There was no such corresponding or comparable hostility in the newly forming America. There had not been several centuries of Church rule on this side of the pond. So the proponents of the Enlightenment in 18th century America were considerably more religion friendly than their European counterparts. The founders of this nation were indeed Christians; but theirs was a Christianity tempered by the principles of the Enlightenment - a combination of faith and reason, that is to say. Seen in that context it is not an accident of history that three of the first six Presidents of the United States were Unitarians - Thomas Jefferson and the two Adamses. [Think of that - the last time we had a father and son as Presidents, they were both Unitarians!]
OK, that's enough stepping back for today, except to point out that what was put in place here nearly 220 years ago was a secular and humanistically based form of governance for a society and a culture that is intensely religious. And having that kind of set-up, or juxtaposition, is a built in formula for tension in our civic and corporate life as a nation. It is a tension and juxtaposition that persists to this day. It is a tension and juxtaposition that, in fact, has served us well at times. As was correctly pointed out in the material on Bob Edgar's book "It was religious leaders who led movements to abolish slavery, enfranchise women, and achieve civil rights."
At the same time it is equally correct to point out that the main opposition to these movements was also on religious grounds. During the Abolitionist Movement for example - which was strongly religiously based - the opponents of abolitionism were able to cite numerous Bible verses, which in their historical and cultural context do indeed validate the institution of slavery; and then used those passages to accuse the Abolitionists of being anti-Biblical and therefore anti-Christian. Those same verses are still in the Bible today. They've not been edited out. But even the most ardent Fundamentalist is not using them to advocate for slavery anymore. Instead however, the very same tactic has now been turned on those who advocate for the full civil rights - including the right to marry - for gay and lesbian persons. That is to say, cherry pick a few Bible verses that condemn homosexuality, completely ignoring their historical and cultural context, and then accuse gay/lesbian advocates of being anti-Biblical and anti-Christian. It is a different verse of the same old song.
These, in fact, are some of the points and issues Kevin Phillips raises in his book American Theocracy. Its subtitle is "The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century." I was originally going to frame my sermon around this book until I discovered that reading it is like walking through a tank of molasses that comes up to your armpits. There's lots a good material in it, but it is written in such a turgid matter that was painful to read even while I'm agreeing with it. I'm treading lightly with it today.
Phillips is a former Republican Party strategist who back in 1969 wrote a very prophetic book called The Emerging Republican Majority. Now he's calling the party of his earlier years the "Party of God" and he does not mean it as a compliment. I think he over-reaches in places, but he does introduce a term I found useful, namely "Theological Correctness," which he maintains is far more pernicious than so-called "political correctness" ever could be. I'll pick up on this point momentarily. Phillips' overall contention is the one I alluded to last week. Constitutionally speaking, and for reasons I've already shown, we are not a theocracy. The word literally means "rule by God" and our Constitution does not even make reference to a Deity. But in certain area of our civic and political life we are behaving in a theocratic manner, wherein what Phillips calls Theological Correctness trumps reason and scientific inquiry and exploration. We have time for just a few quick examples which I'll offer. Take the aforementioned same-sex marriage issue. Let's do the math. By most estimates some 10%, give or take, of our national population is homosexual. Let's say half of these folk wish to marry. So we're talking about a policy that, at most, affects probably 5% of the population. It has nothing at all to do with such pressing matters as income, jobs, access to health care, affordable housing, access to education - and so on down the list of things that actually affect the lives of many Americans. In addition, there is no reasonable evidence from psychology, sociology, anthropology, or any other "ology" one can name, that any harm would befall either individuals or society if same-sex couples are granted the full right to civil marriage. No other "ology," that is, except theology; and only some quite narrowly defined theologies at that. And yet, if some post election surveys are accurate, this was the issue on which the last Presidential election turned in a few key states where the vote was very close. The only grounds for denying access to marriage for same-sex couples are certain narrowly-interpreted religious grounds. And yet these were the grounds that drove and continue to drive the outcomes of certain elections. This is what I mean by theocratic behavior even in the absence of an established theocracy.
Or consider stem cell research - the only issue on which the President has exercised his veto power in over six years in office. Background: A couple who cannot conceive a child in the way that children are usually conceived can, if they can afford it, opt for in vitro fertilization. This usually involves taking several eggs from the potential mother and fertilizing them with sperm from the potential father. One embryo is implanted; the others are frozen, to be thawed out and used as back-ups if the initial attempt or attempts don't take (kind of like keeping them on the bench in case they're needed). The frozen embryos that are not used are eventually discarded. Their stem cells can be extracted, prior to their being discarded, for research on cures for such diseases as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS, and the like.
Now, if this were a situation where these embryos were either used for research purposes, or would go on to develop into fully formed human beings, then, I would say, you would have a genuine moral and ethical issue around which reasonably minded people of good will could have honest differences of opinion. But this is not the case. Thanks to the Presidential veto stem cells cannot, where government funds are involved in the research, be taken from embryos that will never develop beyond the cluster of cells that they are anyway. Why is this? Theological correctness is the only possible answer. The veto was done to satisfy ("appease" in not too strong a word I feel) a very narrow segment of the population which holds on religious grounds that those small clusters of cells - whatever their fate may be - are full human beings with all rights thereof. Here again, an extremely narrowly defined brand of theology has been allowed to define public policy for an entire nation in a very crucial area relating to health care and healing. It is theocratic behavior even in the absence of a formal theocracy.
I've one more example that is not such a direct form of theological correctness as these two, but does demonstrate theocratic thought patterns nonetheless. Gotta do a quick back-up on this one too. As one who was raised in a near-Fundamentalist setting, I can recall how either/or dichotomies were the way one was supposed to think when it came to matters of religion. Either the Bible is all literally true or it's just a bunch of falsehoods. Either Jesus was the Divine Son of God who died for your sins or he was the greatest fraud in human history. No middle ground is allowed. To try to reason your way through to figure out which parts of the Bible have their validity and which ones don't; or to try to reason your way through to the idea that Jesus' life and teachings may have genuine value even if he was as mortal as the rest of us - such thinking is not permitted. It was regarded an example of how reason is the tool of the Devil who is tempting you to fall away from your faith. You begin, that is to say, with the strict fundamentals of the faith, and then accept only the evidence that supports it, and relegate any evidence to the contrary as being the work of the Devil.
While not stated in such explicitly religious or theological language, this is the kind of reasoning (so to speak) that characterizes to an alarming degree the way our current administration states and defends its foreign policy. You are either with us all the way down the line, or you're in league with the terrorists. You either support the way we deal with prisoners taken on any suspicion of terrorism, or you're posing a danger to the safety of our nation. You either accept the evidence we selectively offer to defend our policies and actions or you're morally confused and seriously misguided. Even without any explicit theocratic language, this represents a very narrow form of theocratic thinking and reasoning. We are not a formal theocracy, but this does not prevent us from behaving like one at times.
Before leaving this point, and since I've spoken of the Devil, I don't want to let the President of Venezuela's remarks at the United Nations this past week go unmentioned. I refer, of course, to Victor Chavez calling President Bush "The Devil." Frankly, I wish he had left that remark, with its accompanying theatrics, back home in Venezuela. It was silly and did nothing constructive to foster the international dialogue the United Nations is supposed to be fostering.
My larger objection, though, is that an incident like this one only serves to perpetuate the kind of thinking and mind set to which I've just spoken. I'll put it in personal language: If I'm absolutely convinced that I am right, and that I'm on the side of the angels, in taking and directing a certain course of action; and someone accuses me of being the Devil for doing so, all that really does is reinforce me in my conviction that I'm actually doing the will of God. So, the only real-world outcome of President Chavez's remark, then, will be to reinforce even further our own President's conviction that he has God on his side. And on it goes, to no good end or purpose.
But I have to add this: After seeing what Mr. Chavez did for the sales of Noam Chomsky's latest book at a talk he gave at another venue in New York last week, I have to wonder if there is some way I could get him to wave mine around for a few minutes!
It's time to wrap up. Since our Constitution was ratified we've had 42, going on 43, Presidential administrations, and 109 Congressional assemblies - some good, some bad, some mediocre; most have been a blend of the three. We've had a Civil War, a couple of World Wars, domestic upheavals of one kind and another - some very sad and deeply troubling chapters, and some very wonderful and ennobling ones as well - in the ongoing story that is the story of this land and nation. And our Constitution, written on the basis of a belief in the ability of human beings to govern themselves on the strength and power of human reason, has remained intact. It's taken its share of blows but it's still on its feet. It has seen us through our good times and it has survived our follies. I have faith that it will continue to do so.
Recall as well what I said about how we have a strongly religious society and culture that is governed by a secular and humanistic document. I pointed out that with a set-up like this there is inevitably going to be tension. I believe it can be a creative and positive kind of tension, when people of faith do engage with the civic order. Bob Edgar is correct to point out that practically all of our movements for positive social change and social justice and peace and non-violence in human affairs have had a strong religious component to them. If I did not believe that persons of faith and religious conviction didn't have a positive role to play in the life of their larger society I would not have spent my entire adult life in the liberal ministry.
Finally, here's the distinction I draw between having persons of faith be a part of the larger dialogue on how a society can best be governed and ordered, and theocratic behavior: I think the proper and necessary role for religiously and spiritually motivated persons in a secular democracy is to be continually calling on their country to live up to its own stated ideals. This was what Martin Luther King was doing when he said he had a dream that "one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed." He was not trying to impose a religious orthodoxy on America, but rather he was drawing on the principles and values of his religious faith in order to challenge America to live up to its own principles and values; and to attend to its unfinished business when it came to racial justice.
We are citizens of a nation whose credo is that of a democratic, justice loving, compassionate, and peace loving people and country. The role of persons of faith in such a country is to call the nation to its own stated ideals, and to remind the nation of when it falls short of those ideals - as it often does. This is a far cry from attempting to use the levers of government to enforce a particular, and narrow, religious orthodoxy - which is what theocratic behavior is about.
Lets us continue, then, to be persons of faith - faith in what humanity may yet become on the strength of our efforts and commitment.
Stephen D. Edington
September 24, 2006
