There were two particularly interesting articles in this week’s issue of The Economist. The first was an op-ed piece commenting on Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ suggestion that “the symbiosis that existed in practice between the law of the land and Muslim institutions, especially those that regulate marriage, property, and inheritance, should be recognised and formalised.” (British spelling) The op-ed piece then said that Williams’ remarks revived the age old debate about where to draw the line between church and state, and that he got it wrong. The full text of the article can be read here, and the article that reported on his original remarks can be read here. While I’m not really in much of a position to comment on the specific Muslim laws themselves, the article did get me thinking about church/state issues. Being an American, it’s difficult to imagine having a national church like the one that exists in England. Similarly, it’s difficult to imagine having Congress approve church prayer books or having church bishops serve as members of the Senate (although maybe part of why that’s tough to imagine is the fact that my denomination has neither prayer books nor bishops ;-)). The article goes on to say:
“The archbishop proposes to expand the privileges of all religions. It would be better instead to curtail the entitlements of his one. It makes no sense in a pluralistic society to give one church special status. Nor does it make sense, in a largely secular country, to give special status to all faiths. The point of democracies is that the public arena is open to all groups—religious, humanist or football fans. The quality of the argument, not the quality of the access to power, is what matters. And citizens, not theocrats, choose.”
I agree that in a pluralistic society it doesn’t seem right to give one church or religious group formal power. The public arena ought to be open to all ideas, and people of faith should be required to formulate good ideas and effective public policy if they want to be heard in the public square, just like everyone else. Furthermore, as a Christian who is horrified by the way that Christians in power have too often abused that power, I am very uncomfortable with Christian leaders having a presumed “access to power”. I also firmly believe that the Christian faith is practiced most authentically when it is practiced from the margins. Rob Bell at Mars Hill Bible Church in Grand Rapids, MI, gave a brilliant sermon a few weeks ago where he spoke from the perspective of the Apostle Paul and declared that the idea of a Christian state deeply concerns him. It concerns ‘Paul’ because if that happens Christians will become lazy in their faith and they will be vulnerable to getting sucked in to the lust for power that too often accompanies solidarity with the state. History has proved that fear to be valid. In the final paragraph of the article the author writes:
Let religion compete in the marketplace for ideas, not seek shelter behind special privileges.
And my point in all of this is simply that the separation of church and state is a good thing because it requires the church to be more like the church and less like the state. It requires those of us who call ourselves Christians to take seriously texts like the one I’ll be talking about this Sunday where Jesus says, “Whoever would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me,” rather than focusing on power and authority. Similarly, it requires those of us who call ourselves Christians to get creative politically, and think deeply about what the issues are that Christians ought to care about in the public square, and how our approach to these issues can lead to the good of all people regardless of their faith. This is a needed alternative to blind alignment with moral disasters like the Religious Right. A clear separation between church and state will help the church spend less time trying to be heard and more time making sure we actually have something positive and constructive to say.
The other story that caught my attention, that I’ll discuss much more briefly, was the cover story on Barack Obama. The cover simply read, “But could he deliver?” The sub headline goes on to say that America needs to start evaluating Obama the potential president rather than Obama the political phenomenon. I sometimes suspect that I, as much anyone, have been captivated by Obama the phenomenon. I loved his book The Audacity of Hope, his skills as an orator are first class, and the way that he speaks of changing the political game in Washington is inspiring, but the article does point out that in some cases his position on key issues isn’t quite as nuanced as one might like. I agree with the author of the article that perhaps now that Obama is the Democratic front runner it’s time to raise the bar and hold him to a higher standard. Rhetoric is nice, but a plan is better. I remain confident that in the coming weeks and months Obama will be able to rise to the challenge and prove that he can be a competent president, but he certainly needs to start doing that quickly.
