Roberts, Lincoln and the Roles of Preachers and Politicians

WaPo writer Shailagh Murray gives us a vivid image that might have come from Culture Wars - one of the best books on religion and politics. Here is her lead:

Faith has factored into previous Supreme Court confirmations, but the John Roberts hearings may be the first to take place on consecrated grounds.

Evangelical minister Rob Schenck secretly blessed every piece of furniture in the three Senate hearing rooms where the Judiciary Committee will consider the Roberts nomination. The Washington activist, who heads the National Clergy Council, described the exercise as "an act of prayer, in preparation for this whole process."
The Supreme Court is central to all of the big Christian conservative issues, including the role of religion in public life and the legality of abortion and same-sex marriage. Schenck and other conservative leaders are hoping that President Bush has found a kindred spirit for them in Roberts, a lifelong practicing Roman Catholic.

In addition to giving me decidedly mixed feelings that we can remember Shailagh as a preschooler, the story reminds me of a few points about the volatile mix of religion and politics.

The controversial question of public prayer (see The Navy has a Prayer; the Air Force Won’t) probably accounts for the fact that minister Schenk secretly blessed every item of furniture in the room. It is entirely proper for a minister to pray for Divine guidance during a Senate hearing. Yet, the deed was done in secret. Why? The Rev. Schenck's secrecy is a result of the bitter nature of the culture wars over the role of religion. This has long been a topic for this blog.

Murray also quotes Barry Lynn in response to a statement from the President:

Bush helped to trigger the debate in summer 2002, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals banned the Pledge of Allegiance in schools because of the "under God" clause. "We need common-sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God, and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench," Bush declared then.

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which opposes the Roberts nomination, said of Bush's remark, "In a sense we have to presume that he somehow vets people for their religion."

One wonders if Lynn would also object to Thomas Jefferson's famous (and to me, inspired) insight that

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It reminds me of a letter Abraham Lincoln wrote on September 13, 1862 to a group of abolitionist ministers. They were advising him on that other great human life issue in American history – slavery. In response to their urging to sign the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln wrote

"I am approached with the most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men who are equally certain that they represent the divine will. I am sure that either the one or the other class is mistaken in that belief, and perhaps in some respects both. I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that if it is probable that God would reveal his will to others on a point so connected to my duty, it might be supposed that he would reveal it directly to me; for, unless I am more deceived in myself than I often am, it is my earnest desire to know the will of Providence in this matter. And if I can learn what it is, I will do it. These are not, however, the days of miracles, and I suppose it will be granted that I am not to expect a direct revelation. I must study the plain physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible, and learn what appears to be wise and right."

He goes on to set forth reasons for and against signing the proclamation at that particular time.

Preachers and Bishops are on solid ground when they call on the government to observe moral principles when making policy decisions. As Lincoln’s letter shows, they are not as competent when they move from principles to specific policies.

Dennis O’Brien addressed this question in the May 19, 2005 issue of America:

It is clear that the Catholic Church has a moral position on abortion. It is not clear that it has a political policy on the issue. Moral positions do not automatically create public policies. I may be morally opposed to the use of addictive drugs, but I may also think that the U.S. public policy of highly punitive jail sentences for drug use is wrong. My grounds for rejecting current drug policy would be that it is ineffective (it does not eliminate the problem), counterproductive (it makes the problem worse by criminalization of use) and immoral (long jail terms for drug use are immoral). Presumably the church’s public policy is “repeal of Roe v. Wade.” If that is the extent of the church’s policy, one could ask whether repeal would be effective (would it eliminate abortions), counterproductive (would it be make the problem worse) or even immoral (would there be moral consequences of repeal that would be repugnant).

He goes on to consider the policy implications of a repeal of Roe and calls for a dialogue between politicians and the bishops. (America is only available online to subscribers. Email me if you would like a copy of the entire article.)

Preachers and bishops are often speaking to politicians, justifying their decision calling their role “prophetic”. As I read the Bible, I wonder how many prophets actually gave positive policy directions to Kings. I can think of instances in which the prophets verbally scourged leaders for abandoning Yahweh and worshiping false idols. I can think of prophets who have chastised leaders for immoral behavior. On several occasion, kings sought specific advice from prophets – should I attack or retreat?

I can think of no occasions in which a prophet voluntarily urged a particular course of action upon a king. Am I wrong?

It seems to me that when John Roberts has an answer when goes before the Senate Judiciary Committee and faces questions on the influence of his faith on his role as a Supreme Court. He should emulate Lincoln, telling the Senators that it is “earnest desire to know the will of Providence.” He will consult a wide range of religious opinion on moral values. However, the legal and policy implications are more within his competence than they are within the competence of theologians.

If this happens, the Senators can get to the question of Roberts’ philosophy about interpreting the Constitution. This, not abortion, should be the real issue.