The Do's and Don't's of Political Involvement of Religious Leaders - Part X of Religion and Politics
/
Religious leaders have a sacred trust. Their mission is to represent God. Their role is to speak about God, to shepherd and care for their flocks, to set an example of godly living, and to challenge the spiritual, ethical and moral condition of their congregations and society. As I wrote in an earlier article, religious leaders have a somewhat prophetic role vis a vis society at large.
Religious leaders have a great deal of influence over their flocks. This reality is certainly appropriate when it comes to articulating God’s ways and will for spiritual life. However, it can become dangerous when it crosses over into politics. When religious leaders become close to politicians and their political agendas, trouble ensues. One of the clearest modern examples was the relationship between Rev. Billy Graham and President Richard Nixon. For many years Graham was outspoken about political affairs, and as his popularity rose, he was sought out by many political leaders. Graham spent a great deal of time with Nixon and strongly supported him publicly. When the Watergate scandal broke, Graham defended him to the end. However, when the secret tapes of White House recordings were publicized, revealing the extent of Nixon’s corruption, Graham was completely shocked.
In Marshal Frady’s biography of Graham, Billy Graham, A Parable of American Righteousness, he wrote:
“When Graham at last finished tracking through those confidential exchanges between Nixon and his operatives, he became physically, retchingly sick — a nausea that clung in his vitals through the rest of that afternoon. Through the following days, according to his intimates and his family, he seemed lost in some blank abstraction, a heavy slowness hanging to his movements as if he had just suddenly entered for the first time into the earth’s dull and massy pull. His mother remembers that his very face seemed to dim — “There just wasn’t that usual glow in Billy’s face. It was like the light had gone out.”
After Watergate Graham changed course with respect to his involvement with politicians. In a 2011 interview with Christianity Today, he said, “I … would have steered clear of politics. I’m grateful for the opportunities God gave me to minister to people in high places; people in power have spiritual and personal needs like everyone else, and often they have no one to talk to. But looking back, I know I sometimes crossed the line, and I wouldn’t do that now.”
Religious leaders should never become tools of politicians and/or politics, and politicians should never become tools of religious leaders. They are part of two separate institutions. Merging the two opens the door for corruption in both. As Graham said above, politicians, as everyone else, have spiritual needs. But meetings between politicians and religious leaders should be kept private, and the contents of such meetings should remain private.
Religious leaders and institutions should never endorse a politician. This is a huge mistake. Public endorsements lead people to believe that a religious leader views the election of a politician to be God’s will. Followers of the leader see the leader’s endorsement as an imprimatur of God upon the politician, and, thus if they don’t support the particular politician, they are violating the will of God. Additionally, once a religious leader endorses a politician, it becomes increasingly difficult for the leader to challenge the politician, especially if the politician becomes ethically or morally compromised. This was a deep regret of Billy Graham in his relationship with Nixon.
None of this is to suggest that religion and religious people not have a voice in the political affairs of the country. But there’s a big difference between taking public positions about various policies and endorsing politicians. In my view even asking a candidate’s views about his/her personal faith is appropriate. One’s faith properly influences their world view, perspective and policy. Yet a politician’s personal faith should always remain separate from the aspirations of a religious institution or organization. Presidential candidate and later President John Kennedy had a great response to the public’s fear that if he were elected, the Roman Catholic Church would control the policies of the United States:
“But let me stress again that these are my views – for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens to also be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters – and the church does not speak for me.”
I challenge religious leaders of our era to refrain from political endorsements and remove themselves from political associations with political candidates and elected leaders. They are making the same mistakes that Billy Graham made with President Nixon.
Next time: Then What Shall We Do?