N.C. lawmaker's thoughtful essay tackles integrating religious precepts into civil law

By J. Brent Walker

Reflections
August 2004

Members of Congress are often justifiably criticized for not having a clue about religious liberty and the proper relationship between church and state. Congressman David E. Price of North Carolina is not one of them. A member of Binkley Memorial Baptist Church, Price earned a divinity degree and a Ph.D. in political science from Yale University. He taught at Duke University before being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1986.

Price recently published an essay called "Faith in Public Office," included along with other articles in a new book titled: One Electorate Under God? A Dialogue on Religion & American Politics, edited by E. J. Dionne Jr. and others. In his article, the congressman first acknowledges the "centrality of religious faith to the motivations drawing people into politics and to the shape their political advocacy and practice assume." He then reflects upon the question of when politicians should feel free to "embody religiously grounded precepts in civil law."

He begins by embracing an idea advanced by former governor Mario Cuomo in the original dialogue that spawned this book. Cuomo argued that there should be a "coincidence of the religious precept with broader public values." That is to say, there should be some sort of consensus or common ground that reaches beyond the edges of a religious point of view. In the same vein, he also opines that religiously based policies that "violate the principles of civil liberty, nondiscrimination, and equal opportunity" should be held in check. This is another way of talking about the oft-mentioned legal formulation taken from the Lemon test that allows religion to inform public policy or form the basis of governmental actions if that policy or action has a secular purpose and does not have the primary effect of advancing religion.

However, Price goes further to address the question theologically. He sees a "need for a kind of religious humility, rooted in the sense that our own will and striving are always subject to God's judgment." Relying on the teachings of both Reinhold Niebhur and James Madison, Price argues that humility is called for not simply because of the difficulty of interpreting biblical teaching, but because of the problem of human sinfulness. People are always inclined to a form of idolatry by which they identify their own interests with that of God's will. He points to Abraham Lincoln in his Second Inaugural Address as providing an example for modern politicians to follow. Lincoln boldly opposed slavery with great vigor, but tempered that enthusiasm with an humble recognition that judgment in the final analysis belongs to God and a steadfast refusal to align his own views with God's will.

In addition to human sinfulness, humility is called for in the political arena by the voluntary nature of religion generally and Christianity in particular. Here Price argues persuasively that, to the extent government gets involved in promoting a sectarian agenda, it necessarily vitiates the voluntariness of religion. The congressman observes that nowhere in the Scriptures do we find Jesus "using political instrumentalities to compel religious faithfulness or obedience." As I have said before, Jesus never sought the help of Herod or accepted a shekel from Caesar to help him usher in the Kingdom of God.

Price concludes by criticizing the "kind of religious arrogance [that] violate[s] the tenets of American pluralism and American democracy. ... There are compelling reasons, rooted in the theology of divine transcendence, human freedom and responsibility, and the pervasiveness of sin and pride, for refusing to identify any particular ideology or political agenda with the will of God and for rebuking those who presume to do so."

These are good words for us to hear and follow, especially during an election season. People of faith should speak out in the public square — even vote for candidates and push for policies that are in sync with their religious ethics. But, we should be careful to respect the right of others to disagree and refrain from baptizing our flawed proposals in the sacred waters of divine approval.