Jamie's October Column
When I express an opinion in this column (or for that matter, from the pulpit too) about a contemporary issue, I am expressing a personal point of view. In those instances I am not "speaking for" the church. Rather I am "speaking to" the church. Our Congregational forbearers affirmed the principle known as "freedom of the pulpit," meaning ministers ought to be free, after prayerful and careful reflection, to preach the truth as the minister sees it. A corollary principle to freedom of the pulpit, of course, is freedom of individual conscience in the pew. Ministers and parishioners alike have the right to form and express their own opinions and, hopefully, learn from one another in the process.
However, I know that, from time to time, some issues become so politicized, that any discussion about them is considered inappropriate for clergy. The phrase "crossing the line into politics" is cited, referring to the theoretical line separating church and state. Among other things, the First Amendment to our Constitution states, "Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..." Frequently this amendment is interpreted to mean church people should not become involved in the discussion or shaping of public policy.
But in reality just the opposite is true. The First Amendment was designed to protect the church from the government, not to protect the government from the church. Please don't get me wrong. I do not support developing a theocracy in
Over the past several years I have become increasing saddened by the public discussion and debate in our nation about torture. I find it hard to believe that it's come to this. As a person of faith (who also happens to be a minister) I believe that inhuman, degrading, and brutal interrogation and indefinite detention of prisoners violate the core teaching of Jesus, and ultimately do not served the security interests of our nation. Good people of deep faith will come to differing conclusions about how to resolve this matter.
But I also believe that torture is a moral issue. I agree with the statement by the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (http://www.nrcat.org/) signed by religious leaders across the entire spectrum of theological diversity in our nation.. "Torture violates the basic dignity of the human person that all religions, in their highest ideals, hold dear. It degrades everyone involved--policy-makers, perpetrators, and victims. It contradicts our nation's most cherished values. Any policies that permit torture and inhumane treatment are shocking and morally intolerable. Nothing less is at stake in the torture abuse crisis than the soul of our nation. What does it signify if torture is condemned in words but allowed in deed? Let
As a person of faith I responded to the invitation to endorse this statement by adding my name to a growing list of signatories. And I would invite us all to ponder how the values we profess to hold dear actually shape our citizenship. I have a small poster in my study with a quote attributed to Martin Niemoller (1892-1984) the German Protestant minister who was a leader of the church's opposition to Hitler. He was interned in Nazi concentration camps from 1937-1945. He said, "In
I believe this is a time for people of faith to speak up.
In Gods peace,
Jamie