Prayer Breakfast Politics
By John M. Swomley
Professor Emeritus of Social Ethics, St. Paul School of Theology
The Congress of the United States acted as if the United States has an official religion when it sponsored or sanctioned the fiftieth National Prayer Breakfast in Washington last February 3rd. That occasion is and has been a gross politicization of religion as it has assumed that certain forms of Christianity shall get major attention from members of Congress while others are ignored. While these meetings are officially non-sectarian, the participants consist largely of southern and midwestern members of Protestant denominations.
This year`s breakfast was attended not only by many members of Congress, but also by the President and his wife, the Cabinet, the judiciary, diplomats, state and local politicians, and various denominational leaders. Why would a group of elected and appointed public figures meet once a year to celebrate or publicize their participation in a public prayer meeting, when the United States is officially a secular state? The only mention of religion in the Constitution, written by the Constitutional Convention and accepted by the Congress, is in Article VI which states that "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That is clearly the basis for secular government in the United States.
The mere fact of an essentially Christian National Prayer Breakfast raises many important questions. The United States is composed of millions of people who are Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, humanists, and those who profess no religion. Such a breakfast is therefore exclusionary and sets a very bad precedent for the future.
When government leaders sponsor and publicize a prayer event, it is not simply a political matter. There is biblical authority for prayer, which determines why many Christians and Jews oppose politically organized prayer services. Jesus apparently opposed public prayer. He said, "And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others…But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret;"(Matt. 6:5-6). Prayer, in Jesus` terms, is deeply personal communication with God rather that public ritual or public witness.
Republican Senator John Danforth in addressing the U.S. Senate in 1984 said, A major theme of the Old Testament prophets goes much further than dismissing certain prayers as inadequate. The prophets believed that prayer in a vacuum divorced from social justice is an abomination. Repeatedly the prophets of Israel condemned public display of religious piety which masked injustice to the poor and the disadvantaged.
One of the examples he cited was Isaiah 1:13-17:
Bringing offerings is futile;…I cannot endure solemn assemblies with iniquity.…even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood. Wash yourselves…learn to do good; seek justice, rescue the oppressed, defend the orphan, plead for the widow.
Prayer is perverted if it is used as a political issue to mask the real agenda of extreme right-wing politicians. By publicly championing prayer, some politicians believe they can thereby support a hate-oriented foreign policy, high military budgets (at the expense of low-income taxpayers), or special economic interests. If there is no connection between their religion and improving the well-being of the poor or minorities, or the peace of the world, they can use prayer as a means of seeking the "church vote."
Prayer breakfasts are not the only vehicles for using religion to promote political agendas. The Roman Catholic hierarchy has for many years held an annual "Red Mass" in Washington to which Supreme Court justices and other government officials are invited. The bishops and cardinals who speak at such events usually advance the papal political agenda. Cardinal James A. Hickey did in 1981, when he told Supreme Court justices "we cannot destroy life at any stage of development because Judeo-Christian tradition holds it to be true that human beings have rights from the moment of conception." This is not an accurate depiction of Judeo-Christian tradition, but there is no opportunity for rebuttal at a Red Mass. In 1983, Hickey reiterated the Roman Church`s position on abortion and argued "government can never minimize or relinquish the obligation to stand for life." He said that the abortion issue required all citizens to rise to the defense of life as directed by "our Lord Jesus and the teaching of His Church."
Three years later Hickey chastised the modern Supreme Court for allegedly creating "a disharmony of language which often confuses the constitutional proscription of the free exercise of a state religion under the protection of religion in general."
Even at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2000, Pope John Paul II was invited by Republican Senator Connie Mack of Florida to send a message. The Pope`s two closely printed pages focused on his political and theological dogma that human life begins at conception. The statement was read by the papal nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Gabrial Montalvo. It should be obvious to even the most naïve advocates of government-sponsored prayer that those with a political agenda will use religious occasions to link their political goals to their religious mission.
The problem for Christian ethics is that prayer has become politicized for many politicians and even accepted as cultural ritual by the general public. Jesus` temptation experiences are helpful at this point. Satan told Jesus he would give him all the kingdoms of this world, or in other words, make him Caesar, if he would accept Satan`s lordship and his methods. When Jesus rejected the temptation he also repudiated any idea of being like Caesar (Matt. 4:7-10).
Here are two implications: (1) that achieving political power in or over government necessarily involves substantial compromising with evil; (2) that the goal of political power is the opposite of Jesus` mission "to preach good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind and to set at liberty those who are oppressed" (Luke 4:18).
The emphasis on servanthood is a major root of the concept of separation of church and state. The church can only be free to serve if it does not participate in the power that rules.
Journalist John B. Judis has written,
Christianity does not provide a political agenda, but rather an underlying social conscience with which to approach politics. Religion plays its most constructive role precisely when church and state are separate. When When the two are fused, however, when organizations acting in the name of Christianity seek political power, then religion becomes subordinate to Politics. It becomes infected with the darker egoism of group and nation; it no longer softens and counters our ungenerous impulses, but clothes them in holy righteousness.
In other words, we must reject efforts by any church or collection of politicians to link genuine religion to a political or military agenda. Political sponsorship of religious activity tends to secularize the activity rather than make politicians more ethical or religious.
Civil religion also must be recognized as an effort by politicians or military leaders to give religious sponsorship to an otherwise anti-religious event. For example, prayer at the dedication of a missile silo does not make the weapon less deadly. And prayer by members of Congress who ignore the poor and provide huge sums to corporations does not justify their political agenda.
