Georgia Senate race prompts question: Would more clergy help Congress’ trustworthiness?

When it comes to measuring the public’s trust, where do elected officials rate? Scientists, according to a Pew Research Center survey, rank first, followed by the military, police officers, public school principals, religious leaders, college/university professors, journalists, business leaders and then, in last place, elected officials.

Do religious leaders make good elected officials? Is it good for the country? Would more clergy bring Congress a higher rating of trust and integrity with the American people as compared to the bottom rated position elected officials occupy today? Considering results of a Gallup Poll in December regarding the public’s approval level of Congress’ job performance (82% disapproval), it doesn’t seem like such a bad idea.

We are watching this week a major runoff election in Georgia involving four candidates for two U.S. Senate seats. Rev. Raphael Warnock, senior pastor of the historic Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, is running against Sen. Kelly Loeffler. Take note that in the primary, Loeffler defeated former U.S. Rep. Doug Collins, a lawyer and former senior pastor at a Baptist church for 11 years, so there is precedent for clergy serving in elected office. In fact, seven ordained ministers now serve in Congress, according to the Congressional Research Service.

Furthermore, clergy have held elected office in Congress since the beginning of our Republic. In 1976, John Danforth of Missouri, an Episcopal priest who graduated from Yale Divinity School (and Yale law school), was elected to the Senate. Sen. James Lankford from Oklahoma, who was elected to the Senate in 2014 after serving four years in the U.S. House, was ordained in the Baptist church and served 15 years in ministry before he served in public office. He is chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee.

America has a long history of clergy transitioning into public service as elected officials in the House of Representatives and the Senate. The question is whether their theological training and pastoral care orientation adds value to the workings of government.

The problem: Clergy must walk a tightrope balancing their religious convictions and their duty to serve all their constituents, who represent a wide variety of religions. Many elected officials, including clergy serving in Congress, have taken positions on public policy contrary to the teachings of their own faith. We have seen this phenomena on controversial issues such as abortion.

Danforth, the retired senator and Episcopal priest, wrote a book called “Faith and Politics,” where he recognizes and respects the history of religious movements that have been and are today politically active by advocating public policy positions based upon their faith tradition’s values.

In a 2005 column in The New York Times, Danforth wrote, “The problem is not with people or churches that are politically active. It is with a party that has gone so far in adopting a sectarian agenda that it has become the political extension of a religious movement.”

Even religions themselves have varying attitudes toward their own clergy serving as elected officials in Congress. This was the fear after Robert Drinan, a Roman Catholic cleric from Massachusetts, was elected to the House of Representatives and served from 1971-1981. He was directed in 1980 to give up his seat by Pope John Paul II, who believed that clergy should not serve in elected office.

Our country has always believed in the separation of church and state. So when a clergy person runs for elected office, it is important that the voters in their district understand and question their candidates about how their religious convictions affect their positions on public policy. The wall of separation demands that the voting public make sure that the clergy candidate and, in fact, any candidate who identifies openly with a faith tradition, explain how their faith will affect their voting positions.

Similarly, as Danforth said, political parties should be careful not to succumb to the strident religious convictions of extremists who end up dominating the thinking of all. In addition when it comes to clergy he wrote, “We have a God given commission, but it is not a commission to be self righteous-know-it-alls — quite the contrary. Our work in God’s world begins with the acknowledgment that we are not God, and that our most bitter rivals are made in God’s image.”

Isn’t that a lesson for all elected officials, including clergy, who desire to serve our nation in elected office?