The Tribune

Parts of this column were previously published.

THE temptation of religious leaders to become obsessed with political power and influence is older than the Christian Scriptures. Among many others, Rev. Billy Graham warned religious leaders to be judicious in the manner in which they interact with political leaders.

Speaking from painful experience, Rev. Graham reproved himself for often having become too cozy with political leaders. He appreciated the array of compromises which often come from such coziness.

Rev. Graham’s insight is part of a broader debate concerning the relationship between church and state. The cliché that the church should stay out of politics begs many questions, some of which may be answered in distinctions often ignored in thought and action.

The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of the church from the broader society, of which both church and state are integral parts. How they relate to each other within that context is the relevant issue.

Such separation does not mean isolation. Instead, it provides a framework for cooperation, protecting against both theocratic impulses and the state discriminating against religious communities.

While many recall and recite the reference in the Constitution’s preamble of the country’s Christian heritage, that reference is more of an acknowledgement and celebration of this heritage. The preamble grants no justiciable rights.

That poetry does not have the force of law found in the constitutional prose protecting religious freedom, which buttresses and safeguards the principle of the separation of church and state.

Politics is often narrowly defined as a contest waged by political parties. Of course, it is much broader than that, including matters of ultimate concern such as issues of death and life. Politics, broadly speaking, also involves society wrestling with the ethical dimensions of public policy.

As the church labours to “penetrate and perfect the temporal sphere with the spirit of the Gospel,” it must also transcend the partisan politics of the day. How does a pastor, overly identified with a political party, speak to a congregation with authority, integrity and balance without appearing to have a conflict of interest?

Unflinchingly, intelligently and with prudence, the church must speak to the ethical dimensions of issues in the political realm from capital punishment to poverty. But it should not become a cheering squad or adjunct to any political party, also avoiding the appearance of partisanship.

In the leaked US Embassy cable from WikiLeaks some years ago, a prominent Bahamian religious leader is described as a political heavyweight. This is not the way a pastor should wish to appear in the eyes of domestic opinion or of a foreign government. It is more preferable to be considered a moral heavyweight or a prophetic voice, not the handmaiden of Pharaoh.

Religious leaders should inform consciences, not tell congregants how to vote in an election. A self-aggrandizing religious leader who pompously meddles in the political realm as a boastful powerbroker diminishes his or her moral authority and integrity, also sullying that of his or her church community.

When the traditional white of a religious leader’s collar morphs into red, yellow or some other partisan colour, he or she has breached the necessary boundaries between church and state.

The principle of separation of church and state is not singularly about the relationship between the two. As importantly, it protects the integrity of both and the unique identity and roles of each. Which all make for a moral predicament for ordained ministers who seek political office.

Today, after centuries of often bitter experience and extensive moral deliberation, older denominations such as the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches are restrictive with regard to ordained ministers serving in elected office, with the latter being more restrictive.

It is the vocation of a religious leader to speak to the ethical dimensions of the issues of the day and the signs of the times with timeless values and a prophetic spirit.

Pastors risk undercutting those values and diminishing their moral voice if they fail to transcend partisanship and align themselves with one side of the political divide, blurring the lines between what should be rendered unto Caesar and what to render unto God.

Religious leaders have an obligation and right to address a range of ethical issues. They should do so after sober reflection, and with reason, intelligence and care.

The Nassau Guardian reported this past Monday: “Grace Community Church Senior Pastor Lyall Bethel said yesterday he would reject any law that would weaponize sex in a marriage and said there is no need to move forward with a marital rape law.”

Here we go again. Another fundamentalist pastor broadcasting prejudice and bigotry disguised as supposed sociological and theological insights.

In suggesting that women might “weaponize sex in marriage”, the pastor is sadly following a well-known tragic trope that victims of certain behaviours and attitudes and the oppressed have had to historically contend, i.e., being pathologized and demonized.

So, it is the entitled male who may be prone to rape his wife who becomes the supposed victim, not the wife who may be abused. We have seen this before in the tragic histories of racial prejudice.

By example, black men in America, who are the subjects of police brutality and killings, mass incarceration, deprivations of all sorts, and other instruments of control and violence, are demonized and pathologized as brutes, sexual predators and subhumans waiting to prey on white society, including white women and police officers.

When the brutalized speak up and protest with moral outrage they are often labelled as “venomous”, while those who uphold the brutalizing status quo suggest that it is they who are the victims of such venom. Further, Pastor Bethel suggested that current law is sufficient to address marital rape.

However, as noted in the Guardian in a not so subtle fact-based rejoinder: “In 2022, a Supreme Court judge ruled that though a woman who filed for divorce claimed she felt like a rape victim ‘for an extensive period of time’ when her spouse had sex with her, as it stands, the law does not provide for rape in marriage in The Bahamas.”

Pastor Bethel continued his lamentable and intellectually specious intervention: “It will lead to an increase of adultery, sweet-hearting, adding to the destruction of the family and marriages….

“There is an issue of wrongful convictions and there will obviously be an increase in fatherless homes. If the men are incarcerated because of such proposed laws, there will be even less father figures for children.

“Should the proposed bill be enacted, it is feared that the social ills in our country will increase dramatically, namely, less marriages, which in turn leads to the destruction of the nuclear family, which was designed by God almighty for the flourishing of the society.”

Given the odd nature of his comments, is he suggesting that a huge number of men are actually raping their wives and may be incarcerated? How much sexual violence is he suggesting might be taking place within marriages?

The pastor provided no evidentiary basis for his series of unsubstantiated and bogus claims. His remarks were classically nonsensical and drenched in logical fallacies. He contradicted himself in his own curious circular logic.

To wit, despite The Bahamas not having a marital rape law, unlike the majority of countries, we have seen an increase in the various ills he warns against including: “an increase in adultery”, “fatherless homes”, “sweet-hearting”, and “the destruction of the family and marriages.”

If jurisdictions with and without marital rape laws have experienced an increase in various social and moral issues, it stands to reason that such laws are not the cause for such issues. Clearly, an increase in these ills is mostly caused by other societal factors.

Pastor Bethel repeated the well-known false accusation argument: “There is a possibility of false accusations by spiteful spouses who wish to seek revenge.” This is true of most laws which is why there are numerous legal safeguards in the criminal justice system, though no system is flawless.

Should we have no laws on sexual violence of any sort because they might be abused by someone, somewhere at some time? This would be as ridiculous as Pastor Bethel’s dubious assertion.

There are a good number of Bahamian religious leaders who are clear that marital rape should be criminalized as is rape outside of marriage.

Scores of religious leaders globally would be appalled that there are still pastors in The Bahamas who seek to uphold a status quo in which a woman can be raped by her husband with no consequence.