The Attorney General’s Bible Studies

The Attorney General’s Bible Studies

Of all the brouhahas that have gone on in Washington, D.C., the current one involving Attorney General John Ashcroft is among the silliest ever heard.

Some Justice Department officials and a few others around town are raising a stink because Ashcroft hosts a daily Bible study. One staffer who asked not to be identified called the Bible study “offensive, disrespectful and unconstitutional. … It at least blurs the line (of separation of church and state) and it probably crosses it.”

One can only wonder what the staff member would say if the attorney general invited some cronies to stay late and play poker every night after work or if he sponsored a cocktail party each evening. Would the issue of the attorney general’s actions be a public concern? Not likely.

But because the event is religious — a Bible study — critics are quick to pounce. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, lamented that Ashcroft “injected religion so blatantly into the agency.”

Ironically, Lynn’s organization, Americans United, was one of the supporters of equal access legislation which prohibits discrimination against speech just because it is religious. The law says that groups that engage in religious speech have just as much right to the use of public buildings as groups whose speech is not religious.

Now Lynn joins those who complain because the attorney general leads a Bible study in his offices before the workday begins. That is quite a change. Of course, Americans United has changed. This organization, founded largely by Baptists in the 1940s, used to concentrate on “establishment of religion” issues. Now the organization seems dedicated to making sure that traces of religion are blotted out of the public square. That change is unfortunate.

The row over Ashcroft’s Bible study is surprising because it is like dozens of other Bible studies held each day in Senate and House office buildings. Senators, representatives, staff members and others gather to study the Bible and pray. Nothing is said about the appropriateness of these groups.

It would be different if staff members were required to participate in the Bible studies or if promotions and advancements were based on agreeing with the boss’s religious views. In the United States, it is illegal to force people to participate in a religious exercise.

Baptists have championed the position that government has no right to use its power to force people to engage in religious activity. Only the Lord Jesus Christ stands between God the Father and the human spirit. Historically, Baptists have opposed every attempt of government to force its way into that sacred space.

If a government agency required employees to participate in a religious activity — a Bible study — then such a practice would be unconstitutional and should be opposed. But to oppose a voluntary gathering of persons interested in studying the Bible together before work is a far different story.

It is also against the law for government to discriminate against people on the basis of religion. That means that one cannot be denied promotion or advancement because of one’s religious convictions.

Again, if that happened, it would be unconstitutional and should be opposed. But to oppose a voluntary Bible study because something like that “might” happen is rather far-fetched.

The practice of hosting daily devotions is not new for Ashcroft. He sponsored Bible studies while a U.S. senator from Missouri. He sponsored Bible studies during his eight years as governor of that state.

What would be news is if this son of an Assembly of God preacher did not engage in daily devotions and did not invite others to join him in the experience.

These thoughts are not an attempt to pump the attorney general. We have been friends more than 25 years. We have been in each other’s homes and our children have been classmates. We have prayed together and read the Bible together and taken opposite sides on some government policies. We do not understand the implications of church-state separation in the same way.

But, as Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs noted, despite Ashcroft’s lack of appreciation for separation of church and state, “his daily devotional — even with other Justice Department employees — should not be counted among his church-state indiscretions.”

Only those who oppose religion in general and religious expression in the public square in particular, could oppose a voluntary gathering of individuals before work to read the Bible and pray. It is such critics who lack an appreciation and understanding of church-state separation and the constitutional guarantee of the free exercise of religion.

Their objections would be silly if they were not so sad and so dangerous.