I suppose the discussion will go on until the fall election — and probably thereafter. The question of the proper relationship between religion and politics continues to be debated — unabated. Here is the conundrum to be solved: How do we uphold an institutional separation of church and state, while affirming the relevance of a candidate’s religion to politics, without imposing a legal or practical religious test for public office?

Megachurch pastor and renowned author, the Rev. Rick Warren, is going to give it a try. On August 16, his California Saddleback Church will host a “Civil Forum on Leadership and Compassion.” Both presumptive presidential nominees, John McCain and Barack Obama, have agreed to participate. Moderated by Warren himself, and co-sponsored by the progressive advocacy group Faith in Public Life, the candidates will be given a chance to share their religious experience and describe how their faith and values influence their positions on important issues like poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate change and human rights (see ABP article on page 8 for more details).

Warren already has drawn some fire ahead of time. Some — primarily from the far right — worry about his being “unequally yoked” with the co-sponsoring group Faith in Public Life and lament the apparent absence of their hot button issues — abortion and gay rights. Others — from elsewhere on the political spectrum — fret that the program will devolve into a fit of theological voyeurism that we got a glimmer of during the Compassion Forum involving Sens. Clinton and Obama at Messiah College in Pennsylvania and aired on CNN in April.

Despite these criticisms, I think the program, if properly done, will prove beneficial and inform our collective understanding of the character, worldview and policy positions of the two presidential frontrunners.

When candidates talk about their faith it helps us know who they are, see what makes them tick, and examine their moral core. The public square need not be stripped of talk about religion and faith; those topics reflect part of what it means to be a citizen of the United States — one of the most religious and religiously diverse nations on the planet. The free and fluid discussion has the promise of improving the electorate’s ability to make an informed decision in the voting booth.

That said, we must always keep two words of caution in mind. First, Article VI of the Constitution bans a religious test for public office. Although that provision technically addresses only legal disabilities for qualifications for office, we should make every effort, as good citizens, to live up to the spirit as well as the letter of Article VI. Discussing candidates’ religion should be permissible but never mandatory. We should respect candidates’ right not to bear their religious convictions in public, if they are uncomfortable doing so, as long as they are are fully forthcoming in explaining their position policy issues and how they arrived at them.

Second, it is essential always to inquire about how candidates’ religious views will impact public policy positions and leadership competence. This linkage must always be made. It is not only not very helpful but also terribly invasive to have a theological discussion isolated from policy and matters of governance. As mentioned above, this happened to some extent in the CNN Compassion Forum. For example, Sen. Clinton was asked about her views on the trinity and the workings of the Holy Spirit. She was also asked to identify and expound upon her favorite Bible story. Sen. Obama was asked if he took the first two chapters of Genesis literally and whether he believed God created the world in six literal days. Along with any discussion of a candidate’s faith we must always ask the follow up, “so what?” question: what difference will a theological position make on the candidate’s ability to be president? If there is no connection, leave it alone.

I hope this issue of Report from the Capital will arrive in your home before August 16th and that you will watch the forum. (It will be the first time the two candidates will share a stage.) I thought that Don Byrd, who writes for the BJC’s “Blog from the Capital” (www.BJConline.org/blog) summed it up nicely in a July 21 post when he wrote:

It is certainly OK to ask candidates their policy views on a range of issues, and to discuss the role their personal faith may have in shaping their governing philosophies. But it would be a mistake to: (a) hone in on a narrow set of issues falsely believed to encompass the concerns of religious voters, (b) presume that certain religious beliefs necessitate certain political views, or (c) investigate the specific personal religious views of the candidates.

Good advice as we try to honor church-state separation, encourage the discussion of faith in the public square, but resist any religious test for office — in law or spirit.