As I've preached before, my hope is that churches and religious leaders will take an active role in political affairs. That hope remains as we approach the 2012 election cycle but with important words of caution for those who might engage in such activity. People of faith have every right to provide moral guidance on issues facing voters and the nation, but churches, in particular, need to remain far removed from partisan political activity.
For many, political participation by churches goes against the grain of the American ideal. Doesn't the separation of church and state forbid such a mixing of the two?
Perhaps the best clarifying statement on this issue comes from 2007 version of the Social Principles of the United Methodist Church, which read in part that:
The United Methodist Church believes that the church has the moral imperative to act for the common good. For people of faith, therefore, there are no political or spiritual spheres where their participation can be denied. The attempt to influence the formation and execution of public policy at all levels of government is often the most effective means available to churches to keep before humanity the ideal of a society in which power and order are made to serve the ends of justice and freedom for all people. Through such social action The United Methodist Church generates new ideas, challenges certain goals and methods, and help rearrange the emphasis on particular values in ways that facilitate the adoption and implementation of specific policies and programs that promote goals that are congruent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This task of the Church is in no way in contradiction with our commitment to a vital separation of Church and State. We believe that the integrity of both institutions is best served when both institutions do not try to control the other. Thus, we sustain with the first amendment to the Constitution that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" We live in a pluralistic society. In such a society, churches should not seek to use the authority of government to make the whole community conform to their particular moral codes. Rather, churches should seek to enlarge and clarify the ethical grounds of public discourse and to identify and define the foreseeable consequences of available choices of public policy.
What this means, in short, is that churches have every right under the Constitution to engage in what is called public policy advocacy (though the IRS does set limits on the amount all non-profits, including churches and other faith bodies, can spend in this area). Churches can endorse or oppose legislation or voter initiatives, for example. Never did the Founders intend for people of faith or houses of worship to be silenced, as some might today hope, when the Constitution was adopted. The faith community can freely articulate moral principles but guidelines must be observed.
Churches cannot, for example, endorse political candidates or political parties. In fact, no tax-exempt organization operating under the IRS's Section 501 (c) 3 code can. This would include secular organizations like United Way. While some in the religious right have challenged this law, I remain convinced that the United Methodist Church was right when they said the integrity of both the state and the church is "best served when both institutions do not try to control the other." I don't want the state picking pastors for our churches or a religion for our people, and I don't want our churches picking political leaders for the state.
Let me repeat here what I've said in churches: A mistake that over the history of our nation both theological liberals and conservatives have made in different moments is to equate one political candidate or one political party as being somehow closer to God. We need to resist this impulse for several reasons. First, I've never been aware of any public figure -- at least since Jesus -- who fully understood the wisdom of God. We all fall short despite even the best of intentions. When the late Jerry Falwell and others argued during the 2004 elections that you could not be a Christian unless you voted for their preferred candidates, they supplanted their own beliefs for the Gospel teachings. Second, and perhaps more important, is that when we align the church with one candidate or one political party, we risk becoming an agent of that cause instead of an agent of God. Scripture teaches us that we are called by God to be loving critics of the conventional wisdom, not agents of the state.
And it is in that task -- calling the political leaders of our day to account -- that there can be no negotiation. Scripture teaches that we have a responsibility as a people of God to be actively involved in the life of the world. That means that the role of the church is sometimes to lift up difficult issues and put them before the public. That is what abolitionists in our churches did during the era of slavery, that is what civil rights marchers did in our churches during the Civil Rights Movement, and that is what our churches are doing today in calling for economic policies that help reduce poverty and lift up children. Those of us who are followers of Jesus have a special responsibility to speak out on issues related to peace and justice.
Politicians have learned that they can win elections by finding those so-called wedge issues that divide people along religious, economic and racial lines. They hope that raising these issues will increase voter turnout in some areas and suppress it in others. Division is a tool in politics. But we shouldn't be about division as the church -- we should be about community and reconciliation. And so, if the church is to become involved with political issues, we need to be careful about the language we use and the tactics we employ. Our actions should always be undertaken with care and in prayer.
One way that we can avoid inflaming tensions is to be particularly careful about how we invoke the name of God. Too often churches deeply concerned about issues have told the public that God wants them to vote one way or another on Measure X. Let's stay away from that and be humble enough to recognize that there is always the potential that we are wrong. After all, we're only human. When we do endorse issues, it should be said that we do so with our best understanding of where God is calling us as a people but room should be left for those who disagree with us to know they are God's people too. The church does not have a monopoly on the truth.
Finally, I've written about how I believe churches should never become involved in partisan political causes. That's the law, and it is a theologically sound principle. But that law and principle do not apply to individuals or clergy. The only way for the democratic process to work is for all of us to be engaged. Therefore, I hope as individuals we all get involved. I hope we work for candidates we believe will advance the common good. I hope we'll all vote. I sometimes endorse candidates for public office and believe that doing so is appropriate. But as a pastor I'll never talk about my support for a candidate from the pulpit or in any church setting because to do so would blur the lines in ways that would hurt the church.
As a progressive minister in the United Church of Christ, I'm deeply concerned about poverty, the environment and war, to name a few of the pressing issues of our day. My hope is that more and more progressive Christians will become engaged in the public square. But we should not replicate our efforts out of what the religious right has done. No, groups like Focus on the Family and the like have too often claimed God as their own and reduced Scripture to a political platform. Progressive people of faith need to operate in ways that respect the great tradition of religious pluralism in the United States and intentionally seek -- even as we push hard on important issues of justice -- to build bridges in a nation too often divided and torn asunder by religious voices and by politicians who claim that God calls them to office.
Follow Rev. Chuck Currie on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RevChuckCurrie
Christianity and politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Politics | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Here is a good example of our relationship with God, being one on one is; Remember, the town of Sodomy and Gomorra and how it was destroyed? Someone ask Jesus; would you have destroyed the town if there were 3 good people there? Jesus said; No. Again, someone ask; would you have destroyed the town if there were two good people there? Jesus said; I would not have destroyed the town if there was one good person there. If this doesn’t prove your relationship with God is one on one. What does?
Mother Theresa said it best when she said; “It’s not between Me and You, it’s between Me and God, and it’s not between You and Me, it is between You and God”.
God and Earthly Government must be kept separate to sanctify the free will that God gave each and every person on earth.
See The Coalition of Jews, Christian and Muslims for Peace, Freedom and Justice at http://cjcmp.org
Mimi Rothschild
CEO, Learning By Grace, Inc.
www.LearningByGrace.org
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/06/01/233526/taxes-lower-reagan/
- Rev. Chuck Currie
- Rev. Chuck Currie
- Rev. Chuck Currie
I think that claim needs more support.
When Jesus stood before Pontius Pilate, did he "liftup" any difficult issues about how the Romans were running Jerusalem? By my reading Jesus did his best not to take any position at all. He refused even to tell Pilate he was the Messiah.
When the multitudes needed to eat, Jesus didn't tell them to demand loaves and fishes from the government. He didn't rescue the sailors from the storm by appealing for more funding for the Roman Coast Guard. When given the chance to denounce Roman taxes he refused and said politics was a separate magisterium from faith: “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”
When he preached, it was to willing audiences. He doesn't seem to have cared that the vast majority of people ignored him.
Respectfully, Reverend, it looks to me like Jesus was completely apolitical. He wanted to help individuals become better, and was wise enough to know you can't do that by government policy.
http://vimeo.com/22533464
Remember that Jesus came out of the tradition of the Hebrew Prophets, who railed against the governments of their day and demanded that governments and individuals take care of those Jesus would call "the least of these." When Jesus began his public ministry he said he came to fulfill those teachings and the first words he uttered where from the Prophet Isaiah, one of the most "political" figures of the Bible.
- Rev. Chuck Currie
Jesus told Pontius Pilate, "My Kingdom is not of this world." He also told the Pharisees, "Pay Ceasar what is due Ceasar, but pay God what is due God" - and he never specified how much is due Ceasar.
Remember that Jesus came out of the tradition of the Hebrew Prophets, who railed against the governments of their day and demanded that governments and individuals take care of those Jesus would call "the least of these." When Jesus began his public ministry he said he came to fulfill those teachings and the first words he uttered where from the Prophet Isaiah, one of the most "political" figures of the Bible.
- Rev. Chuck Currie
Public policy advocacy includes working on issues of concern to the church (such as homelessness, health care, climate change, etc.).
- Rev. Chuck Currie
Nice ideal, but the Christian church has done more splits than the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders. They had to invent the word "schism" just to describe religious divisions.
Credit where it's due: the UCC has bucked that trend by bringing different sects together under one roof. Still, in 2006 your Puerto Rico conference split from the UCC over GLBT rights issues, along with many of your more conservative congregations on the mainland. Even the UCC has its schisms.
(I feel bad bringing that up. I'm gay, and I regret that your church suffered this pain on my behalf. Thank you.)
My point is this: in a land of freedom of religion, as soon as a church takes an opinion on some topic any member who disagrees strongly will split. Getting back to the Reverend's conclusion:
"And so, if the church is to become involved with political issues, we need to be careful about the language we use and the tactics we employ. "
I doubt there is any language you can use to state a religious belief, especially in a political discussion, without creating a division. If the country is divided on an issue, any church that chooses a side is asking to be divided, too.
But using social issues to intentionally divide people for political purposes, as the religious right does, is not something the progressive Christian community should engage in.
Rev. Chuck Currie
How do I distinguish one from the other? What makes the religious right's position on gay rights an intentionally divisive strategy, while the UCC's position on gay rights is not? Is there a litmus test?
I value your church's views just like as I value those of your bowling league. If they make sense, I'll support them. If they're based on opinion (e.g. faith), I'll discount them.
Caution, though. In public debate I get to challenge your assumptions. If you invoke your faith as an assumption I have no choice but to question the truth of what you believe. You're probably comfortable with that, but what about your congregation? I don't want to hear from some sweet old lady who's upset because I said her deceased son is not in Heaven, when all I did was challenge the premises of *your* political argument. You're exposing them to "second-hand criticism", so please prepare them for it.