Do you want me to tell you who to vote for on November 6? Sorry. I'm not going to do it.
After 20 years of service in the same church, I share a level of mutual respect and trust with members of my congregation calling on my opinion as a regular part of conversation. However, there are some questions that I will not answer, endorsements of candidates among them. My refusal to endorse a candidate is not because of my disinterest in politics, but because of my respect for the integrity of religion generally and the pulpit specifically. A church pulpit is the nexus of Christian beliefs and contemporary issues. The pulpit's authority is compromised if those who stand in it and preach from it claim a divine authority for their endorsements of candidates. Such a commendation from a sacred desk trivializes other comments made there.
Let me tell you what I do. I stand on the pulpit of my church every Sunday and talk about the challenges we face as a nation and how faith can guide us in our thoughts and actions. I call on members of our congregation to demand that our elected leaders work together to find real solutions to major problems. But never will I even hint that there is a divine right of leadership in our community or that fidelity to any political agenda can serve as a litmus test for genuine faith. Our church is comprised of members of the Republican and Democratic parties, Tea Party advocates, and people so sick of political divides that they will not vote. I respect the members of my congregation to make their own choices in elections. And, because of my interest in protecting the integrity of the pulpit, I will ask my fellow clergy to stop allowing themselves to be used as a political weapon by turning their pulpits into political stumps.
I share the same concerns related to elections and churches with pastors across the country. Unfortunately, not all of my colleagues agree with me. Ignoring the First Amendment's protections of religious freedom that have allowed faith to flourish in this country, some members of the clergy are participating in an event called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," organized by the so-called Alliance Defending Freedom. Their goal is to tear down the prohibition barring clergy from making endorsements from the pulpit. It's an in-your-face approach to religion-based campaigning that dares the IRS to challenge them. These people ignore both the damage partisanship in the pulpit does to the gospel and the legal reality that the prohibition of political partisanship in the pulpit is settled law that has been tested and ruled on by the courts.
This is not the first time for this intentional violation of election law, and I have long been a vocal critic of it. In past election cycles, I circulated a pledge signed by hundreds of clergy, to keep politics out of the pulpit.
The clergy signing our pledge are people devout in their own faiths, who respect their congregants' right to make their own judgments about which candidate to support. They refuse even to imply that a person is not a good Christian if that person does not agree with their political preferences. The "pulpit freedom Sunday" participants, on the other hand, seem eager to dismantle the boundaries between religion and government so as to impose their own way of thinking on not only members of their congregations, but on all Americans. These members of the clergy seem to have no confidence in their own ability to provide their congregants a moral grounding sufficient to choose the "right" path.
Let us be clear about motives. Clergy endorsing candidates from the pulpit are trying to provoke a legal fight, not convey a spiritual truth. I am certain the ban on endorsements from the pulpit is constitutional. However, even if it didn't exist - if the courts did away with it tomorrow - it would do nothing to change my belief that clergy diminish their standing and damage their faith when they use their pulpits to further a political candidate. Similarly, just look at the corrupting influence that has resulted from the ever increasing intermingling of corporate interests and politics where all too often, self-interest has trumped national interest.
Our founders gave us a precious gift in their drafting of the First Amendment. I will not stand idly or quietly by as other try to destroy it and change the nature of faith.
Follow Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/WeltonGaddy
Kate Bowler: Sexual Misconduct and the American Prosperity Gospel
Morgan Guyton: Election Day Communion vs. Pulpit Freedom Sunday
 |
 |
|
| 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 |
I had not heard of this "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" until today, but I wouldn't have been surprised if our pastor participated in it. I agree with Rev. Gaddy that this should not be done.
It seems to me there could be a vote that would be vitally important for justice and peace and it would require me to speak out from the pulpit.
If there was a vote before us that would overthrow the 13th Amendment and enslave a race, I would HAVE to preach against it.
The author's position seems reasonable because it's countering the right-wing theocratic vision which is about deny rights. But it's a weak way of countering it. It doesn't say, 'You are wrong.' It says, "Be quite and so will I."
I suppose those attending "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" have political motivations to do so. I agree that politics in the pulpit injures the credibility of the pulpit.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/morgan-guyton/election-day-communion-vs-pulpit-freedom-sunday_b_1900978.html
Regulating speech from the pulpit is the establishment of religion. When you make the pastor answerable to the state for what he preaches, then you have an established religion. And have no doubt - just as with health care, the tax clause used to enforce the will of the state is as good as any other enforcement mechanism.
Furthermore, the 1954 Johnson Amendment (which was passed for political purposes, and is absolutely not a constitutional amendment) both limits speech, and the practice of religion.
So, despite the authors assurance that "he is sure that it is constitutional", the churches do not agree.
In closing, I'd note that it is more a matter of principle than anything else. For now that we've established religion an state control over what is said from the pulpit as an accepted fact, how far will the state carry it in the end? What is to stop them from putting further requirements on sermons?
However, if you don't abide by the tax code, you don't get tax-exempt status.
Easy.
Maybe not so easy.
That said it is important that the pressing issues are addressed. Be that poverty, joblessness, hunger, war, crime and other social challenges. Including abortion and marriage means.
But we cannot let that be decanted into an instruction on who to vote for. Because both sides of the political spectrum carry a compromised message.
The congregations donations built that church to preach Gods word and pay for their pastors living, not to preach some political ideology that might fly in the face of many who made those contributions.
If I were a tithing member of any church that preached politics, I would leave that church, turn them into the IRS and demand a full refund of every penny given to them.
However, the choice was made for them, by the less than intelligent people who have trouble having a logical and reasoned discourse with the not/less religious, who are mostly NOT Republican.
I think it is high time the religious tax exemption was ended altogether. It is very clear that churches are now heavily involved in politics which is NOT why they were given the exemption. Charitable exemptions should only be for actual charity work - not attempts to have their particular religiously-based political ideas foisted upon people who are not even members of their church or followers of their religion.
That's the big problem - religious organizations being involved so mightily in politics is always going to seem like particular religious ideas being thrust upon others outside of that particular religious group via law whether it is intended as such or not. I believe it is this overt political involvement is going to backfire and cause more people to start calling for the end of the religious tax benefit. The numbers of people expressing such is growing fast.
Best of all: you can't hide real estate in offshore accounts!
I'm all for keep tax exemptions for charity work, but the idea that all the work done by religious organizations is "charity" is a joke - just look at the millions of dollars that religious groups have funneled into fighting gay marriage. Expenses for protesting at soldier's funerals by Westboro Baptist is treated legally as though it is a work of charity. It is ridiculous.
Easy.