Mixing Preaching with Politics

As I was reading my weekly copy of "The Week Magazine," I happened upon an article that has once again touched upon the ancient, never ending argument over the "Separation of Church and State." Understandably, this conflict is not a new one. The question of the right of the state's power over the church certainly has been long debated in ancient times, through Roman history, during the Medieval period and beyond. The political theorist and philosopher, John Locke was one of the first to suggest the modern view point that is generally accepted among Americans today. His principle of the "social contract" helped to frame the basic belief that the state should have no right to make personal religious decisions on behalf of it's citizens.

It would seem that originally, the chief concern of the early philosopher and even the early American, in regards to the separation of church and state, was to limit the power of the state from presiding over religion. Over the years this concern has progressively grown and evolved, as this week's article appears to show. Concern has come to exist not only for the state's influence over religion, but also for religion's influence over the state.

I have often heard the old phrase told, "Don't make a mountain out of a mole hill." It would seem that a group of itchy preachers just had to do that. They had to push the non-profit envelope in making the daring and unorthodox decision to explicitly endorse a particular political candidate from ther pulpit. Quoting the article from The Week titled "Preaching and Presidential Policies," we find the debate rousing news that:

"A group of 33 ministers in 22 states agreed to endorse a presidential candidate from their Sunday pulpits, said the Las Vegas Sun in an editorial, to challenge a 1954 law that says nonprofits, including churches, lose their federal tax exemptions if they back candidates."

The article goes on to describe how the ministers and their supporters are hoping to gain momentum from their dubbed "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," perhaps enough to overturn the decades old law on the argument that it an unconstitutional violation of the right to free speech. They claim that because pastors are already able to make their political affiliations clearly known without mentioning names, they should be further permitted to make official endorsements.

A scenario like this gives me some cause for worry. Perhaps the first amendment rights of these ministers are being limited by this 1954 law which prohibits the announcement of official political endorsements by non-profit churches. Yes, I would in fact grant that these church leaders are losing some personal freedom in choosing to label their organization as a non profit, even if that freedom may be nothing more than a trifle. However, this is a choice that they have consciously made. It is an explicit agreement if you will. Based on common American principle, there are few instances when an explicit agreement should ever be broken.

Excluding the fact that the churches have agreed to withhold from official endorsements, there is certainly another fact to be considered here. While the possibility stands that the courts may rule in favor of the churches and their right to free speech, a distinct alternate possibility remains. Realistically, the courts could find that the church has indeed over-stepped it's political bounds in this instance and could easily rule their actions to be unjustified and illegal. Let us be reminded that a fairly large representation of Americans is of the opinion that the church should not be involved in politics at all. Drastic actions like this one on behalf of these 33 ministers could potentially ignite a completely contrary governmental and public reaction that was never anticipated.

Throughout the past 50 years the state has been involving itself in a slow but steady process of removing the voice of religion from government and politics. From restricted prayer in school, to the removal of religious icons from public places, the church is indeed being limited in America with each passing year. Even today individuals are challenging the rights of the church to uphold allegedly "offensive" moral standards that have been considered unspoken ethical law for centuries. Undoubtedly the state has been following a definite trend of religious suppression in recent decades that shows no sign of stopping. It is this trend that leads me to question if this recent move on behalf of the church was a wise one. In raising the question, the Church may very well be only speeding their own furthered political limitation.

Is it really worth the risk to fight for the simple right to mention the name of a political candidate from the pulpit? Come on Church, let's think about this now...

This Week's Article Gleaned From: http://www.theweek.com/article/index/89295/3/3/Preaching_and_presidential_politics