Would I If I Could?

In today’s edition of the Duluth NewsTribune, two dueling editorials were printed addressing the same issue – “Do religious leaders have a free speech right to endorse political candidates from the pulpit?” For the affirmative – Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice. Arguing against – Rev. Barry Lynn , executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

Sekulow: The IRS is stifling the free-speech rights of religious leaders in a world where most Americans understand that the intersection of faith and politics is a well-recognized part of this nation’s culture and heritage. The problem: a 54-year-old federal tax law that prevents religious leaders from truly exercising their constitutionally protected free-speech rights when they act in their official capacity as a pastor of head of a religious, tax-exempt organization. He goes on to argue that other non-profit groups are not so constrained, unions, for example. He cites precedent in our history, prior to the passing of this regulation. He argues that the distinction between speech addressing the pressing moral issues of the day, including public policy issues, which is legal, and speech endorsing candidates is neither clear nor helpful.

Lynn: Houses of worship exist to fill spiritual needs and bring people closer to God. But many offer much more: Their soup kitchens provide meals to impoverished families, they give counseling to young couples and they sponsor youth groups, among other endeavors. But one thing churches should never do is act as political brokers. Put simply, handing down a list of candidate endorsements is not the role of our faith communities. Clergy have no business acting like party bosses…. The American people have not asked for, and do not want, their clergy to issue orders on how to behave in the voting booth. Lynn argues that the distinction between addressing issues and endorsing candidates is clear and reasonable, and he believes the current law is serving our country well.

The question that intrigues me most is – would I if I could? It was fascinating for me to discover that this prohibition against clergy and congregations endorsing candidates is only fifty-some years old. I am bothered by some of the ways I have heard about the IRS interpreting this law – congregations which have not named candidates but who have been brought under scrutiny for their public policy discussions and stances. I remember reading about a California congregation under investigation for its strong anti-war stance. I firmly believe that churches need to discuss moral issues and that many public policy questions have a significant moral dimension to them. I am concerned by an overly broad interpretation of the current law. Furthermore, I find Lynn’s language about clergy as party bosses issuing orders untenable. I don’t know what church Lynn attends, but if I were to share with my congregation who I was voting for and why, at best members might receive this as a helpful suggestion – certainly not an order from a political boss. Nevertheless, I am not arguing for a repeal of the current law. I would want to give that much more thought. The question that intrigues me, as I’ve said, is “Would I if I could?”

It’s September and congress has repealed the law prohibiting clergy from endorsing candidates in their official capacity (I could endorse a candidate as a private citizen even now). I am an active voter (more about that in a moment), and have decided who I want to support and among my reasons for supporting this candidate are faith-based moral positions. Should I share my view, my endorsement with my congregation?

I assume many congregations are like mine, with a mix of persons holding a variety of political perspectives. More of the vocal people in my church tend to be politically liberal. However, there are some strong moderates in the mix, and a fewer number of conservative voters. Frankly, there are a whole lot of people I have no idea about when it comes to how they might vote. By endorsing one candidate, I am essentially saying that as an intelligent person, and a person of deep and thoughtful Christian faith, here’s who I think people should vote for. I will respect those who disagree, but the subtle message will be that I don’t think they have considered the relation of their faith to their politics as thoroughly as I have. I risk alienating these people. People who might otherwise be willing to engage in conversation about issues, though we disagree, may find my endorsement of a candidate the final straw. The conversation could end, a conversation that enriches both of us.

I risk alienating these people, and for what? For a particular candidate in a particular election. Politics matters. My doctoral dissertation was on democratic political theory and Christian ethics. Differences in candidates matter. But issues are deeply complex, and no single candidate is going to usher in the reign of God, even if both houses of congress are also of the same political party! The building of a better world takes more than politics and government (though not less). It takes working with all kinds of people, including people with whom we disagree. There are times when we need to take the risk, as clergy, of saying things that will alienate people. Sometimes issues are of such moral importance that we should not remain silent. Awhile back I shared a story about a person who quit attending my church because he was in the military and I questioned what the use of techniques like waterboarding were doing to the soul of our country. I wish he would have stayed around. I know I could have learned from him, but I would not take back what I said - These days I sometimes wonder if we are not making an idol of national security, sacrificing at its altar values that we have long held important for our life as a county, values that are important to Christian faith. What are we willing to sacrifice for security? I am not denigrating concern for national security, only questioning the effects an exclusive concern for it may be having on us. The United States has kept people in prison for years, now, without charges and without trials. We have people debating whether or not simulated drowning is an appropriate interrogation technique. Are we becoming ruthless and heartless? But this is a very different thing from risking alienating people for a candidate in one election (when the next one is just a couple of years away!).

I’ve already mentioned that I am politically interested and politically active (at least to the extent that I am an informed voter and occasionally write about political issues, including letters to representatives). The first presidential candidate I voted for was neither a Democrat nor a Republican. It was 1980 and I was in college. Ronald Reagan was the Republican candidate that year, and Jimmy Carter the Democratic candidate. There was a strong third candidate that year, Illinois congressman John Anderson – but I didn’t vote for him either. I cast my first presidential vote for Barry Commoner of the Citizen’s Party, a short-lived party that is probably most closely aligned with today’s Green Party. Supposing I was ten years older and in my first appointment as a pastor, and I could endorse a candidate from the pulpit. So I share my passion for Barry Commoner in a place that where those who vote would overwhelmingly vote Democratic or Republican. Would I have alienated many? Would my ability to speak about issues seem suspect – everything filtered through electoral politics? Would my credibility have been damaged? I don’t know, but I don’t think it would have been a risk worth taking.

Would I if I could endorse a presidential candidate? Probably not – but you can count on me making it to the polls in November and in between discussing important issues and working to make the world a little more just and a little more peaceful and a little healthier.

With Faith and With Feathers,

David