HOUSTON - There is no telling how many churches actually participated in
"Pulpit Freedom Sunday," an event designed to challenge the government's
restriction on political pronouncements from the pulpit.
The Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal alliance of Christian
attorneys, headed by President Alan E. Sears, whose activist roots go back
to the 1980s, cooked up the idea. A press release from the organization
promised that on Sept. 28 pastors in 20 states "will reclaim their
constitutional right (and) from the pulpit, they will advise their
congregation what scripture says about today's issues, apply(ing) those
issues to the candidates standing for election just like their forefathers
did 150 years ago."
The release might have added, "and just as many in some African-American
churches do today, but without the pressure by the IRS, which many white
conservative churches and institutions feel." Clearly a double standard
exists as to how the law is applied (see the political pronouncements of
Reverends Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, as three of many
examples).
The law restricting political language from the pulpit is of rather recent
vintage. Until 1954, election sermons could be heard on the first Sunday in
November, or virtually any other time, without invoking the wrath of
government. That changed when then-senator Lyndon Baines Johnson offered an
amendment to restrict nonprofit organizations, including churches, from
endorsing or opposing political candidates. The amendment passed and has
been part of the IRS code ever since.
If one takes the position that the political life of the country is a fit
subject for sermonizing - whether the subject is poverty, abortion, or low
behavior in high office - then the First Amendment should certainly prevail
over efforts to categorize and, thus, restrict free speech. The early
colonial sermons were filled with righteous indignation and some indignation
that was anything but righteous, but people were free to make up their own
minds as to whether their pastor was speaking for God, or if he had more
temporal concerns.
Before this type of "Berlin Wall" between church and state is torn down,
however (and Johnson had his own political motives for erecting it), those
who favor freeing pastors from political purgatory have some higher
obstacles to overcome.
The first obstacle is what Scripture teaches about a Christian's
relationship to the state. In one of the best-known passages, Paul the
Apostle writes, "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities,
for there is no authority except that which God has established." (Romans
13:1) Is defying the law, no matter what political motivations were behind
it, submitting to such authority, or opposing it?
Obstacle number two has to do with the reason people attend worship
services. It is not, or should not be, in order to pledge allegiance to a
party, candidate or earthly agenda. One can spend inordinate amounts of time
on that subject simply by watching cable TV, or listening to talk radio, or
reading the newspapers. No matter how hard they try to protect the gospel
from corruption, ministers who focus on politics and politicians as a means
of redemption must minimize their ultimate calling and message. The road to
redemption does not run through Washington, D.C. Politicians can't redeem
themselves from the temptations of Washington. What makes anyone think they
can redeem the rest of us?
This pulpit rebellion also presumes that congregants lack a worldview or
knowledge about candidates and politics that only a pastor can address. In
my church, we have many highly educated people, Republicans and Democrats,
who would not take kindly to the pastor discoursing on politics anymore than
they would accept legal or medical advice from their auto mechanic.
The law has done churches a favor, however inadvertent, by protecting most
of them from the downside of electioneering, but a strong constitutional
challenge would most likely overturn it. The flip side would be whether the
politicians would then allow churches to maintain their tax-exempt status.
Whether the law is repealed, or not, churches and ministers would do better
to keep their attention focused on the things above, rather than the things
below, because politics can be the ultimate temptation and pollute a far
superior and life-changing message.