Barack and the pulpit
Wall Street Journal’s front page reports on complaints that Obama’s Chicago church has been promoting him from the pulpit, and may thus be in violation of federal law that restricts a church’s political activity:
With 6,000 members, Trinity is the largest United Church of Christ congregation. The church is centered in a poor Chicago neighborhood, near public housing and down the road from Cut Rate Food & Liquors, which posts a sign reading “No drug dealing.” A review by The Wall Street Journal of 13 sermons at Trinity seen live or through church-recorded DVDs since late December found nine instances of ministers at Trinity appearing to promote Sen. Obama’s candidacy.
The WSJ explains that prohibition on political speech is aimed at preventing the government from subsidizing — in the form of tax breaks — partisan political speech. And similar scrutiny is being applied to a Baptist church in Buena Park, Calif. that appeared to endorse Huckabee.
Churches get into the endorsement game at their own risk — when they become extensions of a political party or a movement, they risk being co-opted and “bought” in any number of ways. And I resent it when a rabbi assumes the entire congregation shares his/her political views (more than I resent it when they express other views with which I disagree? That’s a good question). But it seems pretty clear that without the ability to address the issues of the day, and in specific terms, clergy and houses of worship risk irrelevance. Stuff about being a “prophetic” voice goes only so far if a rabbi or pastor can’t speak truth to power, however he/she sees the truth and/or the power.
One option is to reform the law and extend to houses of worship the status of other nonprofits, which, as the WSJ explains, “are permitted to engage in partisan political activity but have more limited tax protections. For instance, their financial supporters aren’t allowed to claim tax deductions for their donations.”
But a more consistent, and sensible, option, is for churches and synagogues that want to play politics to give up their tax exemptions. Cal Thomas argued this a few years back:
This would be my preference because it offers them unfettered opportunity to influence and shape government according to their own beliefs without the fear or favor of government leaders who might support their views today, but after a future election, oppose them.
Fundraisers would blanch, and houses of worship would complain that the loss of a tax exemption would hinder their ability to serve the poor and needy (not that serving the poor and needy is a prequisite for earning a tax break, as far as I can tell). We’ve come to accept that the government subsidizes worship as a greater public good. But liberals and conservatives can agree that such support comes with a price: censorship.
JustASC is written by Andrew Silow-Carroll, Editor-in-Chief of the 