CHURCHES & POLITICS

It's an issue that pops up with some regularity, and so here it is once again. Two Ohio churches are under fire for being too political. The charges are being brought by other clergy:

In a challenge to the ethics of conservative Ohio religious leaders and the fairness of the Internal Revenue Service, a group of 56 clergy members contends that two churches have gone too far in supporting a Republican candidate for governor.

Two complaints filed with the tax agency say that the large Columbus area churches, active in President Bush's narrow Ohio win in 2004, violated their tax-exempt status by pushing the candidacy of J. Kenneth Blackwell, who is the secretary of state and the favored candidate of Ohio's religious right.

The clergy members said the churches improperly held political activities and allowed Republican organizations to use their facilities.

The goal of the challenge is "for these churches to stop acting like electioneering organizations," said the Rev. Eric Williams, pastor of North Congregational United Church of Christ. "I don't want to harm or demonize these churches. I want these churches to act legally."

Of course, it's not quite as simple as it might seem. One wonders when this disinterested group of clergy will file complaints against predominantly black churches who support Democratic candidates, and have done so openly for years. Williams and his cronies themselves are being political; they're primarily upset that the two Ohio churches in question supported Republicans rather than candidates of their choice.

The churches in question counter that free speech ought to exist for them, too:

In Ohio, a perennial battleground that is again coveted territory in this year's midterm elections, the targets of the tax complaint -- World Harvest Church and Fairfield Christian Church -- attribute the filing to philosophical disagreements and partisan politics. One spokesman called it "a campaign of harassment" before the May 2 primary.

"Spiritual warfare," the Rev. Russell Johnson, Fairfield's pastor and chairman of the Ohio Restoration Project, said at a recent news conference. "There's still freedom of speech in this country and it should apply to Christians, as well. People need to get out of their pews, out from behind stained-glass windows, and shine a light for what is good and right."

Well, there is a great deal of truth to that, certainly. When we start letting the government decide what churches can say and what they cannot we are opening a very dangerous door. Canada has already stepped through it, limiting religious speech that is deemed discriminatory.

But when I read things like this I'm just uncomfortable:

Among the project's objectives is to recruit "Patriot Pastors" to become politically active in their counties and their congressional districts, according to the organization's Web site. Each should be ready to register voters "able to shine a light for Godly candidates in the 2006 election cycle."

Churches and preachers have to be very careful they don't simply become partisan political tools. Two problems exist with such a move. One is a loss of independence. You become beholden to an organized political body. There is also the very great problem of a loss of focus on the kingdom of God in favor of the kingdoms of men. Transitory political victories are alluring, but they cannot take away from the real work of expanding the borders of His kingdom, a victory that will last.

The notion that Christians should not participate in the political process is itself a dangerous form of discrimination, however. I once spoke to a fellow who told me that no preacher should be allowed to hold political office. This was during the days of Pat Robertson's run for the Presidency. That's something that sounds nice in some ways, and coforms to the public myth of 'separation of church and state'. But what about someone who attends church regularly and perhaps teaches Bible class? Maybe he even fills in for the preacher on occasion. Should he be banned? Such is a slippery slope the intent of which is to dismiss the seriously religious from the public square.

When we balance 'Patriot Pastors' against an intrusive government determining what churches are allowed to say, I will give the nod to the PPs. Once the government starts nosing and regulating they know no end.