Citing religious liberty, President Trump signed an
executive order on May 4, 2017, the National Day of Prayer, “directing the
Internal Revenue Service to avoid cracking down on political activity by
religious organizations.”[1]
In particular, clergy could then endorse political candidates without fear that
their respective churches would lose their tax-exempt status. It is a bit
extreme that such status would be lost simply because a pastor mentions a
preference for a political candidate or a particular public policy, for such
references are not integral or central to a clergy’s message, which is
religious in nature. Nevertheless, the risk of religious faith being usurped by the
political merits an attentive watchfulness, at the very least.
Outwardly, religious content can unwittingly, and without
notice even to the religionist oneself, give way to political agendas,
especially during an election season. In fact, such agendas—in particular, the
ideologies—can “rebrand” themselves into religious garb such that even the
endorsement of a political candidate can be presumed to be religious in nature.
When the U.S. president signed the order, for example, he said, “For too long,
the federal government has used the power of the state as a weapon against
people for faith, bullying and even punishing Americans for following their
religious beliefs.”[2] The
implication is that endorsing a candidate is such a belief. With the distended
notion of religious belief comes less room for, or a proportionate decrease in
the genuine article.
A more subtle
downside—one that is actually even more likely—has to do with the impact of
even occasional politically-partisan statements on the still-dominant religious
ethos and message. The overlay of a cross-cutting partisanship compromises the
coherence in the primary partisan axis. Don’t despair; this statement needs
some unpacking.
Feuerbach (1804-1872), a European philosopher, uncovered a
seldom-recognized side of faith by analyzing Christianity. Within the faithful,
the partisan nature of faith is obscured by the unity of the faithful. The prejudiced
nature of faith—its “(d)ogmatic, exclusive, scrupulous particularly”—does not
play out among the faithful, except as it cuts off part of itself as heretics.[3]
Far from being universally applicable, love gives way only within the confines
of the faithful. “He is not for Christ is against him; that which is not
chiristian is antichristian.”[4]
It would be to dishonor God to love those who dishonor God. “Hence faith has
fellowship with believers only; unbelievers it rejects. It is well-disposed
towards believers, but ill-disposed towards unbelievers.”[5]
Even as believers actually harbor hatred toward the disbelievers—belief being
presumed to be decisive to faith—they overlook their ill-will and thus that in
faith itself “lies a malignant principle.”[6]
Within the faithful, it does not come into play, so faith is perceived as
wholly salubrious—without a back side. Keeping disbelievers at bay ensures the
apparent congruence of love and faith. Yet if another sort of partisanship is
introduced within a congregation—such as political partisanship—a cleft arises
such that can break up the serenity of the love of faith. Put another way,
introducing political disagreement disrupts the agreement that exists within
the faithful. The cost in endorsing partisan causes or candidates is in terms
of the original domain—that of religion. The malignant principle of faith and
political anger at the opposition are one and the same; introducing a political
cleft into a congregation resonates with the partisan nature of faith, yet even
as the latter can remain invisible from within the confines of the faithful.
So clergy in the pulpit should think twice before lapsing into
the political arena, even as mere partisan mouthpieces. In addition to the
opportunity cost of foregone attention to religious matters, the offense
engendered among the faithful creates a rift on the bright side of faith that
detracts from it unnecessarily.
[1]
Michael D. Shear, “Trump
Eases Political Activity by Religious Organizations,” The New York Times, May 4, 2017.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ludwig
Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity (New
York: Harper & Brothers, 1957), 251.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Ibid, 252.
[6]
Ibid.
