Clergy crosses endorsement line

Gerald L. Zelizer

In Maryland, for instance, Robert Ehrlich, the Republican candidate for governor, was invited not long ago to speak about his candidacy at the Silver Spring Jewish Center immediately following religious services on a major Jewish holiday. Although the center's rabbi, Herzel Kranz, did not specifically endorse Ehrlich's candidacy, he later acknowledged to me that "all understood why Ehrlich was there and why his Democratic opponent, Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, currently lieutenant governor, was not invited." This, in other words, was an endorsement by implication.

Despite a 48-year-old prohibition on political activity by tax-exempt organizations, including religious ones, such implicit endorsements by religious leaders are common. Clergy members find loopholes and indirect techniques to endorse the candidates they believe will further their moral and religious agendas. They claim that their actions are justified because of the important role religion plays in issues of the day and because the church should be able to enjoy free speech, too.

Politics from the pulpit, according to Pastor William Phillips of Faithway Baptist Church in Ypsilanti, Mich., have galvanized Americans on matters as diverse as taxation and slavery. Under current law, he argues, "the church is the only major body that is censored and gagged when it comes to exercising the free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment in this country."

But do we really want our religious leaders and churches to become power brokers courted by candidates and political parties at election time? I think not.

Clergy members and their churches already have other ways to address important issues of our times -- school prayer, homosexuality, right to die, abortion and the death penalty -- that are free of political entanglements.

Encouraging religious endorsements of candidates undermines the moral authority of religious leaders rather than enhances it, as some claim. Getting involved in the endorsement process engages members of the clergy in the bargaining, tradeoffs, compromises and favors inherent to politics. Those detract from rather than add to religion's prophetic voice. Our points of view have greater influence if they address issues, not candidates.

The nexus of religion and politics has a long history. Many a religious leader, instead of shying away from the political spotlight, have used their religious standing to promote political issues of importance to their followers; the Revs. Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesse Jackson come to mind, as does the Rev. Jerry Falwell.

But the "techniques" being used during this election year are getting much more subtle. There's also plenty of evidence that endorsement efforts are increasingly creeping into areas long considered taboo:

• Endorsement as a byproduct. Candidates are often invited to address a religious service about their own religious faith. For example, in the current North Carolina campaign for senator, Elizabeth Dole has visited no fewer than a dozen churches to "give witness" to her Christian faith. She received accolades from many of the pastors for translating her religious principles on such issues as school prayer and abortion. While the pastors have not directly endorsed her candidacy from the pulpit, it is clear why she is there and why they have been so effusive in their praise.
• The wink method. The Rev. C. Welton Gaddy, executive director of the Interfaith Alliance and pastor of Northminster Church of Monroe, La., tells of a pastor who called him at radio station KREF in Oklahoma City to tell of attending a policy briefing on politics for pastors led by a well-known and politically active clergyman. The clergyman explained how he would invite political candidates to worship services and tell his congregation, "I am supporting this candidate, but you don't have to."
• Endorsement off the pulpit. Some ministers endorse a candidate through a letter on personal stationery rather than that of the church. Or they do something similar to what Phillips of Ypsilanti did. He has a bumper sticker on his car supporting the candidacy of Dick Posthumus, who is running for governor of Michigan. "Everyone knows whom the car belongs to and which church I am pastor of," he admits. And, he adds, at his church, "We only announce meetings on political points of view that we agree with."

The Rev. Walter E. Fauntroy, a retired member of Congress and pastor of New Bethel Baptist Church in Washington, D.C., acknowledges that the laity of his church looks to him to interpret political issues and endorse candidates. He explains that forays into partisan politics by clergy members "translates belief into public policy among those who have the least." That's especially true, he says, in five key areas: income, education, health care, housing and justice.

Certainly, religion should examine political issues. But churches and members of the clergy who support specific political candidates risk polarizing our religious institutions and the nation as a whole.

Cooperation and better understanding among different religious faiths are cornerstones of religion as it is practiced in America. Both are at risk if the use of oblique political endorsements by churches and clergies becomes even more widespread. Imagine mosques indirectly endorsing a pro-Palestinian candidate, synagogues a pro-Israeli one, Methodist churches a pro-choice politician and Catholic churches a pro-life candidate. The combustion of the political differences would surely divide religions in America, which are already fractured by other divisions based on theological, racial and economic differences.

That's why, as Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., often has pointed out, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., as passionate as he was for social issues, never endorsed a candidate.