How do we really separate church and state?

It is probably a pretty fair assessment to say that politicians are trained in politics. Likewise, pastors, reverends, rabbis and other clergy are trained to understand and deliver sermons from their respective religious viewpoints. Should politicians delve into delivering sermons? An even more pressing question that has raised tremendous debate in recent weeks is whether or not clergy should be politickers in the pulpit?

I can recall a number of Sunday worship services during election time where numerous politicians addressed the congregation to explain why he or she would be the best person to represent the people. As I have attended both predominately white and predominately black churches, this has been the case for me irrespective of the congregation. On a number of occasions, I have heard the pastor make very genetic and open statements to parishioners such as, “Be sure to go out to the polls to cast your votes on Tuesday.” Contrastingly, I have also heard politicians opening express religious beliefs.

According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), charities and churches that are deemed 501(c)(3) organizations (not-for-profits) are those “which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition) any candidate for public office.” Interestingly, there is at least one organization, Project Fair Play, whose sole purpose is to “stop illegal church electioneering.” In other words, they want to ensure the separation of church and state. Project Fair Play has a page on their website where individuals can submit suspected violations of law by a church. Immediately noted on the website is a rendering of a statehouse flank by a church.

Discussions have taken place that depicts the blending of church and state as a “black problem”, more or less. The media continues to juxtapose the “black church” with the “black experience” in America. This is firstly an inaccurate depiction. Numerous churches around the country—regardless of predominance in race—are publically and privately supporting politicians in their bids for public offices. Ministers are joining candidates’ “spiritual teams” (also known by other names), not necessarily as a representative of a given church, but as individuals who just so happened to be men and women of the cloth. Simultaneously, they are the pastors and spiritual leaders of the politicians’ churches. Pastors then have the daunting task of keeping separate his or her personal campaign responsibilities, pledges, and viewpoints from that of the church.

Lastly, it is easily understood how these responsibilities may intersect given the enormous pressures placed on pastors by politicians and the community at large. They all want that person to take a stance for right and against wrong. Pastors do far more than deliver sermons—they also lead the church. By that, they are the spiritual advisors to most, if not all of the members of his or her congregation, ensure that financial records are properly maintained, and much, much more. The onus is placed at pastors’ doorsteps when things begin to go awry.

Given the overwhelming, yet tedious jobs of clergymen, I find it difficult to blame them for their positionality. We expect them to be our leaders in the church and in the community. However, we also come to them for advice on our personal lives that are inclusive of politics. Should we blame ourselves as we constitute the congregations? Should we blame the politicians? Conversely, when we are done placing blame, we still have not figured out how to separate church from state. Is it even really possible? © Keydron Guinn 2008