Political or Prophetic?

I've been musing lately over the whole question of politics and faith. Every candidate who is still a contender has been touting her/his religious affiliation. There's a Baptist minister, a Mormon, an Episcopalian-turned-Baptist, a Methodist, and a member of the United Church of Christ. None of this should make any difference - except to the extent that any of them elevates his/her religious doctrine above the laws of this country (or scientific evidence, but that's another story).

In a parallel development in this election, at least two candidates' religious faith have been questioned closely: Gov. Romney (because the LDS faith is still relatively unfamiliar) and Sen. Obama. Again, so what? There is no religious test for the presidency. This entanglement of religion and politics is bothersome to me.

As I watch the campaigns move on, I also wonder about this practice of candidates speaking at churches. I think they've all done it, and I hadn't really thought about it before this, with every candidate touting his/her faith credentials. Sen. Clinton spoke at a Baptist church yesterday, once again reciting the only Bible verse I've ever heard from her lips, "This is the day the Lord hath made, let us rejoice and be glad in it." (Psalm 118.24) I can't find a video of her speech, though NPR was playing snippets of it this morning. It didn't sound like a sermon to me, though.

And I wonder how that squares with the IRS rules regarding churches and political activities? Are the candidates paying for the privilege of using various pulpits for their Sunday stump speeches? And why are they always speaking at big churches, not mosques, or temples? Even more fundamentally, what does this really say about our much-vaunted separation of church and state?

I don't have any answers here - I'm just bearing witness & askig questions.

In a similar vein, where is the line between being political and prophetic in the pulpit? Those IRS rules are pretty darned clear about what a minister better not say from the pulpit, unless s/he wants to risk her/his church's tax-exempt status. We can talk about issues, we can't endorse specific candidates.

But, what about what's not so clear? Is it acceptable for clergy to take verbal potshots at "all conservatives" or "all liberals" from one of our UU pulpits? (Again - bearing witness.) We praise prophetic speech - Sen. Obama is good at it, actually - but there needs to be some clarity between prophetic and political. There is a difference between bearing witness to injustice, and preaching for or against a specific group's set of solutions.

We have a free pulpit - I think we have to be careful to use that freedom responsibly. I think that means recognizing that we are a liberal religion, not a political group. Liberal in the religious sense is different from politics. Here's a quick-and-easy definition.

I'm still thinking on this - and will be throughout the coming year...