Politics and the Problem of Truth

A clergy friend of mine recently posted a question on Facebook regarding the minefield of clergy or churches making political endorsements.  I responded that I have no respect (or fear) of the law that says that churches, like other 501 C 3's risk losing their tax exempt status if they make an endorsement.  I would argue that the 1st amendment says that churches can do what they feel they need to do without fear of reprisal from government agencies... but that is another discussion.  I went on to say that churches still should not make endorsements.  Here's why.

First off, even the most homogeneous of congregations still have some diversity of thought.  To endorse a candidate will certainly disenfranchise anyone who supports another candidate or even those who are questioning. 

Most importantly though, every candidate will at times make stands or statements that fly in the face of commitments that we must make as followers of Jesus.  If we have endorsed a candidate, it can be very difficult to stand against those actions.  That will damage any claims of credibility we have in the world.

I was particularly struck by this in the recent VP debate.  Mike Pence calls himself an evangelical Christian and is the darling of the conservative Christian political movement, often being touted as a future presidential candidate.  Again and again, he responded to challenges from Kaine with "that isn't true" or "we never said that" when there evidence is right there on the web for all to see. 
We expect politicians to exaggerate and even to make promises that they have little intention of keeping... but to flat out deny reality, to lie bold faced, is another matter.  For people who call themselves followers of the one who is The Truth to so readily abandon that commitment to truth telling only tells us that they are not really so committed to The Truth as they claim.

We can argue whether one candidate is less truthful than another.  There are websites that track such things, as biased as they may be.  In any case, that only supports my argument that churches need to avoid endorsements.  If facing the truth makes us squirm at our chosen candidate... then maybe we need a different one.

Torture

In general, I'm not a fan of the National Association of Evangelicals. For too long, they have been closely identified with a neocon political agenda and have reflected a theology a lot more narrow than mine, especially regarding women's rights and GLBT issues. That said, even though many or most of them might not consider me an "evangelical," it is term that were it not for the above associations and a few others, I could use to describe my own theological position.

All that said, the board of the NAE has taken a wonderful and courageous step. They signed The Evangelical Declaration against Torture: Protecting Human Rights in an Age of Terror . While I don't agree with some of the references to abortion in the document, I am thrilled with an application of theology and moral argument to the issue of torture from a conservative Christian point of view. Bottom line for the document is that there are no circumstances that allow for torture and that as conservative followers of Jesus, the signatories stand against any abridgment of human rights in the name of a war on "terror." (quotes are present in the document)

I'm sure the board will catch a lot of heat for signing but there is no question that signing the document is a first step that Jesus would have taken and to which any evangelical is called.