Pastors engaged in civil disobedience?

In yesterday's Indianapolis Star, Robert King wrote about a group of pastors here in Indiana and elsewhere who used this past Sunday to engage in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday". This event was sponsored by the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative legal organization whose stated description is "an legal alliance defending the right to speak and hear the Truth". According to the article, it is "a move by the pastors to either endorse candidates whose stances line up with their biblical worldview or to warn people away from candidates who don't." Specifically, there were at least 30 pastors in 22 states who intended "to blatantly cross a line that exempts churches from federal income taxes as long as they don't endorse or oppose specific candidates or engage in otherwise partisan political activity."

I have mixed feelings about this effort. First of all, I understand the desire to pursue freedom of speech, even in the church. I also understand the existing disparity that I've always found a bit puzzling--namely, how often we hear about the separation of church and state, while simultaneously reading about the parade of Democratic presidential candidates (John Kerry, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, etc...) who fill the pulpits in so many African-American churches during the campaign seasons, with no one seeming to bat an eyelash about it.

That said, my understanding from my experience as a pastor is that the current law makes it pretty clear as to what a pastor can/can't say from the pulpit regarding political candidates, and still maintain their non-profit status. Is this civil disobedience to flout that law? Some could make that argument. But it seems to break down when compared, say, to the civil disobedience in which Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was engaged to increase civil rights for blacks. After all, the means they employed were necessary because of the restrictions imposed in the culture at that time.

The difference today is that there are other, legal, means which pastors/churches can employ to achieve the same result. After all, simply doing a side-by-side comparison of the positions/votes of each presidential candidate this year (i.e. abortion, homosexuality, etc...) would yield the same result without even having to specifically endorse one over the other.

What do you think? 

UPDATE: It looks like Cal Thomas has been reading The Daily Detour.

Comments

[Ben]

When I saw that in yesterday's paper I was sad. I think it is mis-directed. You hit the nail in the head John- there are way more appropriate and legal avenues to communicate to folks. This is one more reason for a Christiantiy black eye and another example that people point to when asked their opinion about the role of religon in politics. Good intentions for sure, but is this the battle to fight? Hate crime legislation will be where this issue gets fought.

[Abby]

I don't think it matters if it is legal or not. What really matters is that church should be a place where we come together as the body of Christ. And talking politics is one way to make sure that doesn't happen!

[Paige]

I never really thought about it until I was visiting a church a few months back when they posted an Obama logo on their big screen. I was outraged and all I could think is how I would not come back to a church that had the audacity to promote a political candidate basically from the pulpit. Besides I would like people to quit telling me how to vote in general.