RELIGIOUS LEADERS WHO ENDORSE CANDIDATES ARE PRACTICING PHONY RELIGION

I first singed my fingers on the volatile mixture of religion and politics about 20 years ago. Sue Myrick – a lovable, but slightly loopy, friend – was running for mayor of Charlotte. She asked to speak before my congregation, and I agreed, provided that a Q&A session would follow. We built her visit around a Sabbath dinner, assuming that it would create a relaxed, convivial atmosphere. We were, if nothing else, an overwhelmingly friendly audience.

Sue delivered some fairly cogent remarks, but the Q&A marked a disastrous turn. After fielding two creampuffs, someone asked the inevitable: “How would your religious fundamentalism be reflected in the way you conduct the comings-and-goings of the city?”Inexplicably, Sue choked up. She was obviously not angry, but hurt by the question. She began to weep, her face crossed by an expression that said, “I thought you were my friends,” and with that, her husband led her from the synagogue. Ironically, we were her friends, and despite her decompensating, which became the morning news, she won the race, and is now in her seventh term as a North Carolina Congresswoman.

That painful exchange became emblematic of what happens when religion and politics try to woo each other into going to bed, albeit one of its more bizarre examples.

The ultra-fundamentalist Dr. Bob Jones endorses the heretical Mormon, Romney, not for his relationship to God, but because he is “electable.” The equally fundamentalist Pat Robertson takes the podium with the moderate, Catholic Giuliani, because he is “electable,” despite his fealty to the Antichrist, the Pope. And, fundamentalist constituentswait breathlessly until Dobson’s endorsement is revealed.

All this gets to be pretty messy stuff. It should be jarring, even hypocritical, for men of faith to jump into the pocket of a particular candidate, putting pragmatism ahead of their beliefs, to which they purportedly pledge their highest allegiance. Jesus certainly did not ally with the Romans because they consistently won the “elections.” Nor did Christian martyrs save their lives by surrendering their beliefs to appease the infidels.

Religious leaders, those who subscribe to the teachings of the Prophets, should not support candidates, nor even become too chummy with them. They should be their adversaries, vigilant over what a candidate espouses, whenever they agree and especially when they disagree. Religion’s purpose is to raise relentless gadflies whose mission is to afflict the comfortable, not make smarmy campaign appearances.

David had his Nathan. Jeroboam had his Amos. Isaiah took on all of Judea’s bourgeois. And tell me about Jesus and the Pharisees.

Religious leaders are phony so long as they espouse fealty to one man alone, rather than the autonomy to agree, challenge, or even condemn any candidate who strays from virtue. I’d rather hear a minister caustically denounce a candidate than play kissy with him.

Has Romney or Guiliani strayed from virtue? That’s a story for another time. But the idea of a religious leader “belonging” to a candidate or vice versa, smells of religion selling out and politicians becoming even more opportunistic than they have always been.

So, religious leaders, stay true to your principles. Let the first among them be autonomy, to never fear to speak the truth, even if it means not currying political favor or being invited to officiate at Presidential prayer breakfasts.