Unitarian Universalism knows the importance of the separation of church and state. Thomas Jefferson, who declared himself a Unitarian, articulated the original language of separation that we still draw on. The UUA has been clear in its support for that separation from its earliest days. We are founding members of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

We understand that separation to be both a protection for government from the influence of any one religious point of view AND a protection for religious institutions from the interference of government. As a faith community, our advocacy for marriage equality rested on that separation.

There are also financial benefits of non-profit status that depend on it.

In this election year, it is important to remember what we can and cannot do, legally, but it is also important to name the spiritual challenge those legal requirements bring in this particular political season.

First: the rules. Churches are prohibited from endorsing or promoting any candidate for political office. We can host political discourse/dialogue, including dialogue by candidates as long as we invite all the candidates. We most certainly can discuss and take positions on political issues but we cannot endorse particular political candidates.

Ministers (and other religious leaders) are free to take and state personal positions on candidates, but are not allowed to do so on behalf of the institutions we serve.

Prudent ministers…that includes me…stay away from public speech that even suggests institutional endorsement of any candidate.

Most of you know that some religious leaders violate these rules. Neither I, nor First Unitarian, will cross that bright line. The discipline of observing that line, however, presents spiritual challenges that I want to name.

How do we deal with outrage at policies and speech from the US President that violate our own deeply held religious views? Isn’t that outrage a spiritual challenge that should be named and addressed in our church?

How do we deal with a political leader who uses the National Prayer Breakfast to celebrate his acquittal and attack other leaders as liars about what their faith has called them to do? Isn’t such hijacking of a religious event for political purposes itself a violation of the boundary between church and state?

How do we refrain from commentary about candidates when it is the behavior and speech of one of the candidates that violates the bright line of separation that we strive so hard to maintain? How do we respond when one of the candidates becomes the problem?

If we are required to remain silent, institutionally, about such deep violations of our faith, how then do we deal with a sense of powerlessness?

There is no roadmap to follow. But there is some point beyond which we cannot remain silent. I both fear that day is near and fear the ramifications of leaving that bright line behind. We are already in danger of creating a big theological tent with a narrow political point of view. I can make the case that the reason for that is to be found in our politics. But I believe so deeply that our church will fail if it becomes merely a political club.

I and we will observe the requirements. We will follow the rules. But we can at least name the outrage and the challenge the outrage poses for us. And we can continue to bend our efforts toward the building of Beloved Community and the preservation of hope that love will…in the end…and before long…win.

Blessings,

Bill