Apropos Mike Potemra:

I attended Pentecost Sunday services at New York's Episcopal Cathedral of St. John the Divine, and the liturgy was, in general, lovely and uplifting. But the sermon, by the Very Rev. James Kowalski, was a case in point of why politics should be avoided in the pulpit. It being Pentecost, the first reading was from Acts 2, about the apostles speaking in tongues yet being understood by visitors from around the world in all their own particular languages... But the example Reverend Kowalski used to illustrate this was . . . Newsweek's recent cover story about how Iran doesn't really want nuclear weapons. Now, I have no interest per se in fanning war hysteria vis-a-vis Iran — maybe there's something to be said for patience and negotiations etc. etc. — but I think this sermon was liberal wishful thinking at its worst.

Some people, misunderstanding (inverting, even) the Constitution's protection of worship, believe allowing political speech in churches, or from believers in other contexts, should be illegal. (Sadly, this is what passes as "defending democracy" today.) Obviously, I disagree.

That said, I agree it's unwise to use one's place for worship for obviously partisan ends -- or illustrations, even. If someone is less spiritually "mature" than you (however you flatter yourself by defining that) they may still be all mixed up politically (on the right or left wing, whichever you think to be wrong) because of that underlying spiritual issue -- and may miss your spiritual point because of partisanship. Or the converse may happen: someone needs a spiritual word, but instead receives a political diatribe -- perhaps one they even agree with.

Our kingdom, Jesus said, is not of this world.

Additionally, pastors are supposed to be smart about spiritual things, but aren't really hired to know much about politics or economics. (Heck, most politicians are ignorant of at least one of those two topics.) It's a bit like being asked to teach someone to cook, based on your culinary experience, yet spending your time critiquing your students' hairstyles. Not what they were looking for, and probably not what you're good at.

So why do it?

Christianity, and Judaism before it, has a long history of using the language of politics to try to describe what are essentially religious concepts. Great and mighty God is the "king of kings and Lord of lords." Just as kings are supposed to enforce earthly justice, so there is a heavenly justice. God's communion with men Jesus calls the "kingdom" of God, our voluntary submission means his "rule." People who do the right thing are a like a "city on a hill." Just as one renders to Caesar what is Caesars, and Washington that which bears his name and likeness, so also one renders unto God what he has first offered us: love and mercy.

Conversely, we are now seeing those who use the language of heaven to describe what is essentially political content. "Worship" means voting, "mercy" means state-run welfare programs, "salvation" means earthly utopia (Construction Starting Now! Coming by 2012!), "peace on earth, goodwill towards men" means a coercive external global regime, not voluntary unity among those who so decide.

So why do it?

Because, in some cases, one's religion IS political. Most cases, actually: Communism was certainly a political religion. (Proving, conclusively, that atheism is no immunization against religious fanaticism.) Islam is a political religion. And even Buddhism -- Tibetan Buddhism, at least -- historically. Shintoism was a huge part of the the force behind Japanese Nationalism, and Nazism was a deeply green and people-centric spiritual movement.

I don't mean that religious people should be uninterested in politics. Of course not. Improving the world often means improving the world's collective infrastructure -- including the state. But that's supposed to be an outgrowth of one's faith, a side effect. For some, it's the core: heaven on earth, here and now. So it's unsurprising such believers incessantly warn of the "devils" who stand in the way -- all who fail to support their political views.