Churches could face IRS probe

32 thoughts on “Churches could face IRS probe”

1. The list of those asking for the investigation into the two churches is a who’s who of leftist leaning churches.

2. Didn’t Al Gore show up at a couple of churches in the south some years ago during Sunday services to ‘worship’ amidst his presidential campaign? Does anyone know if they lost their tax exempt status? Just curious… 🙂

3. Jerry, you’re right about the list of those complaining. Frankly, the left-liberal side of the church spectrum seems to me to have been far more willing to advocate for individual politicians and political issues than the conservative side.

   That fact, though, doesn’t really change the legal reality. For an organization to have IRS 501(c)(3) nonprofit status, it cannot support or oppose individual officeholders or candidates AT ALL. Only “insubstantial” amounts of time and money can be spent “influencing legislation,” either. This is all very clear on Form 1023, the application for 501(c)(3) status. I endured completing that form just last week for the new mission I serve.

   Now, how to start complaining to the IRS about how the National Council of Churches abuses their (presumed, as the mention contributions are tax deductible) privileges as a nonprofit, considering how often they act as a mouthpiece of the Democratic Party.

4. Parsley preaches in my hometown of Columbus, and I honestly find his partisan politicking far less offensive* than the fact that one of his residential properties is listed at $1,020,660, all built on funds from tithes of the faithful of the World Harvest Bible Church (unless he has some side gig I’m unaware of). (Canal Winchester is not San Francisco … the median home price is $138,756.)

   Now, I have nothing against living well, but this doesn’t seem the most honest way of doing it. People wonder why Catholic clergy take vows of poverty. Well, one’s message is inevitably lost when the “love offerings” of the poor are used for non-essential luxuries.

   *After all, Hillary recently castigated Bush at a Baptist Church and no one raised a fuss over that.

5. As much as anything, this piece points up the bias of the press. The complaining ministers were listed as being “moderate” (sounds warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it) rather than the more accurate “liberal.”

6. Augie writes: “As much as anything, this piece points up the bias of the press. The complaining ministers were listed as being ‘moderate’ (sounds warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it) rather than the more accurate ‘liberal.'”

   No, it would not be accurate at all. In the usage of the right, “liberal” has become the one-size-fits-all pejorative term. People on the right can scarcely use the work without a sneer. It’s a term that really has no content any more. A “liberal” is anyone from a communist to someone who doesn’t like one of President Bush’s policies. In this venue even Glen has been accused of having “liberal” ideas, and he has rightly pointed out that in the mouths of the religious right the term has come to mean “heretic.” When someone on the right calls someone a liberal that is shorthand for “whatever this person said can be ignored.” That is why Jerry was so quick to rush in with his “whos who of liberals” remark. That’s his way of saying “don’t worry folks, there’s no real issue here.”

7. Before we let our conspiracy theories get out of hand, “liberal” churches have been the targets of similar investigations.

   “Conservatives Also Irked by IRS Probe of Churches; The agency’s warning to All Saints is part of a wider look into political activity by nonprofits.”

   http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-irs8nov08,0,2552376.story?coll=la-home-headlines

   November 8, 2005

   “The IRS threat to revoke the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena because of an antiwar sermon there during the 2004 presidential election is part of a larger, controversial federal investigation of political activity at churches and nonprofit groups.

   Over the last year, the Internal Revenue Service has looked at more than 100 tax-exempt organizations across the country for allegations of promoting â?? either explicitly or implicitly â?? candidates on both ends of the political spectrum, according to the IRS. None have lost their nonprofit status, though investigations continue into about 60 of those.

   ..Savvy churches make sure they don’t draw unwanted attention from the IRS, church officials and others said.

   When elections near, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles sometimes sends reminders to local parishes of its guidelines on political action. “We don’t endorse or oppose candidates, but we can endorse ballot propositions when there is a moral or ethical issue involved,” said archdiocese spokesman Tod Tamberg, who knew of no local Catholic churches under IRS scrutiny.

   This weekend, during Mass at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels, Archbishop Roger Mahony endorsed Proposition 73, the state ballot initiative requiring parental notification before an abortion can be performed on a minor.

   The Rev. William Turner, senior pastor at New Revelations Missionary Baptist Church in Pasadena, said he has never been questioned by the IRS about political activity at his church, despite his reputation as a supporter of President Bush. “We tell our members to vote their conscience,” Turner said. “I’ve been very careful to preach the Gospel, and I can’t get into any problems with the IRS for preaching the Gospel.”

   The Rev. John Hunter, pastor of 18,000-member First African Methodist Episcopal Church in South Los Angeles, said his church follows the IRS rules. “Churches have to be very careful,” he said.

   First AME also taps the expertise of member Kerman Maddox, a public relations and political consultant. He tells candidates they can worship at First AME but cannot speak from the pulpit about their candidacy. Instead, he tells them “they can shake hands, pass out literature and campaign to their heart’s delight” if they stay off church property. The church doesn’t endorse ballot initiatives, he said, and it bans campaign literature at the church.

   At All Saints, Rector J. Edwin Bacon on Sunday told the congregants that the guest sermon by Regas, a former rector, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted the warning from the IRS. In the sermon, Regas did not instruct parishioners whom to support in the presidential election but said that Jesus would have told the president that his Iraq policies had failed.

   The IRS’ letter cited a Times article describing Regas’ sermon as having triggered the agency’s concerns. The church denies it violated tax rules and has retained a Washington law firm to help argue its position.”

8. #6 Thanks Jim for putting words into my mouth. But please Jim, I am an adult and can speak for myself.

   I pointed out the complainers to show that it was a biased complaint. Not to say it wasn’t anything to worry about or some kind of rush to judgment. Each of the church denominations that are complaining have all been guilty at one time or another of politicking by using their church bodies to promote left leaning agendas. The most recent example is the PCUSA and the de-investment in Israel and meeting with the Palestinians. To complain about two independent churches’ politics is a bit disingenuous.

   In all honesty the two churches facing investigation are more than likely participating in politics. But the problem is — as several other people pointed out — there is an inconsistency in the press when reporting these types of issues. They act like this is some kind of “sin” of conservative churches, but fail to pull the log out of leftist churches when they allow DNC candidates to “preach” on Sunday morning.

   The real issue though is not right or left, but a silencing of free speech. I’m bothered by the fact that government threats with revocation of tax exemption silences churches.

   There is a long history in this country where churches were a community’s center for political debate and discussion. It was in churches in Concord and Lexington were debates were held about separation from England before the Revolutionary War. It was in St. John’s Church that Patrick Henry made his famous speech.
   It was in churches that issues like suffrage, abolition, and temperance were discussed and debated during the 19th century. It was in churches that civil rights started in the 20th century.

   But today when the church takes up causes like the right to life the church is silenced from speaking freely by government threats.

   It’s amazing that of the first amendment rights people will tolerate silencing churches. Yet, if a media outlet or protest group were forced to follow the same policies as churches it would be considered a violation of that amendment.

9. Jerry writes: “In all honesty the two churches facing investigation are more than likely participating in politics. But the problem is â�� as several other people pointed out â�� there is an inconsistency in the press when reporting these types of issues. They act like this is some kind of ‘sin’ of conservative churches, but fail to pull the log out of leftist churches when they allow DNC candidates to “preach” on Sunday morning.”

   I think the situation here is completely different, especially when you look at the total context. Revs. Parsley & Johnson have a Bible college, a church with something like $38 million in annual revenue, a personal estate worth about $2 million, a TV show that goes out over 1,400 stations, a project to enlist 2,000 “patriot” pastors and register several hundred thousand voters, a religious lobbying group, etc., etc. Parsley has book tours. Alan Keys and Ann Coulter (Ann Coulter?? yes, Ann Coulter) have spoken at his church.

   These dudes are not handing out communion at the local hospital in their spare time. They are big-league political activists and organizers, and major fund-raisers. They are so immersed in politics that I think it would be difficult for politics not to leak over into the church. If people like this start having politicans speak at their the church (membership 12,000) that has to be a cause of concern.

   This is so utterly different from some obscure pastor of a small church who speaks once in behalf of some ballot measure that there simply is no comparison. There is a difference here that can only be measured in orders of magnitude.

   Jerry: “The real issue though is not right or left, but a silencing of free speech. I’m bothered by the fact that government threats with revocation of tax exemption silences churches.”

   Well, you have to right to free speech but you don’t have a right to a tax exemption. All churches should be able to speak freely about social issues, but when it comes to endorsements of specific candidates or ballot measures, that’s over the line. And especially if it’s done on an industrial scale.

10. No Jim you’re buying into the leftist lie that churches should only be social institutions. As in being no different than a social welfare program and that they should be seen but not heard. Once they go beyond that bound though, then they’re considered socially evil and should be stopped, unless of course the church supports their cause. It’s also tied into that misconception that somehow the church must be separated from the state. Which has not been the history of this country until a short time ago, which I pointed out above. To reiterate if it were not for churches involved in politics there would have been no Revolutionary war, no support to end slavery, and no support for civil rights.
    You’re accepting a form of censorship. I see no difference between a church endorsing a candidate and a newspaper doing the same thing. And if you insist that churches must be separate from the government then you must also be consistent and demand that all funding for media cease also, since both church and the press are covered under the same amendment. Historically the church has been seen as a bulwark against abusive government to seek change for the better, just the same as free speech and assembly.

11. Jerry writes: “No Jim you’re buying into the leftist lie that churches should only be social institutions.”

    Not just “the lie,” but “the liberal lie.” Ok.

    Actually, I’m arguing that churches should be religious institutions. (I know that’s a novel idea today, but that’s how I see it.) If the spirit moves to have social programs, they should do that too. If the minister needs to speak out on social issues, that’s fine too. It’s just that churches shouldn’t be political organizations or religious arms of political organizations.

    Jerry: “You’re accepting a form of censorship. I see no difference between a church endorsing a candidate and a newspaper doing the same thing.”

    You’re right, there is no difference from a freedom of speech point of view. But the newspaper pays taxes on income, property taxes, etc. If the church wants to do that, there’s no problem. They simply give up the tax exemption and operate like any other business or organization. It just depends on what kind of organization they want to be. Churches or religious organizations already pay tax on income unrelated to the primary purpose of the organization. This includes income from the sales of Bibles, religious books, revenue from tours, and so on. It just depends what kind of organization the church wants to be. If they want to be a religious group, great. If they want to be the religious arm of a political party, that’s great too. It’s just that the former comes with the option of a tax exemption, and the latter doesn’t. If you want to argue that political lobbying groups should be tax exempt, that’s fine too, but that’s a different argument. If you’re arguing that a church should be eligible for a tax exemption AND operate as a political lobbying group, I have to disagree.

    Jerry: “Historically the church has been seen as a bulwark against abusive government to seek change for the better, just the same as free speech and assembly.”

    Surely not all the time, and surely not by Thomas Jefferson:

    “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.”

    “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

12. Being profit or non-profit is not a direct correlation to free speech. The non-profit or profit status is not a granting of a license by the state to speak freely or not. For churches, free speech is inalienable right.

    Non-profit or profit status is dealing with how an organization is operated. Newspapers are run for profit, churches are generally not. And to clarify just because churches may not pay certain taxes, it doesn’t mean they don’t pay for their fair share. They still must pay for services provided by the community through the general population’s taxes.

    Also quoting Jefferson’s anti-clericalism (borrowed from the French rationalists) is not proof that the entire church (in the wide-sense of the meaning) hasn’t been a bulwark against abuse. Nor does quoting Jefferson give your statement some sort of intellectual superiority. It’s just a bigoted statement, being used in a bigoted way against the church.

13. Jerry – what your are asking for, can only lead to division, schism and loss of membership within our church.

    Let me ask you, would you enjoy listening to sermons every Sunday filled with strident left wing political content? I imagine after a while you would get fed up and look for a new church. Likewise, I would not enjoy listening to sermons every Sunday filled with strident right wing political content, and would do the same. After a while conservative Christians would drift to one set of churches and liberal Christians to another. This political division has already occurred in a number of Protestant and Catholic churches.

    People come to church to worship, pray, meditate, and learn about the teachings of our faith. They do not come to church to be subjected to the rancor of the political arena. They want to leave church serene, filled with the Spirit and a better understanding of their faith. If they were more interested in politics they would have stayed home and watched George Stephanopoulos and Matt Russert.

    Of course the church has a duty to teach and speak out on moral issues. But while giving parishioners information on the moral views of the church is one thing, telling them how to apply that information in tha ballot box is another.

14. Dean

    I’m not advocating that churches be forced to preach politics. It’s a choice up to each church. But for those churches that do find politics important to discuss in church should be allowed to do so freely, without the government being involved.

    A friend of mine once heard from a parishioner, “you preach to much about Jesus.” Even preaching doctrine can cause schism, people generally only want to hear what makes them feel good first. Anything that challenges their preconceived beliefs — even saying something is a sin, like say adultery — will upset someone. So Dean, politics or not in a church there are already topics that cause problems when proclaimed from the pulpit.

15. Jerry writes: “Being profit or non-profit is not a direct correlation to free speech. The non-profit or profit status is not a granting of a license by the state to speak freely or not. For churches, free speech is inalienable right.”

    Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between different levels of “church.” There is the “church universal”, the mystical body of Christ. And there is the church as a financial and legal entity existing through and operating under state and federal laws.

    The church in the first sense certainly in the U.S. has the right of almost unlimited freedom of speech. The church in the last sense does not, if it’s operating as a tax-exempt entity. It’s not that it’s a church, but that it’s a non-profit tax-exempt organization. As far as I know the same regulations apply to all non-profit, tax-exempt organizations. You’re not going to see the Salvation Army or the local food bank raising money or advertising for political causes either.

    In this case you’re argument isn’t with me, but with the federal government.

16. Jim your last statement makes no sense. In this case there is no difference between the universal church and localized congregations. If one has the right it translate to the local.

    You statement is like saying there’s some kind of universal press right to free speech, but the publisher can be limited at the local level because that right doesn’t apply to them.

    Also you’re confused about what non-profit status means.

    Non-profit status is granted to organizations because the relieve government burden and are a benefit to society. Taxing a non-profit would diminish the effectiveness of the programs provide.
    The purpose of granting a church nonprofit status is to limit government’s ability to use tax policy to promote one religion over another. Or,to prevent a church from being taxed out of existence (it is not based on a concept of separation of church from state).

    The problem though, instead of using tax to silence a church’s right to free speech non-exempt status is used by the government. If a organizatoin wants to speak out on political issues should be up to the
    non-profit not the government.

17. Political non-profits exist all over the place. Don’t assume that non-profit status rules out political speech. It doesn’t.

    As for the government, it is not their place to tell churches what they can or cannot say. Jerry is correct, the freedom of speech is inalienable; it exists above and beyond any governmental decree. Put another way, some rights don’t come into being by federal fiat, they precede it.

    Jim, like I said to Dean a while back: you are too quick to cede authority to the state.

18. Note 13. Dean, people vote with their feet. You don’t want the government setting policy for what should, or should not, be preached.

    Both you and Jim need to study your history more, particularly the sermons preached during the American revolution.

19. Fr. Hans writes: “Political non-profits exist all over the place. Don’t assume that non-profit status rules out political speech. It doesn’t.”

    It does for the 501(c)3 organizations, which in the category into which churches fall.

    Fr. Hans: “As for the government, it is not their place to tell churches what they can or cannot say. Jerry is correct, the freedom of speech is inalienable; it exists above and beyond any governmental decree.”

    Freedom of speech is not what’s in question. It’s the rules under which a 501(c)3 organization operates. Freedom of speech is inalienable for you as an individual, but not for you when operating in the capacity of a 501(c)3 organization, a legal entitiy that exists only within the confines of federal law.

    I don’t know what to say. That’s the law. I suspect that the law has been challenged at some point and found constitutional.

    Part of the issue here is what is a church and who should get a tax exemption. Should you and your friends be able to form the “Sacred Ballot Church of Vote Smith for Senator and NO on Proposition 22” — and then be able to channel unlimited amounts of tax-free money into those campaigns through a donation to your “church”?

    Fr. Hans: “Put another way, some rights don’t come into being by federal fiat, they precede it.”

    You have the right to free speech, but not to free speech paid for by tax-free dollars.

20. . . . And besides that, if churches could participate in and fund political activities, they would in effect become money laundering centers for political campaigns. Forget having Senator Smith pitch for support from the pulpit. Forget the bake sale for Senator Smith. Somebody gives a million dollars to the church. The church then, in its political “free speech” role, gives a million dollars to the Smith campaign. But it would be impossible to know where the political money came from. Of course, the church would “wet its beak” in the money as it flows through, taking a cut. It would be a classic money laundering operation, with all the usual corruption.

    In addition, why should you, the church, be able to fund political campaigns with tax-free dollars, when I, the individual, have to contribute to political campaigns with taxed money?

21. Well, having been granted a 501(c)(3) for a project I am working on (more on this in the next month or two), I have some sense of what’s allowed and what isn’t, although my status is educational, not charitable (ie: church).

    Churches cannot become political organizations. They would need a different classification for that. This is not the same thing as saying that churches must remain silent on politics, however. That would certainly violate the grand American tradition — on both sides of the aisle btw, and one reason why enforcement is not applied except in cases where obvious fraud is occuring (ie: using church status to run a business, political or otherwise).

    Second point: speech is never “paid by tax-free dollars.” Dismiss the idea that free speech is a right granted (or regulated) by the government. It’s not. It’s a right the government ought to respect, and sometimes enforce. Remember however, the first amendment exists to restrict government.

    Jim, you object to the term “liberal” but you have a statist view of social freedom and responsibility. The government ought to recognize inalienable rights, but it is not the source, or even the final arbiter, of those rights. The writers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution understood this very well. Modern liberals all too often don’t.

22. Fr. Hans writes: “The writers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution understood this very well. Modern liberals all too often don’t.”

    Well, Republicans control both houses of Congress, and the presidency. Rep. Walter Jones introduced his “Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act,” and it never made it out of committee. If only liberals opposed it, why didn’t it go anywhere?

    Fr. Hans: “Jim, you object to the term ‘liberal’ . . . ”

    I object to its use as a pejorative or dismissive term. I don’t object to it when it is used merely to denote a political persuasion.

    Fr. Hans: “Churches cannot become political organizations. They would need a different classification for that. This is not the same thing as saying that churches must remain silent on politics, however.”

    They don’t have to remain silent. They can invite candidates. They can distribute non-partisan literature. They can talk about issues. They can hand out voter guides. They can host debates. They just can’t endorse particular candidates or measures, or do things like invite one candidate to speak and not the other. And church members and clergy can exercise their own free speech rights all they want. They just can’t put the church in the service of partisan campaigns.

    And I still think that churches would become money laundering operations for getting tax-free money into political campaigns.

23. Actually, churches can invite whomever they want to speak. There is no “fairness doctrine” or any other such thing.

    I don’t know where you get the idea that churches are “money laundering” operations. First of all the terminology is off. No money needs to be laundered. I think what you are trying to say is that churches should not contribute to political candidates, correct? But then, why would they, given that the members are free to contribute to whomever they want anyway?

    In fact, I know of no instances where churches have done so, although it probably has happened somewhere or another. I recall the Buddhist Temple giving Al Gore ten thousand or so a couple of years back.

    I don’t know anything about Rep. Walters’ bill.

24. Fr. Hans writes: “Actually, churches can invite whomever they want to speak. There is no ‘fairness doctrine’ or any other such thing.”

    IRS guidelines state:

    “Speaking as a Candidate:
    When a candidate is invited to speak at an organization event as a political candidate, the organization must take steps to ensure that:

    *It provides an equal opportunity to the political candidates seeking the same office,

    *It does not indicate any support of or opposition to the candidate (This should be stated explicitly when the candidate is introduced and in communications concerning the candidate�s attendance.), and

    *No political fundraising occurs.”

    So you could invite a candidate to speak as a private person, but not as a candidate without inviting other candidates.

    Fr. Hans: “I don’t know where you get the idea that churches are ‘money laundering’ operations. First of all the terminology is off. No money needs to be laundered. I think what you are trying to say is that churches should not contribute to political candidates, correct? But then, why would they, given that the members are free to contribute to whomever they want anyway?

    They aren’t money laundering operations now. My point is that if all the restrictions are removed, and churches could contribute to candidates, then they would become money laundering operations. In other words, why would I contribute to Smith’s campaign on my own, with taxed dollars, if I can contribute to Smith’s campaign through the church, and get a tax deduction? I give $1,000 to Smith, and I’m out $1,000. I give $1,000 to the church, the church gives the $1,000 to Smith, and I get a tax deduction. Who wouldn’t do that? Were there no restrictions, that’s exactly what would happen. And there would be no way to track who was funding the campaigns. All we would know is that the Church of the Immaculate Campaign gave $1,000 to Smith. Or it could be a million dollars from a thousand donors, or one donor.

25. You are interpreting the regulation to read that if one candidate comes, the other must be invited. Short of this, no campaigning can occur. That is not how it works.

    Candidate A can come to a church, press the flesh, say a few words, without the church requiring candidate B (or C, D, etc.) to be in attendance as well. If candidate B wants to show up however, fine.

    But think this through. Will George Bush want to appear at Al Sharpton’s church? Probably not. Do Republicans ever appear there? Nope. Could they if they wanted to? Yes.

    As for tax deductions, that is where the real regulation occurs. You can tell what a non-profit does by looking where their receipts go. To determine, say, if the Red Cross is really a private charity, look to where the contributions go. There are standard practices that guide np’s, such as 10% of private charity receipts should go towards administration and fundraising. etc. Violate these and it is time to call the accountants.

    Restrictions against churches contributing to political candidates is reasonable. Churches as a matter of policy should never enter the fray in that way anyway.

    But this is different than trying to control speech. Restricting a church’s right to speak out on issues by threatening the tax exemption however, contains a tyranical impulse.

26. Fr. Hans writes: “Restrictions against churches contributing to political candidates is reasonable. Churches as a matter of policy should never enter the fray in that way anyway.

    But this is different than trying to control speech. Restricting a church’s right to speak out on issues by threatening the tax exemption however, contains a tyranical impulse.”

    The problem here is that to some extent money is considered to be related to free speech. I don’t know much about campaign laws, except that there are limits on how much you can give to a campaign, but there are basically no limits on how much can be spent independently of a campaign, as long as the independent efforts are not “coordinated” with the campaign.

    Thus, in the last election we had Kerry and Bush campaigns, but we also had MoveOn and Swift Boat efforts going on in parallel.

    If an individual’s right to free speech becomes the model for the church, then we’re back at the same problem, but in a different form. As an individual, we cannot restrict your right to free speech. If you personally want to spend a million dollars advertising for or against a candidate, independent of the official campaign’s efforts, there’s nothing we can do about that. It’s your money, your free speech. And so it would be with the church. If the church didn’t contribute directly to a campaign, it could still pay for advertising, or whatever, independently of a campaign. So you run into the same problem — why should you contribute taxed dollars to MoveOn.Org when you can contribute tax-free dollars to the Church of MoveOn.Org?

    So we have the same problem but in a slightly different form. If you argue against churches being able to fund things like what is described above, you run into a problem of consistency: if the church has the free speech rights of an individual person, and if they person can spend unlimited amounts of money on his own free speech, then why not the church? What’s the difference? One difference is that a church operates with tax-exempt money. But you’ve already argued that that shouldn’t matter.

    I don’t want to beat the topic to death, but I just thing that having churches directly involved in political campaigns opens up all sorts of problems. And we haven’t even talked about the effect on the church — “Today’s Sermon: God Wants You To Vote NO on Proposition 16, Yes on Proposition 23.”

27. There is a clear distinction. A pastor can tell his parishioner to vote no on Proposition XXX, he cannot put parish constributions towards any outside organization working to defeat it.* Money is material. You can track it.

    *Whether or not a pastor is smart entering the political fray in this way is another matter. I would not do it but either way it remains a matter internal to the parish.

    Don’t forget, there is a self-regulatory mechanism that works here too. Churches that get overtly political don’t last that long. People vote with their feet. Look at the Protestant mainline.

28. We are fortunate that in America there is a free market of ideas and association, including religious ideas and association. I agree with Fr. Hans: people do vote with their feet. What a great concept!

29. . A pastor can tell his parishioner to vote no on Proposition XXX

    Of course, many parishioners would find offputting the very idea of a pastor presuming that s/he could *tell* them to vote for or against X (the operative word being “tell” vs “encourage,” “urge,” “advise,” etc).

30. Note 29. Yes, you are correct Juli. Of course a pastor cannot “tell” anyone how to vote although he can certainly offer his opinion. On many, perhaps most, issues however, reasonable people can disagree. Whether I75 should be expanded to three lanes of four, or the bond issue for new schools for example, is something best left outside the parish.

    On the serious moral questions however, the question becomes more relevant. Here the churches have an obligation to speak out. Examples abound such as Pope Pius X or Bonhoeffer against the Nazi’s, the Orthodox Bishops against gay marriage, etc.

31. “On the serious moral questions however, the question becomes more relevant. Here the churches have an obligation to speak out.”

    Which is fine, but what’s the expected response from the congregation in a pluralist democracy when they do speak out? Is it always the same, or does it vary by the seriousness of the issue in question? Can a good Christian ever be permitted to vote to uphold “democratic principles” even if they directly oppose some purported Christian ethic? Should they ever put aside their personal beliefs on an issue for the sake of democracy? (By the way, Christian Reconstructionist Rev. Rushdoony of chalcedon.org said “Supernatural Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies … Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life.”*)

    What I think some here are forgetting is that the Orthodox and Catholic denominations can only thrive in the very type of pluralist society that other Christian groups like Chalcedon and RepentAmerica oppose (unless the vast majority of Americans convert from Protestantism and every other type of religion to Orthodoxy which is highly unlikely). Many of these sects find Orthodoxy and Catholicism to be highly heretical and would have no qualms about leveling punishments against them as “idolators” for the use of icons, statues, rosaries and the like.

    This is why I’m extremely wary of making “virtue” the ideological bottom line for legislation in this country.

    *”We must use the doctrine of religious liberty … until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government,” explained his son-in-law Gary North. “Then they will get busy constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”

    Also see the article entitled “Democracy as Heresy” by Rodney Clapp in ChristianityToday (1987).

    Reconstructionists are admittedly the most severe in their interpretation of enshrining morality in law, insisting on the death penalty for blasphemy, heresy, adultery and even on “incorrigible juvenile delinquents”. Nevertheless, this attitude seems to be picking up steam with groups like RepentAmerica (http://www.repentamerica.com) who are also quite fond of Old Testament-style retribution. The number of people involved with these groups is not minimal.

32. I thought this was interesting:

    Wayward Christian Soldiers, By CHARLES MARSH
    NY Times, 1/20/2006

    “..sermons (in favor of the Iraq war)rallied the evangelical congregations behind the invasion of Iraq. An astonishing 87 percent of all white evangelical Christians in the United States supported the president’s decision in April 2003.

    ..The single common theme among the war sermons appeared to be this: our president is a real brother in Christ, and because he has discerned that God’s will is for our nation to be at war against Iraq, we shall gloriously comply.

    Such sentiments are a far cry from those expressed in the Lausanne Covenant of 1974. More than 2,300 evangelical leaders from 150 countries signed that statement, the most significant milestone in the movement’s history. Convened by Billy Graham and led by John Stott, the revered Anglican evangelical priest and writer, the signatories affirmed the global character of the church of Jesus Christ and the belief that

    ‘the church is the community of God’s people rather than an institution, and must not be identified with any particular culture, social or political system, or human ideology.'”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/20/opinion/20marsh.html?incamp=article_popular_1

Comments are closed.