To hear some people tell it, this Sunday is one of the most important days in the history of the American church. This is the day when the church pulpits of America will be freed from the bondage of the state. This is the day the church will finally be free!
Wait a minute. Isn't the church in America free now? Isn't "pulpit freedom" what our forbears demanded? Isn't this freedom what permits the late Reverends Jerry Falwell (on the right) and William Sloane Coffin (on the left) to speak from the pulpit about the moral issues of the day no matter how many people disapproved of their comments? Isn't this the "pulpit freedom" that inspired the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and thousands of other bold, and sometimes wildly controversial, preachers to speak what they considered "truth to power"?
Well, yes. However, a group called the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which raked in about $31 million last year,
has decided that the pulpit is not free enough.
They oppose
a law passed in 1954 that religious groups are prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code from using their resources--including preaching time on Saturday or Sunday--to "endorse or oppose candidates for public office."
Dale Schowengerdt, an ADF attorney working on the project, told
the L.A. Times: "The bottom line is that churches and pastors have a right to speak freely from the pulpit. They should not be intimidated into silence by unconstitutional IRS regulations or rules."
In other words, the one "limitation" on receipt of a tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code--the very valuable privilege of a tax exemption--is to not turn your church into a political committee to help any candidate in a partisan fashion. This Sunday they want preachers to deliberately violate this prohibition.
To start this discussion, Jay, let me suggest three reasons why the Alliance Defense Fund ought to call off this stunt. We both know its director Alan Sears. Maybe we could offer to take him to church, lunch and a movie on Sunday instead of watching pastors at his direction preach sermons including pulpit endorsements and risk losing their tax exemptions?
First, they do not have the Constitution on their side. Indeed, a congregation called the Church at Pierce Creek did have its tax exemption yanked in 1995 for expending $44,000 in church receipts on a full page ad in USA Today demanding that the public not vote for Bill Clinton. They went to trial; they appealed to the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia and
not one judge agreed they had a First Amendment case.
In other words, they lost and had to start a new church. Now, if churches were losing their exemptions every week and Christendom were threatened with extinction, the ADF might have a bit more credibility. In fact, the IRS does take its responsibility seriously and does investigate and sanction some churches when they cross the line. Frankly, I think they give too many churches "passes" they don't deserve.
Second, most pastors want nothing to do with this scheme. A
recent survey of evangelical leaders overwhelmingly showed that they do not want to endorse candidates in their official capacity nor divert collection plate receipts to their favored candidate. This
deeply divides congregations when it occurs, and in one case from the last Presidential cycle, even caused a North Carolina congregation to fire its pastor.
And most Americans don't want their churches to endorse political candidates, either. LifeWay Research
conducted a poll asking whether "it is appropriate for churches to publicly endorse candidates for public office." Seventy-five percent said "no!"
Even more Americans (85 percent) disagreed with using church resources to campaign for candidates for public office.
Finally, were this law changed, it would create a giant loophole in campaign finance reform laws--allowing churches to collect money from anyone and then use it to influence voters. Local churches in some areas have great power. Mega-ministry television preachers like Pat Robertson have even greater power. Use it to discuss issues; not endorse candidates.
"If you cannot agree to the rules of a 501c3 then you shall not have the exemption."
Yep...that sums it up pretty clearly. There is no consitutional right to a tax exemption. It is offered by the government to churches under a set of conditions.
Nobody is forcing these churches to remain as 501(c)3 organizations. They do so of their own free will. If they don't like the rules, they can surrender their exemption and preach whatever they wish.
God is really going to be ticked off at them for honoring the government more than him.
You cannot keep the government out of religion WITHOUT keeping religion out of the government.
To use churches as political machines serves politicians, not god.
This is nothing more than another warped attempt by the zealous right wing to make this more a nation based on religious tyranny.
It should be well noted that JUDAS ISCARIOT tried to use Jesus' ministry as a platform for political and military uprise.
He was in extreme error to say the least.
Jesus rebuked Peter in the Garden of Gethsemane for trying to use force on Jesus' captors putting to rest any misconceived notions that this was some uprising.
There are many other examples where Jesus went to great lengths to distance himself and his ministry from being considered political or military.
I am sickened by many things in the pulpit and find this "vain revolution for political freedom of speech" particularly irreprehensible and contrary to the teachings and overall impetus of Jesus' ministry.
As a sideline note I would also like to point out that none of the candidates are running for office of priest or pastor.
To criticize one politician for being "pro choice" or in favor of stem cell research while giving full support to a candidate who advocates fully the use of war, torture, and nuclear armament not only for defense but also as a " first strike" option, is garbage and contradicts all that Jesus came to establish as his message and legacy.
I would like to add another thought that sacrificing a church's tax exempt status is extremely irresponsible when considering that the minister is being entrusted with money that did not come from him nor belongs to him.
(see all the biblical listings for stewardship).
I would like to charge and challenge all elders and/ or board members to challenge and rebuke your pastor if you feel he is abusing his post of shepherd for the sake of spewing politically in a place that should bring respite from all of this rather than becoming a platform for it.
Just because a law was passed in 1954 that religious groups are prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code from using their resources--including preaching time on Saturday or Sunday--to "endorse or oppose candidates for public office" does not necessarily mean this law is "settled" law. Nonetheless, I do not think ADF should encourage preachers to endorse a political candidate in violation of this law since this law is currently the law of the land. Since a church's 501(c)3 status was yanked in 1995, one is certainly pushing the limits by encouraging pastors to violate this law, thus decreasing ministry funds for themselves and other ministries within the church. There is a right way and wrong way to attempt to obtain a reversal of the law. This is clearly a wrong way.
Just because a law was passed in 1954 that religious groups are prohibited by the Internal Revenue Code from using their resources--including preaching time on Saturday or Sunday--to "endorse or oppose candidates for public office" does not necessarily mean this law is "settled" law. Nonetheless, I do not think ADF should encourage preachers to endorse a political candidate in violation of this law since this law is currently the law of the land. Since a church's 501(c)3 status was yanked in 1995, one is certainly pushing the limits by encouraging pastors to violate this law, thus decreasing ministry funds for themselves and other ministries within the church. There is a right way and wrong way to attempt to obtain a reversal of the law. This is clearly a wrong way.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.