Misusing the Pulpit for Legal and Political Ends

To say the Jesus is Lord in the 1st Century was a political statement.  Caesar was lord and to say otherwise was treason.  Likewise the Christian worldview is at odds with politicians who espouse a non-christian worldview.  An example is abortion.  Can you be silent in the pulpit and endorse by silence politicians who support abortion?  To be is Christian is to oppose the politics of the world.  You may choose on which politics to preach, but if you believe that your Christianity has no place in the voting booth, then maybe preaching is not the place for you.

David—I may agree with you theoretically, but I don’t agree with you practically.  The chilling effect of the supposed federal “ban” on saying anything politically partisan in church is substantial.  We represent the local Catholic diocese as attorneys, and we are constantly having to review fliers or other materials that parishes want to distribute to parishioners to see whether they “cross the line” or not.  And the line is not that easy to discern in many cases.  For example, a “candidate comparison” brochure may cross the line even if it accurately covers all candidates and states no preference for any of them, if it just lists the candidates’ positions on hot button religious items such as abortion, stem cell research, physician assisted suicide or the like.  How many “other” issues must be included in the summary to pass IRS muster?

The bottom line is that the IRS restriction substantially inhibits the right of pastors to speak the truth from the pulpit because of the fear of crossing the line.  That is not right, but now we have multiple generations of pastors believing there are all sorts of things they cannot say because it will get themselves and the church in legal trouble.  And it is heightened by the fact that in many areas, the “strict separationists” have their members attend church services, ready to report any infraction to the IRS.  A bit like the Gestapo, isn’t it?

From my viewpoint as an attorney, the IRS prohibition is clearly unconstitutional.  From the “progressive” viewpoint, they believe that churches may be freely taxed and being given a tax exemption is a matter of legislative grace which then puts churches under IRS regulation.  But folks forget that churches were exempt from government taxation long before there ever was an Internal Revenue Code, as part of the traditional recognition that they cannot be taxed under the First Amendment.  That is why churches are automatically granted tax-exempt status, unlike other organizations that have to file an application for such treatment and be individually approved by the IRS.

“Separation of Church and State” cuts both ways, and the progresses have conveniently forgotten that.  As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in upholding exemptions for churches, “[exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other.” In the same case, the Supreme Court also said that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

I frankly think it is time for the churches to challenge this and get it declared unconstitutional by the courts.  Then they can make up their own minds as to what they will or will not preach from the pulpit, but at least they can do so without fear of prosecution by the federal government.

I totally agree with Jim.  The long arm of the government needs to be removed from the pulpit.  While I too agree in theory with your statements, David, the time has come to push the envelope.

It is bad enough when some members of the congregation would seek to keep a priest from speaking out on clear issues such as the right to life but when Uncle Sam does it, someone needs to put him in his place.

An interesting thing which I have noted for years is that predominantly black churches seem to have no qualms about hosting political candidates and having them speak from the pulpit.  Leading me to believe that the pastors of these churches must speak of political matters as they see fit.  So I don’t really understand why pastors in predominantly white churches usually feel they should avoid political topics.  If one category of churches is treated differently, there is something wrong with the system.  Whereas I do not think that the job of Christian pastors is to preach politics from the pulpit, neither should they avoid the topic if a candidate is espousing non-Christian beliefs, such as abortion or gay marriage.

Br. Michael: Of course my Christian faith has a place in the voting booth, a big place. Why does that mean that partisan politics has a place in the pulpit?

Jim: I understand your dilemma, and it’s part of the reason why I agree that the Johnson Amendment needs to be repealed. And I have no problem with churches mounting a challenge. But misusing the pulpit in order to make a legal point is an illegitimate use of something that does not belong to us, but God. As for the “strict separationist Gestapo,” these people are even lower–they are like the informers who ratted out dissidents to the Gestapo.

Jackie: If members of a congregation are keeping pastors or priests from speaking on the right to life, they need to be informed of the actual state of the law.

Old lady: The double standard is a good reason why the Johnson Amendment needs to be scraped. The IRS has way too much discretion to make life difficult for those who attract its attention, while favored classes get a pass.

Politics and Religion are a fact of life.  There aren’t too many stories in the Bible that don’t deal with both.  The Jewish high priest Caiaphas was more than willing to have Jesus put to death in order to keep the peace with the Roman occupiers.

I agree with Jackie on the importance of this election.  America is part of God’s providential plan for mankind, because America, as founded, is the best manifestation of God’s natural law for mankind which says in part that God grants us life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The inspired witness of God is manifested in the founding documents of this country and in the countless essays and prayers that were composed during the birthing process.

So, in the pulpit, we can remind ourselves about what follows from our walk with Christ.  A genuine care for the sanctity of life, our freedom of religion, our need to take care of our brother from the depths of our heart, and much more.  When confronted with these truths, the faithful Christian should readily grasp what is required of him or her on election day.

Capt. Father Warren: I agree completely!

Yeah.  It’ll be interesting to see what happens if Romney gets elected.  Every so often, he’ll offer his ‘insight’ that Mormonism is a form of Christianity, and the good pastors will be scrambling to do damage control.  The thing about the presidency, is that there is a prophetic element to it.  People look to you as a prophet when you say stuff like that, even if you aren’t.

Just to give some oblique support to David’s position, I am noticing several of my more, um, progressive clergy friends on fb up in arms about being constrained from preaching politics.

The more it is preached, to more incoherent the Gospel becomes.  Christianity becomes a bunch of noise resembling the opinions in the pews rather than a proclamation of the divine Word from the pulpit.

And we expend too much moral capital opining on too many issues.  There are a few, like abortion, that go beyond “public policy” and about core values the must be addressed.  But we really get tied up in too many others that, as David said, cannot be firmly resolved from the Bible.  They are human opinions, no matter how well thought out.

I’m grateful I attend a church where the rector does his best to keep partisan politics out of the pulpit. That having been said, I fail to see how the Johnson Amendment passes constitutional muster.

Can I agree…and disagree?  I support ADF and appreciate what they are doing.  There is no doubt that the current law has a chilling effect on pastors, if for no other reason than it encourages people who don’t want anything “political” said from the pulpit.  Generally, people have very gnostic ideas about Christianity, and their politics amounts to “what’s in it for me?”  That said, I have never endorsed a candidate from the pulpit.  I have in conversations and classes, but not in the pulpit.

People just don’t understand, really, how we get from the Bible to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. People don’t understand why socialism is a Babel Project.  People think they are doing what Jesus would do when they ask government to do any number of things that should happen, but not by government.  A sermon should of course start with a TEXT (the Bible, I mean).  It should say, this text teaches us “this” about God, and “this” about man, in general and specific ways.  Does the doctrine of Creation lead to private property, and how does that fit with “you shall not steal,” and isn’t a policy that takes billions from taxpayers and gives it to cronies theft…and now that we know its theft, how should a believer respond?  If a sermon doesn’t deal with specifics, what does? 

A Christian should vote based on policy and character.  A preacher should teach, based on actual texts of Scripture (not pretexts), policy and character.  Should a preacher endorse a specific candidate…I haven’t…yet.  If I ever did/do, I hope I make it clear that we should support this or that by its alignment with God’s Word (policy and character implications), and not just because of party.