Defying IRS Ban on Political Endorsements from the Pulpit
51 comments | Permalink
The Washington Post has a story this morning on the actions of the Alliance Defense Fund: "Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules." Read the whole thing.
Here is my quick take:
1. My sense is that the ADF is probably right on the Constitutional question. I think it'd be difficult to show that the Constitution prohibits pastors from making such pronouncements.
2. From a biblical perspective, I don't think it's wise for pastors and churches, in their capacity as such, to make political endorsements. Explaining their position on various issues seems both allowable and advisable, but I'd be curious for the biblical rationale for a church or a pulpit endorsing a candidate.
3. I have friends who argue that churches should refuse their tax-exempt status (which would allow them to make these kinds of endorsements). Even though--per point #2--I'd still have problems with this, wouldn't this be a more consistent position to take?
I'm not an expert on this (or any other topic for that matter!). So what do you think?
Here is my quick take:
1. My sense is that the ADF is probably right on the Constitutional question. I think it'd be difficult to show that the Constitution prohibits pastors from making such pronouncements.
2. From a biblical perspective, I don't think it's wise for pastors and churches, in their capacity as such, to make political endorsements. Explaining their position on various issues seems both allowable and advisable, but I'd be curious for the biblical rationale for a church or a pulpit endorsing a candidate.
3. I have friends who argue that churches should refuse their tax-exempt status (which would allow them to make these kinds of endorsements). Even though--per point #2--I'd still have problems with this, wouldn't this be a more consistent position to take?
I'm not an expert on this (or any other topic for that matter!). So what do you think?
posted by JT at Monday, September 08, 2008
51 Comments:
Wow, a political issue that you and I seem to agree on completely! I'm marking my calendar.
I would be disappointed if my church / Pastor made a political endorsement.
Discussed this on an email list earlier this morning. Here's what I'd said there:
I just skimmed the article but my first thought is that these folks are ignorant and might spoil a good thing for the Church. Yes, the government cannot limit what is said in the pulpit, but at the same time, there is no reason the government cannot tax the Church either. We have enjoyed a tax-free existence in America for a while but there is nothing securing that beyond the Court's grace.A foolish move like this could jeopardize that over a topic that, in my opinion, doesn't belong in the pulpit about 99.99% of the time anyway.
The issue is can pastors from the pulpits endorse political candidates from the pulpits and keep the non-profit status. Everyone knows that it's only democrats that have that right.
I'm completely against the idea of a Pastor campaigning for a candidate from the pulpit on grounds of pastoral wisdom and potential integrity issues (should the candidate blow it), but I also would argue for a Pastor's right to do so if he chooses without interference from any government agency.
I agree with everybody here. Yes to preaching on issues where there's clear Scriptural warrant; no to endorsing a specific candidate.
A pastor's authority comes from the Word, so when we step outside that and say things the Word doesn't say, we are, shall we say, "above our pay grade."
As I see it, the real question is, What is the ministry that the Lord Jesus on high has entrusted to his church on earth?
I can't see endorsements of political candidates inside 1 Corinthians 2:2.
Thanks, Justin. God bless.
Pastors should not be endorsing candidates from the pulpit any more than they should be advertising for Pizza Hut during their prayers.
And as long as we can retain tax-exempt status (which will go away on its own), why not retain it?
I agree Justin, this isn't wise and is certainly not biblical (Rom 13:1-7); but if their disobedience to God's Word somehow causes problems for tax exempt status for Churches - they'll have to obey that passage then!
blessings,
Q
Justin,
RC Sproul did a radio broadcast on January 26, 2008 titled "Entering the Kingdom" on this very subject. I podcasted it but it now is in Ligonier's archives as part of the Book of Acts teaching.
RC basically contends that the American church has made a "deal with the devil" by letting our tax exempt status gag our preachers.
Very compelling.
I generally agree, but want to consider a different perspective for discussion.
What would happen if political endorsements (from the pulpit) became commonplace? If you were running for office, would you be more apt to seek out pastors to garner their support? In the small town where I live (>30k people) we have a huge church (~8k people). Every candidate in the county would be courting the pastor.
Just what we need - another temptation to seek worldly power.
As has already been pointed out, the real issue isn't whether or not it is constitutional. Pastors can say whatever they want from the pulpit. Now if they want to keep their tax-exempt status, they'll need to refrain from political endorsements.
Setting aside the loss of tax exempt status I do not believe it is advisable. I believe a pastor (or anyone working in ministry with a position of influence) should refrain from endorsing specific candidates. The various issues can definitely be talked about, but if being spoken of from the pulpit should have strong scriptural backing and not just be the opinion of the minister.
It seems to me that overtly endorsing a political candidate is likely to 1) bind the conscience of the people he has been called to shepherd, 2) going beyond the bounds of what he has been called to by scripture, and 3) create unnecessary divisions and mistrust between himself and people within his congregation (or who may just be visiting) that may have sound reasons for voting otherwise. The improper exertion of a minister's influence is a dangerous thing and is more destructive within the local church than not.
Tyler: Pastors should not be endorsing candidates from the pulpit any more than they should be advertising for Pizza Hut during their prayers.
Um, Pizza Hut is not ordained by God to bear the sword to punish evil. The government is. This actually makes the government is sacred institution, not a just a secular institution.
You would be suprised how many professing believers are ignorant of the issues and the candidates. If the church is called to speak out when the government uses the sword to punish good (abortions) instead of evil, then who else but the church can speak will speak out on these things. Why can the church from the pulpit give admonitions on how to behave on other parts of the culture (but the subject of politics is off limits?)
Now, the church is between a rock and a hard place. It probably has no business accepting a non-profit status because I can see a day (like in Canada) it will be forbidden to speak out on other particular issues like homosexuality. But I guess you don't want to stir the pot of the congregants if they can't write off their offerings on their taxes.
And to repeat again, liberal churches are getting away with endorsing candidates from the pulpits, why are only conservatives banned from doing so.
If important issues are at stake like abortion and gay marriages, why should the pastor not educate the congregation on who to vote for?
This strikes me as fairly uncontroversial, particularly since political issues will often intersect faith convictions. And shouldn't churches be instructing their people how to think biblically and holistically about politics anyways?
Of course, there is the concern that churches would use their position of influence to manipulate their flock: "A real Christian would only vote for this candidate."
Another concern is that, in some cases, Christianity will come to be identified with a particular political party (if it isn't already). No doubt this is a tricky arena of thought.
But if the topic is approached with humility and caution, much could be gained by such instruction, particularly in the realm of spiritual formation.
So in principle I don't see any insoluble difficulties in allowing churches to endorse candidates. Moreover, having a tax law that discourages this only feeds into the pressure to privatize one's faith, in my opinion.
The question is not about Consitutionality. It's about 501(c)(3) status. Churches and other nonprofits voluntarily submit to the rules not to engage in this kind of speech or activity in exchange for getting a free ride on income taxes. I strongly believe, as your friend does, that churches should voluntarily renounce this status so that they can fulfill their prophetic role. The church of God should not be beholden to government in any way. The people of the kingdom should certainly not have their speech regulated in their gatherings.
I can see benefits if handled properly. If the pastor bases his endorsement on a particular difference the two candidates take on a moral issue, then I think it would be constitutional and biblically permissible. I would prefer that such endorsements be rare and not the norm, but I don't think that would be the case.
That being said, the American church has enough distractions from "The Main Thing" that we don't need more. Politics has already become such a staple in the church that it is becoming "another gospel."
I've discussed this a couple of times this weekend.
My response was that my church had, in the distant past, incorporated as a 501 c3. In doing so, they took an unwise (but still valid) vow and in doing so, allowed the government to have some level of authority in the teaching ministry of the church.
However, this vow is only wrong insofar as it's direction is horizontal rather than vertical. I agree that it is unwise and outside the ministry of the church to endorse specific candidates or (worse) certain parties. I would cite 1 Cor 2:2 and the host of citations that would support Kuyper's Sphere Sovereignty concept.
Justin, your analysis is on target. There are times when we will be accused of preaching a "political" sermon, simply because we deal with moral issues that have been turned into political ones. If we are faithful to preach God's word and deal with the truth therein, there will be no need to endorse candidates.
This whole thing makes me wonder if the church wouldn't be well advised to press the issue. That is, to say what the IRS is saying they cannot say in order to demonstrate that the church will not be dictated to.
Here in Canada it may soon be even more cut and dried as the government has already frowned on preaching agin homosexuality. I imagine that someday, that is where the battle for freedom will lie.
two c(omm)ents:
It's probably not wise to endorse a political candidate from the pulpit (at least not very frequently, i can think of a few extreme circumstances).
It's probably not wise for the church to submit to the gov't via 501c3 in the name of "good stewardship".
Here's another thought about the legal strategy of the Alliance Defense Fund: if tax-exempt status is a privilege rather than a right, then would the freedoms of the First Amendment really be violated if a church lost this status upon endorsing a political candidate?
Strictly speaking, there is nothing preventing a church from endorsing political candidates. No one will be sent to jail or fined if a pastor instructs his parishioners to vote for McCain or Obama.
Granted, I don't know much about the legal issues here, but this seems like a potential road block for the defense fund's strategy.
Clearly the right to free speech is not unconditional, even in the religious realm. And the government's refusing to benefit groups that speak out on certain issues is not exactly the same as directly punishing them for doing so.
The latter would seem to be a violation of free speech, but not necessarily the former. But I digress...
Brian,
Again it's already "constitutional". That's not the issue. The issue is about 501(c)(3) status.
Daryl,
The church is being "dictated to" of their own volition. Churches are not required to request 501(c)(3) and maintain 501(c)(3) status. What I am suggesting is that for the church to have integrity, it should renounce it's 501(c)(3) status, render to Ceasar, and call Ceasar out when Ceasar is evil.
As it is now, we risk losing our money (in the form of income taxes on the church) if we do that. But you cannot serve God and money. I'm suggesting the church let go of the status, let go of the money, and preach in season and out of season.
The issue is can pastors from the pulpits endorse political candidates from the pulpits and keep the non-profit status. Everyone knows that it's only democrats that have that right.
Actually, All Saints' Episcopal in Pasadena, CA was threatened by the IRS over a guest sermon that contained a skit in which Jesus told Bush that the Iraq war had been disastrous.
" if tax-exempt status is a privilege rather than a right, then would the freedoms of the First Amendment really be violated if a church lost this status upon endorsing a political candidate?"
Great thought. I figured it bore repeating.
It also seems to me that, in and effort to not endorse the wrong guy perhaps some of the church has gone too far the other way.
That is, we shouldn't be endorsing someone in every election probably, but should the church NEVER do that?
I don't know.
Just because something is so often done wrong, does that make the right doing of it off limits?
This post has been removed by the author.
cr: Um, Pizza Hut is not ordained by God to bear the sword to punish evil. The government is. This actually makes the government is sacred institution, not a just a secular institution.
You would be suprised how many professing believers are ignorant of the issues and the candidates. If the church is called to speak out when the government uses the sword to punish good (abortions) instead of evil, then who else but the church can speak will speak out on these things. Why can the church from the pulpit give admonitions on how to behave on other parts of the culture (but the subject of politics is off limits?)
I believe the government's role is sacred, but not the government itself. What is sacred about Nero or Hitler? I believe pastors have a duty to speak to ethical and moral concerns that relate to their mandate to preach Christ and him crucified. But when a pastor starts telling his congregation who to vote for, he presumes a great deal of ignorance on their part due to the blinding effects of his own hubris.
If he has to tell them who to vote for, they likely don't understand the gospel as well as they should and he likely has too high an opinion of his own understanding.
CR: You would be suprised how many professing believers are ignorant of the issues and the candidates.
Actually, I wouldn't, but then I work in I/T, so I understand the depths of cluelessness that people are capable of. ;-)
However, the answer is not to endorse politicians from the pulpit. This is "give a man a fish" mentality. The congregant has no incentive to get rid of his ignorance. Granted, it's politics, and not theology, but I think the Berean principle is nearly as applicable.
It seems to me that a pastor who actually gave a rat's glutes about his flock would want them to obey Jesus' command to "be wise as serpents and harmless as doves", rather than simply have the sheeple sit there and wait for him to tell them who to vote for.
Brendt,
I'm not filling in a lot of blanks in my post.
Obviously, I don't believe, churches should be just telling who to vote for.
I think churches can inform their congregation about what issues are at stake. For example, in this election, abortion, marriage and terrorism. Federal judges will have a lot to say about conferring legal rights to gay marriage as they do with abortions. So, I think churches can educate their congregants, on what is at stake.
So, I would agree on that it's not a mere political endorsement of a candidate but helping them think through the issues and given that either a Republican or democrat will be elected, who will best represent the ethical issues and concerns for Christians.
brendt,
Unless you can offer some clarifications, your point would also suggest that a pastor shouldn't teach on matters of theology or spirituality. After all, shouldn't parishioners learn to think for themselves and not simply wait for the pastor to tell them what to think?
Also, your point seems to commit the straw man fallacy, since there is a difference between a church endorsing a political candidate, and a church telling its parishioners who to vote for. Surely such endorsement could be employed with a spirit of humility, recognizing the fallible nature of human knowledge.
Having said that, however, there is certainly something to be said for addressing this issue with caution and reservation. The mingling of politics and religion is always tricky!
I attended a speech yesterday, where Alan Sears, President/CEO and General Counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, presented the warm up pitch for his upcoming speech on this topic.
In his speech, my take wasn't so much that a pastor may, or may not come out for a particular candidate.
His concern was that a pastor couldn't speak against abortion, for example, and then say...hey...that Obama guy is for abortion. Shame on him.
I don't want to see my pastor bringing the election into the sanctuary either, but I sure want him able to stand up for issues and point to the characters that are for, or against a particular issue.
david: your point would also suggest that a pastor shouldn't teach on matters of theology or spirituality
And I'm the one creating strawmen? My point suggests nothing of the sort. The Bible says a lot of things, and it is certainly within a pastor's responsibility to teach those things. The Bible doesn't say diddly about whether I should vote for McCain or Obama.
there is a difference between a church endorsing a political candidate, and a church telling its parishioners who to vote for.
Logically, yes. In reality, not nearly so much. CR rightly cited the ignorance of many. Quite often ignorance is caused by mental laziness. For such people, if the pastor endorses a candidate, he's pulled the lever for all those people and (as I stated earlier) has done nothing to incent them to get rid of that ignorance.
And if they're politically ignorant and lazy, how much moreso are they going to be theologically so? I drew a bit of a contrast between the two issues when citing Berea. In retrospect, I don't think there's really that much of a line there. The pastor who encourages (even indirectly) laziness and ignorance in his congregation is doing them a massive disservice.
david porter: I sure want [my pastor] able to stand up for issues
I'd want him to have that freedom, too. And -- despite what the ADF says -- he does. The ADF wants to cling to the Constitution. Sure, no problem. Show me where in the Constitution it says that the IRS is obligated to grant tax-free or tax-diminshed status to the church. The ADF wants its cake and to eat it, too.
david porter: [I sure want my pastor able to] point to the characters that are for, or against a particular issue.
I'd buy this if we lived in the 19th century. But in this age, even if one only gets news from the MSM, and has no healthy suspicion of everything they say/write, it's pretty hard not to know where the candidates stand on key issues, even when factoring in the afore-mentioned ignorance. Granted, Obama's making it even easier with his "above my pay grade" statements. ;-)
But even if one is still not aware of such things, it's an absolute waste of pulpit time to get that detailed. Unless, of course, the entire congregation has already mastered those 66 books.
As I understand it, the original purpose behind tax-exempt status for religious organizations was to prevent government from using the power of taxation as a means to control or destroy free religious expression. So far as it goes, the idea has merit... but like everything else, things tend to get perverted over time, and protections end up becoming threats.
Sigh...
brendt,
My argument was not an instance of the straw man fallacy. I was not misrepresenting your view, but rather suggesting a possible consequence of your view. Do you see the difference?
I thought the role of a pastor was to instill godliness in his congregation, and to equip them for good works. That seems perfectly consistent with a sermon series on social politics.
Do you think, instead, that a person's faith conviction has no connection to these issues?
david,
I certainly see the difference between misrepresentation of a view and suggesting a possible consequence. However, my opinion is that you were doing both. But I don't see a need to belabor the point.
Your analyses of a pastor's role are accurate, and I have no contention with a a sermon series on social politics (despite a personal preference for expositional, rather than topical, teaching). But, as you have asked me to distinguish between two issues, I'd like to ask you to do the same and recognize that there is a difference between a sermon series on social politics and endorsing candidates.
Besides, a pastor is hardly instilling godliness by encouraging/enabling laziness, nor is he equipping for good works by not teaching/encouraging his congregants to think on their own some and search the Scriptures.
Do you think, instead, that a person's faith conviction has no connection to these issues?
No. But one need not espouse the prostitution of the pulpit in order to recognize that wise stewardship of a Christian's involvement in his government is a desirable thing.
Sometimes I think that Christians in America feel guilty for the lack of persecution and obstacles to sharing the gospel. So they try to make battles to fight so they can feel like those they read about in Voice of the Martyrs who are actually being beaten for sharing the gospel. I've never felt hindered by the tax-exempt regs because I don't see many times that the promotion of the gospel is riding on the election of a particular candidate.
brendt,
I realize you don't want to belabor the point, but I would kindly ask that you point out how I misrepresented your position in my previous post. Again, you suggested that I committed the straw man fallacy, and I would like to know exactly where that occurred.
"But, as you have asked me to distinguish between two issues, I'd like to ask you to do the same and recognize that there is a difference between a sermon series on social politics and endorsing candidates."
Sorry, I was using the notion of a sermon series on social politics very generally, such that it would include some direct appraisal of various candidates' views on the issues, even including a judgment concerning their overall suitability for public office.
I just don't think this practice would be inconsistent with the Berean principle you have cited. Yes, parishioners need to learn to think for themselves. But you clearly don't view this as a universal principle, otherwise we should not have sermons at all in our churches.
Your response seems to be that pastors are called to preach theology and spiritual formation, but that political themes (at least in the form of explicitly endorsing candidates) is off limits. But why make the distinction? Surely a parishioner's decision concerning who to vote for is just as deeply spiritual as anything else they do.
"Besides, a pastor is hardly instilling godliness by encouraging/enabling laziness, nor is he equipping for good works by not teaching/encouraging his congregants to think on their own some and search the Scriptures."
I would think that by explicitly addressing the political views of various candidates, a pastor would very much be equipping his people to think Biblically about their faith, and how it connects to everyday life.
To be sure, this need not represent a common theme on Sunday morning, but it could certainly have its place, and be deeply edifying to the body of Christ.
And besides, how else does one teach congregants how to think on their own and search the Scriptures except by modeling that practice in the context of real life issues?
"But one need not espouse the prostitution of the pulpit in order to recognize that wise stewardship of a Christian's involvement in his government is a desirable thing."
I have to admit, this confuses me. How does anything I've suggested lead to the 'prostitution of the pulpit'? The goal need not be to use the pulpit to advance a political agenda, but rather to thereby teach parishioners to think holistically about their faith.
Granted, there is the possibility this could be abused. But that is not exactly a reason to forbid or discourage its practice.
Again, my main criticism is that the Berean principle you cite strikes me as inconsistent. When it comes to politics, believers should learn to think for themselves. But doesn't that just lead to the privation of a faith that is supposed to be public and intimately connected to all spheres of reality?
To wit, if a pastor can preach on issues relating to work, sex, family, entertainment, and so on, and give explicit suggestions for how Christians should act, why can't a similar approach be used in the context of politics and elections?
david,
My thing about not belaboring the point was that I didn't see it as worth arguing over. Since you explicitly asked for clarification, I'll belabor a little per your request. ;-)
You stated that my point could lead to something which it could not possibly lead to. My point was either misrepresented or misunderstood. If it was the latter, I apologize for implying it was the former.
I don't think that "explicitly endorsing candidates is off limits". But it is silly, unnecessary, and VERY prone to enabling mental laziness.
I would think that by explicitly addressing the political views of various candidates, a pastor would very much be equipping his people to think Biblically about their faith, and how it connects to everyday life.
Whereas I would think that it would encourage laziness, build the cult of personality of the pastor (don't we get enough of that with Obama?) and remove focus from God. Could all of that mess be avoided with proper humility? For many congregants and an undetermined percentage of pastors, possibly. But I don't like the odds one bit.
IMHO, your last paragraph actually bolsters my point. As an example, let's say that the pastor is talking about sex, and specifically expounding on Matthew 5:27-30. Most likely, the pastor isn't going to say, "Molly Smith down at Brother Bob's office is always wearing suggestive outfits. Brother Bob needs to avoid looking at her when he can." Rather, he'll preach on the issues of lust in a more general sense, maybe even reference that a man might see a suggestively-dressed woman in his office and what he needs to do about that, and (assuming he has more than 3 brain cells), Bob connects the dots.
One other issue: If a pastor is to cover specific candidates' stands on specific issues, which are the "important" issues? Granted, there are some real deal-breakers in the presidential election, but what about in a different election (either another year or another level of government)? And what if the pastor is wrong about what's important and what's not? If you get to the level of naming names, it's nearly impossible not to rank the issues.
Or for that matter, even in the presidential election. (I'm going to assume here that you'd rather gnaw off your leg than vote for Obama. I know that'd be my stance. Besides, the pro-Dems around here have not been known for their, uh, intelligent conversation lately. If I've guessed your opinion incorrectly, I'm sorry for both of us.)
What if the pastor is overly complementarian and endorses Obama/Biden (or a third-party candidate, which is the same thing) simply because Gov Palin has no Y chromosomes?
Or what if he sees the abortion issue as a deal-breaker, but actually believes that someone who'd vote against Born Alive has even one cell in his body that's interested in "reducing the number of abortions", and therefore sees no deal-breaker for either party?
Or what if he buys into the lies (I was gonna say "over-generalizations", but let's call a spade a spade) spread by certain conservative interest groups that McCain is unfit for office because of a stance he has that would hurt that particular group, but isn't necessarily anti-conservative? If the pastor's already a sheeple, what are the odds that he's going to cause his people not to be?
I'm probably more conservative than 90% of the RNC, but I find the idea that you'll vote Republican if you love Jesus to be projectile-vomit-inducing. What the ADF is trying to accomplish will just further bolster that idea. And I'd be shocked if some of those behind this don't consider that a good thing. :-(
For that matter, let's go with the overly-pragmatic. The ADF is asking these churches to risk their tax-exempt status, and is risking its own tax-exempt status as well. They feel that they can win in court and not lose those statuses.
But what if the highly probable happens, namely they roll the dice and it comes up boxcars? Then those churches and the ADF are financially crippled (if they don't die altogether), just so some preacher could say the "O" word from his pulpit.
The ADF does a lot of very laudable things. But this time next year, they may very well not be because they got "the big head".
OK, one more and then I'm going to bed.
Can anyone give a Biblical rationale for encouraging other believers to BREAK THE LAW? Because that's what the ADF is doing. Granted, it hopes to overturn the law in court, but only after it has been broken.
When did Christianity become about our Constitutional rights?
My view is that churches should relinquish any tax exempt status. No church should allow the State to determine what can or cannot be said in a sermon.
Peter M. Head,
Thanks. Now I don't have to type as much.
Peter, I agree with your second statement, but your first statement doesn't necessarily logically follow it.
There is very little that the state regulates in order for a church to have its tax-exempt status. (Which is kinda surprising, that even by accident, the gov't would limit itself.)
Right now, your pastor can preach against abortion until he's blue in the face. Give up your tax-exempt status just so he can say the "O" word, and your tithes are now funding abortions.
Sorry Mr Missionary, we can no longer support your efforts to reach the lost. Our money is all tied up in condom distribution. On the plus side, our pastor can endorse political candidates, so it'll not all bad news.
It is to barf.
Yes, there's a "tipping point" at which one has to weigh tax-exempt vs free speech. But we're nowhere near that right now.
brendt,
"You stated that my point could lead to something which it could not possibly lead to. My point was either misrepresented or misunderstood."
Surely you can't mean that. It's not *possible* for your view to imply that all forms of sermons are inappropriate? I realize *you* don't think that conclusion follows from your view, but you've yet to provide a good argument for why that is the case.
All you've mentioned is that the Bible doesn't command pastors to endorse political candidates. Well yes, but there are all kinds of legitimate topics the Bible doesn't command pastors to address in sermons. So that's hardly a good argument for why endorsing a candidate is off limits, or even just "silly" and "unnecessary."
And if endorsing political candidates possibly leads to intellectual laziness among congregants, then any kind of specific moral guidance in sermons would have the same effect, in my view.
I've provided a sensible argument regarding the possible consequences of your view, and your main response is that I've either misinterpreted or misunderstood it. Please explain where I've exhibited this confusion, I'm really curious to know.
So you see, the issue of whether I've committed the straw man fallacy is quite significant. After all, if my central argument represents a misunderstanding of your view, then you have an easy method of deflection.
So again, I would beg you to point out where this fallacy took place, particularly in the context of my central argument.
"Whereas I would think that it would encourage laziness, build the cult of personality of the pastor (don't we get enough of that with Obama?) and remove focus from God. Could all of that mess be avoided with proper humility? For many congregants and an undetermined percentage of pastors, possibly. But I don't like the odds one bit."
And sermons focused on theological or spiritual themes don't also have the potential to contribute to this cult of personality? Surely a pastor can influence his flock in ways that undermine the Berean principle even in this context. The fact that you don't give credence to this reality strikes me as inconsistent.
"IMHO, your last paragraph actually bolsters my point. As an example, let's say that the pastor is talking about sex, and specifically expounding on Matthew 5:27-30. Most likely, the pastor isn't going to say, "Molly Smith down at Brother Bob's office is always wearing suggestive outfits. Brother Bob needs to avoid looking at her when he can." Rather, he'll preach on the issues of lust in a more general sense, maybe even reference that a man might see a suggestively-dressed woman in his office and what he needs to do about that, and (assuming he has more than 3 brain cells), Bob connects the dots."
But one of the reasons the pastor won't explicitly mention Molly Smith is because she is likely known by members of the congregation. At some level, it would be inappropriate to single her out and judge her behavior when she is likely connected to others in significant ways. And what is more, it would be unfair to discuss her behavior when she is unable to defend herself, or provide an alternative perspective.
But clearly those same reservations don't apply in the context of endorsing a political candidate. If the choice is between, say, McCain and Obama, and this choice has profound spiritual implications, then there is nothing inherently improper about offering explicit suggestions for how to make the most informed and reasonable choice possible.
"One other issue: If a pastor is to cover specific candidates' stands on specific issues, which are the "important" issues? Granted, there are some real deal-breakers in the presidential election, but what about in a different election (either another year or another level of government)? And what if the pastor is wrong about what's important and what's not? If you get to the level of naming names, it's nearly impossible not to rank the issues."
All these points (and the rest) suggest is that it's possible for such sermonizing to be manipulated and that a pastor's endorsement is inherently fallible. Well of course that's true, when did any reasonable person think that pastors are omniscient on *any* issue of importance?
As for determining which are the most important issues that should be addressed, I find this to be obviously a secondary concern. It represents a question that might be highlighted once it is decided whether it's reasonable or fair for pastors to endorse candidates or not.
"I'm probably more conservative than 90% of the RNC, but I find the idea that you'll vote Republican if you love Jesus to be projectile-vomit-inducing. What the ADF is trying to accomplish will just further bolster that idea."
Now if anyone really wants an instance of the straw man fallacy, there you have it. Whoever said anything about voting Republican being a necessary condition for loving Jesus?
At this point, the essence of your argument seems to be that because unsavory consequences could follow from addressing politics (by endorsing candidates) from the pulpit, therefore such a practice shouldn't be employed. Again, however, I'm not convinced that this consequence follows necessarily.
And I'm also not convinced that such a practice necessarily betrays the Berean principle that you have cited.
But more than anything, your principle seems to imply that any kind of explicit moral or religious instruction would be inappropriate, since such would encourage laziness among the congregants.
One more thing, and then I'm off to be more productive: the ADF strategy would not involve breaking the law. It's not against the law to endorse political candidates, unless I'm mistaken. So I'm not sure what your concern is here.
But to be clear, I'm not really convinced this strategy will work. In my first post, I pointed out that the government would have an easy counterargument to the claim that a church's right to free speech is being violated here.
So my position is somewhat nuanced: I don't think, from a legal standpoint, the strategy will ultimately be effective. But from a spiritual or theological perspective, I see nothing improper in churches wanting to feel like they should endorse political candidates.
david,
I don't have time to respond to all the individual points, but I will respond to one, and make a comment that spins off of that response, and addresses a good bit of the rest of your comment in general terms.
Whoever said anything about voting Republican being a necessary condition for loving Jesus?
I wasn't attributing this viewpoint to you (or any other commenters here). But if you've lived in the South for more than -- oh -- 7 minutes, and you haven't encountered this attitude, count yourself among the top 10 most blessed men to have ever walked the earth.
My overall point is not that no moral/ethical teaching should be done. Nor do I claim that a pastor's fallibility or a congregant's laziness are confined to the political arena, or that cult of personality cannot be spawned by other topics.
My point is that (at least here in the South), all of the ills that can occur are VASTLY more probable in the political arena than in anything else.
----
As to the ADF strategy, perhaps I overstate by saying that they are encouraging others to "break the law". But they are definitely encouraging others to participate in activites that will (hopefully, in their view) cause the gov't to come after them. Either way, my question stands: When did Christianity become about our Constitutional rights?
Why did anyone agree to this stupid tit-for-tat deal in the first place? Sounds like it was drummed up to silence churches in the firt place.
As far as debate is concerned, maybe we should define our terms. Some have differentiated edorsements with telling the congregation who to vote for. Let's take it further.
1) Endorsements (IMHO) should be viewed as a pastor-led, church-backed promotion of a candidate that may include inviting that candidate to speak at the church or using the church as a platform for that individual politician. This is certainly implicitly backing that candidate. We have seen many churches that have done this, especially Liberal churches. This certainly bears a conflict of interest between the Gospel and the secular world. It also leads to hurt feelings and contempt within the church.
2) Telling one's congregation who to vote for. This is an explicit support for a particular candidate and can take certain forms such as saying something to the effect of, "God wants you to vote for ______," or "You aren't a Christian (or member of this church) if you don't vote for _______." This version is absolutely unethical and vile.
3) Teaching one's congregation to think according to the Christian, biblical worldview, applying theology and informed Christian philosophy to life. This may include looking at candidates and focusing on how they manage their public or personal lives, and what their views mean for the well-being of this congregation, as well as for Christians in general. I think while this may violate the the IRS agreement, it is essential to the health of our congregations. I would be willing to give up tax exempt status for that.
Honestly though, I would pursue this course of action whether it was legal or not. I will obey the government only insofar as it matches up with Scripture.
Brendt brought up a good point, "When did Christianity become about Constitutional rights." It's not. Paul used the system to his perceived advantage (although it backfired and he was eventually killed). I think constitutional rights have their place and I think there should be more Christians weighing in on the debate, entering politics and law, etc. But the Constitution/law is not what we trust in, Scripture is. I am not against breaking laws (realizing they do not bear the sword for nothing) if there is a greater point and a greater authority we are doing it for, but of course that notion can also be abused.
Finally, I think that this debate is arising because we are feeling more and more that our government is becoming antagonistic toward biblical expressions of Christianity. We need to remember that most periods and locaions that Christianity has existed in have been hostile toward us and have sought to persecute or kill us. Just prepare for it again . . . and welcome it. It is during these periods of persecution that the Church has grown most. Let us keep our eyes open, and let us suffer for the cause of Christ!
The issue of the hour is not – as some try to confuse the issue – with whether pastors should or should not “endorse” candidates. The issue is what can be said from the pulpit. No government agency should be drawing the lines to tell a pastor what he can or cannot say about what the Bible or the church teaches on any subject. Certainly, congregations can tell their pastors they don’t want endorsements from the pulpit. Deacons, governing bodies, and bishops can say they don’t want endorsements, too. But that is very different from the government saying so. See my recent op-ed column on TownHall.com.
Erik Stanley
Senior Legal Counsel
Alliance Defense Fund
From Erik's op-ed (emphasis mine):
The state cannot demand the surrender of constitutional rights for a church to remain tax exempt.
On what are you basing this statement?
This tax rule is a surefire way to destroy the free exercise of religion.
If it's so "surefire", why has it been pretty much impotent for 54 years? And what suddenly gives it alleged potency in 2008?
I'm glad that a rep of ADF has weighed in here. And I concur that the "separation of church and state" argument that the ADF opponents are using is asinine -- as it is 99.9999% of time that it's used.
But I'm not much more convinced that the ADF is doing the right thing. Perhaps Mr Stanley would like to take a crack at my bottom line question: When did Christianity become about our Constitutional rights?
I am from South Africa, living in Pretoria, South Africa.
Here we have a party that was started before the 1994 'democratic' elections. It is called the African Christian Democratic Party.
It was started (and is stil running) as a Christian party in which the party's constitution and rules and guidelines and policies are all based on the Bible.
It is not a party where candidates may or may not be Christian.
Each leader in the party, from regional (city) level to national level must go through a screening process in which the screening committee consists of more non-member Christian pastors than actual party members.
In this screening process the committee must determine whether the candidate (or prospective leader) really is born-again, lives a life of real devotion to Christ within his finances, sex-life, etc. Everything is fair game as questions to the candidate. Only when a prospective candidate passes this screening process, may he represent the party in elections.
Why would a church not have the right to say that they stand behind such a party?
Would it have been wrong to endorse someone like William Wilberforce?
Brendt, thanks for your comment. To answer your main question, I agree that Christianity is not predicated upon the Constitution. But the Constitution is supposed to protect Christianity from state intrusion, and tax policies should not be used to directly regulate speech content. The tax rule has not been impotent. Because of its existence, many pastors do not feel they can freely exercise their religion in what they say from the pulpit, despite their First Amendment right to do so. I do hope this helps.
Erik Stanley
Senior Legal Counsel
Alliance Defense Fund
ADF: But the Constitution is supposed to protect Christianity from state intrusion, and tax policies should not be used to directly regulate speech content.
This is an excellent point. Whatever tax policies we have, it should not be used restrict political speech.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home