The only argument for their side that remotely holds water is that loss of tax-exempt status (and thus taxing a church) is a hindrance to the free exercise of religion. There's a discussion to be had there, but I don't know how successful they'd be at pushing it through the courts.

I actually don't have a problem with these guys speaking their mind on who they would vote for...and I hope they don't mind when the IRS rightfully revokes their tax-exempt status. One cannot reasonably expect to continue to receive benefits from Caesar if one chooses to defy Caesar.

There may be a lot of good and godly reasons to confront Caesar. And those confrontations may cost us our tax-exempt status, our influence, our power, and all kinds of benefits that we have heretofore enjoyed because of our cozy relationship with the government. However, does the question of which candidate to vote for raise to that level? Quite frankly, no. That is simply not a hill I want to die on. I mean, seriously, does anyone really believe God is "calling" us to vote either McCain or Obama? Seriously? Both are clearly compromised if we judge their positions through the lens of Scripture. Therefore, to get up and "preach" one candidate over another seems to me to be a betrayal of our highest calling which is to preach the Gospel and only the Gospel. In addition, it seems rather scary when one considers how we, as preachers, will be judged at the end of the day! Of course the Gospel comes with all kinds of political implications and I certainly am not afraid of those but to use it to promote one compromised candidate over another is simply ludicrous.

"If we [pastors] can tell you what to do in the bedroom, we can certainly tell you what to do in the voting booth."

Thats the problem. Pastors think they should be telling people what to do. They want mindless followers who do what they (pastors) say rather than the difficult path of encouraging and challenging grown individuals to make decisions and live a life that is consistant with Jesus' message.

I am all for free speech. I just hope these pastors are prepaired to lose their tax exempt status. To people truely committed to the call that shouldn't matter anyways!

Doug summates my feelings about this topic very nicely.
Well said, Doug, well said.

Why should church's be tax exempt? Why should the government have any say in regulating what a pastor is saying in front of a congregation? Why do we need to government to approve of the actions of our faith?

"If we [pastors] can tell you what to do in the bedroom, we can certainly tell you what to do in the voting booth."

Hmmm and I thought the Reformation happened 600 years ago!
I agree with Doug...remove their IRS status, that's fair enough.

i vote for doug. that was spot on.

Thank you, Doug.
Amen and Amen and Amen.

To be honest, I'd actually be happy to see some of these churches out there have to close their doors if they lost their tax status.

It might be a "blessed reduction" that could impede the flow of pseudo-theology that poses as "christian thought" these days.

There's no reason why a pastor should not be able to hold a personal opinion; but I think it is crossing a line to convert that to a political stump speech.

The law is very simple - non-profit organizations cannot endorse a candidate for public office. If you want to do so, then you don't meet the accepted definition of a non-profit. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

If the YMCA or the local school publicly stumped for a candidate (that we didn't like), then we would be calling for their heads. But it's different rules for the church, right? I don't think so.

The problem with this of course is that it is blasphemous to use the gathering of the people of God to coerce Christians about which candidate they should vote for. Perhaps we should just preach the Good News that God's Kingdom has broken into the midst of the kingdoms of this world. Let's let congregants discuss and talk about the back and forth of who should lead the United States.

I don't care what they do really. I just think it's a bad idea for the reasons mentioned above...blind following, congregation not thinking through issues, hope in government as opposed to Christ, etc.

I think the problem that can develop is a conflict of interest. If the government gives financial blessing (tax exempt status) to people who endorse a candidate, that has an influence on the political system, in as far as who caters to who, etc. Sounds like a breeding ground for corruption, political favors, etc. But hey, what do I know, I'm from New Jersey, we don't have corruption here...

Seems that all Urbanites are of one mind on this one so far. I wonder if there are other voices and perspectives out there.

I'm no fan of America/Christianity confusion (no flags in the sanctuary for me, please), but I also wonder if this topic is as clear cut as we're making it out to be.

For the 2008 presidential election it may well be that neither candidate is all that in-line nor out-of-line with the gospel, but it's not hard to imagine otherwise. Imagine a third (or fourth if it's easier) party candidate who runs on a platform built on genocide. Should we limit the church's voice in denouncing the candidate and encouraging parishioners to not vote for him/her?

Or what about when the issue is an issue and not a candidate? I know plenty of churches who use the pulpit to sway listeners to vote NO on liquor-by-the-drink initiatives, gay marriage measures, etc. Are issues safe and candidates out of bounds?

Thoughts??

I think if you check with the IRS tax code for non-profits, issues are fair game, hence it being ok for churches to speak on abortion, the death penalty, bad transportation, education, health care and a whole range of other issues. What a 501c3 organization cannot do, and retain tax-exempt status, is speak in support of one candidate over another in a partisan fashion. Again, if they relinquish their tax exempt status then they're free to do what they like within the law. The churches in question are being fundamentally dishonest in their argument.

I follow no man who tells me what to do in my private or political life. It irks me when pastors get political and privatized -- this is why many my age leave churches. We the Body don't discuss anything any more. We are told what to do. The pastor is not the Head of the Church. Too many forget that.

Yank their tax-exempt status.

Chad Hall,

Quick question:

Where does the term "Urbanites" come from and who is it describing?

Shame on all of you who said loose tax exempt status or stay quiet. "One cannot reasonably expect to continue to receive benefits from Caesar if one chooses to defy Caesar." What benefit? Benefit to NOT benefit ceasar with taxes? Give me a break.

The government should not tax the church or control what it says, BOTH. If Satan himself were running for President, should we stay quiet? How about a demon? Keep going lower until you get to just a bad person and then someone whose values do not match ours. Where do you draw the line in there? Is there a line?

A leader of a church has the responsibility to lead in all spiritual matters. That has nothing at all to do with him paying taxes, and includes everything that affects the church or God's plan. If God leads someone to see that one candidate is in His will, and it's in His will for that to be spread to others, then rock on. I'm not that guy, but I'll listen when my Pastor gives me true knowledge and wisdom from prayer and study. I know it's not politically or personally biased. AND IT STILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM PAYING TAXES.

Doug hit the nail on the head! And, the idea that I need told who to vote for by my pastor is ridiculous. Are we all uninformed idiots; I think not! From the moment I heard about what the pastors did, I thought God help them and their church, because even if the government doesn’t pull their tax exempt status God doesn’t overlook sin regardless of the intentions behind it.

It's one thing to talk about issues; we have to talk about them, and if we talk about them Biblically, and if we encourage our people to be informed voters, it's not unreasonable that our people will make the right call come Election Day. But there's a difference in taking a moral stance on a particular issue, and in endorsing a particular candidate for public office. As many have said, Doug is right-on in his comments; this is not a "freedom of religion" or "freedom of speech" issue at all; any pastor can say anything he wants in the pulpit. But when a pastor strays from what he ought to be doing (preaching the Word of God) into the endorsing of candidates for office, then he ought to first be held accountable by the congregation and its leadership (i.e., Gus Booth and his cohorts ought to be reprimanded at the very least), and that congregation must be willing to live with the consequences of that action.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from accountability.

Nathan: "Urbanites" comes from this blog (Ur) and I used it as a handle for those who'd made comments thus far.

----
A few other thoughts on this great topic...

Sounds like one of the real beefs people have with this topic is the pastors telling parishioners who to vote for.
So what about a church who collectively and prayerfully comes to consensus that one candidate is worth endorsing over another?
It's not hard for me to imagine a (probably small) congregation deciding to be of one heart and mind about such an important issue as a presidential election and deciding to prayerfully come to consensus.

On the IRS issue, I happen to think the churches should lose their tax-exempt status when they endorse a particular candidate because otherwise churches could become launderers of political donations (which are not tax exempt), and the whole thing could become a real mess.

But the tax exempt issue seems distinct from "the pastor shouldn't tell me what to do" sentiment in some of the posts.

Just because the submit-to-authority card has been overplayed and misplayed by plenty of pastor/dictators doesn't mean pastoral direction is only for "uninformed idiots." The "nobody tells me what to do" sentiment seems a bit non-communal for members of a Christian body.

So on what matters should and should not a parishioner expect their pastor to give them direction? What's in bounds and what's out of bounds and why is "who to vote for?" out of bounds? Just curious...

Pastor's on both sides of the political aisle have been endorsing specific candidates in their pulpits for years with no attempts on their tax-exempt status. O sure, they don't say, "I believe you must vote for Jessie Jackson, Bill Clinton, George Bush" (or whoever), but through everything esle they say and do, the congregation gets the picture, so this is a hair-splitter.

Understanding the history of this issue would certainly help in rounding out the debate. Here is a quote from OMB Watch, a non-profit information site that gives some good background. "Religious, charitable, educational and scientific organizations have been tax-exempt since 1913, although no political activity parameters were included in the first exemption statues. In 1954, however, Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson (D-TX) added the "express prohibition" on political campaign activity—without the benefit of hearings, testimony, or comment from affected organizations during Senate floor debate on the Internal Revenue Code. The amendment prohibits 501(c)(3) organizations from "participat[ing] in, or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office." The law was eventually applied to churches and now includes all 501(c)(3) organizations." Further reading of this article reveals continued degradation of non-profit speech rights. The link is here:

http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2852/1/41?TopicID=2

Prior to 1913 there was no such thing as income tax in the United States; thus one could construe this whole issue as unconstitutional and therefore a purely political football that the church found itself involved in through no fault of its own.

If a pastor had the audacity to tell me who to vote for, I would change churches immediately. It is up to each individual to weigh and measure and make that decision for him/herself.

But that is beside the point of the IRS threatening to revoke non-profit status. The government is within its authority to do so, in my opinion. If these pastors feel that strongly about coercing their congregants, then they need to be willing to accept the consequences thereof.

Wow...many of do take a rather anti-authority view here. I think Chad Hall as brought up an important question: what are the true limits of pastoral leadership?

Being for/against abortion is a moral question but voting for a candidate which opposes/supports abortion is a civil question outside overstepping the correct bounds of spiritual authority? Where did this schism between civil and moral authority come from? I believe that it is far better for a leader to teach the principles that inform decisions such as who to vote for. But I get suspicious of people who out of hand start defining boundaries around areas of their lives they believe should be immune from evaluation, direction, and possibly criticism...areas like marriage, children, finance, civil/social issues. I can't help but think anyone who gets all emotional and defensive in these areas has something to hide. Ironically, it is these very "critically immune" areas that Jesus spoke on the most and where we tend to screw up the most.

When it comes to political candidates, I think it ends up being a pick between two evils, so this battle may not be worth it. But I for one am glad when a leader has the courage to speak on "private life" issues that people like Robyn and Sara (see above) may just leave the church over.

Why should churches and pastors be treated differently from other non-profits that engage in politics?

Churches are not the only non-profits. Lots of non-church non-profits engage in politics.

here in atlanta, we've had a couple of pastors in the news getting a lot of attention because of this. in reading an account of one of the pastors' sermons, i wasn't surprised to see that the only two issues that seemed to matter were abortion and gay rights.

sitting in two wars, our economy in shambles, russia waking up because we provoked it, our status in the world basically zip - is that really what the election is going to come down to for 'Christians'? is our view that narrow? the rich can get richer, the poor poorer, we can go and make a million iraqi refugees, but by gosh our guy in the white house would vote against roe v wade? an issue that isn't going to come up?

the shallowness of the 'evangelical' vote this go round is pitiful. that pastors would get up in pulpits and narrow the world view down to two issues (maybe three - let's throw the flat-earth creationists in the mix, too), and in the same breath try to make up reasons why a truly ill-prepared vice presidential candidate should be put a heartbeat away from the presidency, is the kind of misdirected leadership that's gotten our country in the fix it's in. it's one thing for it to be in washington, yet another entirely for it to be in the church.

i'd say we deserve better, but we probably deserve what we've gotten. shame on us.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

RDM:
at first glance, I thought you were off base in saying NFPs engage in politics. But with some help from my CPA wife (who just happened to attend a ConEd workshop today on non-profits), I learned that certain charitable organizations such as 501(c)4 organizations are not tax-exempt and can endorse.

I think Planned Parenthood provides an interesting parallel to the churches participating in the Pulpit Initiative. Planned Parenthood seems to have sidestepped the law.
Planned Parenthood, which is a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization just like a church, has established the Planned Parenthood Action Fund as a 501(c)4. The PPAF has endorsed Obama and also launched a multi-million dollar advertising campaign for pro-choice political candidates. So PPAF can boldly endorse and oppose candidates while the umbrella organization Planned Parenthood remains tax-exempt. Pretty sneaky/savvy.

While I don't particularly agree with the Pulpit Initiative pastors, I do admire their approach. They could easily find a way around the law, but they think the law is wrong and they seem to be addressing it head on.

I think that these guys just need to stay out of politics. The pulpit is there for discussion on real life issues that are spoken to in the bible. "How do we apply timeless truth to our lives today?" Not "how do we get our own opinion of a given person out there to the point where we influence an election"? I would also have to agree that if they want their "free speech rights" then they should pack up their non profit bags and incorporate.

P.S. I hardly think what I do in my married bedroom is any of your business not to mention an area you have any authority over.

This question is one not even considered by Christians in other countries. If we were in China or many other places, we Christians would be meeting secretly in our house churches under threat of arrest or worse.

Christians, who are persecuted by the state around the world, do not have a political agenda. But they are considered a political threat just the same. This has always been true. Christ as a baby was considered to be a threat by Herod. We Christians can back out of the political process all we want to. The state will consider us no less a threat.

Coming to consensus about how to vote an issue does not take place in the context of worship. It shouldn't, anyway. Worship is where we come to be before God. Period.

Coming to consensus about an issue happens in the give and take of a Bible study or another pastoral setting where the Spirit may move among the body and all voices are heard, not just the guy up front in a robe reading talking points.

Mike Rucker,

I have never referred to myself as evangelical because it has always seemed to me to be a political term in today's American lexicon. It has never been more so than it is right now. Clearly, there is an evangelical right and left. I have seen plenty of left wing pastors preach their politics from the pulpit.

In discussing the general principle of whether pastors should, or should be legally able to, endorse candidates from the pulpit, you are the only poster who has approached it so partisanly.

In discussing the general principle of whether pastors should, or should be legally able to, endorse candidates from the pulpit, you are the only poster who has approached it so partisanly.

RDM - i went back and read through all the comments here and came to a conclusion:

you're exactly right.

i apologize. perhaps the election year, local news stories, sarah palin, and comment volleys at other sites just worked it's way into my commment which, on second reading, has a tone unlike the others.

thanks for pointing that out. please forgive me.

_____________________________________
Website I designed for [url=http://www.paydaytown.com]payday loans mississauga[/url] company.