This may read a little odd, but I agree with him...in part.

A Pastor should be able, as any American should be able to endorse or vilify any personage running for Public Office.

Now, that being said, the can of worms I think those Pastors may want to avoid opening.

Endorsing a Political Personage is expressly opening a forum, whether intended or not, that would split a church in two.

For example, my Church, is roughly about half and half, with the Religious Right Wing Republicans more "open" about their political wishes, while the Religious Left Wing Democrats are passive-aggressive about their political wishes.

And then there is me and a few others who roll our eyes at the lot of them...but one thing is for sure, if the Pastor "opened up" with an endorsement for any politician it would cause a major furor with the "Republican" troop all but stomping their feet in outrage, and marching whole-sale out the door, or the "Democrats" wagging their heads in silent disdain, with a good possibility of never seeing them come the next Sunday.

I, and the small cadre of us in the middle, would still show up, but we certainly would pull the Pastor to the side, quietly tell him he has certainly done a fine job of screwing the pooch with his "freedom of Speech" rights; And perhaps, in the future, should the desire to play prophet descend on him again to call the worship leader back up to the stage and immediately conclude the service with a confessory psalm. Bless everyone, and bail out before any irreparable damage to unity is done.

"Just because I can, doesn't mean I should."

Endorsing a candidate or political party from the pulpit is completely inappropriate. I write about this in my blog:
http://kevinglenn.podbean.com/

This strikes me as much less of a religious/theological argument, and much more about the way the U.S. ought to be governed. Jim Garlow is essentially saying the founding fathers believed (and a later supreme court upheld) that religious institutions ought to be given a tax exemption, implying that they intrinsically hold a civic benefit. Funny that tax exemption doesn't apply to, say, the press, which is also given first amendment protection.

The problem, of course, is that the boundaries that distinguish a "religious" organization from a non-religious is fuzzy. The enlightenment-thinking founding fathers may have thought there was clearly a distinction, but it is not so clear now.

Garlow isn't saying anything about what pastors ought to do, because pastors ought to do what God is leading them to do, regardless of the implications on tax exemption status. I'd be wary of someone who claims that a tax-exempt status is necessary to the mission of the church.

Tax exempt status is not necessary to the mission of the church, but from a policy standpoint, churches are non-profit organizations that serve. The press, on the other hand, for the most part is profit driven and privately owned. Big difference.

I've always felt pastors, churches and individual Christians should think long and hard about publicly engaging in politics. It's hard to spread the Good News if you alienate half the people before you give them the Good News.

When hearts turn to Christ, right decisions and life choices will come regardless of politics.

But no matter the policy/politics, wholesale change will never come if hearts aren't changed.

I'm with Sheer, in that this pastor has every right to do so. The IRS, then, has every right to revoke tax-exempt status. Frankly, that's an agreement we have with the federal gov't. You can break the contract, but don't cry "persecution" if the natural consequences play themselves out.

I think that churches should not care one whit about 'tax-exempt status' and then they could say anything they please. Of course, when this nation was founded and until the Civil War, there were no federal income taxes at all. Somehow, Congress managed to run the place anyway - no Meidicare, no Social Security, no WIC, no welfare, and still, the whole world wanted to come here, go figure.

Elegance, you are making two different points. Tax-exempt status for churches has nothing to do with federal income tax. I am a pastor and I pay my income tax every year. The tax-exempt status for churches refers to property tax and donations.

Reader, you are correct. Still, I think the church should speak the truth at all times anyway.

Elegance, I agree. I'm just not sure that endorsing a candidate ever reaches the level of "speaking the truth."

The founding fathers clearly considered the press something different from other for-profit businesses, because they gave it special protection in the bill of rights.

The problem with endorsing a candidate is that no candidate, as well as no political party, embraces Biblical truth completely. There are aspects of conservatism that are in harmony with Biblical principles, but there are other aspects that are not. The same holds true for liberalism.

By endorsing one candidate or one ideology over the other, you lose the credibility to speak prophetically to either side.

I came here based on the title expecting a far different article (shame on me for forgetting that EVERYTHING must revolve around politics right now).

Every time this comes up John 19:15 comes to mind:
The religious leaders replied,"We have no king but Caesar."

So the question in my mind is, 'Who does my pulpit serve?'