In Theory: Should churches be able to support candidates?

Many pastors are going to take to the pulpit today to give political sermons to challenge the Internal Revenue Service. The annual protest, called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, is designed to dispute the federal government’s restrictions on pastors’ political endorsements.

Pulpit Freedom Sunday is challenging the so-called Johnson Amendment, an IRS code that says churches, which are tax-exempt, can’t engage in political campaign activity. Some faith leaders believe the code prevents churches from speaking out on social and political issues because doing so could cause them to lose their tax-exempt status. The amendment means that churches cannot engage in political campaign activity. Originally worded to mean that pastors couldn’t support a particular candidate, the wording was changed in 1987 to mean that they also couldn’t attack candidates. Many church leaders see the amendment as a restriction of their free speech.

While pastors will either endorse or criticize candidates, they are encouraged to do so by comparing how contenders’ policies match with Scripture.

“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor — and not the IRS — decides what is said from the pulpit,” said Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. “It is a head-on constitutional challenge.”

While some churches have been investigated for overtly political sermons, charitable status is rarely revoked.

Q: Should churches have the right to attack or support political candidates from the pulpit?

Silent Unity, the 24/7 worldwide prayer ministry for the Unity movement, based at Unity Village, Lee’s Summit, Mo., establishes the tone for all Unity ministries and study groups on the issue of politics and political sermons.

It is Unity’s mission to be a place of peace, healing, prosperity, guidance and spiritual instruction on the practical teachings of Jesus Christ. Unity does not take a stand in endorsing one political candidate over another, but teaches followers how to pray and meditate, seeking their own inner guidance as to which candidate or political party to support.

Clearly, Unity supports the concept of separation of church and state. It serves the best interest of the congregations, which always have diverse interests, to provide a neutral ground of prayer and contemplation.

Over the years, many Unity churches have opened their fellowship halls to serve as polling places for elections; but rarely will an ordained Unity minister speak about politics from the pulpit on Sundays.

I received my ordination from Unity School of Christianity in 1978, and the most political I have ever been took the form of encouraging the congregation to hold the election process in prayer, acknowledging that divine order, intelligence and peace will bring about the highest good for all concerned.

Rev. Jeri Linn
Unity Church of the Valley
La Crescenta

--

No, not if we value the separation of church and state. If I as a preacher am a Democrat, why should the Republicans in my congregation be forced to listen to my left-leaning pap? Or, if I am a Republican, why should the Democrats in my congregation have to listen to my right-wing rants?

We have both major parties represented in my congregation, I am proud to say, and they are virtually all independent thinkers. My congregation knows where I stand on most political issues, and I know the stances of many of my parishioners. But the church, it seems to me, is above politics; it doesn’t avoid sticky issues like war and peace and racism and homosexuality. But it does avoid partisanship, and I think avoiding that partisanship is what makes a church a family. But really, church-and-state separation should be observed, and those churches found to be “sinning” should have their tax-exempt status removed.

Now here is a radical idea: To those who think their “freedom of conscience” is being breached, break the law, preach what you believe is the truth, and then take the consequences, including the loss of tax-exempt status. That’s what Jesus would have done, and that is what Dr. Martin Luther King did. He broke the law that he thought was unfair and went to jail for his actions. No cry-baby he; he took the punishment that came with breaking what he thought was an unfair law. You who feel that the law is compromising your faith, go and do likewise, for great will be your reward in heaven.

There is always a price to be paid for speaking out. Get ready to pay that price.

The Rev. Skip Lindeman
La Cañada Congregational Church
La Cañada Flintridge

---

The Johnson Amendment prohibits all nonprofits, including secular ones, from making public declarations “in support of or in opposition to candidates for public office.” This law does not prevent churches from speaking out on social and political issues. The law is very clear that nonprofit organizations and churches are able to make statements about political ideas and beliefs. But they cannot support or oppose a particular candidate.

In the United States, religious institutions are granted a special benefit by not being required to pay taxes on funds they take in. This benefit is granted to these groups and organizations based on the idea that they serve the community and nation. The law says that in return for tax-exempt status, these groups should not divide communities by endorsing particular political candidates. If religious organizations wish to endorse individual candidates, they should then be willing to give up their nonprofit status.

Steven Gibson
Atheist
Altadena

---

Because they are gatherings of American citizens, American churches should by all means enjoy their full rights to the freedom of speech that our Constitution guarantees. And their tax-exempt status is (and should be) given on the basis of the community service they offer, not on whether or not they express political views logically derived from what their faith teaches.

On the topic of current regulations, I’m wondering what the exact definitions of “supporting” and “attacking” a candidate are. I neither recommend nor practice the specific support of one candidate or party from the pulpit. But abortion and the definition of marriage are currently major campaign issues, and these are moral issues that are clearly addressed in the Bible. Christian ministers are expected to teach what the Bible says. Is it really an attack to affirm from the pulpit that a particular candidate’s position is biblically wrong if sufficient proof is offered? Is it support to affirm that his position is biblically right? It’s simply a reporting of current, relevant facts to say, “here’s what this candidate says,” and “here’s what the Bible says about it.”

This Pulpit Freedom Sunday I’m going to preach about how good God is, not about how good or bad a particular presidential candidate is. Ultimately, the answer to our problems is going to be Jesus, the king established by God, not Obama or Romney, a president elected by men.

Pastor Jon Barta
Valley Baptist Church
Burbank

---

I can understand the ministers’ frustration with restrictions on what they can say from the pulpit. And it’s true, as some proponents of Pulpit Freedom Sunday point out, that religious leaders have played an important role at crucial moments in American history.

I don’t know that it is necessary, though, for religious leaders to compare candidates by name or make endorsements. What they can do within the bounds of the current interpretations of the law is clearly teach Biblical principles that enable their congregations to make wise political choices.

The LDS church maintains a policy of neutrality in campaigns for public office. Leaders encourage members to be informed and to participate in the political process, but it does not attempt to influence how they vote.

The church does, in a nonpartisan fashion, speak out on certain social issues. However, it’s noteworthy that even in the current presidential campaign, with a Latter-day Saint running as the Republican nominee, church leaders have remained silent. Although the LDS people are typically viewed as conservative, they are represented in both major political parties. For example, Democrat Harry Reid, majority leader of the U.S. Senate, is a member. So is Sen. Orrin Hatch, a staunch Republican.

The LDS position is reflected in a statement made by Joseph Smith during the church’s early days. As membership grew into the thousands, Smith was asked how he governed such a large group. His response was that it was simple: “I teach them correct principles and they govern themselves.”

Michael White
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
La Crescenta

---

As a pastor, during any election, I believe that my primary responsibility to my church members is to encourage each one of them to exercise their rights of citizenship and vote. I am often reminded how many extremely important events in history were decided by a margin of one vote.

For example in 1645, Oliver Cromwell was given control of England by one vote in Parliament. In 1868, Pres. Andrew Jackson was spared impeachment by a margin of one vote. In 1923, Adolf Hitler was appointed leader of the Nazi party in Germany by one vote. These are just a few examples of how one vote changed the course of history. Every vote matters.

While I never instruct church members on how to vote or who to vote for, I do believe that as their pastor, I have the responsibility and the right to look at the values of each politician and point out how they match with biblical values. I also believe it is OK for me to share with my congregation my own personal convictions, and that may include who I intend to vote for.

But that is where I stop. I do not believe in attacking the character or opinions of any political candidate. That is not Christlike. 1 John 2:27 states that each of us has been given God’s Holy Spirit to teach and lead our decision-making. I respect the ability of my congregation to be spirit-led in making their voting decisions.

Pastor Ché Ahn
HRock Church
Pasadena

---

It’s a free country, so they say, and anyone can oppose or support political candidates. But being tax-exempt is not a right. Churches can of course forego that status if they truly wish to speak freely.

Requiring 501(c)(3) organizations to be non-partisan is necessary because of our constitutional separation of church and state. Special tax treatment for churches would constitute government establishment of religion, prohibited under the 1st Amendment. The IRS language already has plenty of wiggle room, specifying that “propaganda” must constitute “no substantial part of activities,” for instance.

I’ve read figures that suggest from $50 to $70 billion in tax revenue is lost because of this exemption. Many people, atheist and not, don’t agree that churches should be tax-exempt at all. They argue that pastors enriching themselves and other abuses are all too common, and that the exemption itself constitutes a government subsidy of religion, even with the non-partisan requirement.

I’ll support rethinking the religious tax exemption if we also crack down on our temples of profit by closing the vast chasms of corporate tax loopholes and returning to Eisenhower’s (or at least Reagan’s) tax rates for very wealthy individuals.

Until then, I think the Alliance Defending Freedom, the reactionaries behind Pulpit Freedom Sunday, should get over themselves. Other nonprofits and charities, including churches, comply with the Johnson Amendment while successfully advancing their missions.

Roberta Medford
Atheist
Montrose

---

As a rule, I don’t think it’s a good idea for clergy to express political opinions from the pulpit — regardless of IRS regulations. People come to our houses of worship to be inspired with uplifting messages, not to hear impassioned campaign speeches or fiery sermons on hot-button issues.

There is certainly no shortage of commentary or analysis that can provide all the necessary political insight and talking points. We should let those professionals do their jobs while we focus on ours, which is bringing spirituality to people.

Besides, discussing politics in a synagogue, church, or other house of worship is bound to upset a significant number of worshipers and create friction among parishioners. This is contrary to our Judeo/Christian belief system and is detrimental to the important cohesion of our communities. A religious gathering offers participants a unique sense of fellowship, support and common purpose; it would be a shame to undermine that special benefit of group worship.

I feel that it is imperative for members of the clergy to keep the message of religion clear, direct and uncluttered. Straying from this path is, in my opinion, unwise and can only serve to alienate people from the positive objectives of spirituality. It’s one thing to stress broad principles of social justice and ethical behavior, but wading into specific controversies and debating the headlines of the day will only serve to divide and distract. And no political candidate or cause is so important as to justify putting a rift between the people and God.

Rabbi Simcha Backman
Chabad Jewish Center
Glendale

---

If I came right out and said, “vote for Romney,” in my Sunday message, I suppose that would violate IRS restrictions and could invite their nosy nose into our congregation’s business. But if I say, “I vote for Romney,” am I still in violation? Churches are forbidden to endorse candidates, but personal pastoral opinions can be expressed, right? The government might frown on a “vote for Romney” banner hanging from our steeple, but every member of the congregation could have “vote for Romney” bumper stickers, right? Violation?

I don’t like the government grabbing our God money, nor do I like them forbidding our free speech if we collect it for him, so I’m in favor of removing IRS restrictions altogether. Why shouldn’t a church of like-minded Christians be able to have a “vote for Romney” campaign if it wants?

Many confused Christians ask me if it’s spiritually permissible to vote for Romney, a Mormon, when the incumbent is a professed Christian, who should be preferable to us. They’re perplexed in that they see our current leader to be something of a bad apple, a professor of faith but not a possessor of the same. Judging a tree by its fruit, Christians have felt misled. But may they vote for Romney? I feel obliged to point out that a vote for Romney will ensure at least a candidate with biblical ideals and our generally agreed moral viewpoint, even if we have obvious theological differences. You already know what we currently have; do you feel God is being uplifted?

Now, I might not want to preach straight-out “vote for Romney,” as it could alienate the closet liberals sitting in our pews, but I believe we should retain the rights of free speech and religion, both personally and corporately, to say “vote for Romney.”

Rev. Bryan Griem
Montrose Community Church
Montrose

---

Mitt Romney’s recent comments about the dependent, irresponsible 47% caused me to visit this issue in a serious way. The book of James was in the lectionary cycle for September, which means that many pastors were staring at a Scripture that reads, “do not show special attention to the rich man,” “do not dishonor the poor,” and “love your neighbor as yourself” (James 2) while listening to the whole nation discuss the gap between rich and poor. Staying out of the public conversation seemed to be more of a fearful choice than a faithful one. As a preacher, I can preach James’ warnings in a vacuum, or I can help my congregation consider them in our current context. I would never say who to vote for, but I do ask us to connect our faith to our values, and our values to our votes. The lens of faith usually sees the world from an angle different from that revealed by any particular candidate or proposition campaign. My prayer is that we look hard and discern these things faithfully.

Preaching God’s preferential option for the poor is a practice distinct from lobbying for a particular candidate. I understand the IRS’ concern that churches not become de facto campaign coffers for those who would prefer that their campaign contributions be tax-deductible. I am also wary of the state having undue influence over the practice of religion, and of any particular brand of religion having undue influence over the state.

To that end, it is important to note that Pulpit Freedom Sunday is a campaign of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which was started in the early 1990’s by well-heeled fundamentalist Christians seeking to eradicate divisions between church and state. According to its own website, its mission is “transforming the legal system and advocating for religious liberty, the sanctity of life, and marriage and family.” I would not choose to join their campaign because it is ultimately a strategy to overly influence the state with a particular, and particularly limiting, brand of religion. I’m not convinced that “freedom” is the true goal.

The Rev. Paige Eaves
Crescenta Valley United Methodist Church
Montrose

---

I was struck by the fact that those from the Alliance Defending Freedom and others supporting their stance seemed not to understand what the Johnson Amendment truly restricts. They appeared to be arguing that clergy could not share their most strongly held theological beliefs from the pulpit because of this law, thus abrogating their right to freedom of speech. The truth is that the law, and its later amplification, does not keep members of the clergy from speaking for or against perspectives that they believe resonate or conflict with their religious beliefs. It simply keeps speakers from tax-exempt organizations of any type from expressing either support for, or condemnation of, a particular candidate.

Another thing that puzzles me is the belief that it is alright for a church to accept exemption from taxes but not to follow the laws of the country simply because the pastor disagrees with them. However, I do have to admire the fact that those who have declared Pulpit Freedom Sunday are doing so with full public disclosure and even acknowledgment to the IRS. But I believe a more honorable way of standing up for what these pastors say they support is to give up their tax-exempt status. If these churches want to become political organizations, they should do so without any special privileges — just like other PACs.

We ministers, priests, rabbis, imams and other religious leaders have the obligation to encourage the members of our congregations to think critically and to vote in ways that are congruent with their deepest religious and spiritual beliefs. What we do not have the right to do, in my opinion, is to misuse our power to imprint our beliefs on their minds about the people for whom they should vote. That is not what true democracy, the foundation of our country, is about.

Rev. Dr. Betty Stapleford
Unitarian Universalist Church of the Verdugo Hills
La Crescenta