More Active Posts
Front Page
Pastor invites IRS investigation
 |
 14 Comments |
Here’s a twist on the usual: a law firm is challenging the Internal Revenue Service to investigate its client.
The law firm is the Becket Fund – a non-profit, interfaith firm devoted to protecting religious expression – and the client is Kenneth Taylor, pastor of Calvary Assembly of God in Algoma, Wis. An open letter invites the IRS to investigate a political sermon Taylor delivered during the last election. Pastors often shy away from political sermons to avoid IRS investigations and loss of tax-exempt status. (Watch the sermon, censored in case of an investigation, here.)
Taylor challenges the IRS: “What government does and says often has profound moral consequences. As a preacher, I am obliged to say something about it, and I shouldn’t have to worry about how the government might retaliate.”
Tax regulations prohibit church “intervention” in a campaign but IRS enforcement is ambiguous because the IRS sees the tax code as a living, ever-changing document. “This provides the maximum flexibility for the IRS and minimum flexibility for houses of worship,” said Roger Severino, legal counsel for the Becket Fund.” Severino said the ambiguity intimidates pastors and the Becket Fund is seeking to clarify the code.
Severino said that a pastor speaking to his congregation is protected religious speech. It is not an intervention in a campaign because the forum is private, not public: “There’s a very big difference between a full page ad condemning a candidate running for political office and a religious organization speaking to itself.” The Becket Fund maintains that a pastor should even be able to endorse or condemn certain candidates from the pulpit, as long as he is speaking privately to his congregation.
Severino and Taylor point to a long tradition of political sermonizers, including John Witherspoon and Martin Luther King, Jr. The regulation about campaign intervention has only existed since 1954, Severino said: “For a hundred and seventy odd years of our history, people were allowed to speak freely without fear of losing any teax exemption and our country was not turned into a theocracy because of it, not even close.”
 |
Topic: Front Page, The Nation |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: church, religious-freedom, tax-exempt status |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
Soul searching
The comparisons to Witherspoon and King fail. The current tax law was not in effect at any point during Witherspoon’s life. And King rarely, if ever, intervened in a “campaign.”
I also find it interesting that World Mag suggests that the only reason that a pastor would avoid political speech from the pulpit is for fear of IRS inquiries and loss of 501(c)(3) status. Maybe that’s the problem! These pastors fear the IRS more than they fear the judgment of God. The preacher is to proclaim the sovereign saving grace of Christ. When preachers fail to preach Christ, and instead preach a man-centered works-based moralism, they fail their congregations and they fail God.
Hence, the Becket Fund is doing little else than protecting the rights of false shepherds to continue leading sheep away from Christ and towards the man-centered moralism of the religious right. Ho. Ho. Two cheers for Gnosticism.
That’s one.
I personally find nearly all political speech in a church out of place. Telling people to go vote and exercise their rights as Americans is one thing, but that can be summed up on one sentence and then it should end. It seems to be an American thing, certainly in the past with the Dems and now with the Repubs, for the candidates to go to churches. I don’t endorse this at all, and this has always turned me off to Dems because they’ve been so two-faced about it.
On the other hand, as a person who has an interest in the law, I find this very interesting. It would appear these people are seeking to test the government and find out just what the limits are. I admit curiosity and hope that the IRS takes the challenge.
The Becket Fund maintains that a pastor should even be able to endorse or condemn certain candidates from the pulpit, as long as he is speaking privately to his congregation.
I agree
As a pastor for 30 years, I routinely outed candidates for their opposition to principles that were biblically clear. I had no problem calling them by name and endorsing one candidate over another when I was confident of their records.
When I took the pulpit on Sunday mornings I didn’t consider it a public meeting like so many call it. It was a frank discussion of Biblical truth with the family of God. If there were guests present, that is what they were, guests. I compare it to a family discussion around the dining room table.
I say, speak the truth diplomatically and let the chips fall where they may. If Herod is a fox, then call him one. But don’t let the sheep in your care be influenced erroneously by a politician just because you are afraid of going to jail, or losing a tax exemption.
And for those who may be offended that a pastor is discussing “politics” from behind the pulpit I ask, “What other topics are off limits?” All issues in life are ultimately spiritual. If the servant of God can’t address these topics then there has been an abdication of responsibility to the call.
There are plenty of instances when the “prophets” spoke to those who were in authority. Every attempt should be made to protect the people of God from anyone (politicians, philosophers, professors and preachers) who may have positions that may be detrimental to their growth.
Metanoia:
You are not a prophet. Your belief that the Old Testament prophets provide a proper example for pulpit ministry belies a fundamental misunderstanding of redemption history. Go read some Vos and Ridderbos and come back.
This topic is also interesting in light of the WSJ’s feature yesterday on church discipline. Could politically driven pastors, e.g., Metanoia, use church discipline to remove those from the church who disagree with their political preferences? If so, would this jeopardize evangelicals’ cherished 501(c)(3) status?
Moreover, as a lawyer, I confess that I have never heard a single pastor speak on a legal/policy topic with the requisite precision and accuracy. For example, I have heard many pastors argue that all who are truly “pro-life” must favor criminalization as the policy lever for addressing abortion. Such assertions don’t evidence conviction; they evidence ignorance of the policy rationales that underlie criminal law.
Pastors should stick to their ordination vows preach Christ. Leave moralism to the liberals.
Kiyoshi
YOU WRITE……”Moreover, as a lawyer, I confess that I have never heard a single pastor speak on a legal/policy topic with the requisite precision and accuracy.”
If this is true, then your choice of church might be the problem.
YOU ALSO WRITE…..”Pastors should stick to their ordination vows preach Christ. Leave moralism to the liberals.”
Paul spoke a great deal on morals, and sin. Why should a pastor be prohibited to preach/teach the same?
Killing a child is a sin, why should someone be legally free to extinguish the life of an unborn child, but held for murder for killing someone older?
KIYOSHI: “You are not a prophet. Your belief that the Old Testament prophets provide a proper example for pulpit ministry belies a fundamental misunderstanding of redemption history. Go read some Vos and Ridderbos and come back.”
Never said I was a prophet. But I certainly hold to the prophetic voice that is historically given to the pulpit.
“Preach Christ?” Is that some kind of attempt to pigeon-hole the ordained ministry to some kind of pseudo religious parameter? Preaching Christ encompasses all that he taught, all that he is, and all that he stood for. As a pastor I was passionate about the things I believe Christ was passionate about.
Ridderbos and Vos aren’t who I will answer to when I stand before God. I was given a charge to guard the sheep. And I would do that with my life if called upon.
“Moreover, as a lawyer, I confess that I have never heard a single pastor speak on a legal/policy topic with the requisite precision and accuracy. For example, I have heard many pastors argue that all who are truly “pro-life” must favor criminalization as the policy lever for addressing abortion. Such assertions don’t evidence conviction; they evidence ignorance of the policy rationales that underlie criminal law.”
You need to get out more, as I know plenty of pastors who speak with precision and accuracy about many issues.
As an attorney you should be more concerned with protecting my freedom of speech. But instead you prefer to paint preachers into a corner to keep them tame.
Churches shouldn’t be tax exempt in the first place. Religion is one of the biggest businesses in America. The other ones pay taxes; so should churches.
Night Train,
Remember that extra-constitutional “separation of church and state” that gets liberals so angry if a political leader even mentions God? If the church has no power over the state, the state also has no power over the church, and cannot tax it.
I believe a pastor, indeed any American, can speak to the issues — it’s all opinion anyway, our individual views. I also think a pastor could deliver a sermon opposing abortion, for example, without ever endorsing a candidate by name — and if there was an election coming up, I suspect everyone would “know” who the pastor is probably voting for. Yes, all issues in life are ultimately spiritual as Metanoia says. But a sermon that has politics as its theme and not the spiritual aspect of the issue as its theme is not a sermon. It’s a campaign speech. I don’t go to a worship service for that.
You can’t serve two masters.
(The reason the churches are not taxed is because the government cannot inhibit us in the practice of our religion - taxes have a tendency to inhibt. See the First Amendment.)
NJLawyer: Often elections occur close to the dates when particular issues are commemorated. For example, Right to Life Sunday is in the middle of January. When covering the issue of life it is possible to weave a current event (like an election) seamlessly into a sermon. It doesn’t become a campaign speech, but an actual relevant application of the biblical principles one is preaching on.
There is no serving of two masters, but the conscientious commitment to serve One. I have never preached on an election, but if the issues surrounding an election fit comfortably into the theme of the sermon then it is all fair game in the proper instruction of a congregation.
Metanoia, your last post clears things up for me: “an actual relevant application of the biblical principles one is preaching on” is all I’m suggesting. It’s saying, this is where the church stands on this subject. It’s not endorsing a candidate. That’s more than fair and probably assists congregants in making up their minds when they walk into the voting booth. Your earlier post led me to believe otherwise, but your last posts leads me to conclude that you lay out the biblical position and people vote their own conscience.
I did not grow up in a church where “politics” was discussed. Indeed, when Roe v. Wade was decided, one of the “higher ups” in the church visited all the congregations because many people had sought his opinion — which was bluntly put, “Abortion is murder and that’s all I’m going to say on it.” He then continued on with the service. Never heard another word on the subject. It does bother me that candidates give political speeches in churches on a Sunday morning, probably because I don’t see the ministers in those churches asking all the candidates to speak. That is not a worship service to me because it is not focused on God.
I hope I did not offend you.
NJLawyer: Offend me? Not at all.
The weakness of blogging is that,due to limited space and time, you can only communicate so much about where you stand on an issue and hope that others will understand by reading discerningly between the lines. Your subsequent comments helped me to clarify what I was trying to say.
I believe election years are important opportunities for those of us who speak from a pulpit. It gives us a chance to communicate a biblical world-view on the issues of importance in the elections.
That’s why I didn’t fear government intervention even when I felt that I had to call out a politician by name. It was never to condemn the individual. It was simply to point out where they deviated from a biblical perspective on significant issues.
On the other hand, if a politician had a better biblical world-view than his opponent, I didn’t hesitate to tell our congregation that they had a better choice. I would encourage more pastors to speak out clearly, boldly and to do it humbly when the situation calls for it.
To stay quiet while the poor are being oppressed, babies are being murdered, and legislation is being advanced that deteriorates the moral fiber of our country, is a gross sin.