HOW WE SEE IT: Preaching Politics Gets A Sermon

When it comes to defining a church for the purposes of the federal government, one may want to venture into more easily solved matters.

There’s abortion. There’s the question of whether God exists. There’s the debate over which movie is the best of all time.

But defining a church?

That’s hard. Yet that’s exactly what the Internal Revenue Service has to do because the federal government provides tax-exempt status to churches. The long operating theory behind not taxing places of faith rests with theFirst Amendment. In that amendment, the nation’s Founding Fathers recognized Congress should make no law regarding the establishment of religion and, some theorize, collecting a tax on something is a major step toward controlling it.

So churches are generally free to extol their faiths, unless, that is, someone in the pulpit starts advocating for or against a particular candidate.

Then, according to an IRS rule known as the Johnson Amendment, the tax-exempt church has run afoul of the law.

In the last few days, some pastors have preached messages that clearly crossed that line. Some are sending sermon videos to the IRS.

Just as Moses urged Pharaoh to “let my people go,” these churches are demanding the IRS let their pastors preach, without interference or threat of losing the churches’ tax-exempt status. The participants want a fight so they can eventually take their defiance to the U.S. Supreme Court.

It’s not that the IRS has gone nuts in gagging preachers from in-pulpit advocacy on candidates.

This group of pastors views it as wrong that the federal government attempts to control any message they want to give to their parishioners.

In our experience, there aren’t many pastors just champing at the bit to get into the business of telling congregants specifically how to vote, but there’s no doubt some want that freedom. And they should have it as long as political advocacy doesn’t become their modus operandi.

Here’s the concern: When does a place of faith becoming a political organization rather than a religious institution? As with anything involving law, there has to be a line drawn someplace to separate the occasional mention of a candidate from creation of a political machine in the name of God.

When it comes to the gray areas, it’s diff cult to have faith the IRS will make reasonable, common sense decisions. And the mere threat of action can serve to make some pastors retreat from what would be entirely constitutional behavior.

We respect the founding fathers held a deep appreciation for the role of religion in our nation and a requirement the government allow people to be free to exercise their faith, or lack thereof, in whatever way they see fit, as long as no one’s being harmed. They set an extremely high standard for government interference in matters of faith.

Advocates for a ban on any political endorsements from the pulpit often aren’t as concerned about the tax exemption as they are about shutting down any incitement of a political perspective they fear or oppose. That’s not a good enough reason to maintain what may be an unconstitutional infringement.

This matter remains in a gray area that needs clarity. To the extent the pastors’ action lead our nation to a better understanding of the Constitution and its limits on government entanglement in faith matters, we say preach on, and let the Supremes decide.

Opinion, Pages 5 on 10/10/2012

Upcoming Events