Endorsing from the Pulpit | Christianity Today | A Magazine of Evangelical Conviction.
Pastor Gus Booth remembers when he used to simply encourage his congregation of 150 in Warroad, Minn., to vote each Election Day. Now, he thinks it’s important to tell them which candidate should get their vote.
On Sunday, as part of the “Pulpit Initiative” organized by an Arizona-based conservative Christian legal group, Booth is set to join dozens of clergy nationwide in challenging Internal Revenue Service rules that prohibit churches from politicking by supporting or opposing candidates.
“If we can tell you what to do in the bedroom, we can certainly tell you what to do in the voting booth,” said the Minnesota minister, an evangelical leader of a nondenominational church, who expects to endorse Republican John McCain during his “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” sermon.
“The voting booth is not some sort of sacred cow that you can’t talk about. You’re supposed to bring the gospel into every area of life.”
The Alliance Defense Fund announced the initiative last May as a way to challenge IRS rules that date to 1954. ADF spokesman Greg Scott said the organization contacted “pastors, priests and rabbis from every major denomination,” and knows of 33 clergy in 23 states who intend to take part on Sunday.
At least one clergyman who was contacted joined in filing a complaint against the initiative with the IRS.
“We’re basically aiming to get these rules declared unconstitutional so that pastors have the right to speak freely from the pulpit without fear of punishment,” said Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the ADF.
He said his group is not telling pastors what to say, or whether to endorse specific candidates, but stands ready to support them if complaints are filed against them.
IRS spokesman Eric Smith said the agency is aware of media coverage about the initiative and “will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate.”
Rob Boston, senior policy analyst at Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said: “If we uncover instances of churches stepping over the line, we’ll be sending complaints to the IRS.”
The IRS already has received two complaints from critics who believe the ADF efforts violate federal law — one from three tax lawyers who are former IRS officials, and another spearheaded by Ohio clergy.
Marcus S. Owens, a Washington tax lawyer who previously directed the IRS’ Exempt Organizations Division for a decade, urged the IRS to investigate whether the ADF has violated the agency’s ethical rules by encouraging pastors to violate IRS regulations.
“They have real force and effect,” he said of the ethics rules that are capable of ending some lawyers’ careers.
Owens is representing the Rev. Eric Williams, a United Church of Christ minister in Columbus, Ohio, and dozens of other clergy who also sent a complaint to the IRS, alleging that the ADF is “coordinating a mass violation of the law” and should be halted from soliciting churches to participate.
“People can disagree on all the issues that face the voters but … we can agree on the role the faith community plays in empowering, but not directing the voter how to vote,” said Williams, who was among clergy contacted by the ADF.
Groups ranging from the Baptist Joint Committee to the American Humanist Association have criticized ADF’s plans. The Interfaith Alliance has begun collecting signatures of clergy who pledge not to endorse candidates. Catholic Archbishop John C. Favalora of Miami wrote in a diocesan column that “the role of the church is not to be like the ‘party boss’ who goes around telling people how to vote.”
A recent poll by the First Amendment Center found that 40 percent of respondents said religious leaders should be permitted to endorse candidates from the pulpit without endangering their tax status, compared to 54 percent who disagreed.
In addition, LifeWay Research released a poll Wednesday finding that 13 percent of respondents agreed that it is appropriate for pastors to publicly endorse candidates for public office during a church service; 54 percent approve of a pastor’s personal endorsement of candidates outside of their church.
Booth, who became a McCain supporter after former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race, has a sort of “been there, done that” view of the initiative, since he already told his congregants last May not to vote for Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton. Americans United has sought an IRS inquiry into that sermon but, on the advice of his ADF lawyers, Booth would not comment on whether he had heard from the tax agency.
Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.
September 26th, 2008 8:42 pm
If I understand you correctly from some of your previous comments, you are usually opposed to religious leaders telling people how to vote. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
It is not the Catholic Church’s place, I believe, to instruct members to vote for a particular candidate or not, except in dire circumstances- say, if a fascist or communist candidate were running and stood a chance of winning power, or if genocide perpetrated by the potential winning candidate were a possibility. This U.S. election presents none of these scenarios.
The Church may teach that to vote for a candidate because of his or her position that is contrary to life and/or to Church teaching is morally wrong. For example, to vote for Obama/Biden because they are pro-abortion (this would need to be the primary reason for one’s selection of these candidates, and it is at least difficult to judge one’s deepest intention) constitutes formal co-operation in abortion and is sinful.
Likewise, if one were to vote for McCain/Palin because of their likelihood to support the Iraq war (again as a primary reason for the selection), this also is immoral.
I deliberately picked out two contentious issues, but there are a wide range of issues to be considered. If one votes Obama/Biden because of support for better programs for the poor, improved health care, or job creation, then the vote is morally defensible or may even contribute to the common good. The same goes for a vote for McCain/Palin because they might protect life by restricting abortion, uphold the family and marriage between one man and one woman, or reach a more just solution to illegal immigration.
Finally, for those that vote on the ‘hot-button’ moral issues like opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage, one must also consider the likelihood of a party or candidates who speak pro-life or pro-family to act pro-life or pro-family. Inaction on these issues just allows the status quo to continue.
I, for one, will readily give my opinion when asked about my favoured candidate(s) if I’ve decided, but we ought not to coerce another person to vote the same way. God’s blessings,
Warren
September 26th, 2008 8:44 pm
Warren, I completely agree with you. I do not think that politics should be discussed from the pulpit.
September 29th, 2008 9:39 am
Sometimes beating around the bush is not clearspeak to parishioners so I agree with the pulpit endorsements.
To say it is coercion is way over the top – no priest or minister is standing over your shoulder when you cast your ballot. Each person still has to make up their own mind. To that end, I certainly want voters to have information from more trustworthy sources than out-of-context soundbites, self-serving unions and biased news reporting. Everyone, regardless of tax status, has the right to be heard.
Believing in God is for naught if that belief does not transcend into how you live your life and how it establishes the basis for the order in your life. Therefore, to think that you can both, believe in God AND remove that belief system from how our country and politicians should frame our laws (and behave), is frankly, quite impossible. We do, however, have the duty to make sure that no one belief system is forced on the population as a result of our laws.
September 29th, 2008 9:51 am
Promo,
It might be difficult to define coercion, however, there is a real sense among the more fundamental churches that what the Pastor says is directly from God, and although the Pastor may not see you, God will. Thus, disobeying the Pastor is disobeying God. How more coercive can you get?
September 30th, 2008 6:41 pm
A Pastor’s job is to spread the “good news” and help people find their way to God. Not endorse political candidates. There is no way to know the hearts and minds men and women…period. This is nothing more than a power grab by those that want to turn this country into a Theocracy.
As a Christian I don’t care what my pastor thinks about a particular candidate. As an active member of a Democracy its my job to vet the candidates. If my pastor started to press his political views on me, I would find another church.
I hope the IRS strips these churches of their non-profit status.
I agr