pastors preach politics and challenge irs

So this was something I read and I just wondered if anyone had any thoughts about pastors sharing their thoughts on whom people should vote for as a challenge to the IRS? What do you think about these pastors who are planing to do this?

rdg
--------------------------------------------------

More than 1,000 pastors are planning to challenge the IRS next month by deliberately preaching politics ahead of the presidential election despite a federal ban on endorsements from the pulpit.

The defiant move, they hope, will prompt the IRS to enforce a 1954 tax code amendment that prohibits tax-exempt organizations, such as churches, from making political endorsements. Alliance Defending Freedom, which is holding the October summit, said it wants the IRS to press the matter so it can be decided in court. The group believes the law violates the First Amendment by “muzzling” preachers.

“The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -- and not the IRS -- decides what is said from the pulpit."

- Erik Stanley, Alliance Defending Freedom

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

Stanley said pastors attending the Oct. 7 “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” will “preach sermons that will talk about the candidates running for office” and then “make a specific recommendation.” The sermons will be recorded and sent to the IRS.

“We’re hoping the IRS will respond by doing what they have threatened,” he said. “We have to wait for it to be applied to a particular church or pastor so that we can challenge it in court. We don’t think it’s going to take long for a judge to strike this down as unconstitutional.”

An amendment was made to the IRS tax code in 1954, stating that tax-exempt organizations are “absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”

“Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax,” the IRS says in its online guide for churches and religious organizations seeking tax exemption.

Stanley and others, like San Diego pastor Jim Garlow, say the IRS regularly threatens churches that they will lose their tax-exempt status if they preach politics. But Stanley and Garlow claim the government never acts on the threat because it wants to avoid a court battle.

“It is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Stanley. “They just prefer to put out these vague statements and regulations and enforce it through a system of intimidation … Pastors are afraid to address anything political from the pulpit.”

“The IRS will send out notices from time to time and say you crossed the line,” added Garlow, a senior pastor of Skyline Wesleyan Church in San Diego. “But when it’s time to go to court, they close the case.”

A spokeswoman for the IRS did not comment on the matter and instead referred all inquiries to the government’s online handbook.

Garlow and other pastors say their concerns over the code extend well beyond the law.

“I’m very concerned about the spiritual side of this,” Garlow told FoxNews.com. “There’s a phenomenon occurring in America and that’s a loss of religious liberty.”

“If I would have said 50 years that ‘Tearing up a baby in the womb is a bad thing,’ people would have said ‘Of course it is,’” Garlow said. “But If I said that today, people would say ‘Pastor, you’re being too political.”

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/19/pastors-pledge-to-defy-irs-preach-politics-from-pulpit-ahead-election/

Editing my post-i should add that i am not looking to argue about who should be the next president cause i think both need prayer big time but i was interested in these pastors saying enough is enough we are going to teach what the Lord is leading us to teach. oh also i was not planing to post to much any more but this was just really intriguing to me and i wondered what others might think about this happening now?

Hello,

"Political" and "politics" are often relative to those who define it within the limits of their own understanding.

To many Liberals, the "preaching of politics" includes preaching the Biblical view on abortion, homosexuality, drunkenness, dress, etc...

If you were to preach against abortion or homosexual marriage or uphold Biblical standards of righteousness -- including proclaiming that salvation is found in no one other than Jesus Christ -- loud members of the Far Left will accuse you of spreading "hate speech."

Remember: John the Baptist was thrown in prison (and ultimately beheaded) after he said that it was unlawful for King Herod to marry his brother's wife. In other words, John Baptist was jailed because he told the truth.

We are to comply with the laws of the land as long as those laws do not violate the Truth of the Word of God. However, the IRS must also comply with the Constitution too. The First Amendment says that Congress cannot make a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Yes, a church could theoretically lose its tax exemption status over "political views" -- but other organizations are touted by the Far Left BECAUSE of those political views.

Remember: Planned Parenthood and NPR are both "tax exempt" as well. Both of them actually RECEIVE taxpayers' money as a result of the efforts of the same politicians who get angry if a pastor preaches against homosexuality or abortion (or rebukes individuals who push such things).

Ministers of the Gospel should not worry about such things. They should simply teach, proclaim and admonish as God leads them. If a government worker or politician -- who is employed by taxpayers -- makes an issue of it, I suggest that the church "appeal unto," well, the Constitution if the Lord leads them.

Often, we shrink back from "politics" because we feel it to be "unspiritual." However, we often must approach a ruler, judge, city council, school board, representative, zoning board, tax representative, etc... in order to find remedy when we are having our earthly rights violated. The persistent widow went to an "unjust judge" -- over and over again -- until she received an affirmative answer.

So, while I don't think that people should be "political" for "politics'" sake, there is nothing wrong with telling the truth as directed by God and His Word.

do you think though since the government has made some topics like abortion, and gay marriage political topics that it might some day make it more difficult for pastors? i mean how much longer before they won't be allowed to speak on these two topics because the government will deem them to political and threaten churches with the IRS?

just wondering?

rdg

by ccchhhrrriiisss on 2012/9/20 17:19:03

Hello,

"Political" and "politics" are often relative to those who define it within the limits of their own understanding.

To many Liberals, the "preaching of politics" includes preaching the Biblical view on abortion, homosexuality, drunkenness, dress, etc...

If you were to preach against abortion or homosexual marriage or uphold Biblical standards of righteousness -- including proclaiming that salvation is found in no one other than Jesus Christ -- loud members of the Far Left will accuse you of spreading "hate speech."

----------------------------

this was my thinking too! you must posted around the same time as i did. some great insights thanks.

rdg

i get what your saying to bear about preaching to further the Kingdom of Jesus. i was just thinking about where some of this could or might lead if the government decided that any speech on abortion, or gay marriage or any sin really was a political topic then they could use the IRS to silence church pastors in speaking about these things.

i don't know if they have lost sight of Jesus, maybe like you they see some of this as a precursor to persecution and are afraid. not saying that they should be but it is possible.

of course you are right they are directly challenging the IRS and i think that is why it got my attention.

rdg

Chris the opening article said these pastors were going to talk about candidates running for office and make recommendations who to vote for. Also these pastors are deliberateky provoking a showdown with the IRS.

If these are true men of God. Then their call is to preach Jesus and not political rhetoric. Their calling is to advance the kingdom of Christ and not a political ideology.. It seems to me these pastors have lost sight of Jesus..

Bearmaster

Actually, the opening paragraph was not a quote. The journalist suggested that there is a "federal ban" on endorsements from the pulpit. This is an error. Why? Because the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution strongly prohibits it.

They are not "deliberately provoking a showdown" any more than John the Baptist preaching the truth was "deliberately provoking a showdown" with the leaders of his day.

The truth provokes the people of this world. Many Biblical teachings about things mentioned earlier is considered "abrasive," "political" and/or "partisan" to certain people in this world -- particularly on the Liberal Left. Even a proclamation of Jesus Christ as the ONLY way to God is considered "political" and extremely "offensive."

You cannot make a determination whether or not these men are teaching Jesus. The Left will loudly tell you that Jesus is a "political" issue or full of "political rhetoric" because of what He and His Word stands for. You should not suggest that these men have "lost sight of Jesus" when you haven't heard what they have preached and what they preach may very well be straight from God's Word.

I once attended a Church where the pastor -- who was very apolitical -- taught the congregation about "politics" and what is often called "political" issues. He didn't endorse any candidate or tell anyone that they should or shouldn't vote. He tried to make sure that the congregation understood that there is a difference between Biblical issues about righteousness and unrighteousness and legislation.

He pointed out that ANYTHING can be considered "political" simply because the state brings up issues that are also brought up in the Church. While he didn't endorse a party or politician, the pastor did mention a few anecdotes that are often referred to as "political." When he mentioned that he did not understand how any Christian could endorse or vote for a person who fights to continue abortion. At this, a few people in the congregation walked out and were never seen again.

There are churches and ministries that have been targeted by government officials. We have been reading about a home Bible study leader who was thrown in jail for holding Bible studies without a permit in his home. At this point, a Bible study became a "political" issue. In Colorado, tracts about sin were considered "political" because they spoke out against abortion and homosexuality and churches were accused of "endorsing" a position on the matter.

The world doesn't understand that God takes a clear position on many "political" issues. Consequently, a church has the Constitutional right to proclaim such things without fear or elected or appointed officials cracking down on them.

thanks for the answers and sharing your opinions on this topic. i have talked to a few people and seems just like the election its a split down the middle on if these pastors should be doing this or not. after listening and reading to what everyone has had to say i am not as sure as i was. i feel kind of torn over the whole thing.

editing my post- i was going to leave off there but i kind of like that is disingenuous of me. i have learned a few other things from this discussion, i am not as sure as i thought i was about the whole not voting. i still believe both men need my prayers but i begin to understand the position those who do vote come from. i don't want to dismiss their hearts as not caring about Jesus, i believe they do. i'm learning that i don't have as much to say as i once thought i did, after all who am i that i should pronounce my opinions on others as if i have understanding on everything.

i'm going to be praying more about this i really want to know all that the Lord has for me to see and understand.
rdg

Hi amrkelly,

The 1954 Tax Amendment is law and has been sighted in many instances by the IRS as the article states. Given that we should render to Caesar that which is due to Caesar this exemption status was already a compromise at the time it was negotiated in 1953/4. It amounted then to an agreement by churches to keep candidature statements out of the pulpit at a time of elections for public office. The church has used and abused this law, just as the state has used it as a more general lever to silence pastors when it has suited some candidate or other or else the IRS itself. Claiming ones rights under the 1st Amendment does not amount to preaching the Truth. The Amendments of the USA are not Truth they are politics. (from the Greek…to live in a city).

I don't find anywhere that these pastors are saying that the Constitution is "truth." The Constitution is the law of the land by which all other politicians, governors, presidents, congressmen, school boards, and, yes, IRS workers/rules are accountable. It is simply the law that confirms or negates other laws.

If you listen to or read the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, you find that their decisions are ALWAYS to either confirm or strike down laws or rulings based upon laws in lower courts or jurisdiction. There are laws that are passed today that will not stand a few years from now. In fact, there are even Supreme Court decisions that can be overturned years from now (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sandford, etc...).

I don't find any of these pastors to be claim that "claiming ones rights" amounts to preaching the Truth. Nor do I think that any IRS code takes precedent over the Bill of Rights. If these are men of God, they are going to preach the Truth uninhibited. However, I do believe that they are saying that they should not fear government repercussions if they preach doctrinal truths from the Word of God.

The First Amendment says that Congress (and, by extension, the IRS) cannot make a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion. Increasingly, politicians and political appointees from the Left have targeted churches, ministries and ministers if they say something that is "deemed political."

As I said, ANYTHING can be called "politics" simply because the root of the term itself is "citizens." If some/all of the citizens have faith (or if the state claims to protect the right to faith), then they conclude that "faith" is "political."

The concern that many churches share is one regarding government intrusion to the pulpit. Yes, we should preach anyway. However, there is nothing in Scripture that says that we cannot express opposition to a rule or law. And, of course, we can always point out when someone else is in violation of the secular law (as Paul did when he was about to be flogged in Jerusalem). Moreover, we can "appeal" any decision as well.

On a personal level, I wouldn't do what is suggested that some pastors will do in October. However, this is akin to the "sit down" strikes and other forms of non-violent protests during the Civil Rights movement. They may be setting up a confrontation so that they can settle this matter in the courts of law whereas to determine whether the First Amendment is violated by restrictions for tax exemption purposes.

In addition, some of these churches might want to point out the hypocrisy of the recent trend from government and tax officials at targeting churches for "political" endorsements while allowing other tax exemptions to stand -- including Planned Parenthood, NPR, PBS or even "Liberation Theology" activist congregations.

Again these pastors have forgotten their heavenly calling. They are thinking with the mind of man. Certainly not with the mind of Christ. I see nothing of Christ and his work of redemption in what these men are doing.

Have you spoken with these men for clarity?
Is it wise to make such a public declaration?
Is it wise to make such a vague public generalization?

Hi bearmaster,

Yes, their actions will speak for themselves. However, some people aren't very good listeners. Some people have a bad gift of "reading between the lines." And, of course, the actions and motives of one person doesn't speak for the rest.

According to this organization, they are obeying the law. They will be preaching the Gospel and shepherding the flock and the preeminent law (the Constitution) says that Congress cannot make a law to prohibit the free exercise of this. Their position is that the IRS has been breaking this "right" by unfairly targeting Christians, churches and ministries that adhere to beliefs that don't conform to what Liberal politicians believe to be "acceptable."

You don't know these men. You don't know how they preach or conduct their congregations. You don't know the doctrines that they adhere to. You seem to gather your information from the context of an article written by one journalist at a secular news source. Thus, you really have no justification to publicly proclaim that "this is not the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Jesus certainly taught submission to government. However, as I pointed out, even in this article, these pastors are claiming that they ARE obeying the law of the land when it comes to the free exercise of religion. Elected politicians in this "government of the people" have no right to tell a church what they can or cannot teach. The Constitution is as clear about this as Roman law was about flogging a Roman citizen without a trial.

You mentioned Corrie ten Boom:
She violated the "law" of the Nazi conquerors when she smuggled a Bible into the concentration camp.

You mentioned David Wilkerson:
He was once arrested for violating a "law" for preaching on the streets of New York without a permit.

You mentioned Richard Wurmbrand:
He was arrested twice in his home country for violating the "law" by preaching without government approval of his words. In America, he lobbied the U.S. Government to take up the cause of the persecuted church.

You mentioned Dietrich Bonhoeffer:
He was arrested for violating laws regarding the use of his membership in the Abwehr to circumvent other laws forbidding anyone from publicly speaking against Hitler and Nazi Germany.

These believers were persecuted because they "violated the law." I think that Christians and many pastors are concerned that politicians and government workers are violating the premier law in an effort to make Christians comply with the social, economic and moral views or Liberals. The concern is that it is a first step in thwarting free speech and religious liberty by using the IRS and tax status as a Big Brother watchdog organization that would penalize believers based upon what they teach.

Remember: The Word of God is quite clear about sin. In this day and age, certain groups are quite adamant that their sin should be "protected" from criticism. They lobby elected politicians -- mostly on the Left -- to "protect" their views, beliefs and lifestyles from criticism. Thus, to many of these Liberals, a preacher is filled with "hate speech" simply by preaching the view of the Word of God on issues like abortion, homosexuality or other issues.

Since we have not met every one of these pastors, we should not claim that what they are doing is "not a gospel issue" or is "not consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ." For all we know, they might simply tell the truth on October 7th without fear of reprisal from a handful of elected politicians.

by ccchhhrrriiisss on 2012/9/21 11:35:43

Remember: The Word of God is quite clear about sin. In this day and age, certain groups are quite adamant that their sin should be "protected" from criticism. They lobby elected politicians -- mostly on the Left -- to "protect" their views, beliefs and lifestyles from criticism. Thus, to many of these Liberals, a preacher is filled with "hate speech" simply by preaching the view of the Word of God on issues like abortion, homosexuality or other issues.

Since we have not met every one of these pastors, we should not claim that what they are doing is "not a gospel issue" or is "not consistent with the Gospel of Jesus Christ." For all we know, they might simply tell the truth on October 7th without fear of reprisal from a handful of elected politicians.
---

you have really given me lots to think about. i will admit that i had not really thought about this from the point of view you are saying concerning the Constitutions. also why would it be wrong for a pastor to teach those under his care to be weary of a certain people/groups if what they are doing is going against Gods law like some political people are today. i was thinking wouldn't that pastor be obligated to warn those under his care?

rdg

It certainly seems that what these pastors are doing may backfire.

I would not trust any Federal court today in interpreting the Constitution. A court may hold that a church DOES have to pay taxes.

Of course, I am no expert in tax law but a court can do what it wants.

Chris the examples you sited were people opposing governmental authority for the gospel. Not making political statements.

Bearmaster.

Actually, you brought up those names as examples of the "persecuted." Yet, as persecuted as they were, they also violated the laws of their respective days and governments.

As for "political statements:" I have tried to make it clear that EVERYTHING can be contrived as a "political statement" to people that hate Christ, His Church or those who disagree with a lifestyle that is contrary to God's Word.

In many countries, even SermonIndex is considered a "political issue." I suspect that some nations and "government leaders" have forbidden the content contained on this website. In most Islamic nations, the fact that someone is a Christian or Jew is considered a "political" issue because there is no separation between Islam and state. Many Christians and Jews must pay taxes just to live ("jizya").

To many on the ideological Left, the fact that a church exists is a "political statement." The fact that they don't pay taxes or have certain Constitutional protections is proof that the Church is a "political" entity -- because it consists of many temporary citizens of this land. To them, ANY message that doesn't condone homosexuality or that believes in the life of the unborn is a "political statement."

The point that these pastors seem to be attempting to make is that, according to the U.S. Constitution, it is not the job of the IRS to regulate the Church.

Bearmaster,

No one is saying that they "want it both ways."

This is a nation where the laws are CHANGED on a daily basis. The only "law" that isn't changed on a daily basis are those found in the U.S. Constitution...and even those can be changed.

As for "government regulation" of the Church: Churches were tax exempt long before 501c3.

Now, no one is saying that the Church should exist for political purposes. In fact, I agree that the Church should not meander into the world of pushing one candidate over another.

The Liberals who are targeting churches aren't concerned so much with the Reverend Jeremiah Wrights of this country who freely rant about Conservatives (or even Hillary Clinton). Rather, those politicians are wanting to restrain "speech" that doesn't accept their views on morality, religion, personal responsibility or economics.

Again, you are generalizing the idea of "politics" and "government." The fact that "religion" (as in "faith") appears in the Constitution and in law makes it a "political" issue to many. The same is true of things like "sexual orientation," "abortion" and "hate speech" laws.

You mentioned having it "both ways" in terms of obedience to secular laws. Yet, the same individuals that you cited as suffering under persecution also violated the laws of their respective times and nations. Did they have it "both ways?" Or, were they simply operating in the liberty that they have in Christ and SHOULD have in this world?

BTW, the Church did not lose its "effectiveness" because of any laws passed by Constantine. That, too, is a generalization. It has been many, many centuries since Constantine -- and the true Church is still here and is as effective as those who cling to Christ.

Sister RainyDay, I agree with any exhortation that we should continue to walk down the straight and narrow path and seek His wisdom when it comes to this or any issue.

We should walk humbly with our God and test the many voices or suggestions that could pollute the purity and simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or insinuate the motives or spiritual condition of others.

There are many voices in this world. There are even some that are louder than others. Some are proud, alpha voices that often shout their ways and views to the Lord -- in and out of the church -- and then attribute any testing or criticism of such words to the evil one. Such things should not move us. We should not be moved by the words of men but by the Spirit of God through His Word.

We should know His voice -- compassionate, humble, quiet and clear -- well enough that we should know it anywhere. His voice as seen through His Word will provide the wisdom that we need to grow in maturity of such things and, as always, to draw us to Him as we bring Him to others.

When I enter discussions like this, it is not to push my thoughts upon others. I am glad when anyone will test my words by His Word. After all, we aren't the same people we all were just a few years ago; and, with God's grace, we will not be the same a few years from now.