Even if IRS OKs churches to endorse political candidates, should they?

Michie · Friday at 7:39 AM

Much ink has been spilled since the IRS reinterpreted the Johnson Amendment, passed by then Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954 as he was in the midst of a bitter reelection campaign in Texas, that it should not ban “communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services” through “its usual channels of communication or matters of faith.”

The IRS statement only applied to “religious houses of worship” (churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc.), not other tax-exempt religious nonprofits. At the very least, however, it has been widely interpreted across the political spectrum, from right to left, that lax and episodic IRS enforcement of the pulpit endorsement role will now be reduced to virtual non-enforcement until further notice.

The most relevant question for pastors and churches, however, is how does this impact their churches, as contrasted with how it should impact their churches.

Having dealt with this issue as both a minister and a pro-life activist in every election cycle beginning in 1976, I am certain that thousands upon thousands of pastors and their congregational leadership are actively discussing and debating this IRS decision and how to respond to it.

Continued below.

Even if IRS OKs churches to endorse political candidates, should they?

I do not favor pastors or churches endorsing political parties or political candidates Why

www.christianpost.com

FAITH-IN-HIM · Friday at 8:07 AM

Churches should not be involved in politics. Many American churches today serve political interests, and too many Christians look to political leaders for solutions that only Jesus Christ can provide.

RileyG · Friday at 2:05 PM

FAITH-IN-HIM said:
Churches should not be involved in politics. Many American churches today serve political interests, and too many Christians look to political leaders for solutions that only Jesus Christ can provide.

I agree. Our true home is in heaven, not this passing earth.

The Barbarian · Friday at 5:47 PM

Jesus clearly stated that His kingdom is not of this world. And yet...

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

IMO, if a church advocates political positions, they are not within Jesus' Church. Understand that there is a difference between making moral stands and advocating for specific parties or candidates.

Tuur · Friday at 6:40 PM

It's one thing to say thus and so reflects Christian values; quite another to say that Christians should vote for a particular candidate. For one thing, the situation Christians are in would be like Roman Christians choosing between two pagan leaders. We're already at the point where Donkey and Elephant Christians ask how can any Christian vote for the other's candidate. The last thing we want or need is for Christians to become welded to a particular candidate or party.

Sir Joseph · Sunday at 7:27 PM

Michie said:
Much ink has been spilled since the IRS reinterpreted the Johnson Amendment, passed by then Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954 as he was in the midst of a bitter reelection campaign in Texas, that it should not ban “communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services” through “its usual channels of communication or matters of faith.”

The IRS statement only applied to “religious houses of worship” (churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc.), not other tax-exempt religious nonprofits. At the very least, however, it has been widely interpreted across the political spectrum, from right to left, that lax and episodic IRS enforcement of the pulpit endorsement role will now be reduced to virtual non-enforcement until further notice.

The most relevant question for pastors and churches, however, is how does this impact their churches, as contrasted with how it should impact their churches.

Having dealt with this issue as both a minister and a pro-life activist in every election cycle beginning in 1976, I am certain that thousands upon thousands of pastors and their congregational leadership are actively discussing and debating this IRS decision and how to respond to it.

Continued below.

Even if IRS OKs churches to endorse political candidates, should they?

I do not favor pastors or churches endorsing political parties or political candidates Why

www.christianpost.com

Looks like I'll be the first dissenting opinion, strongly disagreeing with the other responses here. Assuming that tax exempt religious organizations now have free speech in political matters, consider:

We can't love others well or serve as a light to the world without caring about the culture affecting the society around us.

We can't care about the society and culture around us without caring about the government leaders exercising control over it.

Thus, if we love people and society, Christians have an obligation (when presented the privileged right) to support Godly government leaders. This is consistent with Moses being advised to "select men from all the people - men who fear God" to rule over the Israelites" (Ex 18:21).

Shouldn't a church pastor teach his congregation the sinful nature of the surrounding culture so that the Christian can defend and fight against it - be it protests, voting, or just personal influencing? I think so.

Shouldn't a church pastor be a source of truth in revealing which government leaders support or oppose Christian biblical values? I think so.

In my view, to suggest that a pastor shouldn't teach truth about a nation's leaders or that Christians shouldn't vote for Godly leaders is an untenable position if one is to care about what's going on in the world.

I would add that it's the passive nature of many Christians AND their support of ungodly government leaders that has transformed America from a Christian nation towards a secular one, specifically by enabling liberal presidential Supreme Court Justices to ban the Bible in public schools; to ban prayer in the public schools, prayer at high school graduation ceremonies, and prayer at school football games; to ban posting of the 10 Commandments in public schools and buildings; to ban Christmas nativity scenes on pubic property; to replace the teaching of Biblical creationism in public schools with evolution; to ban all sodomy laws; to legalize abortion and gay marriage; to canonize in law Jefferson's misquoted phrase "separation of church and state"; and to establish a lemon test ruling prohibiting the public support of all religion - all this opposing God and directly betraying America's Christian heritage and founding fathers' written intentions. All this by Christians voting for ungodly presidents that appoint liberal Justices, ungodly Senators, Congressmen, and local officials.

America's Christian heritage and moral values is in shambles because the majority voting block of Christians have NOT had their church pastors guiding them adequately in social culture and political affairs. So yes, I think we need a lot more of that, not less.

The Barbarian · Sunday at 9:31 PM

Sir Joseph said:
Shouldn't a church pastor be a source of truth in revealing which government leaders support or oppose Christian biblical values? I think so.

For an example, the Baptists in the United States in the mid-1800s took political stands on slavery. And the denomination split in two over the question, thereby weakening the Christian community.

So we have precedent for this kind of thing.

Gregory Thompson · Sunday at 10:15 PM

Michie said:
Even if IRS OKs churches to endorse political candidates, should they?

Since lying is part of a politician's job, and lying is the native tongue of the devil - I would say churches of God should not endorse politicians.

The Barbarian · Sunday at 10:20 PM

Gregory Thompson said:
Since lying is part of a politician's job, and lying is the native tongue of the devil - I would say churches of God should not endorse politicians.

Jesus seemed to think so.

stevevw · Monday at 1:48 AM

Michie said:
Much ink has been spilled since the IRS reinterpreted the Johnson Amendment, passed by then Senator Lyndon Johnson in 1954 as he was in the midst of a bitter reelection campaign in Texas, that it should not ban “communications from a house of worship to its congregation in connection with religious services” through “its usual channels of communication or matters of faith.”

The IRS statement only applied to “religious houses of worship” (churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc.), not other tax-exempt religious nonprofits. At the very least, however, it has been widely interpreted across the political spectrum, from right to left, that lax and episodic IRS enforcement of the pulpit endorsement role will now be reduced to virtual non-enforcement until further notice.

The most relevant question for pastors and churches, however, is how does this impact their churches, as contrasted with how it should impact their churches.

Having dealt with this issue as both a minister and a pro-life activist in every election cycle beginning in 1976, I am certain that thousands upon thousands of pastors and their congregational leadership are actively discussing and debating this IRS decision and how to respond to it.

Continued below.

Even if IRS OKs churches to endorse political candidates, should they?

I do not favor pastors or churches endorsing political parties or political candidates Why

www.christianpost.com

I think don't bring politics into the church. Its only playing the same game as the world and the church will become another divided group along ideological lines.

The fact that different denominations can hold opposite and conflicting political worldviews means that there will be division and culture wars in the church. This will make the church the same as the rest and another contributer to the culture wars.

That doesn't mean the church has no position or say on social issues. But I think is is more about advocating for the poor and disadvantaged plight and needs than getting involved in political activism. Just quietly being the Good Samaritans and this is enough to expose evil and turn people towards God.

A bit like Dr Kings approach rather than say the more subversive activisim that was confrontional and using tit for tat tactics. Or trying to enforce something onto society. Though even his movement became political.

But his idea of the Beloved community is one that reflects Christ just like the individual. Which in itself is the power that can revolutionise society.

They say never mix religion and politics and I think this is true. The fact is the world will always win while we are in the world. There is no earthly kingdom the world can create that will end suffering. The worldly system will always cause suffering in the end.

It is only through the gospel and proclaiming Gods will and Kingdom. Which is a completely different worldview to political ideology.

FAITH-IN-HIM · Monday at 7:21 AM

Sir Joseph said:
Looks like I'll be the first dissenting opinion, strongly disagreeing with the other responses here. Assuming that tax exempt religious organizations now have free speech in political matters, consider:

We can't love others well or serve as a light to the world without caring about the culture affecting the society around us.

We can't care about the society and culture around us without caring about the government leaders exercising control over it.

Thus, if we love people and society, Christians have an obligation (when presented the privileged right) to support Godly government leaders. This is consistent with Moses being advised to "select men from all the people - men who fear God" to rule over the Israelites" (Ex 18:21).

Shouldn't a church pastor teach his congregation the sinful nature of the surrounding culture so that the Christian can defend and fight against it - be it protests, voting, or just personal influencing? I think so.

Shouldn't a church pastor be a source of truth in revealing which government leaders support or oppose Christian biblical values? I think so.

In my view, to suggest that a pastor shouldn't teach truth about a nation's leaders or that Christians shouldn't vote for Godly leaders is an untenable position if one is to care about what's going on in the world.

I would add that it's the passive nature of many Christians AND their support of ungodly government leaders that has transformed America from a Christian nation towards a secular one, specifically by enabling liberal presidential Supreme Court Justices to ban the Bible in public schools; to ban prayer in the public schools, prayer at high school graduation ceremonies, and prayer at school football games; to ban posting of the 10 Commandments in public schools and buildings; to ban Christmas nativity scenes on pubic property; to replace the teaching of Biblical creationism in public schools with evolution; to ban all sodomy laws; to legalize abortion and gay marriage; to canonize in law Jefferson's misquoted phrase "separation of church and state"; and to establish a lemon test ruling prohibiting the public support of all religion - all this opposing God and directly betraying America's Christian heritage and founding fathers' written intentions. All this by Christians voting for ungodly presidents that appoint liberal Justices, ungodly Senators, Congressmen, and local officials.

America's Christian heritage and moral values is in shambles because the majority voting block of Christians have NOT had their church pastors guiding them adequately in social culture and political affairs. So yes, I think we need a lot more of that, not less.

Pastors should base their sermons and teachings on biblical truth, addressing current issues Christians face—such as abortion, homosexuality, loving one's neighbor, and other daily challenges—by sharing what the Bible says about each topic.

We can show love and serve as examples by living a Christian life, guiding others to Christ, and helping or supporting our neighbors.

The New Testament does not teach that expressing love for others requires electing or supporting a government. Such interpretations do not align with the principles found in New Testament teachings.

The New Testament and the teachings of Jesus do not advocate for government involvement in defending or promoting Christianity. Jesus Christ alone is responsible for its defense. A common misconception among some American Christians is that governmental authority or legislation can transform America or the world into a more Christian society. However Biblical truth is, lasting change occurs through prayer, sharing the gospel, and exemplifying a Christian lifestyle. No earthly government has the capacity to fundamentally change the world or improve conditions specifically for Christians.

The passive nature of Christianity was exemplified on the cross, ultimately resulting in victory over death.

“ And being found in the fashion of a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death—even the death of the cross.”

Even if IRS OKs churches to endorse political candidates, should they?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.