Churches defy the IRS

[dies-l]

If a pastor is doing his job then he is instructing his congregation to vote according to Biblical standard. He won't have to state one party or the other, it is certainly clear, especailly in this election year.

I disagree. While I personally think that the Dems have a better plan for this country, and that Obama is more in line with my values as a Christian than McCain, I think we must concede that there are at least some reasons why a Christian might consider voting for McCain.

 

[dies-l]

Overall the track record of countries that manage to get very far in removing religion from politics is as bad, if not worse, than the global record of ones that don't. The only faiths that can be separated from politics are ones that are about private spirituality (some versions of buddism, gnosticsm, deist, etc). Most - including all the Abrahamic faiths - are inherently political.

Anyone who thinks you can divorce Christianity from politics either doesn't understand what Christianity is, or doesn't understand what politics is, or both. Same applies to Islam and Judaism. That's precisely why those faiths get persecuted in places where they are active minorities - because they challenge the alternative political systems; Christianity especially. Why do you think the Romans persecuted the early church? Because "Jesus is Lord" is a challenge to Caesar. Why did the the Jewish temple authorities have a problem with Jesus and the early church? Because Jesus is a challenge to their power. When you challenge the misuse of power you are doing politics. When you announce the kingdom of God you are doing politics. When you welcome outcasts you are doing politics.

Yes, faith is inherently political, but that does not mean that one's faith is intrinsically related to how one votes in a given election. If anything the inherent politics in Christian belief, especially as exhibited by the early Church, points to a belief wherein the importance of governmental electoral politics is decreased as a result of one's faith. The statement "Jesus is Lord" is true regardless of who the leader of our government is. In other words, to the early Christians it meant quite specifically that Ceasar is NOT Lord. Today, we should likewise recognize that implicit in the same statement that George W. Bush is not Lord, and that no matter what happens in November, neither Barack Obama nor John McCain will be Lord. In all cases, the authority of Jesus trumps that of even the most powerful political and economic leaders. This should free us to be at peace about matters of govermental politics, to trust that whatever happens in our government, Jesus is still in control, and there is no doubt left for those who believe who is running the show.

When we as the Church get bogged down trying to convince one another that, if only our candidate wins, the world somehow be more godly, we take our eyes off the reality that, no matter who wins the election, Jesus is still the Lord. No matter who wins the election, our governmental leader will still be a sinful man who falls short of the glory of God. No matter who wins the election, God's plan for the redemption of all Creation does not change. This is quite a liberating understanding of the political scheme, and this is a direct result of understanding how truly political the Gospel is. Really, it is not a question of who will win; it is a question of who has already won: Jesus Christ.

Does this mean that we should all stay home on election day? Of course not. As God's people, I see no reason why we should be ignorant or apathetic about worldly politics. And, those of us who have an opinion about who is more likely to do a good job of running our government should voice those opinions, both in the voting booth and in the conversations we have from day to day. We need to be careful, however, about presenting to the world a view that places far too much emphasis on one candidate or another. This is exactly what we do when we make claims such as, "my candidate is more godly than the other one" or "I am voting for my candidate because he is clearly more in line with the Biblical standard."

Likewise, I believe that pastors should also voice their opinions about which candidate they prefer. However, when a pastor does so from the pulpit, it is impossible to escape the inference that he or she is placing his or her views about worldly politics above the trust that we have all been promised that no matter what, Jesus still reigns supreme. As such, I would feel betrayed as a Christian if my pastor ever used the pulpit or any official church outlet to voice his political views, even if his political views agreed perfectly with my own. After all the most important political question we can ask ourselves is not whether McCain or Obama should be the next President; rather, it should be whether we are going to place our faith, hope, and trust in God or in the government.

 

[Archivist]

That said, I question the wisdom of the IRS unilaterally revoking tax exempt status. Let Congress decide one way or another.

Actually it isn't unilaterial action on the part of the IRS. Churches are 501(c)(3) organizations under the Internal Revenue Code, and they are "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." Congress can't deal with each individual church on a case-by-case basis so the authority to do so was delegated by Congress to the IRS.

You can find more information here: http://www.irs.gov/charities/churches/index.html

 

[ebia]

Yes, faith is inherently political,

Ok, at least we've got that out of the way.

but that does not mean that one's faith is intrinsically related to how one votes in a given election. If anything the inherent politics in Christian belief, especially as exhibited by the early Church, points to a belief wherein the importance of governmental electoral politics is decreased as a result of one's faith.

On the contrary, we need to call the governements of countries to account, reminding them that such power as they have is excercised on behalf of the world's one true Lord and should be in line with his values. In a representative democracy how we vote is part of that, though if all we do is vote we may as well not bother - to be effective Christians need to be discussing the political issues - and raising ones that no-one else wants to raise - asking hard questions - speaking on behalf of those with no voice in the process - etc.

The statement "Jesus is Lord" is true regardless of who the leader of our government is. In other words, to the early Christians it meant quite specifically that Ceasar is NOT Lord

Absolutely, but that doesn't mean then disengage with Cearsar's realm (which can't be done anyway) but call it to account. That's part of praying "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, in earth as in heaven".

Does this mean that we should all stay home on election day? Of course not. As God's people, I see no reason why we should be ignorant or apathetic about worldly politics. And, those of us who have an opinion about who is more likely to do a good job of running our government should voice those opinions, both in the voting booth and in the conversations we have from day to day. We need to be careful, however, about presenting to the world a view that places far too much emphasis on one candidate or another. This is exactly what we do when we make claims such as, "my candidate is more godly than the other one" or "I am voting for my candidate because he is clearly more in line with the Biblical standard."

Absolutely.

Just to take it a step further, if all we do is vote, or all we do is focus on a single question, or push a candidate rather than policies and values, without engaging fully in the political process we make matters worse not better. The church needs to be asking the hard questions of all the candidates, the questions that none of them want to address, raising the issues they are all trying to avoid, etc.

 

[dies-l]

Ok, at least we've got that out of the way.



On the contrary, we need to call the governements of countries to account, reminding them that such power as they have is excercised on behalf of the world's one true Lord and should be in line with his values. In a representative democracy how we vote is part of that, though if all we do is vote we may as well not bother - to be effective Christians need to be discussing the political issues - and raising ones that no-one else wants to raise - asking hard questions - speaking on behalf of those with no voice in the process - etc.



Absolutely, but that doesn't mean then disengage with Cearsar's realm (which can't be done anyway) but call it to account. That's part of praying "Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, in earth as in heaven".


Absolutely.

Just to take it a step further, if all we do is vote, or all we do is focus on a single question, or push a candidate rather than policies and values, without engaging fully in the political process we make matters worse not better. The church needs to be asking the hard questions of all the candidates, the questions that none of them want to address, raising the issues they are all trying to avoid, etc.

So I guess we are in agreement?

 

[ebia]

So I guess we are in agreement?

Sounds like it.