2155 Politics from the pulpit in black churches
is a given. We've got a black newspaper in town, and if you've ever looked at it, there are politicians in the pulpit all the time. In a black church in Columbus, OH you can find a John Edwards or a John Kerry or an Al Gore or a Jesse Jackson, and they aren't up there directing the choir or praying for healing of the sick. Civic involvement is the 11th commandment at a black church, and I say Amen, sisters. So why have a group of Columbus pastors and rabbis joined forces to file a complaint with the IRS against World Harvest and Rod Parsley? Yes, World Harvest had a voter registration drive and I think they probably signed up more voters than liberals did, but they also passed out food to the poor, more than the liberals did, and distributing food has become a government job, too. What is this? Pulpit envy?I've never been to World Harvest, and have only glanced at Parsley on TV, but his organization is HUGE. His is the Wal-Mart Superstore of Pentecostal, crying, hollaring, gospel singing, tell-it-like-it-is churches.
Line between church and state, my foot. This really stinks. Next thing you know they'll say churches can't speak about marriage, or abortion, or gambling because those areas belong to the government and not the Lord. I wonder how many of these 30+ pastors and rabbis contribute to the ACLU?
Posts
4 comments:
I heard somewhere the reason why politics is so prominent in the black churches is at one time, it was the only forum in which they could do this, so tradition was set from a time in which they used the pulpit to include politics with preaching the gospel.
While the church has an historically recognized right to speak out on questions with public policy implications, the IRS has definite guidelines for non-profit organizations concerning the endorsement of specific political candidates, issues, etc. The guidelines have the force of law. A prima facie case exists that the two churches in question have violated those guidelines. A church in California--which happened to be left-of-center--was recently investigated by the IRS for alleged violations of those guidelines. A suspicion exists, which I hope is unfounded, that Republican political appointees within the IRS have chosen to pursue allegations of abuses selectively.
The Columbus-area clergy have really done something quite unremarkable in the American experience. They have exercised their constitutional right to petition their government for redress of grievances--in this case, to ask that the law be enforced, and enforced equitably. If the two churches in question have complied with the IRS guidelines, they should have no trouble with the investigation. If not, they will have to revise their methods so as to conform with the law.
If you are interested in the specifics of the complaint, the letter and complaint to the IRS commissioner are available at RadicalCivility.org.
Apparently the guidelines don't cover endorsing Democratic candidates for President. Columbus area clergy wouldn't have lifted a finger to "redress a grievance" if this had been a liberal mainline church because they wouldn't have been in grief.
The IRS guidelines cover political activity by non-profit organizations irrespective of party, and many Christians--both "conservative" and "liberal"--are comfortable with the rules and, indeed, worry that partisan political activity, even in a good cause, will undercut their distinctively Christian witness. (This was historically the conservative evangelical stance on political engagement prior to the advent of the Moral Majority, ca. 1980) When you say that local clergy wouldn't "lift a finger" you are, at best, guessing. Can you point to specfic clergy? Any evidence to support the guess? Any a priori reason for a Christian to think ill of other Christians?
Post a Comment