Should Religious Leaders be Able to Endorse Political Candidates?

Recommend (1) Comments (9)

Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Sept. 28 was an exercise in the freedom pastors have to address candidates and elections in light of Scripture and church teaching from the pulpit.   It was bold.

But it was not boldly “protecting the collection plate while using the power of the pulpit to influence elections,” as some have claimed—an assertion that rests on a simplistic, flawed understanding of the tax code and the constitutional rights of churches and pastors.   No, it was bold in challenging government encroachment on those constitutional rights.

Let’s clear up the mistaken murkiness.

Scholars agree that a tax exemption is not equivalent to a subsidy from the government for many reasons.   For instance, in a tax exemption, no money changes hands between government and the organization as it does in a subsidy.   Again, no money changes hands.   A tax exemption, in and of itself, doesn’t provide one cent to an organization because that organization’s income is solely dependent on contributions.   A tax exemption does not convert a non-profit into an agency of “state action,” whereas a subsidy—in certain circumstances—may.

Some argue that the church will become a funnel for tax-exempt donations.   But churches spoke freely for 166 years without that happening.   Churches did not turn into political machines simply because pastors chose to apply what the Bible says to candidates and elections in a sermon.   And one should never ban free speech to solve a money problem.

The pastors that participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday were exercising a right pastors had exercised responsibly and without restriction from the time of the ratification of the Constitution until 1954.   That’s when Lyndon Johnson inserted an amendment into an existing tax bill that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from participating in political campaigns.

The Johnson Amendment was simply “power politics” at its worst, as Johnson’s motivation was to silence non-profits opposing his re-election to the Texas Senate.   It was in no way intended to protect the so-called “separation of church and state.”   In fact, it violates it by requiring government to monitor and censor a pastor’s sermon in the pulpit.

Indeed, there should be a healthy “separation of church and state” when it comes to a pastor’s sermon in the pulpit.   Government has no business being in the pulpits of America.   Pulpit Freedom Sunday was part of a long overdue effort called the “Pulpit Initiative” which aims to bring about much-needed change to a very unconstitutional law because pastors have a right to speak freely about Scriptural truth from the pulpit.

The initiative is not a demand that pastors endorse candidates.   Rather, it is intended to answer the question, “Who gets to regulate that issue for churches?”   The First Amendment provides that answer.   It’s a decision for churches and pastors, not the government.