What a good idea. A group of conservative Christians is about to turn Big Government against some of its staunchest proponents: liberal churches.
Big Brother Church Watch is sending spies into liberal churches to find out if they advocate a particular politician while preaching in the pulpit:
If there is any indication of an endorsement of, or objection to, a specific political candidate, the group has said it will report that church to the Internal Revenue Service, which could revoke their tax-exempt status.The group is targeting so-called “liberal churches” such as the Metropolitan Community churches, Unitarian Universalist fellowships and African Methodist Episcopal churches.
Note that the reporter writes so-called and places parentheses around liberal churches. I guess Ms. Allen doesn’t think there’s any such thing. Generally, liberal churches are those that accept certain parts of the Bible and reject others, usually the essential parts. For example:
“We’ve got nothing to hide,” said the Rev. Stephanie Burns [woman], pastor at the Metropolitan Community Church of Fredericksburg. “We do make available voter registration materials and focus on issues in our community, but we lobby the issue within the limitation of our 501(c)(3) status.”The Metropolitan Community Church is a Christian denomination reaching out primarily to the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered community. [Do they reject the lifestyle while accepting the person or “preach” that whatever the person wants to do is OK with God?]
The Rev. Jeff Jones, senior minister at the local Unitarian Universalist Fellowship [denies the deity of Christ], said he has no concerns of the monitors.
“We are involved in social justice issues,” he said. “But we stay focused on issues, not parties or candidates.”
I have to note that the issue of women pastors is not considered essential Christian doctrine.
I grew up attending predominantly black churches, but I never noticed veiled political “preaching” until I attended a black church in D.C. I’d writhe in my seat (was I the only one?) as the preacher or guest speakers asked why Americans were “killing babies in Iraq” or that a “certain politician” was trying to turn back the clock on civil rights, etc.
The preacher never said, “Don’t vote for Bush” or “Put John Kerry in the White House”, so should this be permissible? Or is freedom of speech an issue?
I was even treated to a “black” interpretation of Scripture. Ok, my excuse for even showing up at such a place was that I was looking for a new church, and until I found a good one, I attended the church closest to where I lived.
Since becoming a Christian, I’ve attended two conservative Reformed churches. Besides asking the congregation to “pray for our leaders”, I never heard either pastor advocate a particular candidate, veiled or otherwise.
There are some churches, as you know, that allow politicians to speak during services. John Kerry and John Edwards are at least two I know about. Plain wrong. If churches want the benefit of tax exemptions, they must meet certain obligations. No church is required to obtain an exemption, but if they choose to do so, they cannot openly campaign in church.
What exactly is a liberal church? More on this later.
By the way, will someone define “social justice?” I don’t get it.
Update: Avery comments on “social justice.”
I’ll tell you what kind of church I’d like to visit. I’d like to visit a church that was completely untethered to government regulations (in other words, one that had voluntarily foregone its right to pursue or hold onto its taexempt status). I’d like to know where pastors these days really stand on issues, if they were free to talk about them from the pulpit without fear of losing members to other congregations where their precious tax deductions would still apply.
I would gladly pay my tithes to a church in which separation of church and state really MEANT something (instead of one where the church is hog-tied by the state with ropes of dollar bills and chains of quarters)–where I couldn’t take a deduction for contributing there, but could be sure that the issues spoken about wouldn’t be tainted by fear of IRS retribution.
I DON’T want church to turn into one big political rally–that’s not what church is. But I do think many more churches should consider setting themselves free from this nonsense, and thereby become free to be more obedient to whatever the Lord asks of them.
Comment by Katy — 08.16.04 @ 8:53 am
Beating me over the head politically from the pulpit
In general, my chuch (Cascade United Methodist in Atlanta) has stayed away from politics (of course excepting the occasional “Jean Sixpack is a memmber here, who is running for Atlanta City Dog Catcher; please keep her in your prayers as…
Trackback by Ramblings' Journal — 08.16.04 @ 9:32 am
It would be helpful to learn the history of why churches are supposedly not to speak about politics and candidates. (Central figure to all this: Lyndon Johnson.)
A couple of articles I read recently:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39596
http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/washington/wnb051904.htm
http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/news/archive/local_2275597.shtml
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3893
http://www.reclaimamerica.org/Pages/NEWS/newspage.asp?story=912
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak28.html
And for those who want to know more about “separation of church and state”, where it comes from, etc:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=9
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:EZrJcAQ-H7AJ:religiousfreedom.house.gov/legal.doc+Justice+William+Rehnquist+described+as+%22a+misleading+metaphor&hl=en
… “separation of church and state,” the expression Justice William Rehnquist described as “a misleading metaphor.”
And another interesting read:
http://www.humanlifereview.com/2004_spring/assault_on_marriage.php
IMO, politicians/lawyers need to get off the throats of pastors and priests. Also, we all need to study the Constitution and writings of our founders.
Comment by Gin — 08.16.04 @ 9:34 am
In my experience, “social justice” is a code word for “anti-conservative agenda”. If you’re not all for a hyperintrusive nanny state that sews name tags in your underwear and gives you a pbj & glass of milk with your homework (the old “cradle-to-grave” Socialist paradigm. I’d say “womb-to-the-tomb”, but that would presuppose that the inhabitant of a womb is a person, which proponents of the “C2G” aren’t willing to do), then you’re an opponent of “social justice”. Fun, huh?
Comment by AWG — 08.16.04 @ 10:05 am
The Metropolitan Community Church does not just reach out to the gay community, they ARE a gay community. They fully embrace the gay lifestyle and believe that the Bible supports their viewpoint. They deal with passages like Paul’s warning in Romans 1 where he speaks of those who have exchanged the natural for the unnatural by saying that we have not exchanged anything. We were born this way.
Comment by Conibear Trapp — 08.16.04 @ 10:31 am
Sounds like a great def of social justice, except for the homework part. How is it just that children who go to school all day should then have to do anything but watch TV all night?
Free pbj and mild for all, but NO HOMEWORK!
Comment by Katy — 08.16.04 @ 10:31 am
I’m really not THAT interested in what preachers/priests (I’m Catholic) have to say in regards to politics … because I think some of the stupidest political commentary has come out of the mouths of religious leaders. When they spout off, their status lends it an authority and influence that makes me uncomfortable. If it were a means to spark debate or individual research into the matter … that would be great. But, to have Reverand Smith give their congregation their voting marching orders … no thanks.
Comment by Carin — 08.16.04 @ 10:33 am
BIG MISTAKE!!!!
First this sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
See this and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5462997/“>this
Second, The only thing that will happen is reciprocation. “Liberal Spies” will be sent to conservative churches to look for campaign messages and report that to the IRS.
When this reaches epidemic proportions, all churches will end up paying taxes, Which I philosophically have no problem with but I know that it will hurt many smaller churches.
Lastly it just give me the heebee geebies that some one could be spying on my church.
Comment by BH — 08.16.04 @ 10:57 am
We’ve had the liberal spies from the Kansas City-based Mainstream Coalition spy in our Johnson County, Kansas, church. The pastor was clearly upset that day to know that there were spies in the congregation who stayed after service to buy the tape! He never endorses candidates or anything close to it, and our church consists of Dems and Repubs, although I’m sure we are mostly Repubs.
The Mainstream Coalition has been doing a bang-up job this year, and while they claim to be non-partisan, that is the joke of the election season.
Comment by Katy — 08.16.04 @ 11:10 am
Social Justice seems to mean “We expect a societal statistics to reflect exact parity between races, sexes, ’sexuality’, etc.” If 50.95% of all ‘firefighters’ are not women, that is sexist. If 14% of accountants are not black, that is racism.
It seems to mean that nothing can explain statistical anomaly except white evil. At it’s core, it is intentional lack of ‘nuance’.
Going along with this is the notion that to correct these problems, large amounts of federal money must be poured into unaccountable ‘activist’ hands.
Comment by dan — 08.16.04 @ 12:19 pm
Freedom of speech in the USA is for everyone.
Of course, if you are not interested in listening to what a pastor or priest or anyone else has to say, you can ignore what is said. You have free will.
Since when is it a good idea that politicians, lawyers, and/or the IRS assume the roles of speech and thought police?
And isn’t it interesting that this so called non-profit rule is applied so “liberally” when it comes to the more conservative among us?
But the moveon.org types get a pass? … A democrat funeral turned into a political rally is somehow ok? …. Bill Cliton in yet another Baptist church, no problem?
Watch all of this closely. Next, “hate speech” rhetoric and then legislation will be used more and more to try to stifle what pastors and priests can “legally” say. (Already happening on this continent.)
Comment by Gin — 08.16.04 @ 12:44 pm
Social Justice (n): Guaranteeing not only equal access and equal opportunity, but equal results. May also be defined as knocking down those above you rather than changing socioeconomic climate to bring up everyone.
Comment by Corey — 08.16.04 @ 12:49 pm
LaShawn, I’ve been asking that question for years! What the hell is “social” justice? And when is anything with the word “social” in front of it any good? “Social” Security, for instance.
Comment by Tyler — 08.16.04 @ 12:55 pm
Gin,
Moveon.org is not a church, or religious group. It is a 527 Nonprofit; just like the Swift boat Vets.
I agree there is plenty of politicking going on in places where it should not. And the minute some one is called on it, The 1st Amendment will be used as a defense. Yet, something needs to be done because our system of financing campaigns is corrupt.
Dan,
How else can we gage if programs to combat racism are working, or if racism exists in an area, except by statistics? Getting exact parity is impossible but it should be close, if all other factors are equal.
Comment by BH — 08.16.04 @ 1:08 pm
[…]
August 16, 2004
Amusing
A new group is going to turn in churches who advocate a specific candidate to the IRS, because the […]
Pingback by Inoperable Terran » Amusing — 08.16.04 @ 1:08 pm
There are already ‘liberal spies’ in churches trying to get conservative churches tax-free status revoked. There is a church in Alabama, I believe, where the pastor is having to protect itself from ACLU types. I think the conservatives going into liberal churches is probably in response to that attack on that preacher.
If you ask me, though, I think the preachers should be allowed to talk about certain politicians. However, would the congregation not leave? Talking about politicians in a church is like hollywood talking about politicians. They’ve got a right to it, but it’s highly inappropriate and will alienate members of their audience.
Comment by RepJ — 08.16.04 @ 2:38 pm
The trouble with this is that some poor schmuck has to sit through a worship service in a liberal church!
Comment by Greg Krehbiel — 08.16.04 @ 3:23 pm
I believe the conservative spies/liberal churches thing is a response to the same types of activities being engaged in by the liberal spies/conservative churches. I first saw this over at free-republic Americans United for Separation of Church and State have been engaging in this for some time, (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6168&abbr=pr&JServSessionIdr012=mioml9dbw1.app5b&news_iv_ctrl=1475)
Also a NYTimes article (copied into free republic) documents this phenomenom as well (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1172473/posts)
Comment by Duane More — 08.16.04 @ 3:52 pm
I’d just as soon churches struggle with keeping their tax-exempt status because I don’t WANT my preacher to talk about politics. Any of the ministers. I’d probably have to get up and leave.
Comment by Laura — 08.16.04 @ 8:14 pm
The reason I don’t hold high hopes for the success of this operation is that Leftist politicians have been openly using churches for years, but, as far as I know, with no repercussions. The ACLU, Americans United FSOCAS, the ABA and the IRS are only interested in muzzling Conservative churches and politicians. When Barry Lynn was asked over the phone what he intended to to about Bill Clinton and Gray “Little Boy Lost” Davis rallying at a left-wing “church” in LA, he said he intended to file a brief.
Wow…what a courageous warrior.
Well, we all know what happened recently when somebody put “Bush” and “church” in the same sentence. The honorable Mr. Lynn was behind the microphones once again, fuming over this intolerable violation of the Constitution he pretends to cherish with his life.
I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think anything will come of this.
God bless one and all…
Comment by Jim Robertson — 08.16.04 @ 8:39 pm
How are they going to prove this unless they are taping the service?
Comment by DarkStar — 08.16.04 @ 9:16 pm
I have to note that the issue of women pastors is not considered essential Christian doctrine.
but is marking up your prejudices ?
Comment by actus — 08.17.04 @ 9:14 am
DId not mean to imply moveon.org was a church … but it is yet another example of how liberals skirt laws, which is relevant.
Liberals seem to very good at that; no matter what rules and laws there are, find a way to try to “get around” them.
Frankly, now that I consider it, liberalism is a religion (”a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith”) and for too many liberals, the government is the almighty god.
In any case, putting blanket restrictions on speech is never a good idea. Lyndon Johnson did what he did to win an election (purely selfish motive). What he helped kick-start was a bad thing then, and still is now.
The choice of what to say or not to say ought to be at the discretion of the individual (no matter who the individual is) … not at the discretion of a powerful group / politician / the IRS.
If you do not want to listen to what someone has to say, don’t listen. Pretty simple, is it not?
Comment by Gin — 08.17.04 @ 1:30 pm
Christian Carnival XXXI
I stole my theme idea for this week’s Christian Carnival from a Carnival of the Vanities that did something similar. Instead of Rush, we’re going with Kansas, who are in my opinion the best band ever to have existed. They…
Trackback by Parableman — 08.18.04 @ 3:31 pm
BH
If 65% of marine biologists are female, what does that say to you ? Does it say anything to you about career choices? Does it say to you that females choose this career more than men, or that men are kept out? What if 65% of police officers are male, does that say the same things? Are males more likely to be interested in police work? Are females less likely to do so?
The problem is the automatic assupmtion that differences between the general population and a population subset is caused by racism, sexism, evil, etc.
Where there is evidence for such evil, I am behind efforts to combat it. Social Justice is the idea that any measureable difference between groups is all by itself enough evidence to declare that the cause is racist malice by whitey.
It is itself a racist concept. It demands proportional representation in wealth and power because it surrenders on minority groups achieving this in the market. It assumes that the best black America will ever do on its own is less than proportional. It cannot concieve of a future America where 50% of Fortune 500 CEOs are black because they are the best people for the job.
I can imagine and even believe that is possible, I’ll bet that you can too.
Comment by dan — 08.18.04 @ 4:48 pm
Where there is evidence for such evil, I am behind efforts to combat it. Social Justice is the idea that any measureable difference between groups is all by itself enough evidence to declare that the cause is racist malice by whitey.
Right on, Dan. Ditto to infinity and beyond!
Comment by La Shawn — 08.18.04 @ 5:12 pm
This editorial by Carie Lukas in NRO gives a very good example of statistical differences between demographic groups that is blamed on bad intentions but is more likely to be based on choices.
http://nationalreview.com/comment/lukas200408200939.asp
My own experience illustrates this: I usually seek not only jobs that pay more but I also seek training that is likely to boost my pay (I am a computer programmer). In college, I specifically sought a major that would pay the bills. I was VERY concerned about paying back my loans and earning a living.
My wife has turned down several full time jobs in favor of part time ones that allowed her to have flexibilty with her hours. The full time jobs paid more and would have given her more of the responsibilities she seeks. In college, she pursued a major that she found interesting without much consideration for how it pays after school.
I don’t fault her for that, I think people should pursue their interests, when it is practical. For her, it was. She came from wealth and didn’t have school loans to worry about.
Comment by dan — 08.20.04 @ 11:39 am
In my experience, “social justice” is a code word for “anti-conservative agenda”.
That is a brilliant statement and my observations lead me to the same conclusion. Ever since high school, I’d always get irritated when teachers/professors started in on “social justice” because I knew it meant I was about to hear a massive guilt trip about being white, American, “privileged” or whatever. And of course, any disagreement with their dogma meant I’d be a heartless capitalist with no compassion for the poor.
Comment by TonyRo76 — 09.15.04 @ 9:39 am