Pastors & Political Endorsements. What Do You Think?
Some pastors are directly challenging the current IRS rules barring pastors and churches from officially endorsing a political candidate from the pulpit. Here is one news report about today's "protest" from CBS News (click here).
What do you think?
Should churches and pastors be banned from endorsing?
What role should churches/pastors have in the political discussion?
I'd love to hear your thoughts one way or the other...


Comments
I think pastors should speak to issues not candidates. God is good jpu
john umland | Mon 29 Sep 2008
There seem to be 2 questions here: "Should it be lawful for pastors to endorse candidates?" AND "Is it wise for pastors to endorse candidates?" It has been said that the Separation of Church and State was designed primarily for the protection of the church from state influence rather than the converse(as the separation between Church and State is usually spoken of today). Since I believe that such a separation helps the Church (and its mission to people with differing political affinities) I think that publicly endorsing candidates is imprudent and dare I say, even heretical.
If pastors want to make such an endorsement, I think they should be able to...let those who want to endanger themselves and their ministry do so. As for me, the central pronouncement of the Church, "Jesus is Lord [alone]" precludes the equivocal language of "_ for President" from a Christian pulpit.
Mat Samuelson | Mon 29 Sep 2008
Mat, I think that is a good distinction to make. I think it should probably be legal (I am a pretty pure First Amendment guy on free speech and the disentanglement of government from religion)but also strongly feel it UNWISE to do so.
John, I agree in essence with what you said.
It is interesting... as a pastor, some want me to speak more to political issues and candidates than I do and others are uncomfortable with me expressing any personal political views, not in the role of pastor...
It can be a hard tight rope to walk...
Other thoughts?
Ben Dubow | Mon 29 Sep 2008
I don't think the issue is legally barring speech (the article is not very clear). I think the issue is that if a church wants the benefit of being tax advantaged (in quite a number of ways) they have to abide by rules established by the IRS. So the pastors can say whatever they want, but they need to be ready to lose the tax-free housing allowances...
I like the notion that 'the local church is the hope of the world' -- which implies to me that we should be focused on issues and God's work, not so much on particular candidates.
Jeff Rummel | Mon 29 Sep 2008
As usual Jeff, well said. And good distinction between the legal (and therefore Constitutional issues) and the IRS requirements for 501c3/tax-exempt status...
Practically speaking I see pretty much no upside to pastors/churches endorsing and I think it is dangerous to presume that one candidate is "the faith candidate". I know at St. Paul's, we are pretty diverse politically.
Even more than talking about specific issues and I land on them, I think it is better to talk about "as Christians, how do we approach these issues... how do we apply scripture to real life issues, etc"
So often there are multiple faithful answers, not just one answer -- I want to help people THINK BIBLICALLY, not just adopt my own positions on issues...
BD
Ben Dubow | Tue 30 Sep 2008
There seems to be substantial agreement here. Like you said Ben, I think that the election season is a great time to talk about how to THINK BIBLICALLY, but also to bring out the difference between the Kingdoms of this world verses the Kingdom of God. In WHOM do we put our ultimate trust? Also, WHO is the real ENEMY? Following Christ means that HE is our first allegiance, which NEVER changes. When St Paul asked us to submit and pray for authorities, anti-Christian NERO was his "president." In general, Christian participation in the kingdoms of the world is a good thing, but the Church is at its best when it UNMASKS those powers and real the true power of God's RULE. Col 1:16, 2:15. By not saying anything in this regard the American church gives the impression that Jesus submits to Washington's interests (or at least they have separate spheres), and not that all powers and authorities (which are legitimate) must still submit to Christ
Mat Samuelson | Wed 01 Oct 2008
Please Leave a Comment
Please review the Comment Policy before posting for your first time.