5 days ago
Churches, politics, and taxes
One need not explicitly preach that one political candidate should be chosen over another. Let the Bible readings and the Gospel be the springboards for reminding those in the pews about their Jesus-established obligations and which politicians support those obligations.
Advertisement
Many parishioners go to church to be nourished in their faith and seek a heavenly destination. These are good reasons. Nevertheless, while politics brought into church can make our celebrations an extension of the upsetting news we are all confronted with every day, that confrontation is necessary when the news screams of hatred, cruelty, fear, racism, hellish political decisions, and evil, inhuman behavior, such as 'Alligator Alcatraz.'
Get The Gavel
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
David Pierce
Sandwich
IRS's pivot ushers in a new set of concerns
The simple but irksome question 'Do we really want churches to become more political?' hastened me to express an angst-ridden response: No — never.
Eugene Scott raised the question in the context of the recent decision by the IRS to relax the constraints of the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which prohibited churches and other tax-exempt organizations from endorsing political candidates.
Advertisement
My disposition changed when I got to Scott's reference to Governor Gavin Newsom of California, who recently voiced his opinion regarding the revised interpretation of the Johnson Amendment. Newsom said, 'I don't know if it's healthy — I don't even know if it's legal, but it's not surprising. I just find it politically convenient.' He added, 'It's called gaming the system — in every way.' His terse but judicious statement brought a smile back to my face.
With keen insight, Scott notes that 'this pivot' by the IRS 'is not as sharp of a turn as some proponents of the separation of church and state may believe, because, for better or worse, pastors have used their pulpits to make political stances for decades. This is in part because politicians often make decisions that can positively impact churches — allowing them to receive federal dollars.'
As a Catholic octogenarian who goes to church frequently, I have never had a priest speak from the pulpit other than on the Gospel without any reference whatsoever to any other cause. However, I believe Scott makes a valid point.
Francis J. Hickey II
Lexington
Online debate: From 'pastors walk a fine line' to who is 'we'?
Following is an edited sampling of comments
posted on Eugene Scott's op-ed:
Churches are splitting apart as congregants, many of whom have known each other for decades, feel their pastors aren't political enough or are too political. Pastors walk a fine line, always in the shadow of either getting fired or losing members. We get so caught up in what is seen, which is temporary, that we forget to pay attention to what is unseen, which is eternal. Yes, the Gospel does provide a moral architecture that guides us in this temporal world, but telling people how to vote on gender identity, or equating Christianity with 'patriotism,' or concluding that a person's believing Christian evangelical theology means they must be MAGA —intolerance cuts both ways — is not Gospel. (EW Piper)
Advertisement
First question: Who is 'we' in the headline 'Do we really want churches to become more political?' (TerwilligerBuntsOne)
Churches can become political when they pay taxes like you and me. (tipinnh)
There are three religious truths:
1) Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.
2) Protestants do not recognize the pope as the leader of the Christian faith.
3) Baptists do not recognize each other in the liquor store or at Hooters.
— Author Unknown (pgerlings)
