Friends,
I wrote some reflections last week on the new IRS ruling allowing churches to endorse candidates from the pulpit without endangering their tax exemption status. That particular ruling is narrowly focused on churches, not all 501c3 organizations. It has been framed as a “free speech” matter, but I suspect there is more to it than that. For example, in this ABC news report, Ellen Aprill, a professor emerita of tax law at Loyola Marymount University Law School, says the new regulation could open the door to political campaigns channeling money through churches to take advantage of their tax-exempt status and lower application and reporting requirements. Aprill even expressed concern that this new ruling “will encourage the creation of fraudulent churches who want to be able to get tax deductible money to engage in opposing or supporting candidates … so they don't have to disclose any other campaign intervention activities.”
When I was the chair of The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa (TIAI), I sat down at a meeting with Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who at that time was the chair of the National Democratic Party. The Christian Coalition was in full swing at that time, and TIAI was begun when a long-time school board member was outed and ousted from office by Christian conservatives for being gay. Because TIAI strongly opposed discrimination based on sexual orientation and tried to change the rhetoric in the public square from addressing queer persons with demeaning language, one Des Moines Register opinion columnist consistently referred to TIAI as “the Christian Coalition of the Left.” We did not like that depiction, but apparently, Congresswoman Schultz thought that was accurate and arranged this meeting to urge us to use our churches, synagogues, and mosques to support a particular Democratic slate of candidates. We responded, “While we may personally support these candidates and agree with all of your reasons for doing so, we will not endorse any candidate from the pulpit, nor will we encourage other houses of worship to do so.” The meeting closed pretty quickly.
The line between “politics and justice” or “politics and faithfulness” will always be gray, malleable, and debatable. The Des Moines Register opinion writer did not appreciate that gray area, supposing that any faith group that was in solidarity with gay and lesbian persons was taking a “political” position. Likewise, the writers of Project 2025 tried to establish a rhetoric that attempts to ensure Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (D.E.I.) are purely political and should be condemned as “woke.” More accurately, a Christian perspective can argue that Diversity, if you look at the expanse of creation, is part of God’s very design; Equity, if you look at biblical laws regarding access to food and shelter, is a moral imperative; and Inclusion, if you look at Jesus’ table manners, is a Christian value. How to establish diversity, equity, and inclusion is an ongoing conversation with many valid perspectives, but simply dismissing D.E.I. efforts generally as “woke” is politically and religiously cynical.
The Presbyterian Church (USA) should strive to be faithful in reflecting God’s diversity, pursuing equity, and practicing inclusion. But we cannot do so by wagging our fingers at others. As we proclaim truth, we must likewise confess our failures and complicities in discriminatory practices. As I pointed out in my sermon last week, the list that our Book of Order says should be protected from discrimination is long, because the list of groups who have suffered discrimination in our church’s history is long. Ironically, the only way a church can exercise a courageous, prophetic voice for justice is by starting with auditing our own failures with fear and trembling. That’s how the paradox of gaining life by losing it, being first by being last, or following Christ by taking up the cross works.
Churches automatically qualify for tax exemption and do not have to file 990 forms disclosing the kind of financial information that other 501 c3 organizations do. Because political donations have been identified lately as exercises of free speech, I share Ellen Aprill’s concerns that the new IRS ruling will not only embolden preachers to explicitly endorse candidates but also allow churches to become unaccountable privileged channels for campaign finances. And we all know that money can be as ruinous and compromising for houses of faith as it is for politics. May God guide us into better light.
Mark of St. Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment