Christianity Today, Week of June 28
Posted on 07/02/2004 6:47:41 PM PDT by xzins
\ctmag\features\weblog\weblog-crumb.txt -->
Christianity Today, Week of June 28
Weblog: Bush Wants Church Support, Opponents Cry Foul
Plus: Taliban kills Christian in Afghanistan, court rejects judge's ruling in lesbian custody case, and more articles from online sources around the world.
| posted 07/02/2004 12: p.m.
Campaign organizers for President Bush have sent a document to churches, asking for supporters to complete specific "duties" on behalf of the campaign. It isn't the campaign's first appeal to churchgoers, but this time, even evangelicals are questioning the tactics.
According to The Washington Post, supporters' duties include:
By July 31, for example, volunteers are to "send your Church Directory to your State Bush-Cheney '04 Headquarters or give [it] to a BC04 Field Rep" and "Talk to your Pastor about holding a Citizenship Sunday and Voter Registration Drive."
By Aug. 15, they are to "talk to your Church's seniors or 20-30 something group about Bush/Cheney '04" and "recruit 5 more people in your church to volunteer for the Bush Cheney campaign."
By Sept. 17, they are to host at least two campaign-related potluck dinners with church members, and in October they are to "finish calling all Pro-Bush members of your church," "finish distributing Voter Guides in your church" and place notices on church bulletin boards or in Sunday programs "about all Christian citizens needing to vote."
The potential alliance is drawing the ire of groups advocating the separation of church and state. According to Reuters, Americans United for Separation of Church and State said, "Any coordination between the Bush campaign and church leaders would clearly be illegal." The Washington Post, who actually contacted the IRS to see if the activities would cause a church to lose its tax-exempt status, wrote that the IRS warned, "a preference for or against a certain candidate or party … becomes a prohibited activity."
This story has been ongoing for some time now. Last month, Oregon pastors asked churchgoers to sign a petition asking for an amendment banning same-sex marriage. "The campaign … has raised questions about how far churches can go to promote ballot measures without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status, which carries some limits on political activity," wrote The Oregonian. Also last month, the Bush campaign sent out a letter seeking to identify 1,600 "friendly congregations" in Pennsylvania.
In both instances, and in others, the cries of the Bush opposition camps warning about the separation of church and state and tax-exemption were loud. This time, however, even Bush-friendly evangelicals are resisting the campaign's outreach. According to Reuters, Richard Land said he was "appalled."
"First of all, I would not want my church directories being used that way,'' he told Reuters in an interview, predicting failure for the Bush plan.
The conservative [Southern Baptist] Protestant denomination, whose 16 million members strongly backed Bush in 2000, held regular drives that encouraged church-goers to "vote their values,'' said Land.
"But it's one thing for us to do that. It's a totally different thing for a partisan campaign to come in and try to organize a church. A lot of pastors are going to say: 'Wait a minute, bub','' he added.
New York Times's David D. Kirkpatrick, writes:
Richard J. Mouw, president of the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif., one of the largest evangelical Protestant seminaries, said: "Theologically speaking, churches are really in a position to speak truth to power. But this smacks of too close an alliance of church and Caesar."
Mr. Mouw added that the Bush campaign should not take evangelical votes for granted.
"I find," he said, "that a lot of church people, including a lot of evangelicals, are increasingly nervous about the credibility of the Bush administration on issues that a year or two ago people were ready to trust them on, like foreign policy.
"Rather than just assuming that evangelical churches are ready to hand over their membership lists, they would do much better to spend some time trying to convince us that they really do have the interests of biblical Christians at heart."
Interestingly, even Bush supporters are questioning whether the administration is taking their views seriously enough. Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, wrote in a recent Washington Update email,
a look at the full list of speakers [at the Republican National Convention] shows that the convention is lacking in speeches by prominent Republicans who can adequately address the social issues our nation is facing—from protecting marriage to defending the sanctity of life.
In fact, many of the people who will have prominent roles at the convention have publicly contradicted the Bush Administration's policies on these very issues; not just Pataki and Giuliani, but also Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Understandably, the Bush campaign would like to portray the Republican Party as a "big tent" while the national spotlight is on, but surely there is some room in that tent for social conservatives. The Bush team admits it had trouble fully mobilizing Christian voters in 2000. Leaving real conservatives off the convention stage won't do much to correct that problem in 2004.
Perkins has also complained that not enough Christians are standing up for the Federal Marriage Amendment. In June, he told The Washington Post, "Standing on Capitol Hill listening, you don't hear anything." However, when it comes to same-sex marriage at the state level, church leaders are standing up. Weblog already noted that churches in Oregon worked to support a marriage amendment in that state. (Perkins also noted that on June 30 "the Defense of Marriage Coalition in Oregon turned in over 244,587 signatures supporting a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.")
But in Kansas, where the legislature recently rejected such an amendment, churches, upset at the failure to pass the amendment, have banded together to support the cause—and are receiving plenty of flak for it. Kansas City Star tells the story.
Upset at the Kansas Legislature for defeating a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the Rev. Jerry Johnston, pastor of First Family Church in Overland Park, invited area clergy members to a meeting this month. About 100 came, he said. Churches, he said, must get more involved in politics. "God calls a minister to speak on moral issues," Johnston said. …
Many preachers don't know anything about politics; many don't know who their representatives and senators are," said Johnston, who added that he should have gotten more involved in the past.
Churches should encourage their members to act, he said. During July, he said, his church and others in Johnson County will hold forums for candidates, register voters, and educate people on the issues.
Johnson has been distributing educational materials about candidates as local elections approach. In response, a group called the Mainstream Coalition decided to send 100 volunteers to monitor church activities and sermons to make sure they do nothing illegal. The Star writes, "Johnston and other ministers should keep partisan politics out of the pulpit, said Caroline McKnight, coalition executive director. 'His job is to lead his flock by setting an example … not by bringing the smoke-filled room into his sanctuary,' she said."
Upset about such threats, pastors are fighting back. "We are alarmed at such scare tactics," said Ad Hoc Pastors for Biblical Values, according to the Star. "These are the methods of coercive rulers. There is no place for this type of intimidation by 'secret police' in our land." The pastors also said, "We do not recognize the Mainstream Coalition as the self-appointed guardians of political and religious purity. … Their members share a common social agenda and seek to impose that agenda across this county. Their patronizing attitude toward those whose views differ, and especially toward white, evangelical Christians, is distasteful."
All the "he said/she said" reporting can get confusing, though, and leave churchgoers, pastors, and the public ill-informed. In fact, as Weblog earlier noted, "Suggesting that churches are jeopardizing their tax-exempt status by allowing such an activity is an antidemocratic scare tactic. A canard. A lie."
In fact, Weblog has to wonder about media bias when it does not ask the same questions regarding Democrats who speak to churches, or pastors who open support Democrat candidates. According to the Associated Press, during the primaries "Rev. Gregory G. Groover recognized [John Kerry] from the pulpit as "the next president of the United States." He continued, "We're thankful that there's going to be a revolution in this country," Groover said. "A new day has occurred, a new movement. And so we praise God for the president. And we say: God, bring him on."
If that's not an endorsement of a political candidate by a pastor from the pulpit, I don't know what is.
Also during the primaries, Kerry spoke from the lectern of a Mississippi church. According to the Boston Globe, "Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, predicted that 'a guy from Massachusetts' will beat Bush in the South in November." In the church, Kerry "read from the Book of James to suggest that Republicans did not back up "important words" with good works and social policy that aided Americans. Kerry said, "he had been 'anointed the next president of the United States' after Bishop Phillip Coleman laid hands on him."
Certainly, Kansas and Oregon pastors' activities regarding the same-sex marriage debate is no more of an entanglement of religion and government that a bishop anointing Kerry to be the next President.
According to the IRS, who applies tax-exempt rules to churches, the question is not whether churches or pastors can get involved in politics, but to what extent, and under what circumstances. The IRS has a handy pamphlet addressing the issue.
The pamphlet says,
Minister F is the minister of Church O. The Sunday before the November election, Minister F invited Senate Candidate X to preach to her congregation during worship services. During his remarks, Candidate X stated, "I am asking not only for your votes, but for your enthusiasm and dedication, for your willingness to go the extra mile to get a very large turnout on Tuesday." Minister F invited no other candidate to address her congregation during the Senatorial campaign. Because these activities took place during official church services, they are attributed to Church O. By selectively providing church facilities to allow Candidate X to speak in support of his campaign, Church O's actions constitute political campaign intervention.
Though churches cannot campaign for candidates or legislation, they can "involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, churches may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status."
The pamphlet is extremely helpful on this issue, and Weblog wishes more reporters would read it.
I just don't understand why a Church cannot pick the candidate who best meets their goals and work to elect him or her. There are all sorts of tax exempt organizations who are working to elect Kerry. Why is it OK to stamp out the right of a church to be politically active?
Using church directories for political campaigning is just bad form. It's almost as tacky as using the church directory to call up people and hawk Amway to them.
Our church forbids any use of the directory for ALL non-church activities.
I'm pretty sure that is a rule wherever one may attend church. Definitely for Catholic Church. They guard that list.
That's what I would have thought, too. I would want it guarded, and guarded well. If I found out my church was handing out my name and address to every peddler, swindler, or politician that came along...I wouldn't go to church there any longer.
Because Ronald Reagan proved that "the church" is ACTUALLY (for political purposes) an alternative form of MEDIA. If you'd think about the inroads of the church into every villa and every nook of this country, then you'd see there is a ready-made network down to the street level and EVEN to the family level.
To get the church involved is to get the whispering campaign going.....which is the point of all the media buys.
The use of a church directory is a trust on the part of the pastor and staff. It is not parallel to a "confidential" trust between parishoner and pastor/priest, and it certainly doesn't approach the level of "confessional" trust, but it is a privacy trust that exists between pastor and congregation.
I understand the campaigns intent...they simply want to get their information via mail to this end user. They want to make sure that they are registered to vote.
The way around that is to ask for registration forms to be available within churches. There is nothing partisan about a registration form, and the stats are in the President's favor....they can count on 60% or more of every form filled by a church goer being a conservative voter.
So far as getting one's mailings directly into the homes of church members, they must do a build-around there as well. With the registration form the church can build a packet that includes non-partisan, voting record comparison sheets (a la Ralph Reed). If they are brutally honest, then no one can question the handout from any side of the political debate.
Also, there is no problem, imho, with asking candidates to speak at church. Kerry does it; Sharpton does it; Clinton does it....They SHOULD speak about items of FAITH, but if their ILLUSTRATIONS and their POINTS have political application, then so be it.
ping to #9
Our local church guards that list as well. There are probably 3,000+ names in our church directory. It is NOT distributed beyond staff and ministry leadership.
I think there is merit in getting the community of faith involved in the process. But, if I were in a position of church leadership to decide, you wouldn't get my mailing list either.
see #9
The list involves a trust. I agree with that.
Agreed.
I've done some development work. It would seem that the next logical step after getting the directory would be to get the giving records. That's a frightening thought. I'm already solicited by every charity...and now just about every political cause on both sides.
I know my name and information has been sold because of previous contributions. I would not trust a church that would give that information out.
Voter registration drives, voter guides are a great thing. That's information coming TO the people. Not information and security being taken FROM the people.
As a general rule, yes, but that would depend greatly on the particular church or congregation. Some are quite liberal. I agree that candidates should be allowed to speak in churches, but not give stump speeches.
xzins wrote: "Because Ronald Reagan proved that "the church" is ACTUALLY (for political purposes) an alternative form of MEDIA."
Sorry, but I don't see the similarities. Churches are voluntary associations of people who think alike but don't necessarily walk in lock step. How is this different than abortionists who create organizations of like-thinking people? If abortionists can be tax-exempt, why not churches, even if they are politically active. Or how about the NEA? What gives them the right to be politically active, having a reach that extends into "every villa and every nook of this country" as you put it?
People should have the right to associate with whoever they want and advocate whatever candidate they want. It's a free speech issue. If you are truly going to be fair about this, eliminate tax exempt status for ALL political organizations, but don't just target the churches.
Choose Ye This Day wrote: "I agree that candidates should be allowed to speak in churches, but not give stump speeches."
Ah, so let's limit the Constitutional rights of freedom of association and free speech? All candidates of whatever political persuasion should be able to say whatever they want to whatever organizations care to listen to them--without restriction!
Hey, freedom is a great thing you know.
Choose Ye This Day wrote: "Using church directories for political campaigning is just bad form."
I agree with you on this. I'd be quite upset if my church was giving its membership roster away. That's a totally different issue than inviting political speakers to the church.
I don't care what the law is, really. If the law is changed that says that candidates CAN speak in churches, fine, but it doesn't really change my feeling. I'm not saying the government needs to restrict it.
I just think that the CHURCH should, on its own, CHOOSE to not let candidates give political speeches in their congregations. I just think a church should be a house of God, where the things of the world are left outside for one day a week. Now, if the church asks the candidate to speak(intelligently) about matters of faith, that's another matter.
Well, I certainly understand your opinion, but consider this, what if a political candidate is fighting for the same causes as the church? Let's say the church is anti-abortion, and the candidate is trying to gain support for his own anti-abortion platform.
What you are saying sounds like Kerry. He claims to be a devout Catholic, yet he states his Catholic views shouldn't have any impact on his decisions. How can anyone truly separate their beliefs from politics, since the goals of politics come from faith (either faith in the Lord or faith in something else)? Our founding fathers understood the importance of God to our country. The would have never supported separation of church and state, since they understood our freedoms are derived from God--not government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.