There's a lot of words there--&, to judge from a lot of what I've read on this site, longer posts are kinda skipped over; so let me give you the jist:
A guest pastor gave a sermon that could've been viewed (although not by anyone present except maybe by one, who ran wee wee wee all the way to the IRS) as politically partisan.
I'm interested to see what sort of discussion this might provoke.
(If any. There are, after all, a LOT of words in that article.)
Bear in mind, though--no matter your denomination, your faith, your church--this has serious implications. I don't know how how else to say it.
There is no doubt in my mind that the IRS has no business telling any church what a pastor can or cannot preach. Also, in my opinion there is no "tax exemption" that the IRS "gives" to churches. They must not be taxed because it curtails their independence and it impedes free worship.
I am a very conservative pastor, yet I fully support this liberal church on the issue of freedom of expression in churches.
In fact, I support freedom of expression in every election. I STRONGLY oppose McCain/Feingold that strips average Americans of their right to speak during election cycles, while permitting media groups and political parties to speak all they want.
It is time to redefine what is meant by politicking by tax exempt organizations. I think some religious organizations have abused the privilege for a long time, especially in the so-called "black churches" where political candidates appear and give "sermons" which are little more than campaign speeches dressed up with biblical quotes. In addition, a lot of "liberal" churches are defining true religion as the quest for "social justice" which is highly reminiscent of a certain failed political ideology.
So should the IRS look into this? To the extent the law is vague, I support an attempt to clarify it. Now this reverend thinks it is intimidation in the shadow of mid-term elections but this is a cyclical issue so it will almost always be near election times when the definition of a sermon becomes relevant. And it seems to me that the IRS has selected a "white" congregation probably to pursue this rather than going after the black congregations where one hears a lot of questionable sermons and "guest preachers" like Clinton, Kerry, Chavez, Castro, etc.
Should the IRS be able to dictate content of sermons? It seems like a pretty difficult issue. What constitutes campaigning for a political candidate? Mentioning him or her by name or preaching sermons and campaigning for the issues that define his or her campaign? Like the pastor online, I support the ability to speak out plainly and let the chips fall where they may but at the same time I believe many religious sects has become so empty of true religion that they have become little more than political action committees: anything to keep from mentioning unpopular things like sin, redemption, morality.
In fact I support getting rid of all these "crimes by mouth" that plague the country (except fire in the theater). We're only fooling ourselves to believe that changing the words people can speak is somehow changing their character also. Truth will out and if a church or other gagged party wants to support a particular cause,it will find a way anyway.
I say this as one who has been at the forefront of a fight with the IRS with my faith. The IRS can clearly abuse its privileges also. In our case, a scam resulted in the donation to my church of parcels in land in Nevada which had been fraudulently valued by the scammer and sold to various parties with the idea that they could donate the worthless land to charitable organizations and claim the inflated valuations on their tax returns. It was not just our church that was involved. It included the Boy Scouts, the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc etc. At any rate, the IRS caught onto the scam and subpoenaed the records of those who donated to our church and school. We cooperated fully with that subpoena. But then the IRS decided that the scam gave it the right to subpoena information about any and all in-kind (i.e., non-cash) donations and this we resisted. As a legal representative of the school, I can well recall an IRS agent's advice to me to pack a toothbrush because I was going to be jailed if I continued to refuse their demands. (No, I didn't end up in jail.) So abuse is definitely a hallmark of the IRS but maybe we need a better definition of this law or a repeal of the law for everyone's sake. If the church wants to put together a coalitian to fight this, more power to it.