Have the Preachers Really Stopped the IRS in Its Tracks?

"See what has the IRS stopped in its tracks" was the headline article by Bob Unruh in the September 23 issue of World Net Daily that tells of over one hundred pastors who plan to defy the so-called "Johnson Law" this year. They have designated Sunday, September 26, as "Pulpit Freedom" Sunday and plan to reach "political sermons" and mail the CDs, DVDs, or transcripts of those sermons to the non-profit division of the Internal Revenue Service in Washington, D.C., in order to bait them into a lawsuit to challenge the present law that forbids pastors from participating in partisan politics from their pulpits or in official church publications. The Alliance Defense Fund, based in Phoenix, AZ, is licking their chops to sue the IRS on behalf of the church or churches that have their tax-exemption revoked, so the law can be over turned and the pulpits of America can be free again after these fifty-six years.

This is the third year that this project has been tried, with more pastors apparently taking courage. It started with around 36; last year, there were 8; now, according to WND, it's up to over 100.

So far the IRS has not taken the ADF challenge, although one of the ADF churches was investigated. But according to a letter posted online by ADF, the Dallas, Texas office of the IRS notified Warroad Community Church in Warroad, Minn., that the review was being closed based on a "procedural issue." In other words, the IRS played dodge ball.

Kevin Theriot, a senior counsel for the ADF, told WND that the IRS is in an even smaller box this year, because of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, which determined that businesses could not even be told what they can or cannot say. "This is a really tough one for the IRS. They're telling pastors what they can and cannot say from the pulpit,…"

The rules were adopted in 1954 after former President Lyndon Johnson found himself bearing the brunt of critical comments from Christian pastors concerned about his behavior in Washington. Before then, according to the ADF, pastors spoke freely from their pulpits, even about specific candidates, issues and elections.

"The IRS should not be used as a political tool to advance the agenda of radical groups bent on silencing the voice of the church and inhibiting religious freedom," Erik Stanley, a senior counsel for the ADF, said. "It is ironic that a group with a name like 'Americans United for Separation of Church and State' continues to exploit a scheme of massive government monitoring and surveillance of churches." He said the real impact of the rules adopted under Johnson's leadership is that pastors are muzzling themselves for fear of an IRS investigation. "Rather than risk confrontation, many pastors have selfcensored their speech, afraid to apply the teachings of Scripture to specific candidates or elections."

1. Where are all of the preachers that have been telling the unregistered church pastors since 1982, when we found out about the dangers of the 501(c)(3) contract, that we didn't know what we were talking about, and that the IRS wasn't telling preachers what to preach? Obviously they are nearly in control of the pulpits of America.

2. Why do churches want to be tax-exempt, which is a privilege to be granted by a higher authority (the IRS), which is a denial of the Headship of Christ over His church, in violation of Matt. 28:18-20; Eph. 5:23c, etc?

3. Why do churches want to give up their non-taxable position of liberty guaranteed by the First amendment for tax-exemption, which is an inferior position of tolerance or licensure?

4. Why do churches want to recognize the jurisdiction of the courts over their churches, and agree up front that they will abide by the decision of the court, whatever that decision will be, even though it may be contrary to the Holy Scriptures?

5. Why are these churches willing to risk an IRS church tax inquiry and answer invasive questions, thereby recognizing the jurisdiction of the IRS over the internal affairs of the church?

6. Why is ADF saying that churches were free prior to 1954, when they were still under the control of the IRS Code, rather than the Holy Scriptures?

The headline of the WND article of Sept. 23 boldly says, "See what has the IRS stopped in its tracks", referring to the ADF initiative. Obviously, based on this one project, the IRS might give the impression that they are trembling over taking on these preachers, but when you examine the situation further, it is possible that these preachers may come to the same fate as the seven silly sons of Sceva, as recorded in the nineteenth chapter of Acts. The IRS has already won in the courts on this issue. They can afford to play the cat and mouse game with the ADF. Following is an article from the IRS web site examining the facts.

The division within the IRS responsible for overseeing churches and charities is the Tax Exempt and Government Entitities Division. TEGE has created a Web page entitled "Charities, Churches, and Educational Organizations - Political Campaign Intervention." It is dedicated to the IRS' most recent activities related to 501(c)(3) and political activity.

A definitive court case on the issue of free speech and political expression is Branch Ministries Inc. versus Rossotti. In that case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the ban on political activity. The court rejected the plaintiff church's allegations that it was being selectively prosecuted because of its conservative views and that its First Amendment right to free speech was being infringed. The court wrote: "The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(c)(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose." Updated July 12, 2007

Please note that the church in question had waved their religious arguments under the First Amendment and relied on the inferior speech clause of the First Amendment because the church had given up their First Amendment guarantees, because they were incorporated, were a non-profit organization, and were not operating as a New Testament church. Tragically, the same is true of the hundred churches in the ADF project.

I am a member of the Alliance Defense Fund ("ADF") National Litigation Academy Honor Corps. Therefore, one will understand that the following comment is given as constructive criticism.

Those state pastors and churches who are taking part in the ADF "Pulpit Initiative" do not understand the overriding biblical principles and issues at stake. They have already given up their First Amendment protections, to a large degree. They have voluntarily (1) contracted with their sovereign state of incorporation, (2) agreed to five existing federal government restrictions or rules which come with the 501(c)(3) status which they voluntarily applied for and received, (3) agreed to the 501(c)(3) system of tax exemption which allows the federal government and the Internal Revenue Service in conjunction with the courts to unilaterally add additional rules, and (4) agreed that the state courts, not the Lord, will be the final judge when the Internal Revenue Service or any other government agency challenges their alleged First Amendment freedoms.

Unlike pastors and churches who refuse legal entity status, state pastors and churches dishonor their love relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and displease Him by submitting to other sovereigns (the state and federal governments). Note: God gave civil government jurisdiction over criminal actions by any individual, whether a member of a church or not.

1) What is the problem? We The People have allowed our government to grow outside the binding chains of our once 'Rugged Constitution', in every branch, in every article, every policy, every bill have become a perversion to individual freedom and responsibility and a developer for collectivism i.e., communism, socialism and democracy; all three government types are antithetical to G*D's word and the Bible.

2) What is causing the problem? Norman Dodd, the man in charge of (The Reese Commission) a circa 1950 congressional investigation of 'Tax Exempt Organizations,' revealed that the education system of America was being deliberately and systematically merged with a Soviet Union model.

To accomplish this insidious task, history books, educators and curriculum have to be re-written in such a way to demolish truth, undermine the facts and beliefs of our American culture of freedom, prosperity and peace. Changing the American individual into a new world order collectivist.

3) What is the solution to the problem? In my humble opinion, having fought the hard fight for over 10 years - We, as patriotic Americans, like the pilgrims before us, must go enmasse to a place where we like-minded, free individuals, can form our own sovereign state and practice in accordance with the constitutional republic intended by our forefathers. I honestly believe it's too late for the whole country but if we were to select a state in the union to move to and build sufficient voting numbers we could affect a successful secession from the union.

I'm sorry to all who find this answer shocking - it is from my heart and a studied review of history, testimonials, chronicles, news, and legislation supports my own experiences fighting against tyranny.

We are not against these pastors personally nor are we against the ADF. We appreciate their desire to free the pulpits of America so that the gospel can go forth freely, however as the Apostle Paul said, "And if a man also strive for masteries, yet is he not crowned, except he strive lawfully." [2 Timothy 2:5]

We feel that the only way that we can effectively win the war with this beast that we face is to "Go outside the gate" with the Lord Jesus Christ. It cannot be won by staying in the system of tax-exemption and expect to have your cake of tax deduction – and eat it, too – by receiving tax deductible gifts.

It is not time for fighting the beast with "carnal weapons", (law suits), it is time for repentance. "For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God:" [1 Peter 4:17]. Paul the Apostle said, "Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand." [Ephesians 6:13].

It is time for the churches to admit that they have prostituted their position as the Bride of Christ and committed spiritual whoredom with the Anti-Christ for benefits and privileges (tax-exemption and tax deductible gifts). They must give up their corporate position and begin operating as nonlegal entities, without legal protection and depend on their God-given lawful protections under the First Amendment.

Then we will see a new burst of liberty from the pulpits in America that will produce a Revival of Holiness from those who sit in the pews, which will have an affect on the people that populate the nation.

The Lord Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." [John 8:32].

Yes they do - on the left, and have gotten away with it for years... This is a new thing, right wing and possibly a start of something new... That is not only different, but a change of attitudes... Things are happening here...

What if a bunch of people just get together on Sunday to talk about God and Salvation with an unpaid pastor. No legal entity is created, how would the IRS handle that?

I don’t think they could.

Hm, but the effect of telling the Church that it cannot take a stand on political issues [via tax laws] quickly becomes the establishment of a church doctrine, which is quite contrary to the 1st Amendment.

Consider:
1) Abortion, churches can say that it’s murder and therefore something to stand against; bureaucrats can say it’s political and in defyance of Roe v. Wade.
2) Hmmosexual “marriage,” the church can say that it is repugnant and refuse to attend such marriages; bureaucrats can say it’s defiance of the civil authority.
3) Discipline of Children (Esp. Corporal), the church can encourage parents to do so; bureaucrats can say it’s political & advocating “child abuse.”
4) Prayer, the bureaucrats can say it’s political and not allowed in school.
5) “Thou shalt not steal” could be denied by bureaucrats who say “there is no such thing as personal property; all belongs to the community/government”
and so forth.

The churches were foolish for obeying the law from day one. They should have stated en masse that only one authority controls what is preached under their roofs and it's a much higher authority than the IRS or Lyndon Johnson. For what its worth, the small country church I attend never has paid any attention to it. Our preacher says if the Lord leads him to speak about politics you can bet he's going to do it, he says he would rather lose his tax exempt status than his salvation.

This is “submission”, not “salvation”. It reminds me of the commentary on the recent ruling by a judge against “Don’t ask don’t tell”. Most of the headlines said “Judge strikes down ...”, presuming the authority of the judge to do so. Roe Conn on WLS-AM Chicago took a call from an irate Marine emeritus who disparaged the judge as exceeding her constitutional authority. Roe Conn dismissed him. “Are you a lawyer?” he asked. “No a Marine,” was the answer, but the question revealed the mind set of the host.

As I recall, the caller cited Article I Section 8, giving Congress the power “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”.

I find it analogous to the Protestant Reformation, with the Consitution in place of the Bible. Conservatives are like the Protestants, whereas liberals are like the loyal Roman Catholics, who acceded final authority to the church, deeming themselves incompetent to oppose their authoritative interpretation scripture. Just so, the liberal mind gives its loyalty to the judiciary, and makes no attempt to understand for itself the words of the Constitution for the United States of America.

Pastors can always address issues. But if they endorse a candidate — then they lose their IRS exemption.

The issue is, given the first amendment as well as the essential nature of churches themselves, what the source of the jurisdiction is that the IRS is asserting over the churches AT ALL, from which they can "grant" or "not grant" exemptions for ANY reason.

"What if a bunch of people just get together on Sunday to talk about God and Salvation with an unpaid pastor. No legal entity is created, how would the IRS handle that?"

Actually the author of that article is a mentor to a very large movement of unregistered churches which are neither corporations, nor 501(c)(3) entities.

There are now thousands of churches around the country which are non-incorporated and non 501(c)(3). And a great number of them do as you suggest, except, many of them do very nicely take care of their pastors.

There are even fairly large churches (I know of one with about 1,500 in attendance) which are non-incorporated, non-501(c)(3). They have facilities, and they do have ways to take care of the financial needs of their pastor(s).

There are now thousands of churches around the country which are non-incorporated and non 501(c)(3).

I think that's the essential issue here. Once a church "registers" as a corporation and/or a 501(c)(3) organization, it creates a "taxable entity." So the IRS position is hey, we're not regulating a 1st Amendment church, were regulating a voluntarily created taxable entity - and zip, they win in the definition phase.

Of course, winning in the definition phase is mostly what the IRS does anyway (one way or another). But in the case of a "registered" church, the registration itself is presented AS the voluntarily created and accepted definition.

Of course, this doesn't explain why Democrats have free reign for political activities in registered churches, but that's another issue.

"The issue is, given the first amendment as well as the essential nature of churches themselves, what the source of the jurisdiction is that the IRS is asserting over the churches AT ALL, from which they can "grant" or "not grant" exemptions for ANY reason."

You seem to have a handle on this issue.

It is incorrect for anyone to think that the IRS only wants to curtail the endorsement of candidates by the churches. The IRS does not want churches to have any outspoken position on any "public policy" issue. And any issue that is a Biblical Christian issue could easily find its way on to a ballot as a ballot issue.

Abortion! Sodomite "marriages"! Content of education!

The IRS will treat churches the same way if they take a stand on these issues where they are ballot or public policy issues. The IRS is NOT just saying, "don't endorse candidates."

Consider: 1) Abortion, churches can say that it’s murder and therefore something to stand against; bureaucrats can say it’s political and in defyance of Roe v. Wade. 2) Hmmosexual “marriage,” the church can say that it is repugnant and refuse to attend such marriages; bureaucrats can say it’s defiance of the civil authority. 3) Discipline of Children (Esp. Corporal), the church can encourage parents to do so; bureaucrats can say it’s political & advocating “child abuse.” 4) Prayer, the bureaucrats can say it’s political and not allowed in school. 5) “Thou shalt not steal” could be denied by bureaucrats who say “there is no such thing as personal property; all belongs to the community/government” and so forth.

You are absolutely right. Any of the things you bring up could be included on ballot initiatives at any time, and the IRS could consider any church that teaches on these things as being in violation of its "contract" with the IRS for tax-exemption.

Best not have any contract with the IRS.

Pastors can always address issues. But if they endorse a candidate — then they lose their IRS exemption.

Actually, pastors can endorse a candidate. It is CHURCHES that cannot endorse candidates. The pastor may not endorse a candidate when speaking on behalf of his church. But he may speak as a private individual and endorse anyone he wants.

"I think that's the essential issue here. Once a church "registers" as a corporation and/or a 501(c)(3) organization, it creates a "taxable entity." So the IRS position is hey, we're not regulating a 1st Amendment church, were regulating a voluntarily created taxable entity - and zip, they win in the definition phase.

"Of course, winning in the definition phase is mostly what the IRS does anyway (one way or another). But in the case of a "registered" church, the registration itself is presented AS the voluntarily created and accepted definition."

You hit the proverbial nail on the head. Thanks for the concise wording.

501(c)(3) status is a voluntary contract with the IRS for tax-exemption, and under the contract, the IRS makes ALL of the rules, and determines ALL of the definitions, even if they would tend to violate the First Amendment itself (which rights the churches sign away by contract--giving their own signature authority to be subjected to IRS rules), or violate the faith of the church (which the IRS cares absolutely nothing about to begin with).

Now, how can Jesus Christ and the IRS both be the head of the Church at the same time?

It was understood that I was speaking of a pastor speaking from the pulpit. Sorry you didn’t get that.

A private citizen can endorse anyone....and that would include a pastor. However, I have never heard a priest endorse a candidate in a private conversation. I’ve discussed issues with them, but they have left it there, usually after emphasizing what the Church’s stand might be on a related issue.

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.