SHOULD THE CHURCH BE POLITICALLY INVOLVED?
by Charley Clements

November 7, 1999

Each election year, the perennial controversy over the involvement of Christians in politics once again moves to the front burner.

Non-Christians are pretty much unanimously opposed to Christian participation in politics, because they don't even want to think about the prospect of being governed by godly men and women. Curiously enough, some Christians don't seem to have a problem with the flip side of that coin, and the Christian community remains divided on the issue.

Be that as it may, the real contentious side of this issue is not the involvement of individual Christians in politics, but rather the involvement of CHURCHES in politics.

The prospect of the organized church taking an aggressive interest and role in the political process does indeed pose a threat to the liberals, the secularists, the humanists, and the atheists who are vehemently dedicated to eradicating God in America. They've worked diligently these last thirty years, and they've come much too far to take a chance on being turned back now. They recognize only too well that the church in America is a sleeping giant, and they want that giant to continue to slumber.

They needn’t worry too much though, because unfortunately many churches—too many churches—also feel threatened by the prospect of getting involved. They are threatened with condemnation from all of secular society, and many of their peers in the Christian community. They are threatened by accusations of "trying to impose their beliefs upon others" and "attempting to establish a theocracy." They are threatened by the thought of having to prioritize in allocating time and resources that are already designated for other programs. They are threatened with the daunting task of taking a leadership role in researching the candidates and the issues, and separating the wheat from the chaff. Most of all, they are threatened with the risk of losing their 501(c)(3) tax exemptions.

The concerns—and confusion—of the church on this issue need to be seriously addressed.

The question of whether or not Christians—and the church—can and should be involved in the political realm, as well as all other facets of our society, is simply a question of whether or not we believe in the scriptures and the Constitution of the United States.

We are commanded by the scriptures to "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you…" and we are told that we are to be "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world."

Not only are we instructed to "teach all nations" but we are also admonished not to suffer teachings contrary to God’s word, as in Revelations 2:20. "Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols."

If we read Revelations 2:20 again, and replace the name "Jezebel" with the words "U.S. Government" it becomes glaringly obvious that the church in America is just as guilty as the church in Thyatira, to whom Revelations 2:20 was addressed.

Over the last thirty years or so, our government has become increasingly involved in the support and promotion of teachings contrary to God’s word, and the seduction of our children. The church in America has suffered these things to occur by not being politically active, by failing to protest against ungodly and immoral legislation, and by failing to actively support and campaign for "able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness." If the church in America continues to suffer these things to occur, then we are subject to the same judgement as the church in Thyatira.

The admonitions of the Book of Revelation were not addressed to the congregations, or the people, or the individual Christians of the churches, they were specifically addressed to the Church. "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches."

It has only been in the latter half of this century that the churches in America, as entities, have been distinguished from the individuals of the church by the laws of men. Incorporated churches are, in fact, corporations subject to the laws of the state, and as such they are "granted" certain rights and privileges, and denied others. For example, churches incorporated under the terms of the 501(c)(3) are restricted from "carrying on propaganda, attempting to influence legislation, and participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." While Christians as individuals have full protection of their religious rights under the 1^st Amendment, the 501(c)(3) church, as an entity, and the pastor of the church speaking as the representative of the corporation, do not. Churches found to be in violation of the terms of the 501(c)(3) are subject to the loss of their tax exemptions, and penalties.

There are only a handful of churches in America today that are not incorporated, and the vast majority of churches are 501(c)(3) organizations. Therein lies the reason for the controversy over the involvement of churches in the political process.

Aside from the restrictions of the 501(c)(3), there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution of the United States that says that America’s churches cannot be actively involved in the political process. The Constitution specifically and deliberately does not address the issue of what churches may or may not be allowed to do, but rather what our government is not allowed to do. As a matter of fact, the sole intent and purpose of the religion clause in the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution was to emphasize the fact that our government is not allowed to tell the church what it may or may not do.

The 501(c)(3) is inherently unconstitutional, as the 1^st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." No law means simply that—no law. The 501(c)(3) is clearly a law; it clearly inhibits the efforts of the church to be "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world" and it clearly prohibits pastors from fulfilling their pastoral duties as defined by the scriptures.

The scriptures tell us that pastors are to be teachers, as well as preachers, and that the Holy Ghost has made them overseers, to feed the church of God. If Christians are called to be active in the political realm, as in all other walks of life, are pastors not called to teach, oversee, and feed these endeavors as well?

When legislative proposals promoting abortion, homosexuality and the free distribution of condoms to schoolchildren are pending in the Congress, should pastors stand silent in the pulpit?

The 501(c)(3) says yes, they should. Revelations 2:20 says no, they mustn’t.

When our government schools are teaching our children that there is no God, and that abortion, homosexuality and teen sex are all normal and permissible activities, should churches seek out and promote candidates that would work to put a stop to this?

The 501(c)(3) says they cannot; the Bible says they must.

The 501(c)(3) is indeed unconstitutional and unbiblical, but it is also voluntary. Churches are not required by law (as of the moment) to organize as 501(c)(3) corporations and submit themselves to the restrictions thereof. Churches that have chosen to do so, however, are morally obligated as well as legally required to abide by the terms of the agreement.

Many 501(c)(3) churches attempt to get around the restrictions by "pushing the envelope" and using creative methods to circumvent the code while remaining technically compliant, while others simply agree to the terms of the 501(c)(3) and then do as they please. This is deceit, and it is not only illegal, but also unbiblical.

Other churches go to great extremes to avoid any political involvement, and any possibility of jeopardizing their 501(c)(3) status, in the interest of being "good stewards."

Still others simply don’t understand the 501(c)(3) code, and have no earthly idea that some of their activities may be illegal.

In any case, churches that choose to be incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations are in fact legally restricted as to what they can do and say, whether or not they realize it or admit it—and whether or not they abide by it.

The 501(c)(3) code absolutely forbids any participation in political campaigning in opposition to, or on behalf of, any candidate for public office. It also stipulates that no substantial part of the organization’s activities may consist of carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation. "Substantial" was loosely defined by one federal court as meaning more than 5% of the organization’s time and efforts, while another court broadly interpreted "substantial" legislative activities to include all indirect attempts to influence legislation through "a campaign to mold public opinion." The IRS states that its determination of whether an organization’s legislative activities constitute a "substantial" part of its overall activities depends on "all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case." What this means in plain English is that "substantial" means whatever the government wants it to mean.

Despite all of the confusion and the complexity of the issue, the controversy over the involvement of the church in politics boils down to two questions:

1. Should America’s churches be actively involved in our political process?

Based upon the scriptures, I believe that the answer to that question is a resounding yes. Clearly, we are called to be "the light of the world" and we are called to stand against those who "teach and seduce" the Lord’s servants to sin. I also believe that our involvement should be "substantial" based upon Revelation 3:14-16. "And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth."

The most often stated reason—or excuse—for churches not being involved in politics, is the theory that "we cannot legislate morality" and "the way to change America is to work to change the hearts and minds of the people." This theory might have a degree of credibility were it not for the cold hard fact that our government is effectively legislating immorality, and they are effectively changing the hearts and minds—for the worse—of thousands upon thousands of schoolchildren in our public schools—while the church makes excuses.

Let me be perfectly clear about the fact that I am NOT suggesting that we attempt to force others to accept our Christian beliefs. What I am suggesting is that we as citizens have a Constitutional right, and that we as God’s church have a God given responsibility--and a Constitutional right--to demand that our government cease and desist in teaching, supporting and promoting immoral and ungodly behavior.

Unfortunately, while we as citizens still have some constitutional rights, our government has effectively pre-empted the God given responsibilities, and canceled the constitutional rights, of the church, by passing laws controlling the activities of the church—in direct violation of the 1^st Amendment.

I believe that it’s time for the church to stop playing defense, and start playing offense.

2. Can America’s churches legally play an active role in the political process?

The key word here is "active" and the answer to the question is no, they cannot, if they are 501(c)(3) corporations. They are, however, allowed to "piddle around" and "dabble" in politics, so long as they don’t attempt to have a significant impact on the process. While this lukewarm approach assures their compliance with the 501(c)(3) code, it also brings to mind the admonition of Revelation 3:15.

So what is the church to do?

The Rutherford Institute, in its publication "The Rights of Churches and Political Involvement" offers the following summation of the options available to the church:

[ "A church or religious organization which desires to acquire or maintain a tax-exempt status must always remain vigilant. Therefore, it could decide to avoid any involvement in legislative or political activities. Alternately, it could take a risk-adverse approach, such as reporting pending legislation and political candidates in an objective manner only and issuing disclaimers that it does not endorse any legislation or candidate. No matter what the approach, however, there is no guarantee that the IRS will not conduct an audit. Tax-exempt churches and religious organizations, therefore, must maintain meticulous records of their activities and expenditures in the event of an audit.

On the other hand, Jesus Christ challenged all Christians, and the Church, to be "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world." In this age, it requires that the Church address the deteriorating state of the Judeo-Christian moral structure in our society and the continuing rise of the modern secularistic state. It may be difficult, however, to do so without participating in the ongoing political and legislative debate on critical issues affecting the moral climate of our society, such as abortion, education, and parental rights. Hence, a church or religious organization that desires to impact society may question whether the dollars saved as a result of the tax-exempt "privilege" are worth the price of becoming culturally irrelevant.

Such a church or religious organization could establish a separate entity under section 501(c)(4) of the Code, which could promote "social welfare" but would not qualify for tax-deductible contributions. The most direct approach, of course, would be to simply forego efforts to maintain a tax-exempt status, and invest unreservedly in engaging every facet of our society, including the political realm." ]

The Rutherford Institute’s recommendations are based upon the reality of existing law. I see another option, which is for America’s churches to petition the Congress to pass legislation rescinding the restrictions on the church from the tax code—in compliance with the Constitution. This petitioning could, however, result in a real Catch-22, as 501(c)(3) churches could well find themselves under investigation by the IRS for participating in "substantial" attempts to influence legislation.

On the other hand, churches could dissolve their 501(c)(3) status and be free to teach, preach, and influence--in accordance with God’s word--to their hearts content. They could also then actively and aggressively lobby the Congress to allow the church to be tax free without the burden of the 501(c)(3), as it was prior to 1954.

In the end, each individual church must simply decide whether or not the question of SHOULD the church be politically active takes priority over the question of CAN the church be politically active.

Will the church please stand?