I tend to agree this is a political stunt. But I have a couple other thoughts. Coming at this from a non-profit place not a church place. I really think disallowing non-profits from political discussion is wrong. Many non-profits should have the ability to discuss politics because politics really does affect the way they do their work (of course they shouldn't use government dollars to do it.)

Two, this really can divide a church and I think that is where the pastors really need to practice discernment. I used to regularly go to a men's bible study at a large southern church. When I started going I had recently moved from a very small urban church in Chicago. I was disturbed at the men's bible study at the very partisan language and prayer requests. I have always prayed with people of a variety of political perspectives, but there was no difference in perspective here. It was all very conservative republican. And the issues that were most brought up were not moral issues like abortion and homosexuality but issues around illegal immigration, crime, fiscal policy, etc. During the two years of occasional attendance Ann Coulter was held up as a paradigm of Christian virtue (just days after she had used some very vile language describing a political opponent), the leader suggested that everyone read Bill O'Riley's "Culture Warrior" as an example of how we need to interact with society. There were many other examples but these were two very egregious ones.

Frankly I had a hard time praying with many of these men. One because we rarely go to actual prayer, which was the real reason that I stopped going, but also because the political discussion was so distracting to my ability to pray. I know that I have some responsibility in this situation and I also support the right of these men to have their own opinions. But there was very little Christian charity toward people of different opinions.

This is something that I have been long thinking about due to my education in the nonprofit world. But before there can really be a discussion about this, there needs to be some education about the nonprofit world.

churches and other religious organizations have a 501(c)3 designation from the IRS. in the IRS code there are 28 501(c) designations... all are considered to be nonprofits and receive some type of tax exempt status. the 501(c)3 specifically allows corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals to not pay federal income tax. ALL of the organizations that fall into the above categories are restricted in what they can do politically... not just churches.

with that said... why are some, and this is the argument that I have read, feeling that churches are being persecuted because they are not allowed to endorse a political candidate in a public forum. the bigger argument is that this is a violation of free speech.
if the pastors who are exercising their "free speech" by endorsing a candidate from their pulpit, then they should have no problems with their church paying federal income tax, like everyone else who endorses a candidate publicly. and the truth of the matter is that, according to the Alliance Defense Fund, the impact of a church loosing its "tax-exempt" status would most likely have little affect on the church because most of the money that churches have is donated, which means it was gifted and therefore is not income.

I often wonder about the repercussions for the Kingdom of God will be when all the dust settles. Will ADF have stirred the pot so much that the government begins looking more and more at organized religious organizations? And what impact will this have on our freedom of religion?

I don't "preach politics" from the pulpit. Not because I'm afraid of my tax exempt status but because as I read the Gospels and explore how Jesus dealt with the political realities of his day his only "endorsement" was for the Kingdom of Heaven.

This is the problem with "preaching politics," all it does is set up one human form of power as being better than another - whereas Jesus placed every contemporary understanding of power on notice as not matching up to his Kingdom.

So, we can act and preach prophetically, which does deal with political realities, but this is WAY short of political endorsements from the pulpit. As it should be.

At the risk of being completely self-serving, I'm actually preaching a series on the political implications of Jesus' preaching as they might have been experienced in the first century. Here's a link to the write up (and a you tube video...).

http://www.centralbaptistpalmy...

When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, But when a wicked man rules, people groan. Pvbs 29:2
...Love your neighbor as yourself. Matt 22:37-39

Helping people to see through the fluff of the political banter is part of loving your neighbor.

The conservative churches getting out of politics is partly to blame for this country's maladies, The liberal churches never did get out and still do not stay out of politics. You see the result of the lack of accountability and being called to righteousness in our political communities.

This has only been against IRS rules since the 1950's due to LBJ not liking a preacher stand against him.

Church family is not a refuge to hide away in -- that is a barn where wheat is gathered AFTER the harvest. The family is there to encourage you and embolden you to live vigorously and bear fruit among the tares -- within the clamor of life, not apart from it. Use your own closet to hide

What exactly does a church's "tax exempt status" mean? Churches don't make income, or if they do, a profit-making subsidiary is taxed. It primarily means that tithes and offerings are tax deductible for those who give them. If I donate to a political candidate, that is not tax deductible. If I choose to donate to a church which acts as a political advocacy organization for a candidate, why should that be deductible? The real problem is that so many organizations, not just churches, have become psychologically and financially dependent on tax deductions. If you apply to the IRS for tax exempt status, you open yourselves up to whatever criteria the IRS establishes. The real solution, for anyone who wishes to be truly independent, is not to accept government approval in the first place. We all have a constitutional right to freedom of association, which does not require government approval, and does not come with government benefits.

I believe that pastors who say "you can't be a good Christian if you vote for..." are wrong, but they have a right to be wrong. Greg Boyd, pastor of Woodland Hills church in Minnesota, did a great series on "The Myth of a Christian Nation," pointing out that everyone should be guided by their faith in voting for good laws in the kingdom of this world, but don't mistake it for the Kingdom of Heaven. Where I would draw a line is when the pastors of any church attempt to coerce the vote of either a public official or a church member, e.g. asking in some form of confession "How did you vote?" and threatening to withhold sacraments or threaten some form of excommunication. That should be prosecuted as a felony, just like threatening to fire someone who votes the wrong way, or threatening to firebomb their house or kidnap their children.

Some have touched on this, but part of the problem is those who equate preaching on moral issues (e.g. abortion, homosexual behavior) as "political" meddling.

I agree that "stunts" are not cool, but there has been a double standard for some time. Why have we not read about revocation of tax-exempt status of churches who have political candidates speaking in their worship services (or is that not seen as "endorsement"?)

I do think the best approach is to simply preach the Word and urge application of biblical principles to all aspects of life. But even that principle has the potential (and, in some countries, the reality) of being "illegal."

If you endorse a certain person, then you are saying that you believe his or her beliefs are the same as yours, or why would you endorse them? For a pastor to endorse someone in private with his or her family is what they should do. Just because they are pastors doesn't mean they don't have certain wants or beliefs. It's the pastors that endorse someone and if you don't then you're wrong are the ones who need to find something else to do. Everyone should vote for the person who they believe will help them as an individual and a family and as a community. To force your beliefs on me just makes me want to turn away and go someplace else. I don't care about your tax exemptions. In God's Grace John

I have one other point to add. Just because pastors have a role as pastor doesn't mean they really have a grasp on politics. This is true with pastors on both the right and the left. Yes there are some issues that pastors may have some expertise on, but I am not sure why I would trust their opinion any more than any other.

After reading through comments in Christianity Today, talking to people in Georgia about the gas shortage, and reading other blogs I am pretty sure that the education crisis in the US has affected more than just our children.

I do not see the need to "pick sides", but should you do so, submit to the consequences. Pay the taxes and post you are no longer tax exempt, allowing your parishioners the knowledge that they cannot deduct tithes and contributions without tax consequences as well. Why risk subjecting all with in the body of the church to breaking the tax laws? In fairness, all should be told of the loss of tax exemption so they can plan their charitable giving accordingly.

There's been some very good discussion here. I agree that specifically endorsing political candidates from the pulpit crosses the line. Political stunts like these preachers are pulling are foolish and unnecessary. They have a right to preach on the issues that inform their congregation's political choices and if the IRS clamps down on them for that, they have a strong case. But to deliberately cross the line to make a point only invites an embarrassing legal confrontation from which nothing positive can be gained. Liberal churches have been skating close enough to the line to make it obvious what their preferred candidates should be for decades. Conservative churches can do the same. Explicit endorsement add nothing to their influence and only betray a lack of confidence in the members of the congregation to make up their own minds.

Aside from this, the idea that the tax exempt status of churches constitutes a government subsidy, implied by statements made in the NPR story cited here, bothers me. In this case tax exemptions prevent too much entanglement between church and state which is a good thing for both sides. The nature of the two institutions requires that they should balance one another, not that one or the other dominate. Religious institutions should not be taxed because the government has no justification for doing so; just as religious institutions have none for the direct support of the government. This is the only sensible way to uphold both the anti-establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.