House bill would make churches appendages of political parties

By J. Brent Walker

Reflections
March 20, 2002

The so-called "House of Worship Political Speech Protection Act" (H.R. 2357) sounds good, but it's one of the worst bills pending in the 107th Congress. It would pervert, not protect, houses of worship.

Introduced by Rep. Walter Jones, R.-N.C., this bill would allow houses of worship explicitly to endorse or oppose candidates for public office and even contribute money and resources (perhaps as much as 15 percent to 20 percent of their budgets) to candidates and political parties - while maintaining their tax-exempt status.

Proponents of the bill (including an unbelievable 112 cosponsors!) claim that this measure is necessary to allow churches to speak out on the great social and political issues of the day. Not so! Let's look at what churches can do now.

1. Preachers can speak out with impunity, even from the pulpit, on any issue and churches may engage in some lobbying to advocate moral/ethical positions.

2. Churches may encourage good citizenship among its members by launching voter registration and education projects, conducting a nonpartisan forum for the candidates and distributing the answers to candidate questionnaires.

3. Pastors and other church leaders, as individuals, can participate in the electoral political process as much as they wish.

But churches and other nonprofits cannot support or oppose candidates for office - sometimes called "electioneering" - without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3).

So what is so bad about a church formally endorsing a candidate or giving money to a political party? Plenty!

1. Electioneering by churches would be highly divisive. Baptists in the pew agree on very little, and politics is no exception. For church leaders to seek to endorse and contribute money to candidates on behalf of the entire church would be to detonate a bomb in the middle of the sanctuary. Why would anyone who understands the splits and controversies in Baptist life occasioned by disagreement over doctrine want to dump politics into the mix and give us one more thing to fight over? No, whether to give money to political parties and for whom to vote are decisions that each citizen must make. We don't need religious leaders telling us how to vote or funneling tithes to the coffers of political parties.

2. Electioneering by churches would compromise their prophetic witness. When a church throws in with a particular candidate or political party it becomes nearly impossible to maintain a prophetic edge. The Jones bill is not needed to preserve the churches' prophetic voice as some claim; ironically, it would put in motion forces that surely will weaken it.

Indeed, columnist Cal Thomas recently wrote: "When churches become 'accepted' and appendages of political parties and politicians, they tend to depart from their primary obligations and opportunities and become identified with earthly causes and political kingdom-building." And, Ed Young, a Southern Baptist pastor from Houston, recently confessed to The New York Times: "I just think the religious entities of America need to keep their prophetic voice. And you lose that if you send money to politicians or openly support them during an election season."

3. Finally, churches could be turned into virtual political action committees. Gifts to churches are deductible; contributions to candidates and parties are not. The Jones bill would provide an irresistible loophole for some to deduct political contributions by funneling them through churches. This would be a step backward in the quest for campaign finance reform and raise the stakes for politicians to exploit the good name and resources of churches.

The Jones bill would do churches no favor. It would compromise their autonomy, turn pulpit prophets into political puppets and politicize our houses of worship.

No thank you, Mr. Jones. We don't need that kind of "protection."