Riverwood Presbyterian Church

Politics

A Rare Agreement

by Clay Staggs

It isn’t terribly often that I find myself sympathetic to any of the statements of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, but this may be one.

This all centers around the latest idiotic statement coming out of a televangelist’s mouth - or, rather, computer. Bill Keller runs a minisitry through an internet site called “LivePrayer.com.” Keller sends out daily devotionals to his site’s subscribers. The May 11 devotional was a doozie. You can read the whole thing here. The point of it was to trash Mitt Romney, his campaign for President, and his religion. I don’t want to be misunderstood as being sympathetic theologically to Mormonism - I’m definitely not. But, regardless of anyone’s feelings about Mormonism, I think that most fair minded folks will find these statements from Keller’s devotional to be over the top:

If you vote for Mitt Romney, you are voting for satan! This message today is not about Mitt Romney. Romney is an unashamed and proud member of the Mormon cult founded by a murdering polygamist pedophile named Joseph Smith nearly 200 years ago. The teachings of the Mormon cult are doctrinally and theologically in complete opposition to the Absolute Truth of God’s Word. There is no common ground. If Mormonism is true, then the Christian faith is a complete lie. There has never been any question from the moment Smith’s cult began that it was a work of satan and those who follow their false teachings will die and spend eternity in hell. This message is about the top Christian leaders in our nation who are supporting this cult members quest to become the next President of the United States.

And that’s just the first paragraph.

Now, the reaction from Americans United for Church and State was predictable. They’re calling for Keller’s organization’s tax-exempt status to be revoked for engaging in political activities. Read about that here.

I think that Keller has definitely crossed the line. And, for whatever it’s worth, I think lots of churches and Christian ministries with tax-exempt status are doing this too, though perhaps not as egregiously and boldly as Keller did. Perhaps the draconian remedy of revocation isn’t quite called for yet. That’d be hard to say definitively without knowing what the ministry’s history has been with the IRS. But, I’m much more in agreement with AUSCS than I typicaly find myself on this one, for sure.

Interestingly, I just got a new ruling from the IRS on this very issue on Friday. The ruling gave guidance to non-profits about what does and doesn’t cross the line into prohibited politicking. Here are some of the hypotheticals the IRS gave in the ruling:

Situation 5. Minister C is the minister of Church L, a section 501(c)(3) organization and Minister C is well known in the community. Three weeks before the election, he attends a press conference at Candidate V’s campaign headquarters and states that Candidate V should be reelected. Minister C does not say he is speaking on behalf of Church L. His endorsement is reported on the front page of the local newspaper and he is identified in the article as the minister of Church L. Because Minister C did not make the endorsement at an official church function, in an official church publication or otherwise use the church’s assets, and did not state that he was speaking as a representative of Church L, his actions do not constitute campaign intervention by Church L.

Here’s another:

Situation 9. Minister F is the minister of Church O, a section 501(c)(3) organization. The Sunday before the November election, Minister F invites Senate Candidate X to preach to her congregation during worship services. During his remarks, Candidate X states, “I am asking not only for your votes, but for your enthusiasm and dedication, for your willingness to go the extra mile to get a very large turnout on Tuesday.” Minister F invites no other candidate to address her congregation during the Senatorial campaign. Because these activities take place during official church services, they are attributed to Church O. By selectively providing church facilities to allow Candidate X to speak in support of his campaign, Church O’s actions constitute political campaign intervention.

One More:

Situation 21. Church P, a section 501(c)(3) organization, maintains a web site that includes such information as biographies of its ministers, times of services, details of community outreach programs, and activities of members of its congregation. B, a member of the congregation of Church P, is running for a seat on the town council. Shortly before the election, Church P posts the following message on its web site, “Lend your support to B, your fellow parishioner, in Tuesday’s election for town council.” Church P has intervened in a political campaign on behalf of B.

As a general matter, the IRS says, “A communication is particularly at risk of political campaign intervention when it makes reference to candidates or voting in a specific upcoming election.” Given these examples and the Service’s generalization, I think that Keller ought to be worried. And that’s probably a good thing.