The Third Commandement and the Alliance Defense Fund

Not to overtly endorse Fox News, but this article refers to a new initiative purposed by the Alliance Defense Fund, an organization that claims to be the “Christian” version of the ACLU, which calls on pastors to endorse candidates from the pulpit in an attempt to challenge IRS rules that prohibit non-profits from endorsing political candidates under the auspices of the free exercise clause of the first Amendment. They claim that “The Internal Revenue Service, in conjunction with radical organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State, have used the Johnson amendment {the IRS code in question} to create an atmosphere of intimidation and fear for any church that dares to speak Scriptural truth about candidates for office or issues”.

With this new initiative, The Alliance Defense Fund might possibly have swept aside moveon.org as my least favorite quasi–political/legal organization working in the US. They apparently missed that whole 3^rd commandment thing from that esoteric, outdated Old Testament. To wrap one’s secular political and public policy viewpoint in the holy cloth of God’s sanction by suggesting an implicit Biblical endorsement of a particular viewpoint through a specious line of moral extrapolation is I suspect the kind of thing that commandment suggests avoiding. Perhaps, I am wrong and it doesn’t go any further than to suggest one is only sinning when they put the word “God” in front of a choice expletive. Who can know?

So back to the point: Why should we as Christians stand up against this new initiative and appeal to our pastors not to get involved? I will release a point by point explanation over the next few days\weeks as time permits. The points will include risks to the financial health of churches, basic theological problems with such approaches, the very secular worldly reasons this issue is being pushed, and, if time permits, a review of why this is bad constitutional law in addition to some philosophical thoughts on why we have the Establishment Clause.

1. The Risk to the Financial Health of Individual Congregations.

The first prudent issue a congregation member should examine before endorsing the ADF plan is what is the risk with and what might be gained from joining with the ADF in this cause. The risk is the loss of non-profit status. The potential gain is the ability for a religious organization to endorse (in every sense of the word) political candidates and remain a non-profit. We will begin by exploring more fully what loosing non-profit status would mean for a church and the probability of realizing such a risk.

First, the realistic chances of this issue being overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. This particular IRS code is about as clear cut and settled of a law that one will find. It is important to understand that the Supreme Courts loves precedent. The Supreme Court expects incredibly compelling new reasons to upturn established law because of their preference towards the status quo. If you think I am wrong please read O’Connor’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. She wants to overturn Roe v. Wade but does not out of respect for precedent. This reveals a great deal about what goes on in the mind of a Justice deliberating a decision.

So the question becomes: Can the ADF provide a compelling reason under the Constitution that this should be overturned? The details of the IRS code were constructed carefully in an attempt to strike a proper balance between the free exercise [of religion] clause and the establishment clause (which prohibits the state establishment, i.e., support, of any church or religion) in the First Amendment. For example, under the current code, pastors, in their individual person, can endorse political candidates as well as preach from the pulpit moral and religious precepts that should guide parishioners’ electoral decision making up to the point of an explicit endorsement of a candidate. It is disingenuous of the ADF to suggest that the current law would have prevented churches from speaking out from the pulpit against an issue such as slavery or to broadly condemn, as a Church, those in Washington who supported such sinful policies.

It is of a high probability that the court will hold with the IRS code because the code does not overtly infringe on the free exercise clause and any further liberality in the law would run a dangerous course smack into the Establishment Clause (will explain more in the next post). Most experts agree the ADF case is one of long odds to even be heard, let alone won.

So when the Supreme Court effectively upholds the Johnson Amendment, the church body, not the pastors or the ADF lawyers, will be bear the tax burden the IRS will lay at there door. The church will be subject to for-profit entity taxes and will be assessed certain steep penalties as well. Having seen much in the way of church finances I suspect this change in legal status would bankrupt many churches. Further, if the church remains solvent it will lose valuable resources given for the holy purpose of ministry. If a congregation or church leader believes this extra bit of freedom expression is truly necessary to fulfill God’s commands they should, through their individual governing laws, change the church’s legal structure to accommodate such speech. Bob Jones University is a good example of an organization that did just that. This way the individuals who have to bear the financial burden of such decisions are the ones involved in the process of making it. It is abhorrent for lawyers who know the real probability of victory, or worse are too incompetent understand it, are promoting such irresponsibility. Engaging in the promotion or execution of risky behavior without bearing any material risk is what one could call “Moral Hazard” and it is what the ADF, like Washington and Wall Street before, are peddling. It is wrong. For the sake of your church’s divinely appointed responsibility to meet the ministry needs of the church body and to serve the specific missions into the community and the wider world, stand up against any further “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” or its like.