Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Quote of the Day: Did You Leave Your Religious Community Because It ‘Left’ You?
“The church is not partisan. The Catholic Church is probably a great example of a church that offends both Democrats and Republicans alike.” – – Rev. David Boettner, rector of the cathedral and vicar general of the Diocese of Knoxville, Tennessee.
My heart goes out to all those church and synagogue leaders who try to lead their communities and congregations with integrity and honor. Too often, some of them go far beyond the content that they should be sharing with their members. What drives a religious leader to indulge (and I do mean to use that word) in spreading political positions? Have they considered the implications of acting in this way? I’ve come to my own conclusions.
First, I think there are some leaders who are simply zealots, which I think primarily describes the far Left. They think they are correct in their beliefs, and those people who believe otherwise are terribly misguided at best, or evil at worst. These are the spiritual leaders who are supposed to bring their members to a closer relationship with G-d and each other, but they are certain to offend at least a percentage of their community that believes that church sermons should be politics-free or shouldn’t denigrate their own political views. Preaching politics from the pulpit is arrogant, thoughtless, and inconsiderate; if a religious leader can’t keep his views to himself, he doesn’t belong at the pulpit.
Another reason for religious leaders preaching politics is because they don’t know how to clarify for themselves and their community the reasons for not speaking on politics, but they are also afraid to be disliked or rejected (particularly if a group within the community disagrees with their positions). One aspect of being a religious leader (it would seem to me) is to demonstrate courage in the face of adversity. That means that you may preach on inclusiveness and tolerance, but you won’t voice a political agenda.
There is also the issue of people who want their religious leader to take a public position on politics; in other words, they are trying to coerce them to “speak to their side.” Religious leaders are certainly entitled to their own views, but they are out of line to take public positions on specific political ideas. If their congregants reject that decision to remain neutral, they can simply look for a new church.
Another issue is that people say they want their pastor to help them relate the bible to their own lives. An excellent way to do this is for the pastor not to list off a palette of views, but instead to ask questions of his members, explaining that it is their challenge and responsibility to answer those questions for themselves, as they relate their lives to the words of the Bible.
There are other rationales we can give for preaching politics, and I encourage you to list them in your comments. But I think it’s also helpful to look at the restrictions that the Internal Revenue Service has enacted:
What political activities are prohibited under the Internal Revenue Code?
Religious organizations, as well as all other organizations exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, are prohibited from participating or intervening, directly or indirectly, in a political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for elective public office. This prohibition encompasses a wide array of activities. It precludes direct political campaign intervention, including the making of statements, whether oral, written or in an electronic medium, supporting or opposing any candidate, political party or political action committee (“PAC”); creating a PAC; rating candidates; and providing or soliciting financial support (including loans or loan guarantees) or in-kind support for any candidate, political party or PAC. It also precludes indirect political campaign intervention of a sort that reflects bias for or against any candidate, political party or PAC, such as distributing biased voter education materials or conducting a biased candidate forum or voter registration drive.
Must religious organizations restrict their discussion of issues during election campaign periods?
No. The political campaign intervention prohibition does not restrict discussions of issues that are not linked to support for or opposition to candidates. The fact that candidates may align themselves on one side or another of an issue does not restrict the ability of religious organizations to engage in discussions of that issue. That said, a religious organization may nonetheless violate the political campaign intervention prohibition if it communicates preferences for or against particular candidates as part of its issue discussions.
What is the likelihood that a religious leader will be able to be objective, and not take sides, in these types of discussions? Why allow for discussions that are not faith-related and are likely to create conflict within the community?
What conclusions do you draw from these thoughts I’ve shared?
My advice: don’t preach politics from the pulpit.
Published in General
I would stay. The “pastor” would need to leave.
For every two that leave, how many choose to stay, or choose to come, for the hearing of the Gospel?
Kudos to you!
A clarification on my earlier comment: I left a church, but I did not leave The Church. I found a church that teaches and preaches the Gospel and is faithful to the Bible. My former church had changed to suit the preferences of the Democratic Party.
*****
This post is part of the Quote of the Day (QOTD) Group Writing project on Ricochet. We welcome regular contributors and newbies who want to share a quote from the past or present and start a conversation! The October QOTD Signup Sheet is here.
Without the issue of tax status, the question might be easier to answer. The tax-free status of religious institutions I believe was an invention of our Founders. Maybe the issue needs to be revisited. It seems that the reason churches are not taxed had to do with religious freedom at the founding, but has now taken on a new face. Perhaps all churches should pay a minimal level of tax on a flat-fee basis that would apply to all churches. Then the State would have no need to issue complex rules about political participation, and congregations could decide how political they wish to get. Individuals and families would then be totally free to choose which religious institution met their needs, or to change their current one to meet their needs.
This is an intriguing option, RB. Thanks!
If you tax the churches, you’ll get more church involvement in politics, not less.
I can’t say I would agree with that RushB. I think we need to do more to encourage religion in the country, not discourage it. The issue is the Liberal bent of society, not that religious are Liberal. The religions are just reflecting society. We need to change society. Plus, I don’t think religions change the vote outcome. Most people pick the churches and specific parishes that in harmony with their already formed beliefs. If they are not in harmony, they usually ignore the politics, as you can see by the comments in this post.
We definitely should not do what Europe does, which has the State support all churches with taxpayer funds.
And just how hard is it to change society, Manny?
I have a bunch of Christian friends who have changed churches, or denominations, when their current one approved homosexual clergy and “marriage”.
Definitely agree about your first sentence.
Extremely hard in answering your second. I don’t expect to see it in my lifetime.
I don’t blame them in response to your third. Their original denomination changed the rules of the game. They broke a covenant.
The compromise was clear – set up legal unions for same-sex couples, marriage for opposite sex couples.
I was in favor with that. I saw nothing wrong with it.
Yes, it was clear, and I’m old enough to remember the gay community (or at least its activist spokesmen) claiming at that time that civil unions were all they wanted – you know, just the same legal protections such as visiting rights in a hospital, and inheritance rights…..
Agreed.
I dunno, RushBabe…I can definitely foresee some downsides. For example, the IRS in the past has been weaponized against conservative groups, and I can well imagine it being wielded against churches that don’t toe the Leftist line on issues such as transgender ideology, homosexual “marriage”, abortion, etc. And the tax money has to come from somewhere – perhaps churches would be less able to do the charitable work that they do if they are having to budget for taxes.
Or maybe they should just follow the constitution. Imagine if the government actually followed “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Unfortunately Stad, enough Liberal denominations approved of gay marriage and perform marriage ceremonies. I’m with Jean, it’s almost cause for my lifetime.
I was against civil unions. What is the distinction between that and marriage? I could see none and I felt then I had to then acknowledge their status. The difference between civil Union and marriage is just semantics. Perhaps in retrospect it may have been best if I consented to civil unions. Perhaps not. I haven’t made up my mind. (1) They would have never stopped at civil unions. By now they would have gotten marriage anyway. (2) I can remain in good conscience that the whole notion that homosexual coupling is an absurdity.
I respect your position, Manny. My thinking at the time was that maybe by granting civil unions, gay couples would be satisfied with whatever legal benefits would result. Was I ever wrong….I have since learned that tearing down long-standing norms is the goal.
Liberals are never satisfied. Still if they only got civil unions then (when was it, about ten years ago?) the rest of society may not have gone along with marriage. But I still hold, what’s the difference? It’s just semantics.
Semantics is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. Semantics is the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text. With Obergefell, marriage wasn’t re-defined, it was de-defined. So called same-sex marriage means nothing. There is a huge difference between marriage and civil union.
I don’t agree with you on this one, Manny. Words mean things. If we had been able to preserve the meaning of the word “marriage” as the public, committed union of one man and one woman, I think we would be better off. It’s important for our words to convey reality. And it hard for me to not think that the redefining (destruction, really) of marriage normalized the idea that gender doesn’t matter. I think it softened the ground for the trans nonsense.
So tell me what the difference in tangible terms between civil unions and marriage. I’m not referring to a Catholic definition of marriage. I’m speaking about a secular definition of marriage. Catholic definition of marriage is set aside for the Catholic Church. Society has a general definition of marriage and as far as I can see it’s the same thing as civil union. Approving of civil unions is the same thing as approving of secular society’s definition of marriage.
What tangible difference is there? The tax benefits would have been the same, the children connection to gay parents would have been the same, adoption rules would have been the same, heritable laws would have been the same, hospital rules and end of life decisions would have been the same. I’m not referring to a specific Catholic sacramental marriage. That’s strictly Catholic. I’m referring to a general definition of marriage. The only difference would be the difference in words, that is semantics.
By the way, definition 3B of semantics in Webster’s:
“the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings”
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semantics
The difference between “civil unions” and “marriage” in a general sense is a desired political effect through the use of words. The desired political effect is a difference in words without a distinction in fact.
I don’t disagree with you about the practical effects. Where we differ is that I think the difference in words is important. The distinction in words means that they are regarded as two different things, which they are in essence even if there aren’t any legal differences.
Churches do not perform civil unions.
You mean like a Presbyterian church? I don’t know if they could if they wanted to. What would stop them? If they could not, then the Civil Union law would not have lasted. Liberals with the support of Liberal denominations would have forced a change. It would only have been temporary.
That’s why I said I wasn’t sure I had regrets. But as I now have thought this through, my comment to Perceval confirms I’m glad I did not support it. Civil Unions laws would not have lasted long. They would have fallen in short time.
I think you’re right about that, unfortunately, as ultimately it was really about tearing down the traditional view of marriage. The desire for some legal protections was just a fig leaf.