Church/State .... upcoming election anyone?

Here's some frustrating, sad and potentially illegal news of a IRS investigation of a Church in Pasadena accused of "interfering in an election" (that's right the last one - back in summer '04) and being threatened with all sorts of ballyhoo here a mere 1.5 months before the next election.

(I posted most of this as a comment to someone else's blog on the issue)

Interestingly this injunction by the IRS is under the 501 c3 tax designation, which prohibits advocating for one candidate or another. A c3 designation does allow you to lobby or advocate for policy, however - and spend up to a set amount of total funds/time on that (I believe the number to be 40%). The text of the message (delivered in 2004), although clearly anti Bush, was not the typical campaign advertisement for Kerry. In fact the preacher does not say "vote for Kerry" or "don't vote for Bush" - but rather focuses on a series of "vote for the best peacemaker/caretaker of the poor" which clearly falls within a c3 designation.

Partisanship is not technically a concern with a c3 designation - nor is advocacy of issues. Read in one way the sermon can be interpreted as a values message - and obviously anti Bush - but not pro anyone. The assumption that it is advocating for a candidate relies on a purely two party/candidate assumption, which with the option of writing in candidates is never the case.

I think the church could fight this along the lines that the speaker was:
- advocating healthy governmental behavior in-line with it's view of the Gospel - and advocating change, whether through current or future leadership is irrelevant.
- denouncing behavior that it considers unscriptural - even within it's own peer group (Religious orgs.)
- and that in the constitutional context amendments protecting free speach and separation of church and state clearly trump that section of the tax code.

Of course the argument that the church should not be involved with politics is familiar to me. Being Mennonite, that tradition, almost dogmatic in it's approach, is one I am familiar with - and truly despise. Unfortunately Christianity and our current empire are linked in the eyes of the world. That connection must either be cut, or the empire must be reformed if there is to be any postive change. Not participating is attempting to surrender a responsibility to our global neighbors that cannot be abandoned. The Bible is full of prophets and shepards going before kings to denounce their ways, if anything that sort of accountability is longed for here in D.C.

As to the Christian faith being born out of powerlessness - I'm not sure that's historically accurate. Sure, Christians were a small minority of people generally ignored or considered as a sect of Judiasm by Rome. But their powerlessness was in fact their power. Like Ghandi and King, it was through the moral message, and furthermore moral acts of the believers that drew in further converts. The doctrine was evolved from both the Jewish tradition but also the Stoic, epicurean and other traditions of Greece. These traditions, coupled with a legitimate and holy martyr, enabled many Romans to enact the values of their education through the life of a new faith. The work of the Apostles was strategic, not merely spiritual. Christianity became the way to live a belief with a strong intellectual component. The fact that Christians did not compromise this moral code - or intellectual consistency before Rome was their greatest strength.

Until of course Christianity was co-opted by Constantine and Christianity and Empire first became linked. Once that happened the intellectual impetus and consistency was no longer necessary - except to those few (whose writings were lucky enough to survive the ensuing Dark Ages) we now call Saints.