The political endorsement was clear, although the words were carefully chosen.
New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop, clearly wanted to inspire his supporters, even his own priests, to back Barack Obama for president. Still, he stressed that his endorsement was personal, not corporate.
”I will not be speaking about the campaign from the pulpit or at any church function,” the bishop told reporters in a 2007 conference call that drew low-key, calm news coverage. ”That is completely inappropriate. But as a private citizen, I will be at campaign events and help in any way that I can.”
The reaction was different after the Rev. Luke Emrich preached to about 100 evangelicals at New Life Church this past weekend, near Milwaukee.
Veering from Scripture into politics, he said his beliefs about abortion would control his vote.
I believe that a church ought to be able to state which candidates are closer in tune with the church’s teachings – to their own members. So that the pulpit, leaflet in the pews, and direct mail to its own members. I view it as freedom of religion/first amendment issue. I do not think a church ought to be making political contributions to a candidate or going outside of its own ranks in support of a candidate. I think a church should be able to produce a handout saying how a candidate stands on abortion, the sanctity of marriage, the death penalty – all would have theological implications which could be relevant to a church and its mission.
So, when is a cleric no longer a cleric? If I am anywhere in a clerical collar I believe I represent the church, so if +Gene shows up at a campaign event voicing pro-candidate sentiments is that not an endorsement?
I believe that clergy have the obligation to speak to the issues from a Christian perspective, but we should never explicitly or implicitly endorse candidates.
I don’t have a lot of respect for clerics who don’t put their money where their mouth is. If its that important to Christian mission to support X candidate, then forgo your tax exempt status and go whole hog and get regulates as a Political Action Committee. Since everyone seems to be clamouring for more regulation, this should be in tune with their logic.
Sorry, typo: regulated not regulates.
Best I can do with a head cold and Sudafed Cold and Cough medicine.
Because of the indelible character of ordination, which +Gene, Dr Jefferts Schori et al seem not to appreciate, no matter where the cleric goes, whether he intends to or not, he is a cleric and thus a representative of the Church and of the Lord. So regardless of whether +Gene intends to go to political functions as Mr Robinson, private citizen, or as a Prince of the Church, he is always a prince of the Church, poor apostolic example though he may be. So if his intention really is to go as a private citizen, he’d best stay home, because it’s impossible for him to do, just as it’s impossible for the Prince of Wales to go anywhere in public as plain old Charles Windsor.
The tax code should not determine what a cleric says or does. I reject the underlying premise.
If Larry Flint has the freedom to put up a nude Palin look alike…I think the clergy ought to be able to say whatever they want…and besides under O’Bama, everyone who makes less than $250,000 per year is going to be a tax exempt organization…so where will the tax code end and civil freedoms begin?
I’m with Archer.
The Church takes in tax exempt money and yet still receives all of the services that the government provides. Now they want to spend tax-free money on influencing government policy? Fine. But relinquish your tax-exempt status as far as your non-charitable activities are concerned.
If we applied the tax code fairly then I would have no problem. But witness the tradition in predomonitely African American congregations of welcoming Democratic candidates to use the pulpit. If Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama can preach from one pulpit and African American pastors endorse those candidates then why can’t evangelical pastors endorse the candidates they want to from the pulpit.
I do agree that Churches should not endorse political candidates. However, I believe that Church should endorse positions.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
The fact that the tax code determines what people can say or not is wrong. Tax privileges or exemptions should not be used to regulate speech. This is, in my opinion, an improper use of the taxing power. I am amused to see that Hopper thinks it should.
How on earth is Gene Robinson seen as a “private citizen?” He is always a bishop (as indicated above, #6.) So theoretically he may NEVER speak to affirm one position. But I disagree with that premise. It IS the role of the Church to teach Biblical truths and their application to today’s world. If emphasizing one particular truth (i.e. protection of the unborn and the weak) calls for pointing out that one candidate supports the Biblical position, that should be pointed out. That is NOT endorsing one candidate over another; that is clarifying the one who supports the position.
The fact that the tax code determines what people can say or not is wrong. Tax privileges or exemptions should not be used to regulate speech. This is, in my opinion, an improper use of the taxing power.
The Tax Code isn’t limiting or regulating speech. The question is: Why should an organization removed from the responsibility of paying towards government services be allowed to use exempt money for a political purpose?
Re #15
[blockquote]The question is: Why should an organization removed from the responsibility of paying towards government services be allowed to use exempt money for a political purpose? [/blockquote]
You are aware that you just described half the tax exempt organizations in Washington, right?
Christian leaders should not publicly endorse political candidates. Taking positions on the issues is one thing. But political candidates are a messier mix than an issue.
As VGR counts himself a Christian leader, he should not have made this endorsement—no matter how much he may want to embarrass Obama and reinvigorate the McCain campaign.
15, Brian, of course it is. Tax exemption is a privilege and it is being used un such a way as to limit speech. What if the government passed a law that would remove one’s tax exemption unless it employed only white people or to support some other goal of which you disapprove? They have the power to do it you know. Would that be a proper use of the taxing power?
I am concerned with the means the government is using. I am not concerned, for the pruposes of this discussion, whether we think that the ends are good or not. I think the tax code should be used to raise revenue and not to coerce people into government approved behavior. I am arguing for a change in the law. One thing you could do is eliminate tax exemptions accross the board. But lets not pretend that the tax code is not used to modify peoples behavior.
On the other hand as long as it is the law then is should be equally applied to all. The fact that it is selectively applied is also wrong.