The IRS versus All Saints

Much has been made recently about the IRS attempting to deny tax-exempt status for a local Pasadena congregation, All Saint Episcopal Church. Mark D. Roberts, pastor of Irvine Presbyterian Church, has weighed in on this at his fine blog, here. Mark is performing a great service, carefully investigating and analyzing both sides of the issue. The original story in the Los Angeles Times is here.

The IRS charges that former All Saints pastor, George Regas, preached a sermon just before the election in 2004 which was in favor of John Kerry, and against George Bush. The attempt to "influence" an election from the pulpit is forbidden by the IRS tax code.

The question of whether Regas violated the IRS code is one question. Another would be whether the tax code is correct, or ought to be overturned. Another question is about the application of this archaic code.

Several web sites from the political left seem to suggest, imply, accuse the IRS of going after "liberal" churches who oppose the war in Iraq, see here, here, and here.

But something interesting is happening. Before this turns into a partisan ink-blot test, the Los Angeles Times reports that some conservative church leaders have been critical of this case.

Indeed, in 1998, according to one report, eight churches were reported to the IRS for this infraction, all of them conservative. So let's stop the hand wringing about this administration attempting to silence churches. This is one case, a very public case. And the IRS has gone after conservative churches before.

In a 1997 article in Christianity Today, (subscription required), conservative lawyer and defender of religious liberty, Jay Sekulow, defended a church for doing almost exactly what George Regas did at All Saints.

At the Church at Pierce Creek, the pastor in 1992 told his congregation they could vote for anyone, but that anyone who voted for Bill Clinton would be committing a sin! The church took out a full-page ad in the Washington Times and in USA Today severely criticizing Bill Clinton for being pro-abortion and pro-gay rights.

George Regas, in his sermon, criticized both Bush and Kerry, but not evenly. Bush's policies were severely criticized by Regas. There was no doubt, even though Regas never said so in so many words, that while not exactly favoring John Kerry, he was adamantly opposed to George Bush. And by implication, Jesus was also opposed to George Bush.

In the Pierce Creek case, ACLJ attorney Sekulow maintains that the church did not violate the IRS code, in part because no political campaign benefited financially. Sekulow points out that the ads did not tell people whom to vote for, only that voting for Clinton would be a sin.

Here is a section from the Pierce Creek article in CT.

"I don't think any church should be regulated by the IRS with regard to what pastors say from the pulpit or in their writings," says Sekulow. "The IRS has gone way overboard and way outside its authority in this whole area, and they need to get out of it."

Beyond the facts of any particular case is a debate over whether the IRS code is constitutional. Sekulow believes it is not, and he is not alone.

"The practice of churches and clergy engaging in political rhetoric and activity is something that predates the Constitution," Hammar says. "The Church at Pierce Creek may have crossed over the line, but it's a highly questionable line to begin with from a legal perspective."

While some consider church-state separation the pinnacle of a free society, others hold that unfettered speech is paramount.

"The church should not be muzzled," Sekulow says. "If a black pastor in Louisiana wants to say, 'Don't vote for David Duke,' I think he has the right to say that and not to worry about tax-exempt status being revoked."

In addition, to the whining and moaning of the Bush administration "targeting" anti-war pastors or churches through using the IRS, it should be known that a well-known case of a conservative church losing its tax-exempt status during the Clinton years, here. The parallels are eerily similar. And the Church at Pierce Creek actually did lost its 501(c)3 tax-exempt status.

Personally, I think for Regas to suggest that he was fair in his sermon to both candidates did that he dis not violate the letter of the IRS tax law, is foolish. I understand the fear Regas and All Saints have in issuing an apology. It might appear that they were being "silenced" for their views. Again, I do not think so. It was the forum in which those views were expressed that seems to be at issue.

However, I think it more foolish for the IRS to be going after churches in this manner. The gospel has political implications, and for pastors not to be able to address those implications from the pulpit is just not right. Of course, the question is, I suppose, how pastors and/or churches address those issues. Instead of a one-sided diatribe, open and honest debate with both sides seems to be the more reasonable way to approach it.

Religious conservatives have every right to decry abortion, they see it as a moral issue. Religious liberals have every right to dissent and protest the current WOT, they see it as a moral issue. If not allowed the ability to dissent and protest, the gospel becomes trivialized, and faith is compartmentalized to only what "affects me."

I will be interested to see how this story plays out in the weeks and months ahead.