All Saints and the IRS

In Sunday's sermon the Rev. Ed Bacon gave a powerful message about the IRS's recent determination to drop its "case" against the church. All Saints posted a full set of documents, including a video of the sermon, on its website. It is a stirring sermon and well worth watching. While I am pleased with the conclusion of the IRS examination, I am not sure I buy some of Rev. Bacon's conclusions.

The case arose from a sermon which was given a week before the 2004 election which the Rector Emeritus, George Regas, staged a mock debate between John Kerry and George Bush and Jesus. Regas put a phrase in the sermon that supposedly exhorted the congregation to follow its conscience. But, at least in my reading of the sermon (I did not hear it) Regas stepped over the line permitted for charitable institutions. The IRS, not untypically, offered only a partial exoneration to the church. It made a determination that Regas had violated the prohibition for non-profits to become directly involved in elections but it said with current procedures that there were enough protections that the violation would not occur again. Their letter was obtuse, which could lead any reasonable person to conclude that the IRS had acted arbitrarily in their review of Regas' sermon.

Bacon made a vigorous and thoughtful case for the involvement of churches in issues of the day. And here I think he is correct. Churches have a responsibility to become involved in their societies including arguing for what Bacon characterized as issues of "freedom." At one time Bacon characterized the Episcopal church as "the Republican party at prayer", a funny line but probably true. He also argued that it would be a regression for the church to now become an arm of the Democrat Party. But the balance between being a moral leader and a political one is hard. I would add to the proscription that Bacon offered about religious leaders not being beholden to either party that they also not be beholden to government. The scriptural reference that Bacon missed was “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” In my opinion many modern religionists put too much reliance on government as the solver of problems. But in my reading of the Bible, there is a constant, and reasonable, tension between government and religious practice and expression.

The standards for the appropriate level of political involvement by charities are a bit fuzzy. The traditional measure is "substantial" involvement. About two decades ago the Congress adopted something called the Conable election (named after the Member of Congress who drafted it) which set up a test for charitable organizations to be assured that they had not crossed over the line by following a series of standards and filing a disclosure. But there is still an express prohibition from endorsement of a particular candidate or providing direct aid to one candidate over another. And here, at least in my opinion, Regas' remarks crossed over the line.

As Pablo Eisenberg argued in the Chronicle for Philanthropy earlier in the year "Some nonprofit leaders are arguing that the laws prohibiting political activity are archaic and should be dropped. But doing so would set a dangerous precedent and cause nonprofit groups to lose one of their most important qualities — their independence from government and elected officials." He goes on to say "charities and foundations intelligently realize that staying away from direct political involvement is the price they must pay for continuing to be exempt from taxation and supported by tax-deductible gifts." The question in Rev. Regas' sermon is whether he stepped over the line of moral suasion to direct involvement.

Regas made a case against the doctrine of preemptive war and for additional support for the poor. And in my mind, had he stayed at that level all of what he said would have been within the bounds of appropriate expression. But as you re-read Regas' remarks there is a strong support for one approach to the both issues. In the sermon Regas said (supposedly in the voice of Jesus) "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster." He then went through a series of other issues where the clear tenor of his remarks rejected the policies of one candidate (Bush) over the other (Kerry). One of his comments claimed that "Conservative politicians with the blessing of the Religious Right have strongly advocated the dismantling of social programs that provide a decent life for children once they enter this world." Does that mean that any questioning of the efficacy of funding for these programs is inappropriate? Before Regas made the claim did he bother to look at funding for programs for the poor over time to discover how much money was being spent on these purposes? Were the programs actually "dismantled?" If only "conservatives" advocated dismantling of social programs why would a democrat president sign the major welfare reform legislation of the last thirty years? Regas specifically ignored the strong evidence that the net effect of many social programs was not to reduce the underlying problems they were created to address. Indeed, a key question that every Christian should address is whether government actually produces the positive results that Regas claimed or whether more determined social action by Christians would better serve the needs of the poor.

Bacon pointed out that the IRS actions against All Saints had chilled actions that some churches might have taken. He then went on to say "Because of the IRS's inconsistency and vagueness it is still an open question for us and our colleagues across the country whether we will be investigated again the next time any one of us is called upon to preach about the war, poverty, bigotry, or any other social and moral issues as they relate to current governmental policies. It therefore perpetuates the intimidation inherent in the threat of IRS investigations based on inferences rather than fact." But I am not sure that it would be wise to clarify in an absolute sense where the absolute boundary is for churches to engage in political activity. Clearly, at least from my perspective, many religious leaders have too high a connection to government and to its programs. That we as Christians are called to work on all of the issues that Bacon enumerated does not suggest that we should support all of those policies as only coming from the government.

Beginning with either the story of the Exodus through the story of Christ's birth, religious people have always had an uneasy relationship with government. That is simply a part of the nature of government and of religious faith. While I was uneasy about the IRS actions against what I believe to have been a minor violation of involvement in political campaigns by a former rector of the church, I am equally uneasy with the ready acceptance that many religious leaders offer to using the government as an instrument of Christian policy.