During political season, clergy must walk a fine line

The presidential election season is in full force, and clergy across the country have a unique challenge to identify moral issues of the day and teach how their faith traditions respond to those issues. Yet, there are legal boundaries that require clergy hold back certain kinds of opinions.

The IRS tax code says clergy must not advocate a political party or endorse a candidate from the pulpit or in any written publication.

Where does this law come from?

The modern history of prohibiting houses of worship from engaging in political legislation started in 1934 when Congress amended the tax code to say congregations would lose their tax exempt status if a “substantial part of their activities were geared towards carrying on propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation.” The issue centered on the activities of a nonprofit organization, the National Economy League, which opposed legislation introduced by U.S. Sen. David Reed, a Pennsylvania Republican.

That legislative battle that laid the groundwork twenty years later when then-U.S. Sen. Lyndon Johnson, a Texas Democrat, pushed and got passed the Johnson Amendment. His amendment said, “that a tax exempt organization does not participate in or intervene in (including publishing or distributing statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” Johnson was engaged in a re-election campaign and went after his opponent from the Republican ticket. The opposing candidate, Dudley Daugherty, was able to garner support from two major nonprofit organizations The Facts Forum — sponsored by oilman H.L. Hunt — and the Committee on Constitutional Government. It was also a time when the fear of Communism played a major role in American politics. Johnson realized that the law as it then existed only prohibited nonprofits from lobbying elected officials. He then added the current language to prevent nonprofits, including congregations and clergy, from engaging in advocacy on a political campaign or on behalf of a candidate. President Eisenhower signed the bill into law in 1954.

The origin of this legislation was related to an election challenge Johnson faced rather than to the First Amendment of free speech. The IRS began to clarify the meaning and application of the law in relation to religious institutions. The IRS says, “that leaders of organizations cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization.”

In the following years the IRS has spoken to Congress about clergy and their sermons. At a hearing before the House Ways and Means Committee in 2002, a congressman asked IRS commissioner Steven Miller: “But if you have a minister speaking from the pulpit on a Sunday morning, maybe a rabbi from the synagogue or temple, saying that he had been told by God about somebody, that somebody should be elected, somebody should be defeated, is that political activity?”

“That would constitute political activity,” Miller responded.

Clearly there is some degree of ambiguity in the application of the law. Miller went on to say, “The pastor, the minister,or the rabbi can speak to issues of the day, but, to the extent that they start tying it to particular candidates and to a particular election, it begins to look more and more like either opposition to a particular candidate or favoring a particular candidate.”

The question is how does the IRS really determine specific criterion given the many ways clergy communicate their teachings — the pulpit, pastoral letters, emails and online streaming of lectures and classes? Is it possible to expect clergy to understand these nuances as they teach the values of their faith traditions in response to major moral questions of the day?

I think there is another issue for both clergy and congregation to consider. It goes beyond the theological dimension of stating an opinion about a candidate and a political party. Is the worship service, including the sermon, geared towards being an inclusive experience?

In other words, if the clergy engages in the discussion on partisan politics, does that create alienation amongst segments of the congregation who do not share the same viewpoint? So clergy can speak on their view of the truth about an issue, such as race relations, terrorism, or the economy. But connecting that opinion to a candidate or political party during an election season violates the Tax Code of the IRS.

Has this law served us well? Or is it a violation of Free Speech inhibiting the religious leaders from speaking their minds?

Recent comments from some politicians have called for repealing the Johnson Amendment in favor of having no restraints upon clergy to speak their mind.

I’m simply concerned that eliminating that boundary will taint the worship environment and culture of any congregation.

Obviously it is a time for clergy to speak to how faith traditions can provide critical guidance to help worshipers connect the dots on theological issues like social justice.

Let’s hope clergy use good judgment and remember that speaking on a political issue in a public forum requires careful consideration of the issue and its impact upon the congregation.

This story was originally published July 25, 2016 at 9:51 AM with the headline "During political season, clergy must walk a fine line."