Civil Disobedience ... from Conservative Christians

I normally associate civil disobedience with more liberal causes and people, like Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but, tomorrow, Sunday, September 28, approximately 36 ministers from 20 states will preach overtly political sermons and challenge the law restricting 501(c)(3) charitable groups from engaging in partisan political activity. These ministers are being encouraged in this course of action by the Alliance Defense Fund, the conservative answer to the ACLU.

According to Erik Stanley, a lawyer for the ADF, in a story published by the Washington Post, "The sermon will be an evaluation of conditions for office in light of scripture and doctrine. They will make a specific recommendation from the pulpit about how the congregation would vote. They could oppose a candidate. They could oppose both candidates. They could endorse a candidate. They could focus on a federal, state or local election."

Somewhat disingenuously, Mr. Stanley went on to say, "We're not encouraging any congregation to violate the law. What we're encouraging them to do is exercise their constitutional right in the face of an unconstitutional law." Actually, the ADF is encouraging the ministers and the congregations to violate the law. Whether an individual likes a law or not or thinks the law is constitutional or not is beside the point. If you disobey the law, you have violated the law. If you encourage someone to flaunt the law, you are encouraging them to violate the law.

In a Pew Forum Q&A, Robert W. Tuttle, David R. and Sherry Kirschner Berz Research Professor of Law and Religion, The George Washington University Law School, explained the issues involved. The first response sets an historic overview for the issue.

Before 1954, section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code permitted nonprofit organizations to endorse political candidates while remaining exempt from federal income tax. But in 1954, the U.S. Congress amended this part of the code to say that a charitable organization loses its tax-exempt status if it intervenes in a political campaign. Why did Congress add this restriction?
Many members of Congress, including Lyndon B. Johnson, a senator at the time, voted for the amendment because they were concerned about nonprofit organizations funding their opponents' political campaigns. But because there was little debate over the amendment or how it would influence churches, we don't know precisely why Congress enacted the amendment.

Notably, the 1954 amendment is often misunderstood as limiting political advocacy, but the rule's actual purpose has to do with political contributions. Under the Internal Revenue Code, there are many different kinds of tax-exempt organizations. For example, section 527 of the code exempts all sorts of political organizations from federal income tax. But organizations that qualify as charitable groups under section 501(c)(3) are special because donors to these organizations may deduct their contributions from their own federal income taxes. So a primary purpose of the 1954 amendment was to prevent donors from deducting political contributions from their taxes.

I have been in parish ministry for 28 years now. In all of that time, I have never felt constricted by the IRS ruling that I could not engage in partisan politics from the pulpit. As an opinionated private citizen, I always had a political view and shared that with folks as a private citizen. I never saw a need to stand in the pulpit and, invoking the authority of God, say to the congregation, "Vote for this slate of candidates." I will say I have incurred the wrath of some church members because I would not endorse particular candidates or political parties from the pulpit.

What do you think? Should ministers be able to stand in the pulpit between now and November 4 and say to the people, "Vote for Obama/Biden or vote for McCain/Palin?" If so, why? If not, why not?