Churches, Elections, and the IRS

by Rev. Dr. Mark D. Roberts

Note: You may download this resource at no cost, for personal use or for use in a Christian ministry, as long as you are not publishing it for sale. All I ask is that you give credit where credit is due. For all other uses, please contact me at mark@markdroberts.com . Thank you.

A Disturbing Headline
Part 1 of the series: Churches, Elections, and the IRS
Posted for Tuesday, November 8, 2005

This morning a disturbing headline on the front page of the Los Angeles Times caught my eye: "Antiwar Sermon Brings IRS Warning." Oh no, I thought, another move by the government to squelch the freedom of the church. The subheading intrigued me further, "All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena risks losing its tax-exempt status because of a former rector's remarks in 2004." I'm quite familiar with All Saints in Pasadena, having several friends and family members who have attended there over the years. Plus, All Saints is well known in Southern California for its social action on the liberal/progressive side of the spectrum. It worried me to think that the church's opposition to the Iraq war would bring on some sort of IRS reprisals. The article explained that the IRS's concern focused on a sermon preached by the Rev. George F. Regas, former rector (head pastor) of All Saints. According to The Times, on October 31, 2004, two days before the last presidential election, Regas preached a sermon in which he imagined a debate between John Kerry, George W. Bush, and Jesus. The content of this debate, according to the IRS, amounted to advocacy for Senator Kerry, which violated the tax-exempt status of the All Saints Church. According to the law, churches are not allowed to endorse or to oppose political candidates under any circumstances.

As it turns out, the IRS's source was not by some right-wing group, but the Los Angeles Times itself, which, in an article on November 1, 2004, described Regas's sermon as "a searing indictment of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq."

The Times went on to explain that current rector of All Saints, J. Edwin Bacon, denied the IRS's charges: "We are so careful at our church never to endorse a candidate." He told his congregation last Sunday, "It's important for everyone to understand that the IRS concerns are not supported by the facts."

Rev. Regas, whose sermon has caused this crisis for his former parish, said in an interview that he was "surprised by the IRS action." He became suspicious that the IRS was "going after a progressive church person." According to The Times, Regas denied explicitly that he was trying to influence the congregation's vote in his October 31, 2004 sermon.

The Times reported that Regas said in his sermon that "good people of profound faith" could vote either for Bush or for Kerry. Moreover, the sermon was described as admonishing both Bush and Kerry. If this is accurate, then it makes the IRS appear badly mistaken in their action against All Saints. I'm no big fan of the IRS, let me tell you, but it seems odd that they'd pursue such a lost cause.

As I finished The Times article, something smelled fishy to me, but I wasn't sure where the odor was coming from. All Saints is very smart and experienced in political matters. I'd be shocked if they allowed one of their preachers, even the former rector, to be openly partisan two days before an election. And Rev. Regas himself has plenty of political and media savvy. It didn't make sense to me that he'd put his former church in such a difficult position by openly endorsing John Kerry. Yet it also made no sense that the IRS was chasing after wind so confidently. Something is rotten in the city of Pasadena.

In order to comment helpfully on this story, I sought out two kinds of information and found both of them online. First, I found some information on the tax code as it relates to churches and partisan activity. Second, I found a transcript of Rev. Regas's controversial sermon. This would allow me to analyze what he actually preached, not just what The Times reported or what he claimed to have preached.

What the Tax Code Actually Says (and Means)

The crucial portion of the Internal Revenue Code for the issue of churches and partisan politics is section 501(c)(3). Section 501 deals with exemption from tax on corporations; (c) provides a list of exempt organizations; (3) deals specifically with the issue of political campaigns. In 501(c)(3) a corporation is exempt from income tax if it "does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

The origin of this bit of tax code is ironic. It was added by the motion of Senator Lyndon B. Johnson and a voice vote of the Senate in 1954. There were no congressional hearings to debate the merits of Johnson's amendment. He made it, apparently, because he was tweaked about the use of funds from a tax-exempt organization being used to support a political opponent. For Johnson it was sweet revenge; for churches and the IRS it was the beginning of a mess.

The IRS website provides an authoritative interpretation of what this means in practice for churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax. (italics added)

So, the issue at hand with respect to All Saints Episcopal Church is this: Did the Rev. George Regas, in his sermon of October 31, 2004, directly or indirectly participate in, or intervene in, the political campaign for President of the United States? Regas and the church say he did not. The IRS says he did. Tomorrow I'll analyze the sermon to see who's right, or, as if often the case, if right falls somewhere in between the two extremes.

The Contested Sermon, Section 1
Part 2 of the series: Churches, Elections, and the IRS
Posted for Wednesday, November 9, 2005

Yesterday I began investigating a distressing face-off between the IRS and All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California. According the the IRS, a sermon preached in 2004 by the Rev. George Regas amounted to involvement in the presidential election. All Saints and Rev. Regas have denied this charge, arguing that the sermon was non-partisan, and it was simply a proclamation of "core moral values." If the IRS is correct, however, All Saints is in jeopardy of losing its tax-exempt status, since tax-exempt organizations are prohibited by law from "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign," according to the IRS website.

I will leave for later consideration of whether the tax code is morally correct. It may well be that the law is wrong and should be changed to allow churches to take part more directly in elections. But my concern at the moment is with whether the contested sermon by Rev. Regas did involve language that could reasonably be understood to endorse either John F. Kerry or George W Bush for President. The sermon is rather short, and you may want to read it (in a PDF format) before continuing with my analysis. Or you can download the sermon later to check and see if my analysis is accurate.

Examing the Sermon

The sermon begins: "If Jesus debated Senator Kerry and President Bush . . ." (p. 1). In fact Jesus doesn't debate either candidate in this sermon, since the candidates never speak. A more accurate title would be, "If Jesus scolded Senator Kerry and President Bush," because the sermon contains lots of reprimanding by Jesus and that's about it. Jesus never affirms either man.

The rest of the introduction to the sermon seems as if it would completely exonerate Rev. Regas from the IRS's charge. He says: "Jesus does win! And I don't intend to tell you how to vote." (p. 1, emphasis added) "Good people of profound faith will be for either George Bush or John Kerry for reasons deeply rooted in their faith. I want you to hear me on this." (p. 1) Then Rev. Regas adds: "Yet I want to say as clearly as I can how I see Jesus impacting your vote and mine." There seems little doubt, therefore, that on October 31, 2004 Rev. Regas was intending to impact the way the congregation would vote two days later in the presidential election. The question remains, however, whether the sermon advanced the cause of one candidate more than the other, and with sufficient obviousness to constitute a violation of the tax code.
		All Saints Episcopal Church contributes significantly to the life of Pasadena, California, both through its marvelous architecture and through its many programs. See, for example, the ministries of the Office for Creative Connections.

On the most obvious rhetorical level, throughout the rest of the sermon Jesus scolds both Kerry and Bush. Rev. Regas includes the following lines:

. . . I believe Jesus would say to Bush and Kerry. (p. 1)

Jesus confronts both Senator Kerry and President Bush. . . . (p. 2)

"President Bush, Senator Kerry: will you save us from all this suffering" (p. 2)

If Jesus debated President Bush and Senator Kerry, he would say to them: "Why is so little mentioned about the poor?" (p. 3)

But Jesus enters the debate and says to President Bush and Senator Kerry: "Poverty is a central issue in this political campaign." (p. 4)

Jesus would say with absolute clarity to Senator Kerry and President Bush: "There is something decadent about a Nation that denies human solidarity, that's more interested in private wealth than public wealth." (p. 4)

Six times in his sermon Rev. Regas has Jesus speaking to both Bush and Kerry, in every case bringing a word of rebuke. Again, this appears to be balanced and non-partisan. But if we look a little more closely, the balance soon disappears. Consider this passage of the sermon, for example:

Yet I believe Jesus would say to Bush and Kerry: "War itself is the most extreme form of terrorism. President Bush, you have not made dramatically clear what have been the human consequences of the war in Iraq . . . . Oh, the cost of your war." (p. 1)

Although Jesus began by speaking to Bush and Kerry, he focused his criticism on Bush, calling the war "your [Bush's] war."

A few paragraphs later, however, Jesus "confronts both Senator Kerry and President Bush," saying: "I will tell you what I think of your war." Jesus seems to be include Kerry in the criticism. But a few sentences later Jesus adds, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. . . ." Once more, a criticism that is apparently leveled at both candidates becomes focused only on President Bush.

According to Rev. Regas, after Jesus calls both Bush and Kerry to be peacemakers, he

turns to Presdient Bush again with deep sadness. "Is what I hear really true? Do you really mean that you want to end a decade-old ban on developing nuclear battlefield weapons . . . . Are you really going to resume nuclear testing? That is sheer insanity. . . . This is morally indefensible." (pp. 2-3).

Before summing up this section on war, Rev. Regas adds in his own voice,

The nuclear bomb is the most outright evil thing that human beings ever created. What does it say about the moral values of a nation that puts its security in nuclear weapons that are morally outrageous?

Then he concludes:

When you go to the polls on November 2nd – vote all yours values. Jesus places on your heart this question: Who is to be trusted as the world's chief peacemaker?

Now before I move on to the rest of the sermon, I want to pause for a moment and consider what we have seen. On a superficial level, Rev. Regas has Jesus rebuking both Bush and Kerry. Yet three times Jesus censures Bush alone, while never saying anything negative to Kerry in particular. Bush is primarily responsible for a war that exemplifies "the most extreme form of terrorism" (p. 1). His doctrine of preemptive war is "a failed doctrine" that has "led to disaster" (p. 2). And President Bush's policy with respect to nuclear weapons amounts to "sheer insanity" and is "morally indefensible." In fact, according to Rev. Regas, Bush is promoting "the most outright evil thing that human beings ever created."

So, after having Jesus blast away at President Bush, while Senator Kerry emerges virtually unscathed, Rev. Regas asks "Who is to be trusted as the world's chief peacemaker?" Even if Rev. Regas isn't all that excited about Senator Kerry, whom Jesus never commends, I don't think there's much doubt about the person Jesus would trust as the world's peacemaker. Even if Kerry isn't all that great, at least he hasn't promoted the most extreme form of terrorism, a failed doctrine that led to disaster, and the use of nuclear weapons that is morally indefensible insanity.

If you were listening to this sermon on October 31, 2004, would there be any question in your mind about whom the Rev. George Regas is telling you to vote for? I rather doubt it. It's hard for me to imagine how any objective person could deny that Rev. Regas is encouraging people to vote for Senator Kerry, or at least strongly discouraging them from voting for President Bush.

As the sermon continues, however, things get a little more complicated and, in my view, a little more interesting. I'll explain tomorrow.

The Contested Sermon, Section 2
Part 3 of the series: Churches, Elections, and the IRS
Posted for Thursday, November 10, 2005

Yesterday I began examining the sermon by the Rev. George Regas that has placed in jeopardy the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena. Since the story broke on Monday in the Los Angeles Times, the Times has run two related pieces, a front-page article on how evangelicals are supporting All Saints, and an op-ed piece by George Regas defending his actions. I'll get to these articles soon, but first I want to finish my examination of the sermon by Regas. The crucial question is whether or not that sermon can reasonably be understood to have been an effort by Regas to influence the presidential election of 2004. The IRS says "yes"; Regas and All Saints say "no." But at least we have the sermon so we can draw our own conclusions.

In my last post I showed that in Part I of the sermon, Regas's "Jesus" is peeved with both Senator Kerry and President Bush. Yet Jesus is especially and openly critical of Bush, while he has nothing negative to say about Kerry alone. So, one-third into the sermon, it seems pretty clear that Rev. Regas, though he may not be especially excited about Kerry, is urging the All Saints congregation not to vote for Bush. I don't know how one could draw any other conclusion from Part I of the sermon. In Part II, however, Jesus seems at first more balanced in his criticism of both candidates. The issue is poverty, and Jesus begins by saying to both Bush and Kerry, "Why is so little mentioned about the poor?" (p. 3). Yet, once again, Jesus criticizes Bush explicitly but not Kerry:
		The reverent and peaceful sanctuary of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena.

"And in the midst of [the poor getting a bad deal], President Bush asks and gets income tax reductions where 50% of the tax savings goes to the top 1% of the wealthiest Americans, those averaging $1,200,000 a year in income." (p. 3)

So the pattern we have seen earlier, with a general criticism of both candidates but then specific ire for Bush alone continues in Part II of the sermon.

After adding some choice words of criticism of the "Religious Right," who "have drowned out everyone else," and who, incidentally, were supporters of Bush in 2004, Jesus gets back on track by saying to both candidates,

"Poverty is a central issue in this political campaign. . . . This is not a partisan issue. But your [Bush's and Kerry's] failure and the failure of so many political leaders to help uplift those in poverty here and around the world – this will be judged a moral failure." (p. 4)

No doubt this statement, standing alone, is non-partisan.

At this point in the "debate" between Jesus, Bush, and Kerry, Rev. Regas interrupts things to speak in his own voice:

"Now as your preacher, I want to stay with the issue of poverty – but go to another level. I want to say a few words about abortion and reproductive choice." (p. 4)

He appears to think that abortion is a not good thing, though he never criticizes it explicitly. But Rev. Regas does have many negative things to say about those who would are on the "against abortion" side of things. (Regas does not speak of someone being "pro-life" but "against abortion.") Here are some of his statements:

Whether you are pro choice or against abortion, you do not have the right in this diverse, pluralistic society to force your beliefs and opinions on others. Nor does the President of the United States. There can never be a just law requiring uniformity of behavior on the abortion issue. (p. 4)

There is something vicious and violent about coercing a woman to carry to term an unwanted child. To force the unwanted on the unwilling, to use a woman's body against her will and choice, is morally repugnant. (p. 4)

Under George W. Bush the number of abortions increased substantially. [This is a result of the administration's economic policies.] Abortions increased because many more prospective mothers cannot afford the costs of hospital and of caring for a child. (p. 5)

So, according to Rev. Regas, President Bush's stand on abortion is "morally repugnant," and his policies have in fact contributed to the rise of abortions. Pretty stiff criticism. And, predictably, there is not a word of rebuke for John Kerry.

Now Jesus returns to the debate and says,

"Shame on all those conservative politicians in the nation's Congress and in State legislatures who have for years so proudly proclaimed their love for children when they were only fetuses – but ignored their needs after they were born." (p. 5)

"It is the cruelest irony how so many of these anti-abortion politicians have no interest in the things that make a newborn child healthy and beautiful. It violates every standard of decency to force a poor woman to have a child, and then deny her good prenatal care." (p. 5)

Then, speaking in his own voice, Rev. Regas continues:

All of this needs to be part of our thinking on November 2nd. 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. . . . .

No matter what rhetoric is used, any public policy that makes a child's life more miserable is an abomination before God. ¶ On November 2nd vote all your values. Bring a sensitive conscience to that ballot box.

So, Jesus has just blasted "conservative politicians." Regas has added that the policies of the Religious Right are "an abomination before God." Then he tells the congregation to vote their conscience. Honestly, I don't quite understand how Rev. Regas can see his sermon as non-partisan.

Part III of the sermon is a short conclusion, in which Rev. Regas, speaking in his own voice, encourages people to "hold on to hope that your life and witness count" (p. 6) To bolster his point, he includes a quotation from Senator Bobby Kennedy,

"Let no one be discouraged by the belief that there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills, against misery and ignorance, injustice and violence . . . . Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of our generation" (p. 6).

Other than quoting a Democratic icon, there is nothing in Part III that is partisan, or that even mentions Bush or Kerry. The sermon concludes with this exhortation:

When you go into the voting booth on Tuesday, take with you all that you know about Jesus, the peacemaker. Take all that Jesus means to you. Then vote your deepest values. Amen.

Out of context, this is clearly a non-partisan statement. But given what Regas and Jesus have said about peacemaking, and given Jesus's strongly worded condemnations of Bush, and the fact that Jesus says nothing negative about Kerry to balance several rebukes of the President, and that Regas has censured the Christian Right and those who are, like the President, anti-abortion, placing the preacher's words in context makes it pretty hard to see anything here other than strong encouragement to vote for Senator Kerry because that's what Jesus would want.

It would be more accurate to say that this sermon is aggressively anti-Bush than pro-Kerry. Regas and Jesus have nothing positive to say about Senator Kerry: no words of commendation or encouragement. But when the sermon repeatedly and strongly condemns President Bush for a variety of serious offenses, without saying one negative word about Senator Kerry in particular, it's hard to see this as a non-partisan effort.

Yet Rev. Regas has claimed, most recently in an op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times, that he did not violate the law in this sermon. In my next post I'll examine the case made by Rev. Regas.

The Won't-Be-Bullied Pulpit
Part 4 of the series: Churches, Elections, and the IRS
Posted for Friday, November 11, 2005

On Wednesday the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed piece by the Rev. Dr. George Regas called "The Won't-Be-Bullied Pulpit." The former rector of All Saints Church in Pasadena was responding to allegations by the IRS that a sermon he preached on October 31, 2004 may have violated the prohibition of church intervention in a political campaign.

Much of Rev. Regas's column deals with the larger issues of the role of church in society, especially as this impinges on issues of morality and politics. I resonate with much of what he writes, both as a Christian and especially as a preacher. So in my next post in this series I plan to deal with these larger and ultimately more important issues. But I should begin with the narrower question of whether or not the sermon preached by Rev. Regas on October 31, 2004 violated section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Rev. Regas strongly denies that his sermon violated the tax code. In this sermon, he writes, I took great care to say that I did not want to tell people how to vote, but that I was challenging them to go into the voting booth on Tuesday taking with them all that they knew about Jesus, the peacemaker. To take all that Jesus meant to them and then vote their deepest values.
		The Rev. Dr. George Regas

Then, later in the piece he observes:

My sermon did not cross the line that violates the tax laws governing churches. The IRS apparently is making a subjective determination that I implicitly opposed one candidate and endorsed the other. Its analysis ignores the fact that I explicitly stated that I was not advising anyone how to vote.

Before I respond to Rev. Regas's claims, I should say that I do not know him personally, even though our pastorates in Southern California have overlapped by twenty years. I do, however, know quite a bit about Rev. Regas's ministry and the All Saints Church that he pastured for 28 fruitful years. A couple of facts stand out in my mind. First, Rev. Regas and All Saints are openly liberal, both in theology and in politics. This is not secret. In fact, it's probably better to say they are proudly and passionately liberal. Second, Rev. Regas and All Saints are known for a high level of personal and ecclesiastical integrity. Although I am not liberal in my theology, so I have lots of differences of opinion with Rev. Regas about lots of things, I have every reason to believe he's a truthful and trustworthy person.

So, when he says that he was not intending to tell people how to vote in the presidential election, I take him at his word. The problem, I think, is that sometimes our intentions don't end up being clearly communicated when we speak. As a preacher, I know that sometimes my best efforts just aren't reflected in my words. Sometimes I have to go back and clarify or correct things I've said in the past. Even if you're not a preacher, you can probably relate to what I'm saying. If you're married, for example, you know what it's like not to intend to hurt your spouse with your words, but to end up hurting him or her anyway.

The issue at hand, from my point of view, isn't about Rev. Regas's integrity or his intentions, but rather whether what he actually said in his sermon could be reasonably understood to constitute an intervention in the 2004 presidential election.

If you've read my last two posts, in which I analyzed Rev. Regas's sermon quite carefully, you know what I think about this. Yes, he certainly did state clearly that he was not intending to tell people how to vote. And he did indeed urge people to vote according to their conscience and deepest values. Yet this isn't all he said. He also explained that he was preaching on "how I see Jesus impacting your vote and mine." (p. 1). Then he went on to show several ways in which Jesus was displeased with both Bush and Kerry.

Yet four times Rev. Regas, either in his own voice or speaking as if he were Jesus, strongly criticized President Bush (about the Iraq war, the doctrine of preemptive war, seeking tax reductions for the rich, and economic policies that have increased abortions). Additionally, Rev. Regas blasted the Religious Right (for its economic policies) and "conservative politicians" (for caring only about fetuses and having "no interest in the things that make a newborn child healthy and beautiful"). It's pretty obvious, considering the context, that in condemning the Religious Right and "conservative politicians," Rev. Regas was also taking a swipe at President Bush.

So I count six strident criticisms, either from "Jesus" or Rev. Regas, of President Bush and his political associates. Yet there isn't one explicit criticism of Senator Kerry, except when he's lumped in with President Bush. Thus the impression left is that both Bush and Kerry have some flaws in common, but that Bush is far less moral, far less wise, and unworthy to be President.

Moreover, as I illustrated in my last two posts, Rev. Regas doesn't mince words in his denunciation of President Bush. For example:

• Bush, by waging war on Iraq, has supported "the most extreme form of terrorism" (p. 1).

• Bush's doctrine of preemptive war "is a failed doctrine." (p. 2)

• Bush's view of nuclear weapons is "sheer insanity" and "morally indefensible." (p. 3)

• The conservative view of abortion, such as held by Bush, "is something vicious and violent" and "morally repugnant." (p. 4)

• Politicians who oppose abortion, which includes Bush, "violate every standard of decency." (p. 4)

• "Any public policy that makes a child's life more miserable," which is how Rev. Regas describes the conservative policy he associates with Bush, "is an abomination before God." (p. 5)

My point in laying out these quotations is that Rev. Regas didn't just imply that core moral values are not consistent with President Bush's policies. Nor did he gently suggest that President Bush has made many mistakes. The Los Angeles Times's description of Regas's sermon as a "searing indictment" of Bush seems accurate to me.

Thus I don't agree with Rev. Regas in his supposition that the IRS "is making a subjective determination that I implicitly opposed one candidate and endorsed the other." It is objectively demonstrable and, I think, rather obvious that Rev. Regas explicitly opposed one candidate. His denunciation of President Bush and his allies was so strong and one-sided that it did implicitly endorse Senator Kerry, even though Rev. Regas never said anything positive about Kerry and did say that he wasn't advising people how to vote.

Given what Rev. Regas appears to believe about many key issues – war, terrorism, nuclear weapons, poverty, and abortion – it makes perfect sense to me that he would oppose the candidacy of George W. Bush for President, and that he would connect this opposition to his understanding of Jesus. What I don't quite understand, honestly, is why Rev. Regas believes that he was not influencing the presidential election of 2004 with his sermon. And, given his experience in matters both ecclesiastical and political, I'm also perplexed over why he would have been so one-sided in his criticism of Bush and conservatives in a sermon, given his knowledge of the tax code and the policy of All Saints. Surely Rev. Regas knew that the Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) explicitly forbids intervening in "any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office" (emphasis added). And surely he must have known that his sermon, though not openly supportive of Kerry, was obviously in opposition to Bush.

It seems, however, that both Rev. Regas and All Saints do not see the sermon as I do. (I rather hate the fact that I may be siding with the IRS against a church in this case, to tell you the truth.) For this reason they're planning to fight the IRS action, at least so far. According to the first Times story, the IRS had offered to drop the case if All Saints offered "a confession of wrongdoing." The church declined the offer. So it seems like they're planning to argue that Rev. Regas's sermon was not a violation of the tax code, even to the extent of putting their tax exempt status on the line.

This seems to me to be a mistake, though of course there is much that I don't know about this case. But, given my limited knowledge, it seems to me that Rev. Regas could honestly say, "It was not my intention to influence the election, but I can see how my rhetoric gave this impression, and I am sorry." And it also seems to me that the All Saints officials could truly say, "We have a policy and a long tradition of not taking partisan stands in elections. We can see that Rev. Regas's sermon went over the line by criticizing President Bush repeatedly without offering any balanced critique of Senator Kerry. This was wrong and inconsistent with our policy." (The All Saints policy is available online in a PDF format.)

I admit there are problems with this approach, however. For one thing, Rev. Regas appears not to be sorry. And the leaders of All Saints appear not to believe that his sermon went over the line. I do hope that before they decide to die on this legal hill, the All Saints leaders take time to analyze Rev. Regas's sermon closely. Of course another problem with what I'm suggesting is that Rev. Regas would end up with egg on his face. I expect that even if he deserves this, his former church would be reticent to pursue this course of action. Nevertheless, I hope that some kind of compromise between the IRS and All Saints can be realized. It would be truly sad, in my opinion, if the church as a whole were to be punished for the indiscretions of a former pastor serving as a guest preacher.

Of course the other information that I lack is knowledge of how the courts have applied the Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) in cases like this one. It may well be that Rev. Regas's sermon falls within what the law allows as it has been interpreted by the courts. If so, then All Saints is probably pursuing a prudent course.

I have not yet commented on the larger issues raised by this particular case. These have to do with:

1) The role of the church in society, especially concerning morals and politics. Here I'm especially interested in how Rev. Regas talks about this role in his Times op-ed piece.

2) The rightness of IRC 501(c)(3). Many have argued that the law that is being used to harass Rev. Regas is flawed, or outright wrong. Many national leaders, both religious and political, believe that the 501(c)(3) limitations on churches should be removed, and that the status quo is both unconstitutional and immoral.

In future posts I'll take up these two fascinating issues.

What is the Role of the Church in Society? Section 1
Part 5 of the series: Churches, Elections, and the IRS
Posted for Monday, November 14, 2005

So far in this series I've been commenting on the situation involving All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California and the IRS. The former rector of All Saints, the Rev. George Regas, preached a sermon on October 31, 2004, two days before the last presidential election, that the IRS thinks may have violated the prohibition of churches influencing elections. Both Rev. Regas and All Saints disagree.

So far I've weighed in on the basic issues and examined the contested sermon in depth. In my last post in this series I responded to the Los Angeles Times op-ed piece by George Regas. I closed that conversation by promising to look at some of the wider issues raised by Rev. Regas, including the role of the church in society. In this post I want to comment on some of what Rev. Regas wrote about this crucial topic. I'll quote from his piece (in a sans serif font) and then add my own comments.

Rev. Regas writes:

During my 28 years as rector of All Saints Church, I often preached sermons that touched upon what some would characterize as "political" issues. So many of the political issues that we confront today coincide with deeply held, core religious beliefs: issues relating to marriage, family, community, and yes, even war and foreign policy.

As a preacher at Irvine Presbyterian Church for the last 14 years, I could say much the same thing as Rev. Regas. I have also preached on deeply held, core religious beliefs that spill over into political issues, including marriage, family, community, and war. I don't know that I've addressed U.S. foreign policy explicitly, though talking about the kingdom of God in the ministry of Jesus gets me into this general ball park.

I'm quite sure, though, that Rev. Regas feels much surer than I do about the explicit political implications of his theological convictions. This is obvious in his controversial sermon of October 31, 2004, where he has Jesus criticizing several aspects of President Bush's policies quite specifically. It takes a lot of guts to put such explicit politics on the lips of Jesus, and confidence in one's own theological judgment. Honestly, I find it much harder, given the complexity both of Scripture and of contemporary politics, to speak authoritatively as a pastor about the details of politics. Of course the irony in Rev. Regas's statement is that it could equally have been said by folks on the religious and political right. This is part of what gives me pause, since wise Christians often come down in such different places when it comes to the political issues of our day. There's no question in my mind, for example, that Christians should be deeply committed to care for the poor and to helping to create a just world that minimizes poverty. Yet I'm not convinced that one can derive from Scripture what this means for political structures and actions. (I've written quite a bit about this in my series, The Church and Politics in America.)
		If the church ever stops talking about issues that have political implications, we'll end up like this church in Bodie, California . . . dead and empty.

Rev. Regas writes:

It seems to me that fundamentally moral issues, such as peace and the alleviation of poverty, are indisputably the province of church pulpits, regardless of which politicians are debating that week or where a Sunday happens to fall in an election cycle.

I strongly agree. But I also think one can preach strongly and truly about the issues of peace and poverty without necessarily running right up to (or over) the line that prohibits churches from influencing elections. If I want to keep my church as a tax exempt institution, then there are many, many things I can say about peace, for example, and some things I ought not to say in my pastoral role. And I do think that what a preacher ought to use careful judgment concerning what to preach two days before a contentious election.

When it comes to the issue of peace, I've written an extensive series on the broad dimensions of Christian peacemaking. It's called: Seeking the Peace of Christ: Christianity and Peacemaking.

Rev. Regas writes:

Some fear that the threats of the IRS and the publicity surrounding my sermon will have a chilling effect on other churches that would like to speak out for peace in this war-fractured world. Perhaps it will for a few. ¶ But I think many more will take courage from this story and find ways to be true to the core values of their faith. They will find creative ways to proclaim that religious communities must stop blessing war and violence. I am heartened by the outpouring of support that All Saints has already received from many in the faith community whose beliefs span a wide spectrum. They realize this matter involves 1st Amendment principles we all hold dear.

Rev. Regas is right that All Saints has received support "from many in the faith community whose beliefs span a wide spectrum." This was reported in the LA Times, and I plan to comment on it soon. The irony in this is that many of those churches and Christians who are supporting All Saints have endorsed the war in Iraq and support the President's policy there. And, even more ironically, they do so believing