Associated Baptist Press - 10/29/2008

Associated Baptist Press
October 29, 2008 · (08-103)

David Wilkinson, Executive Director
Robert Marus, Acting Managing Editor/Washington Bureau Chief
Bob Allen, Senior Writer

In this issue
Constitution aside, why should churches avoid partisanship? (1,214 word)
Religious 'test' for public office? Yes and no (1,195 words)
'Values' distinguish both candidates and voters (989 words)
Global Christians signing on to meet Micah Challenge (394 words)
Texas pastor warns against conservative 'takeover' of BGCT (528 words)

Constitution aside, why should churches avoid partisanship?
By Robert Marus (1,214 words)

WASHINGTON (ABP)-The forbidden idea of churches and other tax-exempt organizations endorsing political parties or candidates has started to sound like a good one, in recent decades, to many conservative evangelicals in the United States.

In fact, a group of pastors from around the country, aided by a conservative legal group, recently decided to test the constitutionality of the tax law that prevents such endorsements.

But constitutional rights aside, is church endorsement of political candidates a good idea from either a civic or theological perspective? Does it profit or harm either the body politic or the Body of Christ for the latter to jump into the former with both feet?

"Historically, churches have emphatically, and with great passion, spoken scriptural truth from the pulpit about government and culture," begins a statement on the Alliance Defense Fund's website. The group is an association of conservative Christian lawyers who volunteer to take on cases about church-state issues and other causes important to the Religious Right.

The statement continues: "All that changed in 1954 with the passage of the Johnson amendment, which restricted the right of churches and pastors to speak scriptural truth about candidates for office. The Johnson amendment was proposed by then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson, and it changed the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit churches and other non-profit organizations from supporting or opposing a candidate for office. After the Johnson amendment passed, churches faced a choice of either continuing their tradition of speaking out or silencing themselves in order to retain their church's tax exemption."

On Sept. 28, 33 pastors across the country endorsed candidates or parties from the pulpit, setting up potential direct challenges to the tax code. ADF advised and encouraged the pastors, hoping to create test cases that could go, ultimately, to the Supreme Court. They contend the Johnson amendment violates the Constitution by suppressing churches' freedom of religion.

But many religious groups and thinkers opposed the effort.

"As an old-timey Baptist, I think that pastors, churches -- black and white and Latino -- have every right to endorse candidates publicly," said Bill Leonard, a Baptist historian and dean of Wake Forest University Divinity School.

"What they don't have is the right to tax exemption for expressing their conscience. That is patently wrong, regardless of their color, because you can't have it both ways. You can't speak out of conscience and expect to be privileged at the same time."

The ban on tax-exempt groups like churches endorsing candidates "simply means you can't -- this is my historian side -- you can't bow the knee to Constantine and to Jesus; you have to choose," Leonard continued. "So, endorse a candidate and give up tax exemption. It's an easy choice."

Bob Tuttle, a First Amendment expert at George Washington University Law School, noted the electioneering ban doesn't single out churches or houses of worship, but applies to all non-profits organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code.

"It's not targeted at churches; it's not targeted at religion," he said. "It deals with all organizations that have this one feature -- that is, donations made to them are deductible against the donors' taxes. This is not primarily about the tax-exempt institutions.... It's about donations and what kinds of things the government effectively wants to subsidize."

Even though political campaigns and political-action committees are not-for-profit ventures under the federal tax code, they are governed by a different set of laws. They don't enjoy the advantage that churches and other charitable organizations do by being not only tax-free, but being able to receive tax-deductible donations.
Yet houses of worship, educational institutions and charities receive the same level of fire and police protection and other governmental services as organizations that pay taxes.

In terms of how lifting the ban on church electioneering would affect U.S. politics overall, Tuttle said, "from the civil side, I think people make a big mistake when they say that this [the Johnson amendment] is just some quirky artifact of the 1950s."

That's because, he said, the amount of money that churches and other non-profits take in -- and the sheer numbers of non-profits -- has exploded since 1954.

"The power I'm talking about is the ability to command the kinds of benefits that churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations get and to use those benefits to project a particular [political] message," Tuttle said.

"We're talking about real money now, you know. If you were forced to do what some have said, which is to stop limiting the ability of churches to participate ... you force the IRS to make some very difficult decisions about what it means to be a church -- because you could have somebody set up a mechanism that would fork over a considerable amount of its assets to campaign activities."

Tuttle, who holds a Ph.D. in religious ethics and a Lutheran seminary degree, worries about upending the Johnson amendment from another perspective, though -- a theological one.

"From a more Protestant perspective, we tend to believe that justification comes by faith -- not by conformity with a particular political agenda," Tuttle said.
"We recognize that political agendas are not matters about which the faith is going to stand or fall, and to draw lines in a strong way starts to draw lines within the Body [of Christ] about matters that really should not divide people ... in the place of worship."

Jeffrey Haggray, executive director of the District of Columbia Baptist Convention, said risking congregational or denominational unity is a danger when churches dive into partisan politics.

"There will always be differences within congregations over candidates. When the pulpit takes it upon itself to choose a candidate for the entire congregation, it threatens to undermine the freedom it cherishes," he wrote, in a recent piece published by the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

"Sacred space where people are free to decide according to conscience gets turned into secular space that becomes suspect as to its judgment, integrity and motives. Over time, the prophetic influence of the church diminishes because its political preferences obscure its concerns for justice, equality and fairness for all people."

Stan Hastey of the Washington-based Alliance of Baptists said compromising unity and the church's prophetic role are among several dangers associated with church political endorsements.

"For me, the key questions pastors who are tempted to endorse candidates should ask themselves are these: Will my endorsing a candidate enhance or compromise my vocation as a pastor? Will it enhance or compromise the church's witness? Will it divide the people I am called to serve?" he said.

"Will it embarrass and demean the church's witness to Christ when politicians fail, as they invariably do? Is hitching my star to any politician worth the risk to my credibility as a preacher and teacher of the good news of God?"

Tuttle -- who serves as legal counsel to the Washington synod of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- also said he worries that pastors entering politics are prone to the same corruptions as anybody else.

"This may just come from having spent a lot of time having done internal church-discipline stuff, but I tend to think of pastors not being better than anybody else -- you know, they get seduced," he said. "I'm deeply worried about corruptibility of the office."

-30-

Religious 'test' for public office? Yes and no
By Ken Camp (1,195 words)

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- American Christians may pledge loyalty to the United States Constitution. But behind the closed curtain of the polling booth, many violate the spirit of the constitutional prohibition on any religious test for public office. And several church-state experts insist that's not altogether bad -- up to a point.

Article Six of the Constitution ends with the clause: "... no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." But imposing religious tests as a matter of law differs from voters imposing them in practice, some authorities on church-state issues noted.

American voters "impose an unofficial religious test that vets candidates based on their religious views," and it's entirely legal and appropriate, said Derek Davis, dean at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor and former director of Baylor University's J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies. Both are Texas Baptist schools.

"This unofficial test does not serve to disqualify anyone from running for office; it only serves to allow voters the freedom to consider the religious views of candidates for whom they might vote," Davis said.

A candidate's religious affiliation remains "the litmus test most people won't admit to, but that they carry around with them" into the voting booth, said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center.

"As responsible citizens, religious affiliation should have no bearing whatsoever on selecting someone for public office," Haynes insisted. But he draws a sharp distinction between religious affiliation and religious commitment.

"Their religious commitment in terms of its influence on the lives that they live, on the values they hold and on their worldview -- those all go into character," he said. "It's fair for voters to know the source of a person's values and how that person makes decisions."

As a practical matter, "voters can and do take religion into account," said Brent Walker, executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

Voters should bring their religious values to the public square. They have every right to consider a candidate's religious faith as one factor out of many in making an informed decision about whether that person would be a good public servant, Walker said.

"When candidates talk about their faith, it helps us know who they are, learn what makes them tick, and examine their moral core. The free and fluid discussion of candidates' faith carries the promise of improving the electorate's ability to make an informed decision in the voting booth," he said.

In fact, public interest in the private religious faith of candidates signals a healthy level of respect for religion's role in society, said Suzii Paynter, director of the Christian Life Commission, the public-policy and moral-concerns arm of the Baptist General Convention of Texas. Questions about religious convictions can reveal valuable insights into a candidate's character and values, she noted.

"The alternative would be a prohibition against talking about religion, and that would just be terrible," she said. "It would deny the electorate a window into who the candidates are."

While voters should consider a candidate's religious commitment as one factor out of many, it never should become the single decisive test to determine an individual's suitability for public office, said James Dunn, resident professor of Christianity and public policy at the Wake Forest University School of Divinity.
"Religion ought to be a factor, but not a prohibitive factor," said Dunn, former executive director of the Baptist Joint Committee.

To the extent that a person's religious views shape his or her moral character, those views can be weighed. And a candidate's adherence to some beliefs also may reveal something about the individual's discernment and ability to make rational decisions, he added.

"We insist, in Western democracies, that our public leaders should not believe absurdities, because those who believe absurdities are capable of atrocities," he said, paraphrasing Voltaire.

Looking back on their heritage as a persecuted minority religion, Baptists should resist "the de facto political anointing of particular religious perspectives," recognizing the danger that presents both to religion and government, Dunn added.

In practical terms, voters historically often have excluded from office people who do not follow the religion practiced by the majority, Paynter acknowledged. But she sees positive signs of change. "I'm hesitant to use the term 'religious test' because of its specific meaning and because a test does not change. But the electorate's tolerance [of religious minorities] changes," she said.

Discussion of personal religious convictions can be helpful, but it should not be seen as mandatory, Walker stressed. He suggested an important backstop to keep questions of faith from devolving into religious bigotry.

"Ask the follow-up question, 'So what?' he recommended. "What difference will a candidate's religion make on his or her performance in office? What impact will it have on public policy? How does it affect his or her leadership style?"

Matters of personal religious conviction become fair game when related to policy decisions and a candidate's ability to lead. But adherence to the spirit of the no-religious-test principle demands that linkage be made, Walker said.

"It is not only not very helpful, but also terribly invasive to have a theological inquiry isolated from policy and matters of governance," he said.

Nonetheless, when appropriately framed in terms of how convictions make an impact on decisions, questions of religious commitment can provide valuable insights into the character of candidates, Paynter observed.

When people reach a certain level -- whether in politics, business or any other powerful enterprise -- there's always a temptation to see themselves as above the rules that apply to others, she noted.

"It's important to know the grounding people have for their public ethic," she said. "Public ethics come from private ethics. They don't go the other way."

In selecting a president, Davis added, voters also rightly may consider the office's ceremonial role, which has an almost pastoral dimension in times of national catastrophe "when Americans need their national leader to share their grief and soothe their hearts and somehow offer some spiritual comfort."

But, he cautioned, the president must respect the institutional separation of church and state. Davis also prescribed a good dose of humility, saying voters should take care to elect leaders who recognize the danger in equating their policies with God's will.

"The ability of any world leader to know precisely the will of God is foreign to the Bible. The Bible speaks of an inscrutable God who often has brought down powerful nations in their prime due to their pride," he said.

"The temptation to act religiously based on our own fallible interpretations of domestic and world events is among the reasons our constitution wisely mandates a degree of separation between church and state, thus preventing too close an alliance between the interests of religion and government that might harm our great nation."

Human experience and biblical revelation both point to the need for humility, Dunn added. He quoted Romans 11:34: "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Who has been his counselor?"

"True believers understand we do not know the mind of God," he said. And he strongly suggested steering clear of those who claim they do.

-30-

'Values' distinguish both candidates and voters
By Bob Allen (989 words)

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (ABP) -- "Values voters" -- a term popularized by conservative evangelicals after the 2004 elections -- may bring a wide array of values to the polls. Here's a rundown of the two presidential candidates' views on a number of issues cited by religiously motivated voters on both the left and right, as compiled by the website OnTheIssues.org :

· Abortion. John McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade -- the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide -- with exceptions for incest and rape. He would prohibit late-term abortion procedures labeled by opponents as "partial-birth" abortion and ban public funding of organizations that advocate or perform abortions. He would prosecute abortion doctors, not the women who get them.

Barack Obama supports Roe v. Wade. He believes common ground can be found by acknowledging there is a moral dimension to the abortion debate and that people of good will are on both sides. He says everyone can agree on working to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might lead someone to consider an abortion.

· Capital punishment. McCain supports broadened use of the death penalty, stricter penalties for violent crime and increasing spending to build more federal prisons.

While supporting capital punishment for some heinous crimes, Obama says the death penalty should be enforced fairly and with caution.

· Gay marriage. Obama opposes same-sex marriage but supports civil unions for gay couples. He says decisions about same-sex marriage should be left up to the states but opposes California's Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and woman.

McCain supports Proposition 8 and has supported a statewide ban on gay marriage in his home state of Arizona, but he opposes a similar ban on the federal level, saying it should be left up to individual states.

· Global warming. McCain says climate change is real and must be addressed, and nuclear power is the best way to fix it. He also supports alternative fuels like wind, tide, solar, natural gas and clean-coal technology and favors offshore drilling to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil.

Obama favors nuclear power as one component of the nation's overall energy mix. He says 20 percent of the nation's power supply should come from renewable sources by 2020. He believes the Bible teaches stewardship of the earth and sacrifice on behalf of future generations.

· Health care. Obama says health care is a right for every American, and it is morally wrong when the terminally ill Sen. Barack Obama
must worry about paying their medical bills. He says he would take on insurance companies to drive down health care costs and provide mandatory health care for children.

McCain says health care is a responsibility. He says affordable health care should be available to every citizen, but families, rather than the government, should make decisions about health care.

· Immigration. McCain says he would restart comprehensive immigration reform only after securing America's borders. He would deport 2 million people in the country illegally who have committed crimes and says he would veto any bill giving "amnesty" to illegal immigrants.

Obama says America has nothing to fear from today's immigrants. He supports immigration reform that secures America's borders, punishes employers who exploit migrant workers and requires the 12 million undocumented immigrants to take steps to become legal citizens.

· Iraq. Obama opposed the war in Iraq from its beginning and says it has distracted the United States from catching Osama bin Laden.

McCain believes in the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. He credits President Bush and the troops for the fact there has not been another major terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. McCain says America is winning in Iraq.

· Israel. Both candidates support a two-state solution of Israel and Palestine living side-by-side in peace.

McCain wants to move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to show solidarity with Israel. Obama says Jerusalem should be a final-status issue resolved between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

· Labor. Obama says workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union -- without harassment or intimidation. He says farm policy should benefit families, not corporations. He supports making the minimum wage a living wage and says customers having to pay more for consumer items produced domestically is worth it to keep jobs in the United States.

McCain says Americans are not afraid of foreign competition and supports lowering barriers to free trade.

· Race. McCain voted against the federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr. in 1990 but now says it was a mistake. He defended the Confederate flag as a "symbol of heritage" but said South Carolina was wise to fly the flag in front of instead of on top of the state house.

Obama says the Confederate flag belongs in a museum, not on public property.

· Schools. McCain says the key to improving the quality of public schools is to promote competition from charters, home-schooling and vouchers for private schools.

Obama supports charter schools but opposes vouchers.

McCain believes virtues contained in the Ten Commandments should be taught in public schools and that school prayer should be allowed but not mandated. Obama supports a stricter separation between church and state.

McCain says whether creationism should be taught alongside evolution is up to local school districts. He says he believes in evolution but sees the hand of God in creation. Obama opposes teaching creationism in public schools.

· Stem-cell research. Obama says America owes it to her citizens to explore the potential of embryonic stem cells to treat debilitating diseases like Parkinson's and Alzheimer's disease, spinal cord injuries and diabetes.

McCain also supports expanding federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

· Torture. McCain disagrees with the White House position that waterboarding is not torture and says torture is supported only by people without military experience.

Obama says torture should not be used under any circumstance.

-30-

Global Christians signing on to meet Micah Challenge
By Bob Allen (394 words)

NEW YORK (ABP) -- A reported 119 million Christians around the globe stood up for action to end poverty Oct. 19.

Observed the Sunday closest to the United Nations' International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, Micah Sunday aims to mobilize churches to learn, reflect and act on global-poverty issues. Sponsored by the international anti-poverty group Micah Challenge, the emphasis focuses on the Old Testament prophet's call to "do justice, love mercy and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8).

Launched internationally four years ago, the Micah Challenge aims to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015 by deepening Christian commitment to the poor and holding governments accountable to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, eight international development goals adopted by 189 U.N. member states in 2001.

Micah Challenge USA recently issued an open letter challenging presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama to support a foreign policy that renews America's commitment to the Millennium Development Goals.

The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship entered a two-year partnership with Micah Challenge USA earlier this year. The Baptist World Alliance endorsed the campaign in 2004.

On Oct. 26 in Thailand, leaders of the World Evangelical Alliance commissioned Joel Edwards, their formal general director, as the first international director of Micah Challenge. A British immigrant from Jamaica, Edwards resigned in September after 11 years from his post at the largest evangelical body in the United Kingdom. His new work with Micah Challenge begins Jan. 1.

In Washington earlier in October to meet with U.N. General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon, Edwards told the newspaper Christian Today that evangelicals in the United States have been a little slow to get behind Micah Challenge, but now have expressed their full commitment to the effort.

"I think the problem with America is that it is so large that it is very insular," Edwards said. "Any nation which has a major sporting event with all American teams and calls it an 'international' has serious problems with its foreign policy."

Edwards said listening to foreign leaders is a way for Americans to learn "there is a world out there beyond the U.S. that has something to say to you and something to teach you."

"That is very important," he said. "The extent to which the U.S. can do that is the extent to which we will accelerate the change in attitude in the rest of the world."
-30-

Texas pastor warns against conservative 'takeover' of BGCT
By Bob Allen (528 words)

FORT WORTH, Texas (ABP) -- A Baptist pastor says moderates should be on guard against renewed attempts by fundamentalists to gain control of the Baptist General Convention of Texas.

Paul Kenley, pastor of Grace Fellowship Church in Lampasas, Texas, penned an article for the moderate political group Texas Baptists Committed's newsletter in advance of the BGCT annual meeting, scheduled for Nov. 10-11 in Fort Worth.

The veteran of the Southern Baptist Convention struggle between conservatives and moderates said he sees signs of "subtle, precursory efforts" toward a fundamentalist "repositioning" aimed at reclaiming leadership of the state convention.

Kenley said many churches that followed their pastors 10 years ago into forming a breakaway conservative statewide body didn't realize that, apart from promoting the national convention's conservative leadership, the new group did not support traditional state-convention ministries. Unlike other state conventions, the conservative Southern Baptists of Texas Convention was not initially created to support hospitals, universities, seminaries or children's homes.

Kenley said SBTC leaders recognize the lack of institutions is a drawback, but it is unlikely they will start up new ones in a weak economy.

"I believe they will make a strong and reinvigorated attempt to do it as their parent-leaders in the SBC did it in the '80s and '90s -- by stealing ministries and institutions that are already in existence," he wrote.

The shortest route to that acquisition, he added, is to "take over the Baptist General Convention of Texas."

Kenley said the BGCT's moderate leadership faces a dilemma in responding to a nascent conservative resurgence. If they exclude conservatives, they risk alienating large conservative churches that never fully cut ties with the BGCT that in turn might respond by cutting off gifts to the state convention.

"The dilemma is how long, and to what extent, can we afford to feign oneness with these churches for the sake of keeping the budget afloat?" Kenley said.

Kenley said he has been serving this year on a key BGCT committee, where he observed what he believes to be "to be subtle, precursory efforts toward a fundamentalist 'repositioning' aimed at reclaiming leadership."

"There is no one incident that, by itself, proves this suspicion, but the preponderance of events has alarmed this old [Texas Baptists Committed] warrior!" he wrote. "We must be careful, lest the noble cry that 'We must be inclusive' winds up empowering those who, perhaps unknowingly and with the best intentions, would take us back into a precarious position."

Founded in November of 1998, the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention set missions and evangelism as priorities, alongside a doctrinal foundation of affirming biblical "inerrancy."

The new convention's "affiliated ministries" include Criswell College, the SBTC's first ministry partner; Jacksonville College, a two-year school started by the Baptist Missionary Association of Texas, which affiliated with the SBTC in 2004; East Texas Baptist Family Ministries and Texas Baptist Home.

The convention also has fraternal relationships with Houston Baptist University and Baptist Credit Union. Its "ministry partners" include Texas Baptist Men.

The BGCT's new executive director, Randel Everett, made news recently when he spoke in chapel at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, a fundamentalist bastion long estranged from the state convention's moderate leadership.

-30-