Bob Cornwall/Faith in the Public Square

Pasadena/s All Saints Episcopal Church recently made headlines when this large, liberal, and affluent congregation became the focus of an IRS investigation. This case could end the church/s tax exempt status and alter the way religious organizations speak on social and political issues. The church has rebuffed IRS requests to submit e-mails, newsletters, and sermons that deal with politically sensitive issues, hoping that this action will cause the IRS to take them to court. If the church loses, however, it/s possible that the religious voice on matters of public life could be silenced.

Those who believe that this religious voice should be silent in public might welcome this action, but the case raises significant questions about religious freedom and freedom of speech. This case isn/t about whether religious organizations should be tax exempt; it/s a question of how they can lose this status.

This fracas began just days before the 2004 election when the church/s former minister, the Rev. George Regas, preached a sermon that compared George Bush and John Kerry/s positions to those of Jesus on a number of politically charged issues, including the Iraq War. Needless to say, the president came out on the short end of the comparison. The IRS responded by questioning the legality of Regas/ statements, and the church answered by denying that the sermon was intended as a political endorsement.

The basis for this IRS challenge is a 1954 law that trades tax exemption for the relinquishment by nonprofit and religious organizations of the right to participate in overt electioneering. Until recently the IRS has been haphazard in its enforcement of this law, but this has begun to change. The case is of interest to many because the church in question is theologically and politically liberal, while the president is a conservative Republican. With Jerry Falwell and James Dobson, among others, seemingly working safely and closely with the Republican Party, some wonder if this investigation isn/t politically motivated.

Whatever the motives, it/s interesting that several politically-active conservative organizations have stepped forward to support the Pasadena church. The likely reason for this unusual alliance is that an IRS victory would make it extremely difficult for religious and nonprofit groups to speak out on important social and political issues, whether they/re liberal or conservative.

In this apparent challenge to freedoms of religious and political expression, a question arises concerning where you draw the line between legal and illegal political activity. Admittedly, many organizations, both on the left and the right, push the envelope. Republican and Democratic candidates have been the beneficiaries of support from religious organizations, but the question is how much is too much?

There is an understandable but misbegotten effort on the part of a few members of Congress to amend the law to make it easier for religious groups to engage in overt partisan political activities, including endorsement of candidates. Though enticing, it/s wrongheaded, because it would further politicize an already overly politicized religious landscape. I would hate to see clergy further corrupted by political ambitions or see religious groups even more beholden to political parties and ideologies than they already are. While I believe religion belongs in the public square, I fear the consequences of a complete relaxation of the rules.

The problem is that most religions, including my own, have a strong prophetic tradition. The Civil Rights movement, abolitionism, and women/s suffrage to name a few, have roots within Christian churches. Movements that undermined the Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe and apartheid in South Africa were nurtured within Christian communities. The prophets of the Hebrew Bible were involved in what their own governments considered subversive activities. Then there/s Jesus who was executed on charges that he was a political revolutionary.

It/s quite possible that preachers would have more freedom to speak on political issues if we gave up this &#8220tax benefit,C but that/s an issue for another day. Since I believe that religious communities can provide a significant voice of conscience on important social issues, including racism, poverty, homelessness, health care, the environment, and many other issues, the silencing of such a voice would be disservice to the community. Yes, religion can cause numerous problems and untold misery, but it also can do much good.

Dr. Bob Cornwall is pastor of First Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) of Lompoc (www.lompocdisciples.org). He may be contacted at lompocdisciples@impulse.net or First Christian Church, P.O. Box 1056, Lompoc, CA 93438.

Oct. 8, 2006