Statement of Brenda Girton-Mitchell, Associate General Secretary for Public Policy, and
Director, Washington Office, National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversight
of the House Committee on Ways and Means

Hearing on Review of Internal Revenue Code Section 501 (c)(3)
Requirements for Religious Organizations

My name is Brenda Girton-Mitchell.  I am an Associate General Secretary for Public Policy and Director, of the Washington Office National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA and Director of the Council’s Washington Office. For the record I am also Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Metropolitan Baptist Church, a divinity student at Wesley Theological Seminary and a former staff in “the other body.”

I thank you for this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the National Council of Churches, which is the nation’s leading organization in the movement for Christian unity. The Council brings together 36 Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox communions, which have an aggregate membership of some 50 million U.S. Christians in more than 140,000 congregations in communities across the nation.  (A list of our member communions is attached.)

While I cannot presume to speak for all of those individuals, I do speak for the General Assembly of the National Council of Churches. The Assembly is a representative body of some 270 persons chosen by the member communions, which sets policy for the Council and commends policy to the churches.

The National Council of Churches has a long and proud record of witnessing for religious freedom of all Americans. Since our founding in 1950, we have filed countless friend-of-the-court briefs in cases where important principles of religious liberty were at stake. We have helped to convene faith-based coalitions for religious liberty that were so large and so diverse that practically the only thing its participants had in common was a dedication to preserving our religious freedoms. And my predecessors on the Council’s staff have often found themselves where I am today—testifying before a congressional committee regarding our deep convictions about the religious and civil liberties that we and all Americans treasure.

Nor are we bashful about speaking out on public policy. We welcomed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. as our keynote speaker in 1957. We sent our Youth Director, a young minister named Rev. Andrew Young to work with Dr. King in 1961. We and our members have preached, written, marched, applauded, protested and above all prayed for Congress and for legislation and have found the current legal structure serves us perfectly well.

Summary

It is against the backdrop of this proud heritage and with a continuing concern for religious liberty that I come before you today. I come to say that while HR 2357 and HR 2931 are purported to protect the political speech of churches, they are in fact unnecessary, they are unwise, and they are unwanted by the member denominations of the National Council of Churches and by many other faith groups.

Unnecessary

The full and free participation of the nation’s churches in public policy debates both before and after 1954—the year that provisions of the tax code were adopted prohibiting churches from taking part in partisan political activity demonstrates that these bills are unnecessary.  The views of churches have not been muzzled, as some have claimed; houses of worship already enjoy the right and the responsibility to speak on any and all political issues.  The system is not broke.

Put another way, the National Council of Churches holds that separation of church and state, which has served our nation so well for more than two centuries, applies to the institutions of church and state.  However, separation of church and state does not mean that religion and politics will never intersect.  In fact, churches contribute much to the moral thinking and public policy in our nation and that role has been widely valued and is likely to grow.

Many congregations belonging to our member denominations have opposed official government policies and actions that they believe are harmful, and we have not feared reprisals.  Many of these congregations have vigorously advocated for policies that in their view will make for peace and justice and they have not shied away from controversial subjects. Indeed, churches have weighed in on issues of war and peace, health care, the rights of women, Civil Rights and most of the hottest issues that have come before this body. In some cases, our advocacy has enjoyed a measure of success. In other cases our views have not prevailed, but we have never been prevented from advancing our views.

Unwise

Pastors can use the church as a bully pulpit on any issue and the law already allows churches to devote a portion of their budget to advocacy, and to engage in citizen education, voter registration and non-partisan political forums, the ability to speak out, debate and express differing opinions is an essential part of the freedom that we have as Americans.  To allow churches to explicitly endorse and support political candidates, however, crosses a line that has served us well and puts us in dangerous territory.

I can vouch for the extent and vitality of church activity on public policy issues from my vantage point as director for the Washington Office of the National Council of Churches. My office works closely with the Washington staff of our member denominations, with state and local ecumenical and interfaith organizations nationwide and with congregations across the country.  The range of issues that we have tackled over the course of 52 years is extraordinarily wide, and the passion with which churches approach these issues is extraordinarily deep. 

For half a century we have brought an ethical and moral perspective to the great issues of the day, from civil rights to the war in Vietnam, from international debt to domestic welfare legislation, from campaign finance reform to gun violence and everything in between. To say that churches have been muzzled in the political arena is simply not true. Every day, churches across the nation generate an abundance of evidence that speaks to their role in holding government accountable and in publicly advancing their vision of the common good—in the pulpit, in other communications and through education and advocacy on public issues. 

But churches could not effectively play this role if they were to become enmeshed in partisan politics.  By encouraging churches to do so, HR 2357 and HR 2931 actually pose a great threat to the free and prophetic voice of the churches.  A church that backs a particular candidate for office and that promotes one political party has forfeited the critical distance that allows the church to critique the stands taken by that candidate or that party.  The measures in these bills would corrupt our prophetic voices.

Furthermore, churches that back a political candidate run the risk that their choice for office might very well claim divine sanction for his or her party and its stances—thus jeopardizing the credibility of religious voices.  The church must speak to worldly issues from the deep places of faith, but must not lend the voice of faith to temporal interests.

Unwanted

The proposed legislation threatens churches in the ways I have noted and it also poses risks to the wider society. Legislation that in essence allows churches to become integral parts of political parties and to engage in the heat of political campaigns opens the door to the kind of religious strife that has devastated other countries—from Ireland to Indonesia and from Benares to Beirut -- strife from which our nation largely has been spared by the wisdom of our country’s founders and the continuing vigilance of Congress.  As the United States becomes ever more religiously diverse, the possible permutations for such conflict also increase.

Allowing churches to use tax-deductible dollars to support or oppose candidates for public office damages our system of government in yet another way.  We are deeply concerned that, if enacted, these bills will undermine the progress that we have made as a nation in the area of campaign finance reform.  The NCC strongly supports campaign finance reform as a way to level the political playing field, maintaining fairness and building confidence in our political system.  As gifts to churches are tax deductible and gifts to political parties and candidates are not, how fair is it then to allow political partisans to channel support for their candidates through churches?  We say, not fair at all—to churches or to taxpayers.

For all these reasons, the National Council of Churches, along with many other faith groups from Baptists to Buddhists, Jews to Quakers, Methodists to Presbyterians etc.,  views HR 2357 and 2931 as ethical liabilities and sees no advantage whatsoever for our society or our churches.  The proposed legislation would inevitably cause internal dissension among congregations, and tear our communities of faith apart. 

Our stance, based on longstanding policy voted by our member communions, is also supported by recent opinion polls that once again lift up the common sense of the American public. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 70 percent of Americans feel that houses of worship should not favor one candidate over another during political elections. Another poll, conducted by Gallup and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, canvassed the clergy and found that a full 77 percent of America’s clergy are opposed to their fellow clergy endorsing political candidates.

I want to conclude this testimony with a quotation on this subject from our former counsel for religious liberty, the Rev. Oliver Thomas, who was trained both as a Baptist minister and a lawyer. The wisdom that he shared with congregations sums up many of our objections to HR 2357 and H.R. 2931 and I share his words with you now. Mr. Thomas said, “Even if there were no prohibition on electioneering in the tax code, churches would do well to avoid such partisan political activity. Rarely, if ever, can a particular candidate or party be identified as God’s choice. The misguided use of Christ’s church for secular political purposes not only creates dissension within the household of faith but also inevitably diminishes the churches’ witness and credibility on moral concerns. … In most cases, good theology and good tax advice go hand in hand.”

Member Communions of the National Council of Churches

African Methodist Episcopal Church
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church
Alliance of Baptists
American Baptist Churches in the USA
The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Armenian Church of America
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church
Church of the Brethren
Coptic Orthodox Church in North America
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Friends United Meeting
Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Hungarian Reformed Church in America
International Council of Community Churches
Korean Presbyterian Church in America (General Assembly of the)
Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Mar Thoma Syrian Church of India
Moravian Church in America (Northern Province, Southern Province)
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc.
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America
Orthodox Church in America
Patriarchal Parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church in the USA
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
Polish National Catholic Church of America
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Progressive National Baptist Convention, Inc.
Reformed Church in America
Serbian Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada
The Swedenborgian Church
Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch
Ukrainian Orthodox Church of America
United Church of Christ
The United Methodist Church