Is 501c3 Status a Barrier to Social Justice? Learning from the Black Church
For generations, church was the backbone of the black community. In addition to being a place for worship it was the center of “social, political, civic and philanthropic action,” and the home for some of our most celebrated leaders. Yet many comment on how the black church isn’t as politically active or vocal when it comes to social justice as it used to be, focusing instead on what is being called prosperity ministry and working within the system instead of outside of it.
In response to a recent article highlighting the rise of activist churches, @BlowTheTrumpet commented on twitter that the reason the black church hasn’t engaged in politics as much as it used to, is because of the 501c3 status.
I had never thought of this before. I always assumed that the ability to pool more resources together has the potential to expand an organization’s capacity to reach its mission. However, there are very real restrictions on what nonprofits can and cannot do and the biggest one, especially for religious organizations, is being able to engage in politics.
This is a critical limitation as it hinders an organization’s ability to address larger issues. Two years ago at a Craigslist Foundation Boot Camp, Dr. Paul Light stated that toiling away in our own corner of the world isn’t enough. We must always ask why these problems exist in the first place. But how can you do that if you are forbidden from engaging the powers that be? When we talk about challenges in social change we bring up a myriad of issues—staffing, fundraising, leadership, relationships with other organizations. However, could the very way we are allowed to organize be a barrier as well?
At the same time, I’d like to think that this would push us to engage in social justice in new ways, as opposed to abandoning our missions all together. After all, black people haven’t stopped working for social change, they just aren’t using the church do it. And while the church may not be as active as it was before, it is active and as mentioned before, perhaps reflecting messages that members are more comfortable hearing–focusing on self and being less radical. If this is the case, is the change in the church’s behavior a result of 501c3 or a result of a change in values of black Americans?
What do you think of 501c3 status and its impact on political involvement?
This is good food for thought.
Yes, the IRS does restrict the extent to which 501c3s can engage in political activity, but it doesn’t appear that religious 501c3s are held to a more rigorous standard than other types of nonprofits. Rather than find out exactly what IS allowed, many orgs are scared into believing that any and all political activity is bad and would rather not bother.
Secondly, even when nonprofits understand that they can, in fact, engage in political activity, they sometimes don’t really understand HOW to do advocacy work. I think this is even more true when it comes to churches, who don’t necessarily exist to tackle just one or two social problems. If you’re an educational nonprofit, you can more easily connect the dots between your on-the-street work and the policies that serve to undermine your work. The black church of old, I think, knew how to make these connections too. Fighting Jim Crow, for example, meant getting the racist laws changed. Period. Clear opportunity for political engagement. Modern churches, in my experience, have not become savvy enough to deal with today’s political process. Policymaking is more subtle and sophisticated now. No law says explicitly, “let’s deny black and brown children the education they need.” but we definitely have laws and practices on the books that ultimately contribute to exactly that. Today’s churches will definitely engage in the rhetoric of politics, but I believe they’re less inclined to actually talk policy with the powers that be because they just aren’t prepared to do it. How many churches write policy position papers? How many have ministry groups dedicated to raising the political awareness of members during non-election years? How many organize to testify before gov’t entities on a regular basis? The IRS allows 501c3s to do all of that stuff. Effective church political advocacy can’t become a euphemism for pulpit rhetoric. This misunderstanding of advocacy is part of the reason folks think the black church has become so irrelevant.
Lastly, I think this is about courage, too. Taking a stand against bad policy means you’ll probably make some enemies. Lotta churches have their hands in the pockets of power politicians. Churches aren’t afraid of losing the 501c3 status — instead they’re afraid of biting the hands that feed them. In a climate where tithing is down, some churches might see keeping their mouths shut as the only way to keep their doors open.
sorry I got a bit long-winded.
[Reply]
IMO, Black churches these days, especially the mega church variety, are more interested in their parishioners giving them their W-2′s so that they can make sure they are tithing enough in church than about actually making a difference in the community. But that is just my take. Having a church is a business, a money making one at that.
But back to the matter at hand, I believe that churches are keeping their political opinions away from the church as to not sway their constituents. A valid point could be made that they don’t want to rock the boat and not get the funding many churches desperately need.
This is indeed a topic that should be expanded on.
[Reply]
Having a 501c3 didn’t stop the SCLC or the SNCC or the NAACP from marching and protesting and organizing back in the day, so we can’t blame it on the IRS designation. It’s about a shift in values and how far we’re willing to go to save our communities.
[Reply]
I agree with Naomi that churches are more likely to be afraid of engaging in any serious political activity due to their 501(c)3 status. As generations have gotten away from the Black church, I don’t find it that surprising that they have not been as engaged in the pursuit of social justice issues.
[Reply]