We need to make very clear that these distinctions are not helpful if those of us who claim we are religious, therefore claim to be apart from the Government. Every one of us is a part of the Government. So we cannot separate ourselves by blaming those who make decisions. Most of us are lazy citizens, and so often have held so tightly to our religious views that we fail to address broader societal questions. I describe myself as a born again, Evangelical Lutheran Christian; there is no other way to get into the Christian church. But I am just as deeply concerned for justice, and I think God's will is that justice be done on the part of the Government, and that religious people work for justice, not to bring salvation into the Government arena or to bring ideas of judging people as to how they believe in God, on the basis of how they might vote. As an example, I recently received a letter, which is headed "Christians to Reelect President Reagan." Let me read just one paragraph. Ted Kennedy, Fritz Mondale, Alan Cranston are ultraliberals who put the values of secular humanism above the values of Christians like you. This is signed by Gary Jarman. I think that kind of mail shows the need for some face-to-face discussion about how all of us may believe in God, and there might be some Christians that might vote for a Democrat in the coming election, and also, of course for some Republicans. That spirit needs to be pointed out in terms of all of our gathering together as people. I quote a very good source in one portion of my report, Dr. Martin Luther. I would close by reading a brief statement by the Lutheran Bishops which was written in 1980: It is a misuse of terms to describe government politics as Godless or profane. God rules both the civil and the spiritual dimensions of life. It is unnecessary and unbiblical for any church, group or individual to seek to Christianize the Government, or to label political views of Congress as Christian or religious. It is arrogant to assert that one's position on a political issue is Christian, and that all others are unchristian, immoral or sinful. There is no Christian position. There are Christians and other religious people who hold positions. God employs reason and power in government for social justice, peace and freedom. Advocacy for social justice is part of the mission of the church, according to Lutheran theology. Such advocacy may often bring disagreement on issues and votes as to how we strive for justice, but I think understanding and acceptance, and sharing more responsibility for Government as well as for our religions will be very helpful. Thank you sir. [Material submitted for the record follows:] 41-269 O 85-9 PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES V. BERGSTROM My name is Charles V. Bergstrom. I serve as Executive Director of the Office for Governmental Affairs, the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. On behalf of the Council, I would like to express appreciation to this subcommittee for holding hearings to explore in a rational way the areas where church and state are in tension. In giving this testimony, I am speaking on behalf of the three Lutheran church bodies which participate in the Office for Governmental Affairs: The American Lutheran Church, headquartered in Minneapolis, The Lutheran Church in America, headquartered in New York, The Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches, headquartered THE PROPER RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHURCH AND GOVERNMENT: A LUTHERAN PERSPECTIVE. Many in this nation ground their understanding of the proper relationship between church and state on a somewhat simplistic interpretation of Thomas Jefferson's description of the "wall of separation" between the two institutions; they maintain that this "wall" creates a somewhat static situation in which church and state hygienically operate in their own spheres, never fundamentally affecting or "infecting" each other. But such an understanding of the "wall" does not do justice to the dynamic and continually changing relationship between the two institutions in this country. To echo Chief Justice Burger's 1971 observation, the "wall" is, in practice, more like a "blurred, indistinct and variable barrier." The Lutheran churches I represent have described their understanding of the proper relationship between church and government in terms of "institutional separation and functional interaction." Thus, the "wall" of institutional separation stands within a grey "zone" of interaction between the two institutions. Institutional separation. We believe that both government and church have a God-given role in the world. The government is to establish justice, advance human rights, promote peace, and work for the welfare of all in society; the church's mission includes proclaiming the Gospel through preaching, teaching, administration of the sacraments, social service and advocacy on behalf of all members of the social order. Recognizing the distinctive role of each, we believe that they should be separate institutionally, and that one should not usurp the role of the other. Churches should not be in the business of using the coercive power of the state to enforce their versions of what is moral; similarly, the state should not assume the functions of the church in preaching or evangelizing, or determine for the church what is or is not part of its mission. Even when each is fulfilling its legitimate role, there is a sometimes uneasy balance between the government's responsibility to regulate for the common good and the church's right to free exercise of religion. Generally, Lutheran churches maintain that the government, as one of God's agents, has the authority and power in the secular dimensions of life to ensure that individuals and groups--including religious communities and their agencies--adhere to the civil law. The churches and their agencies are often subject to the same legislative, judicial and administrative provisions which affect other groups in society. But Lutheran churches will claim treatment or consideration by government different from that granted to voluntary, benevolent, eleemosynary and educational nonprofit organizations when necessary to assure free exercise of religion. The claim for special treatment must be well founded--and the government's responses to such claims must be evenhanded, so as not to favor one type of religion or worship over another. We would maintain that government exceeds its authority when it seeks to define, determine or otherwise influence the churches' decisions concerning their nature, mission and ministries, doctrines, worship and other responses to God--except in critical instances, which must be considered on a case by case basis and which may involve church infringements of basic human rights. Functional Interaction. However, the Lutheran churches maintain that in pursuing a joint concern for the common good, church and government can interact functionally in areas where cooperation assists in the maintenance of good order, the protection and extension of civil rights, the establishment of social justice and equality of opportunity, the promotion of the general welfare and the advancement of the dignity of all persons. This principle underscores the Lutheran view that God rules both the civil and spiritual dimensions of life, making it appropriate for churches and government to relate creatively and responsibly to each other. In this functional interaction, the government may conclude that efforts and programs of the churches provide services of broad social benefit. In such instances and within the limits of the law, the government may offer and the church may accept funding and various other forms of assistance to furnish the services. Functional interaction also includes the role of the churches in informing persons about, advocating for and speaking publicly on issues and proposals related to social justice and human rights. From the Lutheran perspective, the church has the task of addressing God's Word to its own activities and to the government. And the United States Constitution guarantees the right of the churches to communicate concerns to the public and to the government. This is our conceptual framework for discussing church-state issues, one which does not provide easy "yes" or "no" answers to the difficult questions about the relationship between the two institutions. PROBLEMS IN CHURCH-STATE RELATIONS. The fact that we can have a hearing like this, where representatives of religious organizations and government can freely exchange views about the state of religious liberty, says much about the quality of churchstate relations in this country. The strong differences of opinion on key issues among various religious groups testifying here reveals the diversity of religious beliefs in this country. It underscores the difficulties in developing one governmental policy or practice which accomodates all religious views and the necessity for government to maintain a truly evenhanded neutrality among all faith groups. The Lutheran churches have identified a number of areas where church and government are in tension. Often these issues span both Republican and Democratic administrations, and are a by-product of differing understandings of responsibilities and rights of the two institutions. Noting that it is necessary for the churches to clarify for the government their position in this area, the Lutheran churches in 1979 held a consultation on "The Nature of the Church and Its Relationship With Government." It was occasioned by a number of instances in which the Lutheran churches perceived increased government encroachment on the churches' rights--instances which would result in government entanglement in religion and infringement of the free exercise of religion. I would like to have included in the hearing record the report of that consultation, which in more detail describes our conceptual framework and outlines the problems in church/state relations occurring at that time-some of which are of continuing concern. I would like to now focus attention on several current issues, where we see significant church-state difficulties. Integrated Auxiliaries. From the perspective of the Lutheran churches I represent, one of the most persistent church-state problems relates to the Internal Revenue Service's definition of an "integrated auxiliary" of a church. Through this definition the government is defining by regulation what is, or is not, an integral part of the church's mission. Prior to 1969, most religious organizations, including churches and their related agencies, were exempted from filing informational returns with the IRS. The Tax Reform Act of 1969, however, stipulated that all organizations exempt from taxation under Section 501 (a) of the Tax Code would have to file an annual informational Form 990 return--except churches, "their integrated auxiliaries," conventions and associations of churches, the exclusively religious activities of any religious order and exempt organizations with gross receipts under $5,000 annually. The law involves the reporting of information; no payment of taxes is involved. The problem for the IRS since 1969 has been to define "integrated auxiliaries," since that term had no legal meaning and no common definition among religious groups. In February 1976, the IRS issued proposed regulations which had the net effect of providing for all churches a single and extremely narrow definition of religious mission. Protests by a number of religious organizations led to some modifications in the "final" regulations issued in January 1977, but the regulations continue to be offensive to our understanding of our mission. Explicitly excluded from the definition of "integrated auxiliaries" are church-related hos pitals, orphanages, homes for the elderly, colleges, universities and elementary schools, although elementary and secondary schools are exempt from filing. The heart of the issue is that the regulation on "integrated auxiliaries" seeks to impose on the churches a definition of "religious" and "church" which the churches cannot accept theologically, one which constitutes an unwarranted intrusion by the government into the affairs of the churches. The narrow definition introduces confusion within the churches and their agencies and institutions. It also leads the government to attempt other intrusions into the activities of the churches and church-related agencies and institutions. Our churches would probably not object to the disclosure of most of the information required by Form 990 by those agencies and institutions of the church whose ministries appear to have counterparts in the public sphere, if such requirement or disclosure were not predicated upon a denial that those ministries are an integral part of the churches' mission. But the churches do object on principle to having any of their ministries, including their agencies and institutions, be treated as "not religious." These agencies and institutions perform ministries which are essential to the churches' mission and must not be put in a different category from the strictly sacerdotal functions of the churches. The Lutheran churches, and a wide range of other denominations, have urged the IRS to alter its "integrated auxiliary" definition. When the Reagan administration came into office, additional contacts were made to achieve this end. I would like to include in the hearing record the most recent communication on this issue sent by the Coalition on Internal Revenue Definition of Religious Bodies to Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy John E. Chapoton. In addition, I was one of the members of that coalition that met with representatives of the Vice President's Taskforce on Regulatory Relief. None of this work availed us, and the regulation is still in place. This may seem like merely a technical issue, but it is vitally important to the Lutheran churches. It is so important that they have challenged this regulation in the courts. A negative decision in the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, Fourth Division, is currently being appealed by those church bodies. Government Efforts to Limit the Church's Ministry of Advocacy. The Lutheran churches firmly believe that advocacy for justice is an integral part of their mission. We have consistently resisted in principle the "substantiality test" currently in the IRS Code, as it applies to the advocacy activities of churches. We would maintain that such a test unfairly penalizes, through the threat of loss of tax exemption, those churches which regard public advocacy as part of their mission. Moreover, the effect of this test is to give preferred status, in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, to those churches which do not participate actively in the debate on public policy. During the last Administration, we were deeply concerned about the lobbying disclosure legislation which was then being considered by Congress. A more detailed explanation of our concerns is found in the consultation report I referred to earlier. During this administration, proposals have been put forward by the Office for Management and Budget and by members of Congress which cause us equal concern. These relate specifically to the advocacy activities of non-profits and their affiliates which receive federal funds. But, like the lobby disclosure proposals which preceded them, the proposed revision of OMB Circular A-122 and legislation, such as S1405, introduced by Sen. Jeremiah Denton, represent a heavyhanded approach to the question of advocacy by non-profits. The Lutheran churches I represent believe firmly that government funds should be used expressly for the purposes Congress intends. Our social service agencies, which are often channels for federal funds to provide service to the aged, the disabled, refugees and other persons in need, understand the importance of accountability in the use of those funds. The Lutheran churches engage in these supporting activities because social service is part of the church's mission--and in these instances, society benefits when churches and their agencies "functionally interact" with government, assisting the government in carrying out activities it has established to enhance the common good. We realize that we must be held accountable for the use of federal monies--and comply willingly with reasonable accounting and reporting requirements which ensure that that is the case. When our agencies engage in advocacy, which is also part of their mandate, they use their own funds and do not use any governmental funds for that purpose. But the pending proposals, some of which have grown out of an effort to "defund the left," are overly broad, would have a chilling effect on legitimate communications between non-profits and government, and have no compelling government interest to justify their enactment. I would call your attention to the recent congressional testimony of the U.S. Solicitor General in which he indicated that he had discovered no evidence for the suspicion that, on a widespread basis, federal funds are being abused by non-profits. Last month, we testified on the Denton bill, which would severely restrict our advocacy activity--or force us out of the arena of cooperation with government in service delivery. In addition to the concerns we shared with the non-profit sector generally about the bill, we were concerned that this measure would seriously limit the free exercise of our religion. For example, under that bill, the Lutheran churches could not protest a congressional move to eliminate their tax exemption with their own money without putting the work of an affiliated social service agency providing services to developmentally disabled children in jeopardy of losing its federal funding. I would like to provide for the committee a copy of my testimony on the Denton bill and our statement regarding the related OMB proposal. To varying degrees, such proposals would restrict the freedom of the church to speak to its members, using its own money, and to petition government--actions which are protected under the U.S. Constitution. Again, it would also favor unconstitutionally those churches which do not consider public advocacy to be part of their mission. Government Regulation. Lutheran churches have consistently objected to governmental regulation of their educational institutions and social service agencies when such regulation violates due process, exceeds statutory authority, or infringes on First Amendment guarantees. In this process, we emphasize our solidarity with both secular and religious members of the voluntary sector and invoke the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment as a basis for objection to regulation only when there is a bona fide constitutional question at stake. We do not attempt to insulate the institutional church from legitimate regulation which contributes to the common good by indiscriminately charging violations of religious liberty. The Lutheran churches analyze regulations on a case by case basis and develop positions which reflect their commitment to religious freedom as well as government regulation which protects the public's health, safety and welfare. For example, on the issue of the IRS' role vis-a-vis private school desegregation, we assert that a religious organization running an educational institution, like other tax-exempt organizations, cannot claim the exempt status and at the same time operate contrary to established public policy on racial discrimination. However, while we would acknowledge the right of the government to revoke the tax exempt status of schools which discriminate, judgments must be made on the basis of facts within a framework of due process. Presumptions on general circumstances or external conditions are inadequate for this purpose. Thus, in 1978, we were in the position of supporting the intent of IRS activity in this area, while vehemently opposing the specific procedure proposed, since it did not meet these criteria; thereafter we supported revised regulations which we felt met our concerns about due process. This example is illustrative of our approach to dealing with government regulation. Recognizing the government's interest in providing quality education for all children, we generally have no conceptual problem with reasonable certification requirements for our religious schools--as long as those requirements are not capricious or do not restrict the religious freedom of the school. Our social service agencies generally have no problem with state or federal regulations intended to protect the public health, safety and welfare--but they may have serious problems with specific regulations, which may be burdensome, unnecessary, intrusive, or punitive. Government Establishment of Religion. In recent months, the debate over prayer in public schools has intensified. The Lutheran churches I represent would probably differ from many who will be testifying before this committee, since they have consistently supported the 1962/1963 Supreme Court decisions prohibiting state-mandated prayer and Bible reading in public schools. The Lutheran churches have maintained that such a practice is unnecessary from a religious point of view. We believe that God is active in the educational process; government is fulfilling its legitimate responsibility for universal public education, and we see no need to "put God back in that process" since He has never been removed from it. The responsibility for religious education and worship rests with the family and the church--not the government. It is important, however, that the schools maintain a wholesome neutrality among religious groups, not favoring one over the other and not denigrating re |