Weary of the Moon

Worship as Higher Politics

Christianity Today had a really good editorial yesterday called Worship as Higher Politics.  The article begins saying

George W. Bush is not Lord. The Declaration of Independence is not an infallible guide to Christian faith and practice. Nor is the U.S. Constitution, nor the U.N. Universal Declaration on Human Rights. "Original intent" of America's founders is not the hermeneutical key that will guarantee national righteousness. The American flag is not the Cross. The Pledge of Allegiance is not the Creed. "God Bless America" is not the Doxology.

Sometimes one needs to state the obvious—especially at times when it's less and less obvious.

I applaud the editorial and think it says things that need to be said.  I have watched with interest (maybe somewhat morbid interest) as faith and politics (especially the rhetoric surrounding each) have become more and more synthesized.  It is certainly not new that politicians invoke the name of God in speeches, but the manner and frequency in which faith is invoked recently (maybe the last 4-8 years especially) seems to be different.  I read an article awhile ago by Peggy Noonan called Way Too Much God in reference to the President's inauguration speech.  She opined that the rhetoric was over the top.  I see that more and more.  Rick Bennett pointed to Al Mohler's recent statements leading up to the SBC Convention in Nashville decrying what Christian kids face in public schools as "atrocities."  That seems to me to be over the top.  Others have been lamenting "activist" judges.  We often hear about America being a Christian nation as people argue that Christians should flex their muscles in the political realm.

I am growing increasingly uncomfortable with such language.  I believe Christians have a great home in America because it is the land of the free, but I also believe that goes for all faiths.  I believe Christianity is the only true faith in the sense that Jesus is the only way to God; however, I also believe in a free country like America people should be free to choose their path.  I don't at all believe Christians should be shut out of the marketplace of ideas or that courts should be hostile to Christians, but I don't see those things happening.  I honestly see courts trying to be neutral and struggling with how to do that.  As a result, I see a great deal of confusion about rights in various areas such as public schools, town squares and even churches (see my previous posts on the East Waynesville Baptist Church uproar here and here).  I believe Christians should be heard and should not suffer from discriminatory practices, but I don't think Christians should use political rhetoric or political muscle to mandate.  I know many will and do disagree with me on this.

Ultimately, I think we are wading into difficult marshes when we merge our faith and political rhetoric.  I don't think it helps from a missional standpoint and I fear it ostracizes, unnecessarily building walls rather than bridges.  We should be inviting people into the Kingdom, not building defenses to keep us in and them out.

Final thought.  I've read two stories recently, one about the evangelical church in Turkey and another about the evangelical church in Russia.  In each instance there is real and bitter suppression and discrimination.  I'm not sure public schools refusing to demonize homosexuality is really on the same level.

Politics from the Pulpit: Update

Steve at Reformissionary has provided an update to the story via CNN.  The pastor has resigned from his position.  Steve remarked that he was not suprised.  I guess I really am surprised, and to be honest, impressed.  As I said previously, I've worked on a number of cases where small Baptist churches (not picking on Baptists - they just are susceptible because of the congregational system) get into disputes - meaning they ended up at the courthouse (though sometimes we avoid that).  The courts often (typically) refuse to exercise jurisdiction which results in continued acrimony.  In any event, it doesn't always end with one side taking his lumps and moving on. 

Politics from the Pulpit: Part II

The post immediately preceding this one (below) is an article I am putting together regarding the East Waynesville Baptist Church membership dismissal issue.  If you haven’t heard about this, you can read a quick report here.  The post below is a more detailed account of the dispute along with a look at the law involved with respect to political involvement of 501(c)(3) organizations.  I have not gone into the law with respect to the issue of church membership as a property right, judicial intervention into ecclesiastical disputes, etc.  Maybe I can get to that in the next week or two as it is fascinating and somewhat complex.

In any event, I suggest you read my previous post before this one to get the law, etc.  Here, though, I am more concerned with the ecclesiological aspects of this story, i.e. was the pastor right in what he said, can Christians vote for a democrat, what should the response of the dismissed members have been, etc.

I am disappointed in this story on so many levels.  First, I hate that the church comes into the news in this way.  It is not a good witness.  The idea of the church having a backdoor to kick people out is not something that should be trumpeted.  I am all for church discipline, but Jesus told us how to do it in Matthew 18.  Now I don’t know if the pastor of this church followed that model, but he should have.  Furthermore, I am disappointed in the members for allegedly creating disunity and dissent in the church rather than seeking reconciliation (again, I say allegedly) and going to the press.  I also question their seeking out legal advice.  As a lawyer, and one who works with churches and deals often with church disputes (and I’ve dealt with issues very similar to this), I don’t think members should seek first the press or the courthouse.  Even when we are offended/abused (perhaps particularly when we are), we must seek first the kingdom of God.  Again, the dismissed members haven’t filed a lawsuit, and I hope they do not.  (As an aside, I recognize this is a very difficult and emotional issue as some of these folks had been members at the church for 20-40 years – in a Baptist church, the majority rules and sometimes the result is inequitable.  Sin exists in the church as well.  The answer is not immediately to turn to civil courts but rather to seek a path of reconciliation.)

Despite my discouragement with the media accounts, the apparent strong-handedness of the pastor/majority and the “lawyering up” of the minority, I am most disappointed with the issue raised by the pastor in October 2004 that anyone supporting John Kerry should repent or resign.  Really?  Why?  His reasoning may be explained in an editorial written in his support by Waylan Owens of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.  Owens writes, “Many facts have gone unreported or obscured in the media’s efforts to scandalize a young minister who has taken a stand for biblical morality and the life of a baby resting in her mother’s womb.”    Later Owens writes, “You cannot call yourself a member of a church that stands against abortion and then actively support abortion with your politics.”  Finally he asks, “Wouldn’t we all like men who claim to preach the Word also call us to live the Word?”  To his last question, I answer a resounding and emphatic “YES!”  But I must retort, why do we choose just this one issue?

Was the pastor standing up for biblical morality in calling people not to support Kerry?  I am pro-life, but does that require I vote for a certain person or against a certain person.  Is that being legalistic (i.e. seeking to obtain God’s kingdom by maintaining a certain code of conduct)?  Is it really the case that I cannot be a member of a church that opposes abortion based on biblical principles and yet support a candidate for elective office that holds contrary views?  Why does it come down to this sole issue?  I want to speak of a culture of life.  That means I support the rights of the unborn child but it also means I support real efforts to overcome poverty, giving the poor the right to life.  It means I support giving aid to orphans and widows.  It means I support taking a stand against genocide and human trafficking and so many of the other horrific abuses of life seen around our globe.  So why does the test of my political affiliation come down to one issue?  The pastor called on his members to repent for supporting Kerry because Kerry did nothing to stop the horror of abortion.  Should the pastor (and I) repent for supporting George W. Bush who has done little to stop documented genocide in Darfur?  Rather than kick people out of church and demonize people for their support of a particular candidate, shouldn’t the church and its leaders hold fast to the gospel message of seeing the lame walk, the blind have sight, the lepers cleansed, and sins forgiven.  Shouldn’t the church be a voice urging life – for the unborn, for the Sudanese, for all people? 

Politics from the Pulpit: East Waynesville Baptist Church

On May 2, 2005 a vote was held at East Waynesville Baptist Church (the “Church”) in Waynesville, North Carolina regarding the membership of nine individuals.  Pursuant to the Church’s bylaws, a two-thirds majority vote was required to dismiss these individuals from membership in the Church.  Prior to the vote, seven of the individuals recognizing they were outnumbered at this particular meeting, determined to leave the meeting.  The other two members remained; however, a vote was taken dismissing all nine individuals’ membership from membership in the Church.

Membership dismissal in a Baptist Church is not an unusual or a foreign concept.  In fact, the majority of Baptist churches (as churches employing a congregational system of governance as opposed to a hierarchical or connectional system of governance) typically include either in their customs and practices or in written bylaws a provision for dismissing members for various reasons ranging from scriptural misconduct (e.g. adultery, etc.) to creation of disunity or disharmony within the church.  While it is not an altogether common practice to see members dismissed (particularly in larger churches), it is certainly not unheard of (particularly in smaller churches).  As with the East Waynesville Baptist Church, the vote to dismiss members typically requires some type of super-majority at a called business meeting at which a quorum is present.  Dismissal from a membership association, particularly a church, carries with it a host of legal considerations all it own (e.g. whether members have a property right in their membership under state law thus necessitating due process, whether a civil court will entertain a membership dispute, whether a civil court will entertain a dispute regarding whether proper procedures were followed in calling a meeting, etc.).  However, the issue of membership dismissal in the abstract is not what makes East Waynesville Baptist Church case unique.  Rather the story of this small Southern Baptist Church in Waynesville, North Carolina has been picked up by media outlets across the nation because of the alleged reason the individuals were removed for membership: their political views. 

According to the dismissed members, Pastor Chan Chandler, speaking from the pulpit on a Sunday morning in October 2004 told the congregation, that anyone who supported Democratic Senator John Kerry should either leave the Church or repent.  Apparently some members left the Church after this ultimatum; however, other members who supported Kerry remained.  Following the election, the pastor’s statements on political issues allegedly became more intense.  At least one commentator, one of the pastor’s former seminary professors, has suggested that the dismissed members persisted in attempts to create disunity and disharmony within the Church over the time period between the pastor’s first political statement in October 2004 and the vote of dismissal in May 2005.  As such, a series of interesting questions arises. Did the pastor and the Church dismiss these individuals for their political views or for their creating disunity within the Church?  If the latter, were their actions brought on by the pastor’s political conduct and a result of the Pastor’s political statement?  Can these two issues even be untangled?  Can a church dismiss members for their political views?  As a corollary, can a church, as a membership association, restrict its membership to people of certain views (don’t Baptist churches restrict membership to people who believe in baptism by immersion)?  Should there be a penalty imposed on the Church or the pastor for the pastor’s statement in October in 2004 or for the Church’s action in May 2005? If so, what should it be?  Should a civil court entertain a lawsuit regarding dismissal of these members (it has been reported the dismissed members have sought out an attorney)? 

Setting aside the issue of a person’s right to be a member of a church, the questions raised by this incident highlight the issue of political involvement by an organization exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.  Waylan Owens, writing a guest column for the Baptist Press News, states that “since I believe America should protect freedom of conscious and the right to speak freely in a religious pulpit, I am saddened that a young minister should be subject to such an inquisition for standing for biblical morality and the teachings of his church.”  However, was the pastor ever prevented from speaking freely in the religious pulpit? 

The Internal Revenue Code dictates that an organization exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) must be an organization “no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”  As such there is an absolute prohibition against organizations exempt under Section 501(c)(3) participating in any type of political campaign with respect to an individual who is a candidate for public office.  The prohibition against involvement includes contributions, endorsements, provision of facility on a partisan basis, provision of a forum for political speech, etc.

It is an obscure line than an organization must face when attempting to balance what it believes to be its purpose and obligations in supporting moral causes with its obligation to avoid political speech which violates the prohibition against political activities.  This line can be particularly troublesome in the context of the speech of individuals, because individuals have the right to involve themselves in political campaign activities and the right to speak freely about those activities.  However, where the individual is speaking on behalf of a 501(c)(3) organization, the speech will be attributed to the organization as “official” speech rather than “personal” speech.  As an example of this of official/personal dichotomy, the Internal Revenue Service has stated in Publication 1828 (Tax Guide for Churches and Other Religious Organizations) that “[m]inisters and others who commonly speak or write on behalf of religious organizations should clearly indicate at the time they do so, that public comments made by them in connection with political campaigns are strictly personal and or not intended to represent their organization.”  The Internal Revenue Service frequently issues reminders to charitable organization of the prohibition, and though infrequent, does investigate organizations for violating the prohibition.  No doubt East Waynesville Baptist Church will be investigated over these reported statements.

Turning back to the question raised by Owen’s editorial, was the pastor’s right to speak freely in the pulpit not protected?   The answer is layered.  Tax law limits a pastor’s speech to the extent the church wants to be subsidized by the federal government.  As the United States Supreme Court has long held, First Amendment rights such as the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech are not required to be subsidized to be fully realized.  A church is free to speak out on political issues and endorse political candidates at every turn, but in doing so the church is prevented from qualifying as a 501(c)(3) organization.  Clearly this is a difficult issue as churches rely on contributions to the church being tax-deductible to the donor.  However, should a church feel strongly about political involvement, it is free to forego 501(c)(3) status and speak out.  Otherwise, the speaker can simply make clear he is speaking as an individual and not do so from the pulpit. 

Ultimately, the East Waynesville Baptist Church story depicts yet another example of the tension between tax exemption and its limitations on First Amendment freedoms.  If the story, as alleged above, is true, the pastor absolutely violated the political campaign intervention prohibition and did so acting in a capacity on behalf of the Church.  Therefore, based on this one incident alone in October 2004, the Church could lose its tax-exempt status.  What about the May 2005 meeting?  Would the actions of the Church congregation in voting out members allegedly due to their political beliefs violate Section 501(c)(3)?  That is a muddier issue as it occurred after the election and appears from the reported story (assuming the truth of the reports) to be more an issue over political affiliation rather than specific candidate endorsement.  Whatever the case, churches wishing to avoid such firestorms are well-advised to heed the prohibition against political intervention or to seek competent legal advice prior to taking any actions that could be in violation of the prohibition.