You know, just an aside here, I categorize my entries. Some day I will figure out how to archive them that way, but what has been fun is putting all of my rants about politics and the pulpit under the "liturgy" heading. This is the work of the people, no? Liturgy is by nature political, no? But the nature and content of the politics is what is at stake here.
Anyway, Dr. Bruce Prescott chimed in by commenting on my earlier post. He said "This is the most egregious violation of IRS tax law in regard to churches of which I've ever heard. The IRS needed to be called." And though I don't disagree, I am not convinced of the righteousness our response. This was my reply: "I simply do not understand how we congregationalists, we liberals, can play the same game that the high ecclesialists of the SBC are playing. By employing the IRS we are playing their game. It does not matter if the law is broken. It does not matter that Baptist tradition has been bucked...and it has. Our response must reflect the gospel we preach. In all things be gentle." There is more to all of this conversation in the comments section of that post. Give it a read.
Thanks to the folk at Movable Theobological for making a connection. I am grateful and flattered. He made a remark or two about the comments following my initial post about this story.
Dr. Prescott also pointed me to this link. I am not sure what to make of it yet. You tell me.
Finally, I joined in the ranting at Emmaus. Those boys are crazy. I think I like it. But I find myself standing in disagreement somehow. Boy, being baptist is a lot of work. This "tradition of dissent" takes effort! Whew!
That beintg said, I have to write down the goals I have for this final term of CPE. It should be an interesting term. I have fewer on-call shifts, but have tons of writing to do to prepare for certification.
Posted by tripp at May 12, 2005 10:25 AMHi Tripp!
Who you callin' crazy?! Well, the shoe, I believe, does indeed fit. But beware, our kind of craziness is contagious!
But seriously ;), Dr. Bruce Prescott and I agree on a whole lot more than we disagree on. I certainly agree that there was probably legal cause for the IRS to barge in to the East Waynesville situation. And yet I am very uncomfortable with the idea (I think that's my libertarian and congregationalist streak). Since Pastor Chandler resigned, there is probably no need for the involvement of the IRS. Had he stayed in his position and continued to violate the rules (and his denomination had continued to back him), then I believe that there would certainly have been reason for the IRS to look into the matter.
I think this is a great topic for discussion! Thanks for having the courage (read that "craziness") to bring it up.
Peace,
Mike
Posted by: Dr. Mike Kear at May 12, 2005 11:12 AMIt does indeed take one to know one.
Like you I am uncomfortable with the idea of the IRS being involved. But why am I? Is it my own ideas of the separation of church and state? Perhaps it is a paranoid fear in regards to the IRS itself. That is distinctly possible.
I believe, however, that my own discomfort (borderline outrage, really) has everything to do with the ethics of repeating the sins of the past. One may argue that Chandler has an almost pharisaical hold on the scriptures and may browbeat his congregation into submission to the gospel. I don't know the guy, so I cannopt say if this is true. Here the media and the internet falls far short for me.
What I can say is this: I have a hard time seeing the difference between my encouraging the IRS's involvement and the people's encouraging the Roman involvement in the crusifixion of Christ. There is a biblical ethic at play here that we should be careful not to ignore. Also, there are the basic political implications of giving the SBC a political martyr. We probably already have. If so, we are done. If not, then I say we tighten the reins and wait before we take any other action.
Posted by: Tripp at May 12, 2005 11:28 AMOh, right, there is this as well.
That congregation, and one would assume the deacon who was asked to leave, hired this pastor to begin with.
Something is broken in that congregation. And it was broken long before Chandler got there. He simply stepped too hard on the wrong plank in the congregation's platform.
Posted by: Tripp at May 12, 2005 11:30 AMTripp,
Every Christian and every church has the responsibility of obeying the laws of the land in which they reside -- or else facing the consequences of those laws. That is how unjust laws get overturned.
If the law is unjust, then the church should face the consequences and work to overturn it. If the law is just, Christians and churches should observe it.
Frankly, the law is just. Contributions to churches are tax deductible. Contributions to politicians and political parties are not. If churches want to become arms of political parties, they ought to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Churches are free to talk about issues day and night. The line is drawn when it comes to endorsing or opposing political candidates and political parties.
Posted by: Bruce Prescott at May 13, 2005 09:04 AMBruce, there is obedience and then there is employing those laws to a certain end. The law may be just and employed to an unjust end. What I am arguing is that the manner in which this law will be or could be employed has the great potential of being unjust. Jesus, one may argue, broke the law (Ceasar is God. There is no God but God.) and was killed for it. But it was not his breaking of an unjust law that killed him. What killed him was the employment of that law by religious authorities to a religious end.
By employing the IRS to a religious end...the punishment of a clergyperson for preaching politics...we repeat the same sin that the Chocen People of God committed two thousand years ago.
Posted by: Tripp at May 13, 2005 11:10 AMTripp,
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "employing the IRS to a religious end."
The IRS was employed for a legal end. It is perfectly legal for churches to support political candidates and engage in partisan politicking -- as long as they relinquish their tax exemption and play by the same rules that every other political organization has to live by.