Monthly Archives: November 2013

On Why Clergy Don’t Need Tax Exempt Housing

Posted on by
4

Recently a federal juindexdge in Wisconsin ruled, in a suit filed by the Freedom from Religion Foundation, that clergy person’s tax-exempt housing is unconstitutional.  You can read more about it here.

The reason why clergy have tax-exempt housing in the first place is baffling to me.  It’s not necessary.

True, it’s a nice perk in a job where the burn-out rate is almost on par with air traffic controllers.

But they don’t get tax-free housing.  Hell, I don’t even think they get free unlimited plane flights…and they help land the things!

It’s not necessary.  In fact, I think it’s a problem.

Because if you look at the marriage between the clergy tax-free housing status and the government that granted it, you’ll find that this all arose in the 1920’s at a time when modern American exceptionalism was merging with revived religious fervor.  And you know the trajectory: revivals, the end of the Third Great Awakening bleeding into two World Wars and then a Fourth Great Awakening, the marriage of American cultural values and “Christian values.”

The church became the backbone of a social structure where everyone lived in little pink houses (for you and me), waved the flags that stood near the crosses next to the altars, and believed that God’s protection was over the USA.

At least, that’s the pretty picture painted by many.

Lost in the shadow of this false utopia that many look back on with fond affection is a series of systems that held racism iron-locked, held fear of the “other” as a value, and held crippling poverty as something you shy away from looking at (remember Robert Kennedy’s national tour?).

I think it is no accident that the “social gospel” of the Third Great Awakening was largely stifled in the 20’s-30’s and fell out of influence as we tumbled into the World Wars as now religious structures, who had been given a hand-out by Uncle Sam, began focusing on the individual rather than society.

Enter the Fourth Great Awakening with altar calls and personal commitments to Christ and civic duty…

What happens when Caesar sends you a gift? You become hesitant to critique Caesar.  You begin to scratch political backs.

The systems of the Great Society became largely solidified as religious and civic powers walked in lock-step.  Why is it, do you think, that Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote his prophetic letter to white pastors from that jail cell?

Their silence was deafening!

And all the while they were taking their tax breaks from a system that didn’t find it important that people of all races vote.

I’m happy to give up my tax-free housing allowance.  I hope other clergy are, too.  I don’t think I can take personal money from a system that continues to cut SNAP benefits, continues to feed fat insurance companies even in medical care reform, that continues to fight wars at considerable expense but refuses to fight poverty with any like measure.

I am not an advocate for being against things simply to be against something.  But there is much in our world that does not exhibit righteousness, “right-relationship,” and I must be free to speak against those ills.  Let’s give tax breaks to people that really are persecuted.

Perhaps this move will free clergy up to advocate for such a position.

In Defense of Reason(ableness) and Stories and Not Squashing Spiders

Posted on by
4

My colleague and good friend Jason put out to the world a list of “7 things people think are in the Bible but actually aren’t.”  You canspider1 read it here.

And it’s gone a bit viral, as well it should have.  It’s good writing.  And Jason is, by and large, correct in his list (despite the many Bible verses that those who disagree with him have quoted in the comments section).

What Jason sees, and what a large portion of people who identify as Christian and comment on his blog miss, is the difference between Bible quotation/citation and the theological discipline of Systematics.

Take his #7 example, for instance: The Rapture.

The Rapture as a theological concept, as a system, is not in the Bible.  Sure, there are verses in the Bible that the creators of this theological concept used to come up with this particular pseudo-doctrine (it’s not, technically, a doctrine at all).  And these quotations from Matthew and Ephesians and elsewhere lay a hodgepodge basis for this flimsy theological idea.

But the idea is not in there itself.

Just because you can quote a verse used to support a theological system does not mean that the theological system that uses that quotation as foundational is actually in scripture.

It often means someone did an good job of cutting and pasting.

So, for instance, when Jason says that “God hates ____” isn’t in the Bible, technically he’s incorrect.  Sure, there are verses that name that God hates a lying tongue, a sly look, hands that shed innocent blood (Proverbs 6) as well as other things elsewhere.

But Jason isn’t talking about technicalities here, he’s talking about the broad scope view of a Bible seen through the lens of Jesus (a lens all Christians should view scripture).  And by that standard, he’s correct.

The verses might be there; you can quote them.  But the spirit of the scriptures as seen through Jesus is one of reconciliation.  Dare we say: even reconciling these verses of Proverbs that claim God “hates” things?

Plus, Jason’s overarching point is that God never hates people for being people…so any argument that deflects from that main one is just a Straw Man argument, a philosophical fallacy.

Again, just because you quote a verse does not mean the theological concept is attested to in scripture.

But the biggest problem in this whole thing, I think, is the fear that people are meeting his assertions with.

Fear is pervasive in religion, even a religion based on peace and love.

Jason even received a note that warned him that the Bible “deals harshly with false prophets and heretics.”

First of all, my Bible has never dealt with me harshly.  It doesn’t have arms or legs or weapons to do so.  If it did, I’d need to do an exorcism, cause a Bible that can “deal with me harshly” is an inanimate object possessed.

Secondly, part and parcel with a literal view of scripture is the fear that comes from any viewpoint that might call objection to such a rigid reading of this spiritual document.  If the Bible is just a list of verses that I access like an encyclopedia, I’d rather read Shakespeare, thank you.

At least Shakespeare has the ability to move me.  No encyclopedia has moved me to do anything but play a word in Scrabble or squash a spider.

And I guess that’s a pretty good analogy.  Because Jason was moved by scripture to free people from the assumptions they make about what the spirit of scriptures really say much like poetry and good stories free us to change the world.

And people responded by trying to play a move better than his and squash him.

I want to make a defense of a reasonable way of reading scriptures.  For the Christian tradition, you cannot read any part of it except through the lens of Jesus the Christ. I do not see a way around that for a Christian.

And all other portions of scripture are good for teaching and edification…when read through the lens of Jesus.

When read on their own though, well, I’m afraid most Christians just end up trying to squash their neighbor like a spider.

So, are Jason’s assertions correct?  Technically you  might be able to point to specific verses to debunk his list.  But the Bible is not an encyclopedia.  It’s a story.  And you have to read the whole thing to get the arch of the narrative.  And, specifically here, you have to know the lens to read it with.

Through the lens of Jesus, his assertions are correct.

But I’m a reluctant Christian sometimes because we can’t put up with an encyclopedic reading of scripture anymore…and that seems to be what most places are offering.  It’s just creating a lot of attempts to squash each other.

And a hell of a lot of fear.

An Argument for Keeping Churches Small*

Posted on by
2

12SmallChurchAdvantage_400_478515996*A quick qualifier before we begin: “small” has yet to be defined with precision.

Because I think small doesn’t have everything to do with numbers (although, I think that at a certain point it does).

So, I’ve been getting some push back for my last article on why I dislike mega-churches.  A lot of it is warranted.  I think that if you put something out there, people should be able to push back.  And please note, I also dislike a lot of small churches (also in the article).

But that piece was written in response to a piece by a colleague who says he doesn’t like “mega,” but then never actually digs into “mega” at all in a substantial way.  Perhaps that wasn’t his point.  But there is something to be said there…and I wish he would. I think there is a real argument to be had for keeping faith communities on the small side.  I really do.

Here’s a part of that argument:

Look, we have a depression problem in the communities of faith, by and large.  This is well diagnosed.

Little churches are depressed that they  aren’t mega, and I think mega-churches have depression as well, though not of the psychological nature.  Mega-churches are depressed, and depressive, in that the consolidation of resources, while seemingly allowing for unlimited amplification of good, actually depresses the good they can be and do.

I’ll get to that in a moment.

But first, let’s define “small.”

Small to me is manageable.  For every community the particulars of that will be different, I think.  Some of it will depend on the leaders (clergy and others), some of it will depend on other factors such as location and mission (locus and focus).

But small does not mean deficient.  And it certainly doesn’t mean “bad” or “not living into it’s potential.”

I think many churches are small in size because of unconscious choices they make: who the power brokers are, what the internal fights are, their ability to welcome and adapt to change, etc.  Very few of these choices have to do with Jesus, btw.

But I think that communities of faith can be small by choice for reasons that absolutely have to do with Jesus.  That is, they can take their own temperature and decide when their connections are becoming so strained that they need to send some folks to start new communities of faith.

Because Christ was about making connections and reaching the margins…not about consolidation.  The need to consolidate is the need to control.

Control is a nice little illusion.

Let’s go back to mega a bit.  Because I think mega is about control.  That’s how mega is depressive.

Here’s the thing:  mega churches are hierarchical…like most churches (there are some notable exceptions, like the Quakers).  And the broader the base, the smaller the top.  And although there may be many leaders in a mega church (there should be many leaders in any size church!), when message lies in the lonely top, when perspective lies in the lonely top, when generation and impetus lies at the lonely top, it depresses the ability for the people to grow out on their own.

It truly does.

And it creates rock stars rather than ministers which, to me, is a real problem.

And these rock stars then become the interpretive lens for the parishioner rather than Jesus, because, well, how can you challenge someone who obviously has so much influence and control? They must know what they’re talking about…

This is, I think, why mega-churches have a large rotation of regular attendees…people who come for a few years, and then move on.  Consolidation at the top doesn’t allow things to “trickle down” in the way people want it to. The inability to actually have agency, to grow together while challenging each other, is depressive.

My parishioners and I don’t all agree on every point, theological or otherwise.  But we have a relationship that allows us to continue to do mission together, even while acknowledging where we diverge.  That just doesn’t happen in the same way in the mega world, to the detriment of the church and individual spirituality.

And, by and large, I find that mega churches perpetuate that mega-mentality that “more is better,” but practice a “more is not better” when it comes to leadership and messaging, as the lead pastor’s sermon is video streamed into each campus regularly despite the availability of other pastors to craft other sermons.

This, I think, doesn’t connect people in the way it’s intended.  There’s dissonance there.

I think it actually depresses mission; it doesn’t expand it.

And finally, let’s talk about the big elephant in the room: ego.

We must always be on guard when it comes to the ego.

The ego of small-in-numbers churches is offended that they’re not bigger…and so sometimes they fall into patterns of behavior to keep themselves numerically small as a way to fulfill their doom-prophecy.

They call themselves “friendly.”

When I hear or see “friendly” on a church sign or on a church website, I automatically think “dysfunctional.”  Because they’re trying to make up for the fact that others aren’t in the room by proclaiming that they’re super-nice.

If they were truly welcoming, though, and open to change, others would be in the room, right?  Maybe.  Most likely.

In contrast, the ego of the mega church leader is never kept in check as the church begins to grow but is never sent.  As the base gets bigger, the ego gets bigger.  Things seem to be “working,” and there’s nothing more delicious for a hungry ego than to see things “work.”  And so how do we keep things working?  By keeping control.

And the ego of the mega church attender is, likewise, fed by size.  “I must be doing something right because I go to a successful church! Look how big it is and how many programs it has!”  Red Riding Hood did a similar comparison before being eaten by the wolf…

People at this point will say things like, “God never intended you to live a mediocre life,” or “God has big dreams, you should too” or start quoting Proverbs or other parts of scripture to lay a foundation for bigger and successful is better.  And this is, I think, a secret in the world of mega: self-help tidbits that we pass off as spiritual.  Make me feel good, and I’ll serve you forever.  Feed the mega-ego until it’s stuffed.

But Jesus rarely made people just “feel good.”

If we look at Jesus (and really, all scripture should be seen through the lens of Jesus), we don’t see that.  Abundant life didn’t have to do with numbers or feeling good.  It had to do with reliance on God.  Reliance on God keeps the ego in check.  Humility.  Passionate giving.  Love that is sacrificial.

Look, I don’t know if your church is too mega or too small.  And I, by no means, think I have it all figured out.  My ego is trouble…just ask my wife.

But I think a good beginning question a faith community could delve into would be, “Do we think more is necessary?  Is more better?  Or are we confident that God has equipped us with all that we need?”

And really ask it!  Wrestle with yourself, with your church.

Keeping a church small intentionally involves asking those question.

And, I should be clear, I think there are small churches with 30 on a Sunday morning, and small churches with 3000 on a Sunday morning.

Both will have difficulty staying small, though.  There seems to be an in-between that aids in this kind of work.

Because mega is so tempting.

So constant questions, checks and balances, and the ability to really ask if you’re depressed or depressive is necessary.

I guess I would say, let’s keep it small.  Seriously.