White Horse Media director Steve Wohlberg spoke this past weekend about the ramifications churches may face when they surrender their right to choose to meet or not during the pandemic. The Corona Virus has devastated people all over the world – economics, businesses, incomes, and churches. He noted predictions that “one in five churches that have closed may never re-open, and there are a lot of people who are looking at these events and have concluded that what we are experiencing with the pandemic, and concluded that the use of state power to close congregations may be a ‘dry run’” for further erosion of liberty.
Tag: churches
-
Should churches “stay-at-home”? Martin Luther offers guidance
Although Luther wrote it nearly 500 years ago, his advice on how to handle an epidemic is still valid. Trust God and take precautions.
Martin Luther [dc]W[/dc]ith the “stay at home” orders in place in most jurisdictions in the United States, there’s a question as to whether religious organizations count as “essential” activities and whether they should continue to meet. Enforcement seems to vary, and Michigan, which strictly prohibits groups of more than 50, has promised not to prosecute religious groups that meet.
The reality is, COVID-19 is a deadly virus that spreads through human contact. Short of some direct supernatural intervention, religious groups are not immune. The Christian tradition recognizes that one should not “tempt God,” or commit the sin of presumption, by unnecessarily engaging in a dangerous activity in anticipation that God will provide protection. However, some churches continue to meet as they did before the outbreak, potentially exposing attendees and those with whom they come into contact.
Some have expressed that the ban on gatherings is consistent with an apocalyptic vision that foresees persecution near the end of time. Still, the reality is that churches throughout history in various places have been exposed to plagues and have taken steps to protect congregants.
Martin Luther, who was no stranger to the plagues of the Renaissance, wrote a lengthy letter (published here in its entirety by The Lutheran Witness), to address a theory that some had that Christians should not run away from a deadly plague. Luther characterized their view that “since death is God’s punishment, which he sends upon us for our sins, we must submit to God and with a true and firm faith patiently await our punishment. They look upon running away as an outright wrong and as a lack of belief in God.”
Luther acknowledged their level of faith but strongly disagreed with their intent to stay and face the plague. He wrote, “To flee from death and to save one’s life is a natural tendency, implanted by God and not forbidden unless it is against God and neighbor….”
Luther wrote, “Use medicine; take potions which can help you; fumigate the house, yard, and street; shun persons and places wherever your neighbor does not need your presence or has recovered, and act like a man who wants to help put out the burning city.”
Of those diagnosed, Luther wrote, “Moreover, he who has contracted the disease and recovered should keep away from others and not admit them into his presence unless it is necessary. Though one should aid him in his time of need, as previously pointed out, he, in turn, should, after his recovery, so act toward others that no one becomes unnecessarily endangered on his account and so cause another’s death.”
“If in the Old Testament God himself ordered lepers to be banished from the community and compelled to live outside the city to prevent contamination [Leviticus 13–14], we must do the same with this dangerous pestilence so that anyone who becomes infected will stay away from other persons, or allow himself to be taken away and given speedy help with medicine.”
Although it is nearly 500 years old, his advice on how to handle the plague is still good. Trust God, and also take precautions. Today we can bless people through absence but communicate in unprecedented ways using modern technology.
If a church were to decide to violate state or local laws and regulations and meet despite the virus, and the leaders faced a fine or criminal prosecution, there might be an argument, when this is all over, that their right to free exercise of religion or assembly was violated. And, depending on specific facts, there is a possibility after litigation that the religious group could prevail and the fine or criminal sanction could be removed. Again, this is very fact-specific, but even if the courts in the future find that the rules against meeting were unconstitutional, the church would have engaged in these activities at substantial risk to the health of those involved as well as to those with whom parishioners might come into contact. Churches exist to spread the gospel, not COVID-19.
Even if it is legal or constitutional, it is not necessarily a good idea. The apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 10:23-24 (NIV) provides some guidance about what to do when things are permissible but can also be harmful. “’I have the right to do anything,’ you say—but not everything is beneficial. ‘I have the right to do anything’—but not everything is constructive. No one should seek their own good, but the good of others.”
There are issues concerning religious liberty that we continue to monitor, including what legal elements impacting freedom of speech, free exercise of religion, assembly movement, and finance may remain in place once the virus has passed. But that should not distract us from the current need to stay safe.
Illustration at top: DepositPhotos.com
-
The Theology of the Tax Exemption
Photo: DepositPhotos.com @Hriani
By Jason Hines, PhD, JD –
[dc]C[/dc]onservative Christians reacted predictably in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell that ruled same-sex marriage constitutional. There was hand-wringing about the pseudo-persecution of Christians and faux outrage in response to fake articles that confirmed Evangelicals’ worst fears. Many conservative critics of the decision opine that this decision will lead to the curtailing of the freedom of religion in this country. It is true that the advent of nationwide same-sex marriage creates flashpoints between religion and the government where none existed before. It is true that Christian universities may have to deal with housing issues and that churches that hold out their space to the public for weddings may have to amend their policies. However, very few if any are asking the question exactly how these flashpoints actually effect the constitutional right to the free exercise of your faith. It seems that the conversation jumps from mentioning these thorny issues to the conclusion that the right of free exercise is being curtailed.[pullquote align=”left” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Has Christianity in America become so materialistic that we conflate our freedom to worship with our ability to save a dollar?[/pullquote]
The reason why the argument skips steps is because there is a logical, legal and theological fallacy occurring in the ether around this issue. To state it bluntly – the free exercise of religious institutions (churches, schools, etc.) will not be affected by the allowance of secular same-sex marriage. The government forces no minister or pastor to perform a ceremony that violates their conscience. No church will be forced to hold a wedding on their premises that violates their beliefs.[1] What frightens many who raise this objection is the loss of the charitable tax exemption. Currently, those who are deemed charitable organizations (and most churches fall under this designation) are not taxed. In return, those institutions cannot do things like discriminate in terms of their services, nor can they advocate for particular candidates in elections.[2] Advocates of “traditional” marriage believe that religiously affiliated organizations could lose their tax exemptions or lose the access to government funding now that the Court found in favor of a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
From a legal perspective those who hold this view are correct. It is quite likely that courts will rule against churches who attempt to have their cake and eat it too by attempting to receive a government subsidy while shirking the terms by which the government grants that subsidy. In 1983 the Supreme Court ruled that the tax exemption is a subsidy to charitable organizations in the amount of the tax itself and then stated that there is no argument, “that First Amendment (Free Exercise) rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State.”[3]Although this case was in reference to political advocacy, it is not a stretch to believe that the Court would extend this principle to religious institutions that seek to discriminate against unions that the state has deemed constitutional. According to the Supreme Court, it is not the responsibility of the state to donate financial resources to those who do not share the state’s principles.
I believe the Court is correct in its constitutional understanding on this issue. What bothers me more, however, is the lack of a spiritual consideration among Christians who weep and gnash their teeth over the potential loss of a tax exemption. Has Christianity in America become so materialistic that we conflate our freedom to worship with our ability to save a dollar? I was under the impression that Christians are people of faith, and yet we show so little faith in the ability to continue to function without the benefit of a charitable tax exemption. We serve a God that we claim is omnipotent and omniscient. If that’s true then it seems mighty silly to complain about a lost tax exemption on the one hand and claim that God owns the cattle on a thousand hills on the other. That does not mean that there are not legitimate financial concerns. Unfortunately some of our ministries in some areas of the country could not function without government funding. It is true that some churches would have to close their doors without the money they save in the tax exemption. It is also true that giving itself might decrease when members are no longer able to claim their tithe and offering on their tax returns. I just think that says so much more about us then it does about America, the courts, or the free exercise of religion. We should ask ourselves where we are as Christians when we no longer believe that God can provide for our charities and keep our church doors open. [pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]We should ask ourselves where we are as Christians when we no longer believe that God can provide for our charities and keep our church doors open. [/pullquote]
As an institution we should be questioning our worth when the financial support of our members is dependent on the government benefits they receive instead of the blessings of a covenant with God.
Those who react like Chicken Little in the face of changing social mores of society on the question of same-sex marriage are wrong on both counts. As a constitutional matter, there is very little effect on religion as a result of this decision, and no right to a charitable tax exemption or government grants. As a spiritual matter, there is no theology of the tax exemption. What we do have is a commission to introduce the world to a Savior who longs for a relationship with each of us. Maybe we should focus on that and growing our measure of faith instead.
[1] Unless, of course, that church holds itself out to the public as a place where anyone can come and conduct a wedding.
[2] The prohibition on candidate advocacy is the Johnson Amendment passed in 1954. Liberty Magazine recently held an online roundtable on the constitutionality of the amendment. For more on the removal of tax exempt status because of discrimination see this discussion of the Bob Jones case.
[3] Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540, 544, 546 (1983).