I urge you, first of all, to pray for all people. As you make your requests, plead for God's mercy upon them, and give thanks. Pray this way for kings and all others who are in authority, so that we can live in peace and quietness, in godliness and dignity. (1 Timothy 2:1-2)
Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow. (Romans 13:1-3)
The authorities are established by God for that very purpose, to punish those who do wrong. So you must obey the government for two reasons: to keep from being punished and to keep a clear conscience. (Romans 13:4-5)
For the Lord's sake, accept all authority — the king as head of state, and the officials he has appointed. For the king has sent them to punish all who do wrong and to honor those who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14)
I'm in the midst of the whirl that marks the build-up to my qualifying exams. So I've been doing a lot of writing and Powerpoint making. The good news is that I should have a paper to submit to One of Two Big Journals in Field next month or so. The bad news is that I have to pass my qualifying exams, go to a conference, and keep up with a couple of classes at the same time during the next month, too.
But I did want to update you on matters with ILEOS, since some of the readers of this blog have been following the story. Basically, the IRS was utterly non-responsive for a while, after the hullaboo they started around the Feast of All Saints last. ILEOS made a careful response to the initial IRS requests for information with the help of a Washington, D.C. tax firm (apparently staffed with former IRS lawyers).
Then in July, the IRS asked for a laundry list of documents about everything from the compensation of the Rector Emeritus (the preacher of the sermon in question) to a catalog of all mentions of elected officials in any church service. (The President is mentioned in the Prayers of the People more often than the pulpit...). The church and her lawyers replied by challenging the requests and asking for the request to be in the form of a summons to an administrative hearing.
A few days ago, the laundry list was renewed and the Rector was summoned to an administrative hearing on Friday.
At the moment, the church has two options:
(1) Comply with the requests
(2) Or fail to comply and attempt to force the IRS into Federal District Court for a full judicial action on the administrative interpretations of the Internal Revenue Code at issue.
Having a fair knowledge of both ecclesiastical history and Roman law, I really don't know if there's any direct precedent in tradition for choosing one option over the other.
A few points are clear: the Church is obligated to respect the law as far as her mission is not compromised by it. This is a rather rash summary of the Scriptural witness, but the gist of it is that rulers derive their power from God, whether they are monarchs or elected representatives. Though they are obligated to serve justly. Indeed, the Psalmist compares temporal rulers to minor and fallible deities (Psalm 82). Christianity is not a license for violating community standards. If the law were to forbid the use of high emission vehicles, church van conversion could not be delayed on account of evangelical necessity. This is an odd case, but most other cases involve things Christians believe to be sinful. Perhaps, forbidding the eating of meat is a better example. At the same time, it is also recognized by Scripture that the laws of God supersede the laws of man. If the government allows something that is forbidden to Christians or forbids something that is essential to the faith, Christians should not do what the law permits and do what the law condemns.
Tradition also gives one excellent example of behavior to be avoided in civil actions: The case of St. Columba shows us that it is not pleasing to God to start a war to avenge a judgment against you, no matter how corrupt the judge is.
Otherwise, Christians are restricted to following general principles. In this case, I think option (2) is the right one. ILEOS' position is that they will not endorse a political candidate. ILEOS is very political for an Episcopal church, but you hear nothing about the ordination of Barbara Boxer by God or the godliness of Al Gore. One is told it is a sin not to vote, not that it is a sin to vote for a Republican. Until this IRS case arose, it was generally understood by churches and tax lawyers that the law forebade direct endorsement or campaigning on behalf of a political candidate and nothing else. So ILEOS complies with the law as far as it understands it.
Second, the implication of the materials requested by the IRS is that it is potentially a violation of the law to criticize a politician around Election Day or other times of the year. Even forgetting the great repugnance of such an idea to the common understandings of our constitutional liberty in speech and religion, tradition is clear on this matter. We revere saints such as Holy John Chrysostom, whose criticisms of the Empress Eudoxia for her excesses and self-idolatrous tendencies led to his exile. The example of Nazi Germany is still very near to us, in which one set of German Christians nearly apostasized by supporting the Nazis and the other set witnessed to the essence of the Gospel at risk of their lives. The principle at stake is important, even if the political situation has not yet reached that kind of clarity.
And in the United States, it is important to remember that the common welfare of the people is the king and from their will derives all authority. By upholding the liberties of the people, we uphold the government that the Apostle claims is ordained by God.
Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that heathens and tax collectors may be near to you, so that you may share with them the wonders of the Gospel.
1 comment:
I think Option 2 makes sense. I've read and reread the offending sermon, and it seems clear to me that the sermon itself does not violate the law, what it does do is point out some of the problems with the present war. This type of move by the IRS sets a dangerous precedent if enforced, essentially saying religious communities cannot criticize U.S. policy even when that policy which is enacted in the name of all the people starts endorsing matters such as torture or warfare without principle.
I will make a slight correction, given my knowledge of German history. You wrote, " The example of Nazi Germany is still very near to us, in which one set of German Christians nearly apostasized by supporting the Nazis and the other set witnessed to the essence of the Gospel at risk of their lives". Actually, a sizeable number of the Church, the Deutsche Christian, in their support of the Nazi regime came close to and in many cases apostosized. A very small number resisted at risk to their lives. Most, the vast middle, simply went along, sometimes not even knowing all that was going on, but having accepted some basic premises of the regime, that Jews, homosexuals, Roma, and others were not children of God and worthy or removal (though where they went to the middle rarely questioned).
Post a Comment