Recently I was listening to the Family Life Network's 'experts'
on all things political. In reality the two experts or regular guests on their
Capitol Connection show, Michael Geer of the Pennsylvania Family Institute and
Jason McGuire of New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedoms are bought and paid
for lobbyists who have no interest in helping the Christian audience discover
the truth or foster tools of discernment. They appear in order to promote a
line but it's deceptively represented as some kind of informed and honest
coverage.
The latest comments made by Democratic presidential candidate
'Beto' O'Rourke have generated something of a frenzy. As one commentator on
another programme put it, he's dropping grenades in order to make news, to get
himself back into the race and become a serious contender. He's being
provocative and aggressive. Not long ago he made some anti-gun comments and now
O'Rourke has effectively become a poster child for NRA membership campaigns.
They've probably benefited more from his comments than did his campaign.
Recently while participating in the Sodomite issues debate
O'Rourke suggested that institutions and even churches which refuse to accept
gay marriage should lose their tax exempt status. It was hardly a surprise that
these comments echoed across the ecclesiastical spectrum but fell particularly
hard on the ears of Evangelicals and their financial colossus.
The coverage has been extensive and yet sorely lacking. The
Family Life Network 'experts' expressed concern that a presidential candidate
would have so little regard for the 1st Amendment. Listening to them
and others I've been struck by the utter lack of informed commentary and what
seems (to me) little more than scaremongering. Whatever the case, the Christian
audience isn't even being presented with the real issues, let alone provided
with any kind of intelligent and reflective commentary.
But after all they're lobbyists, not experts. The fact that
FLN misrepresents what these men are is on them. Their audience has itching
ears and so in some respects they're getting what they deserve. And in the case
of news and analysis the FLN audience is sure to be impoverished and ignorant.
O'Rourke's comments were stupid and deliberately provocative
but at the same time there actually is a case to be made.
First of all there are limits to the 1st
Amendment, everyone would agree on that and everyone knows the examples. From
shouting 'fire' in a movie theatre to speech that urges violence, harm or
lawbreaking, there are clear examples in which the 1st Amendment
doesn't apply.
These lobbyists and many on the Right have chosen to ignore
the legal fallout which resulted from the Civil War. In fact, many are in flat
denial. In trying to argue for Originalism and an all but iron-clad US
Constitution they've missed or deliberately have chosen to downplay the role of
the Amendments. They 'are' the Constitution and the very fact that they can be
passed at all defeats the argument of Originalism. There are plenty of other
arguments (both legal and historical) that can be marshaled but this one alone
is sufficient and demonstrates the Originalist view which really came into
being during the 1970's was not the view of the Founders, the drafters of the
Constitution and the creators of the Republic. Even a survey level examination
of American history and American law demonstrate the fallacy of this view.
Masquerading as a 'conservative' view, Originalism is actually an innovation
and a facade for Right-wing arguments and agendas.
The post-Civil War Amendments made profound changes to the
nature of the Constitution and threw some earlier amendments (such as the 10th)
into question. To provide a simplified
example, the14th Amendment which mandates the Federal Government apply equal
protection comes into conflict with the 10th Amendment which argues
that any powers not specifically delegated or enumerated by the Constitution
belong to the states. Hence for decades things like education, marriage and
even abortion were state issues. Alcohol was also on that list until the issue
was 'federalised' by 18th Amendment and then (more or less) returned
to the states by the 21st.
While there have been battles over the reconciliation of
these principles, first with Plessy v. Ferguson (a 10th Amendment
victory) culminating in Brown v. Board of Education (a victory for the 14th
Amendment), the 14th Amendment (and all the post-Civil War
amendments) has stood the test of precedent. The question is in terms of
application.
Socially speaking the law tends to go through a process of
change after every war and World War II began to have profound effects on the
fabric of law which played out in subsequent decades. The principles remained
but the application began to change. After what happened in Europe no one could
look at Jim Crow the same way. The narratives and principles which (supposedly)
guided and governed US participation in the conflict generated contradictions
at home... and generated social struggle which played out in the fifties and
reached a point of crisis in the 1960's. This is an aspect to the 1960's that
you're not going to hear about in Right wing circles.
With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was passed in part
on the basis of the 14th Amendment's call for Federal enforcement of
Equal Protection, suddenly certain people's 1st Amendment rights to
refuse service to blacks were called into question. I don't doubt that many
Conservatives would wish they could roll back the Civil Rights Act and some
would even remove the 14th Amendment altogether. Indeed none other
than Barry Goldwater warned that the Civil Rights Act would undermine the 1st
Amendment. Regardless of what one thinks of Goldwater, he was correct.
And yet today's lobbyists, commentators and Evangelical
revisionist historians aren't going to venture down that road, at least not in
public. And so they attack the principles from other angles.
But what about O'Rourke's statement? Well, given that since
2015 Sodomite marriage is in fact the law of the land, you could make a case
that non-profit organisations which refuse to comply with 14th
Amendment provisions should (at the very least) lose tax exempt status. This is
actually a milder application than what happened to a segregationist lunch
diner in the 1960's. In that case they were forced to serve blacks and let them
use the same restrooms as whites etc. O'Rourke's argument actually respects the
fact that the 1st Amendment still stands.
No one is saying these organisations have to perform
homosexual marriage ceremonies or be shut down. No, what's being suggested is
that they lose their tax exemption. Their properties and funds are currently exempt
from taxes and those revenues are lost to the community, which is accepted
because it's implied that these government-recognised charities perform a
social good. They are 501c3 Non-Profit Organisations. But if they're promoting
positions contrary to the law and contrary to social consensus (or perceived
consensus) then why should they be eligible for what amounts to a subsidy? They
can run their organisations, maintain their facilities and pay their workers
(high wages and bonuses if they want) and yet they don't have to contribute to
the public coffers which fund the roads, fire departments, police and sidewalks
like every other business does? That tax bill that doesn't have to be paid is tantamount
to money in the pocket, a subsidy. It's money they get to keep, that other
businesses and organisations have to pay. Why should organisations which defy
the law receive that benefit?
They can still keep their 1st Amendment rights but
given their position vis-à-vis the law they shouldn't receive what amounts to
accolade. That's the argument. Like it or not it's a plausible one. It doesn't
mean it can't be fought and it certainly would be, but what I am saying is that
the radio commentators by refusing to even speak of this are either
ill-informed and ignorant or deliberately misleading. My guess is a bit of
both.
Am I suggesting these churches ought to capitulate on this
issue? Am I suggesting O'Rourke is making a moral argument?
Not for a second. Rather I would hope that this moment would
drive some Christians, leaders and congregations to re-think the whole question
of non-profit status. Equivalent to state registration, these churches have
compromised Biblical polity and allowed the state to impose a set of rules
concerning by-laws, trustees, budgets, auditing, financial practices, limitations
of speech, building codes, so-called 'safeguarding' and the like. Churches
should have never conceded to this in the first place but of course such a
re-assessment would require these congregations and para-church organisations
to re-think the whole question of finances and how they are structured. I
encourage this and I hope to see many congregations drop this status.
The ones who have the most to lose are (generally speaking)
the congregations and institutions that are corrupt and as far as I'm concerned
should in fact shut down. It seems as if so many of these questions come back
to money and the love of it. I have no pity for so-called Bible teachers and
ministry leaders who rake in salaries of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In addition to re-thinking non-profit status maybe American
Evangelicals and Confessionalists would do well to reconsider the question of
the Constitution and its philosophical basis, yea the whole trajectory of law
in light of Classical Liberalism. Some who have spent their lives intertwining
the American narrative with Christianity suddenly discover that the Social
Contract and so-called human rights are not always compatible with Christianity,
let alone do they 'flow' from it. These things seemingly worked while there was
a social consensus but if they're not universal (applicable in all places and
at all times) these concepts can hardly be identified with Biblical doctrine.*
And clearly these concepts are not universal. They may prove
convenient or provide a functional form to society when there's a consensus but
when seriously applied in an equitable fashion they are revealed to be concepts
not only at odds with much of Christianity but actually founded on principles
antithetical to Christianity's understanding of authority. Some like the
Theonomists (though impoverished and even heretical in their understanding of
the New Testament) are honest enough to admit this.
The Roman Catholics understood this centuries ago ...and some
still do. They saw the problems with Classical Liberalism. And yet from my
perspective this is not to give any credence to their Sacralist models in which
State and Church are either intertwined or work in concert. The Protestant
varieties of this doctrine while somewhat different in form from the Catholic
are but veneers laid upon the same medieval concepts. The collapse of social
consensus in the 20th century suddenly exposed the stark but
inevitable reality... that Christian Sacralism and Classical Liberalism are
incompatible and in opposition.
As one who advocates for a strict New Testament position I
can safely say that neither of the aforementioned positions is in keeping with
Biblical Christianity and both represent serious dangers to the Christian
Church. Liberalism carries a potential threat to Biblical (New Testament)
Christianity. Sacralism is always antithetical to it and all too often has
represented the greater danger.
Maybe Churches also need to revisit the whole question of
'Church Weddings'? The concept itself is wedded to a Judaized Roman Catholic
conceptualisation of marriage as one of the Seven Sacraments (clergy performed
of course) and of the building as being akin to a holy temple, with 'sanctuary'
and all. Neither Old or New Testament, or even the early Church had such a
concept with regard to a marriage ceremony. It's simply not Scriptural and thus
this dilemma could easily be solved but I digress.
The Constitution is not a Christian document. No political
document can be. Classical Liberalism provides a level of freedom and social
pluralism that are nearly ideal for a pilgrim people to operate and function.
And yet even its principles if pushed too far will lead to persecution.
Likewise the Christian Sacral state is in its essence opposed to New Testament
concepts of Christian life and ethics. Like all extreme (and ultimately
Bestial) forms of statecraft it seeks to create a monistic social order and
thus all dissenters face persecution... the Christians bearing witness against
it on the basis of Christian doctrine will be subject to special ire and great
wrath. History bears this out. Roman, Byzantine and even Magisterial Protestant
varieties have all proven to be intolerant and even vicious toward those who
preach dissent by appealing to the Scriptures.
These are complicated issues requiring wisdom and sober
consideration. And I realise that a sound-byte driven Christian radio station
isn't going to engage in anything more than a shallow analysis, but what do we actually
get?
Little more than hack, agenda-driven commentary. These same
characters, FLN's so-called 'experts' recently hosted a conference headlined by
Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the deceiver and liar for the Trump administration and
a shame to all professing Christians in America.
It can safely be stated that Family Life Network is a joke.
It's not a serious organisation that's worthy of respect or consideration.
But given that it's a prospering 'ministry' and a source of
news for many Evangelicals in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States...
it's no joke at all.
Continue reading Part 2
Continue reading Part 2
*The historical sleight-of-hand and romanticism on this point
can at time be so absurd as to be comical. Those that try to draw lines between
Calvin's Geneva, the Puritans and the Founding Fathers obviously don't know
much about Calvin, the Puritans or what motivated them. For that matter many
who make these arguments usually demonstrate an ignorance of the Founding
Fathers, their viewpoints and how their ideas played out in the early republic.
As far as someone like Witherspoon, the answer is easy. He
was wrong and certainly wrong with regard to the Scriptures. A literal false
prophet, he taught the Church to sin and is to be condemned along with the
other rebels of 1776 who for love of money and in a spirit not born of Christ,
killed men, stole and destroyed property and murdered both the agents of their
king and many civilians besides. They confused godliness with gain.
As far as the Magisterial Protestant concept of a social
order, it retained much of the spirit and even some of the forms of its Roman
predecessor and thus it had little in common with Classic Liberalism. Authoritarian,
even totalitarian is more like it. Advocating and practicing censorship,
condemnation and torture by biased courts, these societies regulated words,
thoughts, food, the naming of children, clothing and even hairstyles. They
invaded homes and imposed regimens of housekeeping, examined belongings,
perused and confiscated reading materials, forced church attendance under
threat of fine, imprisonment and torture. They weren't advocates of the free
market either. They rigidly controlled the economy and used state revenue to
start businesses and regulate trade. They controlled free time, personal space,
surveilled everyone and even denied people the right to live alone or with a
relative of their choice. Punishing dissident creeds and other religions, these
states were diametrically opposed to the proto-liberalism beginning to emerge
in the 16th and 17th centuries. An examination of the
demands of the 16th century German peasants who rose up in the
1520's reveals that many of their concerns overlap with concepts that would
later come to be identified as human rights. It turns out the rebel peasants
were closer in sympathy to 1776 than the Reformers. Luther and the other
Reformers condemned the peasants and their uprising. To suggest that there's a
direct connection or some kind of ideological kinship between Geneva and 18th
century Philadelphia is pure fantasy, an exercise in revisionism, historical
eisegesis and anachronism.