Sustaining Progressive Faith

[cbayer]

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/05/09/should-churches-get-tax-breaks/sustaining-progressive-faith

Winnie Varghese in the priest in charge at St. Mark's Church in-the-Bowery in New York City.

UPDATED MAY 10, 2012, 11:42 AM

The religion headlines aren’t on my side lately. If I were not religious, I might want to make religions, particularly conservative Christians, pay for the privilege of their bully pulpits.

But I am religious -- a progressive Christian -- and I will argue for the tax-exempt status of religious organizations for only one reason. Moderate and progressive religion is overwhelmingly formed in the U.S., and it is an essential voice in national and international discourse. We are an important moral and ethical voice for society as a whole, a voice that has to be religious to respond to other kinds of religious movements.

The bottom line is that if historic churches like the one I serve had to pay property taxes, many of us would close. The liberal, diverse, urban churches in historic buildings would be priced out, and the newer, suburban minimall churches would be the church of the future. They are not always, but tend to be, overwhelmingly conservative. In the political arena, the right defends its agenda by that same conservative Christian language. The Christian center and left are a minority whose faith demands they work toward a more just or compassionate society, and many of us are also the stewards of prime real estate.

Our tax-exempt status gives minority views a space to seed and grow, often ahead of the political culture. This is possible in part because of the diverse church communities that develop because of where the buildings happen to be. We are not the majority in our traditions, but we are game changers.

more at link

[pinto]

1. Interesting take on the taxation issue. Hadn't thought of that angle before.

Yeah, St. Mark's is a beautiful, historic and a pricey piece of real estate.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

2. Winnie Varghese doesn't clarify what is a "progressive Christian," but isn't that an oxymoron?

Aren't all Christian sects based upon an intolerance of others?

Who can be more liberal and progressive than the Quakers? But historically, haven't even the Quakers shunned their own members when they married members of other Christian groups? (It must have been interesting when a Quaker familiy found out that one of their own was going to marry a Puritan. There's no doubt that they were tolerant, but not always that tolerant.)

It's true that some religious groups hold themselves out as being inclusive, but even the Roman Catholic Church has made that claim. Catholic, adj. (derived from catholicus) meaning universal, all-encompassing.

To be a "progressive Christian," what has to be believed or not believed? Are all points of view worthy of respect? If someone does not believe in the virgin-birth story, are their views entitled to the same respect as those who do? If someone takes the Genesis story literally, are their views entitled to the same respect as those who believe in science and evolution?

Can it be that "progressive Christian" is just a label? A selling point for those who identify themselves as progressives?

[pinto]

4. "The Christian center and left are a minority whose faith demands they work toward..."

"The Christian center and left are a minority whose faith demands they work toward a more just or compassionate society."

[Thats my opinion]

8. Exactly.

You know what AM doesn't realize. That progressive Christians are not defined by doctrinal conformity, but by a generous ethic.

[longship]

7. Progressive Christians are more numerous than you, or anybody, think(s)

There are whole Christian sects which can be considered as such, like the United Church of Christ (Obama's and my upbringing -- aka Congregationalists), Episcopals (aka Church of England, Anglican), some, maybe many Methodists, many Quakers, and many others. Plus, there's always UU, the agnostics, humanists, atheists, and their followers-on.

Even some traditionally conservative sects have their outliers and some are Stepping up. A recent post here at DU showed a sign in front of such a NC church grievously apologizing for Amendment One. It was a heartbreaking example of what a single church can do.

The question here is not what we can do as individuals, but what we can do together. That's the secret to success in this battle.

If you agree with the policies, we need to stand up tall and proud, no matter what the fuck we believe. Piecemeal isn't going to work. Our opponents are a very organized, and have a united message. We need to duplicate that with people who will gladly throw chairs at each other over silly rhetoric. That has to change.

Let's get together and kick these guys' asses.

[Thats my opinion]

9. Well put.

There are far more progressive Christians than is realized if you only look at the public press. And because of ethics, not doctrine, we make a positive contribution in almost every social issue.

[cbayer]

12. No, not all christian sects are based upon an intolerance of others.

Many christian sects are based on caring for those that have less.

[daaron]

3. I think current law needs to be enforced and updated.

I know there are some (even many) atheists who think that all churches should be taxed, across the board. I think the tax code should be updated to reflect the current reality (with mega-churches and televangelism falling in the too-big-not-to-tax category), and zoning codes should be strengthened so that churches can't build with impunity wherever they want, while restricting the rights of others (as happens with mosques).

Other than that, we just need to enforce the current law by taxing churches that politic from the pulpit. Clearly the Catholic Bishops have placed the Catholic Church in an awkward position in this regard, but so have a great many evangelicals and the Mormons. Enforcing this law would do the trick.

I suspect we'll continue to see an increase in civil actions to force compliance, as happened recently when a Church forced the FFRF to remove a billboard, but the property was being rented for commercial use. FFRF sued for action, and the IRS collected back taxes on the profligate offender. A piecemeal approach allows specific abuses to be addressed, and over time will result in a retraction of church leadership from political games.

Meanwhile, all liberal churches need to do is remain compliant with the tax code by not preaching from the pulpit. Don't fight fire with fire by trying to insert our idea of Christianity in response to the fundamentalist abuses. We just need to continue to keep our religion out of politics, and continue to ally with other groups trying to keep the wall of separation strong, while as much as possible restraining those in our own congregations from bringing politics into the church, as well.

It's a challenge. But I don't see the tax-except status of churches being under any threat, at the present. To a large degree, this entire article is completely hypothetical. Quite the opposite is true: churches are getting more involved with politics, and the government rarely addresses it. Churches have the Faith-Based Initiative in the White House, and that is dominantly Christian, as well.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

5. Shouldn't all atheists and other reasonable people think that all churches should be taxed?

Why only "some"?

[daaron]

14. Heheh. I suppose maybe they SHOULD, but DO they?

I didn't want to make a blanket statement, but rather one that was uncontroversially true.

[pinto]

6. Agree to a point. I'm uncomfortable overall with the infusion of politics and religion. Yet,

the author here makes a case for the traditional activism of more liberal sects for social justice and equality. Perhaps the key here is that it not be done within the service structures of a church, synagague or mosque. i.e. the bully pulpit. And that the conservative sects make no bones about politicizing a religious agenda. Not sure where the balance is...

[daaron]

15. A valid point.

Especially if we intend to move forward in coalition with progressive non-believers and non-Christians. It would be a mistake, I think, for us progressive Christians to put our desire to save our faith from the fundamentalists ahead of our desire to save our country from the fundamentalist Republicans.

How important is it to us as Christians that the progressive movement as a whole acknowledge the contributions of social justice and liberation theology to (especially) civil rights in the U.S? Do we really need to preamble our every action?

[Thats my opinion]

10. Not-for- Profits cannot and should not publically support candidates,

but are within the law by working on issues. That is what the courts have often ruled in 1st amendment cases.

[pinto]

11. Good distinction.

[Humanist_Activist]

13. This part I find to be blatantly false...

Moderate and progressive religion is overwhelmingly formed in the U.S., and it is an essential voice in national and international discourse. We are an important moral and ethical voice for society as a whole, a voice that has to be religious to respond to other kinds of religious movements.

I see ANY religious voice to be a distraction, and any debate between liberal and conservative religious people to be mostly about which parts of the Bible to cherry pick from to support a political or ethical argument. I also find religion in general to be amoral and unethical most of the time, indeed the greatest strengths of progressive people of faith is the fact that their ethics and morals AREN'T based on their Bible or religion.