Okay, I know I've been touching on a lot of different facets of the recent Supreme Court decision, as well as how we, as Christians, need to take a good look at what we believe biblically about ourselves and not just those whose lifestyle is deemed sinful according to God's Word. I know that there are many out there who are truly frightened about what this may mean, especially for clergy and churches who hold to the Biblical definition of marriage.
So today, I simply want to think through what the worst case scenario would be. Perhaps you would see it different, but that's okay, because the reality is, no one knows right now what is going to happen with all of this. But this is some form of representation on what the worst case scenario could look like.
Since clergy hold the authority to officiate marriages for both their faith and the state, the state declares that no exceptions can be made toward whom clergy choose to wed. That means that, regardless of belief, if the clergy are going to hold the authority to marry civily, they will have no grounds upon which to deny marriage to anyone who fits the legal definition of those who can be married. They must perform the ceremony if asked.
Should a clergy refuse, they would face legal ramifications of discrimination. That could involve fines, jail time, or any other of a variety of punishments for not upholding the law. Very likely, this would cause clergy of many faiths to give up the authority of conducting a civil marriage.
In addition, since particular beliefs no longer are recognized according to the state, the state also decides that the customary tax exemption that churches enjoy is no longer applicable. Churches are then taxed for their property. That also means that offerings are no longer considered as "charitable contributions", and thus, no longer carry a tax break on the part of the state.
One final strike could be that churches would also no longer be considered nonprofit (for the record, I doubt that this particular one would come to pass, but who ultimately knows?). That means that churches also have to pay taxes such as any business would upon income. That means that the offerings that people make would be considered taxable income. Suddenly, for churches, the cost of doing ministry is much greater, as they have to pay their taxes, from which they have been exempt for centuries in our nation. As you can perhaps imagine, that would cause a rather significant change in how God's people go about gathering, ministering, and operating within the state.
So today, I simply want to think through what the worst case scenario would be. Perhaps you would see it different, but that's okay, because the reality is, no one knows right now what is going to happen with all of this. But this is some form of representation on what the worst case scenario could look like.
Since clergy hold the authority to officiate marriages for both their faith and the state, the state declares that no exceptions can be made toward whom clergy choose to wed. That means that, regardless of belief, if the clergy are going to hold the authority to marry civily, they will have no grounds upon which to deny marriage to anyone who fits the legal definition of those who can be married. They must perform the ceremony if asked.
Should a clergy refuse, they would face legal ramifications of discrimination. That could involve fines, jail time, or any other of a variety of punishments for not upholding the law. Very likely, this would cause clergy of many faiths to give up the authority of conducting a civil marriage.
In addition, since particular beliefs no longer are recognized according to the state, the state also decides that the customary tax exemption that churches enjoy is no longer applicable. Churches are then taxed for their property. That also means that offerings are no longer considered as "charitable contributions", and thus, no longer carry a tax break on the part of the state.
One final strike could be that churches would also no longer be considered nonprofit (for the record, I doubt that this particular one would come to pass, but who ultimately knows?). That means that churches also have to pay taxes such as any business would upon income. That means that the offerings that people make would be considered taxable income. Suddenly, for churches, the cost of doing ministry is much greater, as they have to pay their taxes, from which they have been exempt for centuries in our nation. As you can perhaps imagine, that would cause a rather significant change in how God's people go about gathering, ministering, and operating within the state.
I agree that the last one is unlikely, but perhaps for different reasons. Contrary to what many people believe, the main benefit tax exempt status for churches is not to support the work of the church, but it is a separation of the spiritual and civil authorities. If religious organizations have to pay taxes on contributions (essentially gifts), then they would have a financial obligation to the state and the state, in tern, would have to respond to the wishes of the organization much like individuals who vote. Business (through labor boards) and individuals (through voting) have a say in the government. Non-profits are not to have political motives as their foundational goal. That is why they have tax-exempt status. If that status is removed, so is the limit of the influence which religious organizations can directly assert over the government. If people want the church to stay out of the governments business, then they should argue to keep the tax-exempt status so that the organizations can not force a long list of moral exception laws that would need to be passed to exempt them from supporting things that the government does that the church objects to (ie the Hobby Law Case which has exempted even for profit, limited owner companies from having to violate their religious views in order to submit to the law). Hobby Law would just be the tip of the legal iceberg if religious organizations were financial obligated to the government. Churches of course would "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's," but we would then have the standing to tell Caesar what he can and cannot do with our renderings. Most people who object to the tax exemption for religious organization do not see this and would probably much prefer tax exemption to direct church involvement in governmental decisions.
ReplyDelete