Category: DOC Thoughts
Did Kentucky Court of Appeals “Cheapen” Ministry?
My feelings aside for what has become of the historic mainline seminary related to my denomination, this article about an ongoing lawsuit by two dismissed professors validates a movement within some mainline denominations, mine included, that cheapens what “ordained minister” means. Yes, we affirm the priesthood of all believers, but that means that all baptized believers are responsible for, expected, to participate in the ministry of a congregation and of the Church. Some are stilled called to ordained Christian ministry of the universal Church. Our context needs an educated clergy not to maintain the status quo of the Church, nor defend Christianity in the United States. Rather, we need an educated clergy, of all kinds, to avert the fundamentalists within all religions bent on creating systems of domination based on violence, fear, and scarcity.
It is understandable that the courts do not want to get involved in settling disputes within expressions of religion, but the courts do have the responsibility to keep the rules fair, to manage those that accept public money to support ministry, and understand what they are or are not commenting. The quick read of the opinions ruling against the plaintiffs is that anyone working for a religious institution is considered “legally” a minister. Really? The custodians are ministers? The support staff are ministers? What does minister mean? One judged based the ruling on something that Justice Alito wrote in a case earlier this year in response to a woman who was fired from a teaching position at a Michigan religious school.
Justice Samuel Alito — in a concurring opinion — said the term “minister” is a legal shorthand for any employees “whose functions are essential to the independence of practically all religious groups. These include those who serve in positions of leadership, those who perform important functions in worship services and in the performance of religious ceremonies and rituals, and those who are entrusted with teaching and conveying the tenets of the faith to the next generation,” Alito said.(1)
Why were the professors dismissed? You can learn a bit of LTS’s issues by reading the article. I’m not as concerned for the professors nor the seminary as I am about how “ordained minister” is being defined in our culture. I wonder if the attorney’s for the professors looked at the W-2’s during their employment at LTS. I’m an ordained minister and when I’ve worked for congregations or institutions that recognize my “ministerial status,” they’ve followed the tax code and not withheld FICA from my compensation. They recognized the “ministerial exception” and I was required to pay the Self-Employment tax of 15.3% (social security and medicare). When I’ve worked for businesses that did not recognize my “ministerial standing” for which I was not performing the role of minister they withheld all the appropriate taxes from my check. Why is this important? Religious institutions protecting themselves by claiming employees as “ministers” and claiming a religious exception or privilege cheapen what “ordained minister” means in our culture. Does a person who get “ordained” through the Internet to perform a wedding for friends, but is also working for a CPA firm, pay taxes as a “minister” for that one act or for their entire compensation?
In a local museum a display discussing the importance of spiritual leaders and intercessors within the Native American community provides some helpful fodder for a dialogue about what “minister” means. “With this knowledge comes great responsibility to intervene on behalf of the community to perform rituals in order to heal the sick, give thanks for bounty, and to honor the dead among other things.”
—-
Note
1. Peter Smith, “Kentucky Court of Appeals upholds Lexington Theological Seminary’s dismissal of professors,” The Courier-Journal.com, July 27, 2012.
Whose Brand of Christian Witness?
For a while now I’ve argued that the Christianity proclaimed by the Church has more to do with the Apostle Paul and Constantine than it does with Jesus of Nazareth. Paul’s organizing of “the Way” broke from his Jewish heritage and was secularized Gentile communities. Constantine legitimized Christianity as a system of domination, blessed its further organization, and the thinking that became the orthodoxy of “substitutionary atonement.” Is there no other way to understand Jesus of Nazareth? Is there no other reason that he is an important teacher or leader in his time and ours?
Ross Douthat recently wrote an article in the New York Times, “Can Liberal Christianity be Saved?” He is arguing that conservative Christian theology is superior to liberal Christian theology or the social gospel movement. I’ve read several good responses to his thoughts, convictions, and read of attendance numbers. This piece by Bryon Williams on the Huffington Post is the best I’ve read so far, but of course it confirms what I’ve thought and believed for a long time. A few paragraphs. Click the article title to read more.
Constantine Christianity or the Teachings of Jesus?
by Bryon Willimas | The Blog | Huffington Post | 07/24/2012
Early Christianity was a rebellious underground movement until Roman Emperor Constantine made it his religious practice in A.D. 312. Constantine’s conversion was based on what he viewed as a victorious sign from God prior to going into battle. His successor, Theodosius I, made it the official religion of Rome in A.D. 380. These events did more for the spread of Christianity than any proselytizing efforts conducted by the Apostle Paul.
We should disabuse ourselves of the notion that there was at one time a liberal theology that served as the dominant ethos for the church as a whole. From the ministry of Jesus into the present day, liberal theology has found itself on the outskirts against a conservative theology that offered the perceived security of predictability.
But strident claims of vaunted superiority of the theology we embrace ultimately serves to obfuscate what’s really at the core of those beliefs. Is it a Roman Emperor whose faith is based on war and domination that we subscribe or that of a Mediterranean peasant from Nazareth who places the radical notion of inconvenient love at the core of his movement?