pay or play
When Hillary wants to best Barack, she accuses him of “rock star” status and silver-tongued rhetoric. When Barack addressed 10,000 members of the United Church of Christ, however, the IRS was not star struck. The IRS issued a challenge this week that the rhetoric offered was political and thereby jeopardizes the coveted tax-exempt status of the church.
The United Church of Christ is a historic denomination with a small but fiesty voice in our current culture wars. Hailing from the Pilgrims and subsequent waves of immigration, we are proud of participating in the Abolition movement, the Civil Rights movement, the even the formation of the FCC. In this century, though, our numbers are pretty small. We have about 1.2 million members and 5,600 congregations compared to the Southern Baptists 16.3 million and 44,000 congregations. It’s really not fair to blame us for being excited that one of our own is effectively campaigning for President of the United States.
Barack Obama, however, is not simply a member of the UCC or a candidate for President, he is an inspiring speaker who speaks openly about the interconnectedness of faith and politics. Long before he declared his candidacy for President he was invited to address our denomination’s national gathering. Given his status at the time of the event, all due caution was taken to abide by both the letter and spirit of the law. Still, the IRS this week issued a challenge to the United Church of Christ that the speech and surrounding publicity might be a breach of IRS rules.
The IRS rules in question were authored by another Democratic presidential candidate, then Senator Lyndon Johnson (Texas). At the height of the McCarthy era, LBJ authored an amendment to the IRS code which effectively put a gag order on non-profit groups. Specifically, LBJ was working to keep a couple of prominent Texans from undermining his campaign. The legislation had, at that time, no intent regarding churches specifically.
As non-profit organizations exempt from taxes, however, churches are subject to the same rules as all other non-profits. Largely ignored by the IRS for decades, the role of the church in our political landscape can no longer be blithely dismissed. Cries for fairness from the moderates after conservative politicking has made liberal congregations vulnerable to increased scrutiny. All Saints Episcopal in California was targeted in the last election. Today’s news is that the United Church of Christ is the focus of this cycle’s scrutiny.
There are two approaches to the 1954 gag order. The first is to follow the rules. This is the path taken by most churches over the past half century. Carefully following the letter of the law, often skirting the intent, the stakes have gotten higher and the lawyers have made a hefty profit. Churches most faithful in their adherence, of course, found their influence dwarfed by those who pushed closer to the limits of the law.
Another approach would be to say “no, thank you” and pay taxes. There is nothing unconstitutional about faith based communities engaging in political discourse. Biblically speaking, we have a compelling mandate to do so. Our only prohibition is our desire to remain tax-exempt. We don’t want to pay. For this financial pass, we have largely allowed ourselves to be silenced.
Our denominational leader, the Rev. John Thomas, issued assurance of the UCC’s adherence to both the letter and the spirit of the law, but also highlighted what may be the more important concern. “The very fact of an IRS investigation, however, is disturbing,” Thomas said. “When the invitation to an elected public official to speak to the national meeting of his own church family is called into question, it has a chilling effect on every religious community that seeks to encourage politicians and church members to thoughtfully relate their personal faith to their public responsibilities.”
A third and timely approach might be to write a new law, but in the meantime if we’re going to play we have to pay. Quite frankly, I’m persuaded by Jesus’ “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”. The question people in worshipping communities must ask is whether what belongs to Caesar is our ability to speak openly or our fair share of taxes. Given our passion for a still speaking God, I’m more inclined to give the IRS my money than my silence.
for Larry and Micah
My son complained again this weekend that he had no shirts to wear. Since I have bought no fewer than 12 shirts in the past three months, my patience was a bit thin. The problem is not that I have not tried to clothe him nor that he is blind to my efforts. The problem is that the acceptable range of attire in Junior high is very narrow and each style of clothing proffers a self-definition, none of which he is willing to assume. No pictures, no buttons, no collars. The exclusions are too numerous to name and certainly border on the bizarre, except that his distance from the bully of the day is at stake. So, I hold my laughter and listen again to what might possibly pass muster in the lord-of-the-flies world of Junior High.
Given the trauma in our house, I suspect that I am particularly vulnerable to the story of Larry King and Brandon McInerney. 8th grade boys are a breed unto themselves. They ping between immaturity and maturity faster than the speed of light. In an egocentric time of life, young adolescents are often blinded by their particular view of the world. Philosophically they may support diversity, but in the cafeteria, homogony is the goal. Given the realities of life for 8th grade boys, our current public school trend of warehousing them together is at best short sighted. At E.O. Green Junior High in Oxnard, California, it proved fatal.
To be sure, an 8th grade boy with make-up is not the norm. Neither is carrying a handgun to school. But both are foreseeable manifestations of the world in which we live.
Although McDonalds would lead us to believe that by the time we can chew a Happy Meal our gender identities are immutable, a quick look at science would offer another view. Genetalia comes in a myriad of mutations as do genetic schemas. Approximately one in every 100 children have ‘intersex characteristics’. Whether Larry had ‘intersex characteristics’ or simply liked girl clothes, we will never know. He was brave enough to don his own unique style, for which we ought applaud except that our public schools are not safe places for such honest exploration. As a parent of an 8th grade boy, I am certain that everyone knew that Larry’s right to self-expression was going to run headlong into the untamed savagery of adolescence.
Larry’s right to self-expression was trumped by Brandon’s gun.
Larry and Brandon had already exchanged words earlier in the week; heated words, suggestive words, charged words. Again, a prescience of what lie ahead. On February 12, 2008, Brandon stuffed a handgun in his pocket and walked into the computer lab to find Larry. The gun came from Brandon’s home. As the story unfolded we learned that guns and violence were part of the fabric of life in the McInerney home. Restraining orders, emergency rooms, and even gunshots are in the public record of Brandon’s parents, his choice of weapons was predictable.
Our local school boasts a bully-free policy, but no one even pretends to believe the posters. The lucky kids may be the unnoticed ones. The children who dare to express their unique identities run the risk of encountering trouble. Any deviation from the narrowly defined norm presents a target. Language, academic performance, even lunch boxes can draw attention. Although being hit by a rotten apple or stuck with a wad of gum is not life threatening, the remnants of our children’s humiliation underscore the harsh reality of their day-to-day struggle. Larry’s funeral forces us to acknowledge the gravity of their struggle.
Before I head to the vigil for Larry King, I pause to whisper a prayer for Brandon. Maybe I should also make a trip to Old Navy in search of non-descript shirt.
a boy named sue
As an abysmally shy person I venture into community gatherings with no small amount of trepidation. Comfortable in the cocoon of our church community, I’ve been somewhat sheltered from the perceptions of the wider world and often surprised by the media summations. The tragic deaths of six Kirkwood residents last week pushed even me out of my comfort zones and into the fray of public discourse.
Admittedly, the public discourse was a very friendly group of parents at Avery Elementary. And I was there at the invitation of one of the leaders. And the parents gathered were all of a common mind on the need to build bridges across the chasms of race and class in our community. Admittedly it was a pretty safe audience and by all accounts a healing and helpful dialogue.
With one small caveat. When being introduced as the pastor of Evangelical UCC, I could see the visible wince. One very dear mom said, “Really?” She went on the explain that when she was church shopping a couple of years ago she considered visiting our church because of our UCC connection, but she knew that she wasn’t evangelical. She knew enough both about the United Church of Christ and the word evangelical to know that there is a dissonance. Even so, her disdain of all things evangelical in our politically polarized culture kept her out. She seemed sad to discover that ours is a treasure missed.
This is a story that has been repeated in most of our new member classes over the past couple of years. This is a story, too, that members have shared when confessing their reluctance to share the name of our church with their neighbors and friends. We love our community, we are proud of our church, but we offer our name with a huge disclaimer.
If you are privileged to know the meaning our name, its rich and challenging history, you know that our name, Evangelical, is perfect for our community. Evangelical with a capital “E” is about unity in diversity, about inclusion, about passion for justice and for peace.
Of course, if you don’t have that privilege you are left with the definitions of the wider culture that at this juncture in history are bleak. Evangelical according to the Associated Press is about political wedge issues, judgement, other worldly salvation, and the assumption of superior knowledge.
Safe in my cocoon I’ve known that our name has been hijacked. Those of us who’ve enjoyed the new member conversations have discussed the growing disconnect between our name and its cultural definition. From the safety of the cocoon, I have fussed that our name is an unintended bouncer and a false message. Being in a wider community gathering as a representative of our church, however, the issue was no longer cerebral. I felt the discomfort as well as the lost opportunity as I spent my 30 seconds of introduction time un-defining “evangelical” rather than telling our story.
As we’ve navigated the grief and shock of this past week, I suspect that we’ve all found ourselves in places new and challenging. As I ponder the many lessons of the past week and the weighty issues laid on the table, the conversation I find myself returning to is that of our name and its dissonance. Perhaps the odd note rung by our name is opportunity gained, perhaps it is opportunity lost. Like so much else this week, I simply don’t know.
in memory of Cookie Thornton
Last night the world witnessed a tragedy unfold in our neighbourhood. Six people are dead. And the reasons are as illusive as they are obvious.
An important clue to the violence that racked our community last night was offered by an otherwise innocuous description by the New York Times of Kirkwood as a middle class community with “a main street lined with shops and restaurants and many grand homes.”
The history of race and class in America is vividly portrayed in our St. Louis bedroom communities with shops, restaurants, and “many grand homes”. The elephant in the room is spotlighted and decorated for MLK Day and Black History Month, but is otherwise untended. When the “grand homes” were built in Kirkwood, servants were needed to maintain them. In the era of Jim Crow, the servants were not only black but also disenfranchised. Those who built, cleaned and cooked in these grand homes lived in shacks on the other side of the tracks. Their children were not allowed in the neighbourhood schools or in the municipal pools. The right to vote, even, was not accessible. In the aftermath of the Civil Rights movement and the end of Jim Crow as we knew it, the owners of the grand homes were faced with either redrawing their relationships with the staff or doing without. For the most part, the later was the option of choice. A wave of gentrification in the bedroom communities of St. Louis has exposed entire neighbourhoods of people left behind.
A parallel drama unfolded in my Michigan childhood where literally busloads of southerners (mostly white) were imported to run the factories during World War II. As the war ended and prosperity was proclaimed, those that were able moved out of the most menial of jobs, the foundries. More labour was needed and again the buses headed south. This time they were filled with blacks, eager to escape Jim Crow. And the factories buzzed along at high speed for another decade. In a post-Industrial America, however, with the factories shuttered and the foundries silenced, the last busload of labour is no longer needed. The factory owner may pack up and move away, but the labourer and his children have fewer choices. Many were left behind in the wasteland, scavenging for both food and meaning.
In Kirkwood’s neighbor to the east, Webster Groves, the servants of the grand homes lived north of Kirkham Avenue in an area known as “North Webster”. On the north side, there are different rules. City officials are more lenient with old cars in various states of repair parked along the street. Perhaps in return, the streets are cleaned less frequently on this side of the line. But things are changing up here, gentrification. New homes are going up and the colour is getting paler. Rising property values dictate higher property taxes and new neighbours push the city for better rule enforcement. Those who were left behind are now, literally, being pushed out.
None of this, of course, is a justification for a murderous rampage. The context does, however, help us to understand Cookie Thornton’s mother, Anne Bell Thornton. “No one should kill,” she said. “But people shouldn’t drive people to kill.” (stltoday.com)
In a precious gift of irony, this tragedy unfolds at the dawn of our Lenten season when our rituals invite us to a time of repentance. Perhaps in our quest for truth we can face the elephant and its refuse and begin to find reconciliation.
drinking the obama kool-aid
On the morning after, I have only one correction to the Super Tuesday pundits: Obama is anything but the ‘anybody but’ candidate.
As the pundits occupied prime time on Super Tuesday, I found myself thoroughly enjoying their banter. This is simply a splendid year to enjoy politics. Some of the talk resonated, some of it was thought provoking. One particular quote struck a nerve and kept me pondering longer than the others. Peggy Noonan, known best as President Reagan’s speech writer, was commenting on Obama’s appeal. When asked whether Obama was a movement, Noonan replied that Obama is a persona that “isn’t Her”. She went on to explain that Obama is the candidate of choice for those who want ‘anybody but’ Hillary.
I understand alternative candidates and have voted for many. I understand casting my vote for the lesser of two perceived evils. ‘Anybody but’ is a mantra that many of us know well. So Noonan’s words sounded innocuous at the time. But in the light of day, I find myself wanting my turn at the microphone because this time isn’t about the ‘anybody but’. I support Barack Obama. I have given money to his campaign. A couple of times even. But my support for Obama isn’t about my dislike of anybody else. To suggest that Obama is a lesser of evil’s discredits everyone in the race, and that in a year when we have a variety of admirable candidates. In fact for the first time in my memory I find myself feeling generally at ease with a variety of the candidates in both parties.
Mike Huckabee will not vote the ways that I would chose, but I trust that he is well intentioned, sincere, and intelligent. We could do worse. I’m disappointed with McCain’s repositioning on issues that matter to me, like choice and equality, but he too is a man of integrity. Given that my own political and social values veer to the left of the democrats, I can be forgiven for preferring the Democratic candidates this season. Edwards, for instance, was my man for the detail on issues.
Hillary is, as Noonan wants to emphasize, a different breed. She’s a woman. Admittedly I’ve been a bit cool towards Hillary. There is simply no way for her to embody the leadership qualities that we expect and need in a president and to simultaneously embody the cultural virtues of (diminutive) womanhood on which we were weaned. The expectations are mutually incompatible and our dis-ease with Hillary is more about us than her. Consequently she is the most vulnerable to the pundits and to perhaps even to our ‘anybody but’ style of candidate choosing. Despite the inherent vulnerability, I believe that Hillary Clinton would be an excellent president. If not from ‘Day 1’, she clearly has both the innate ability and inside knowledge to hit the ground running and would do so. I am totally comfortable supporting a Hillary presidency.
It is a pleasant irony, then, that my first contribution to a presidential campaign comes in a year when many of the candidates have earned my respect and several could comfortably win my vote. My willingness to put even my check book on the line for Barack Obama is about who he is, not who he isn’t. Obama is many things in this campaign, the “anybody but” candidate is not one of them.
My husband commented that I’ve been waiting for Obama for a lifetime, and I suspect he’s right. Reared in the shadow of Martin Luther King and John F. Kennedy, raised with the silenced questions of Malcolm X and Bobby Kennedy, I have long been on the lookout for a leader that could transcend the minefield of race and class in America. A leader who could name both the sin and the path of redemption, a leader who could hold accountable with a hand outstretched. Obama is that leader for our generation.
My support for Barack Obama is not about any particular plan or program, but rather about a vision for us as a people. To be sure, he has offered plans for health care, education, and our disentanglement with Iraq. Quite frankly, I think I like Edward’s fine print better. But still I choose Obama. Although the plans are significant, the details will change long before implementation. What won’t change in November is the candidate’s ability to inspire. In part the Obama campaign is a brilliant if shameless appeal to sentimentality. The “Yes, We Can” video on You Tube is a tear-jerker long on emotion and slight on content. But every time I hear the music begin, it stirs something deep within. We have had many good presidents over the past four decades, but not one of them has had Obama’s ability to inspire.
Reading Obama’s description of his early years in his pre-political memoir, Dreams of my Father, one quickly discovers the content beneath the emotion. Obama gets it and names it in a way that we’ve not seen in any other candidate. Ever. The ‘it’ he gets is the convergence of race, class, and power in our country; the ways in which our assumptions empower and dis-empower, the ways in which his children and mine have both similar and different doors open to them by virtue of their zip code and their hair texture. Obama gets it. He names it. But more importantly, he believes in an America beyond it and dares us to do the same.
Arianna Huffington has been accused of drinking the Obama kool-aid. With her leadership the Huffington Post has certainly assisted Obama in the inspiration department, but not for naught. On the eve of Super Tuesday she wrote about, “the importance of having someone in the Oval Office who can inspire us to tap into the better angels of our nature — who can stir people to expect more of themselves than they otherwise would.”
To catch the Obama train one need not rain on anyone else’s parade. To long for an Obama presidency is not to discredit the integrity of McCain or the intelligence of Hillary. To vote for Obama is not to vote against anyone. To believe in Obama is to believe in us. And I believe.
