Modern historians tend to couch the Civil War in terms of economic factors. However, I think they overlook the deeply felt religious war that preceded the fighting. The unifying “body of Christ” that could have held different geographic regions together was no longer united.
Between 1838 and 1944 the Presbyterian, Baptist, and Methodist churches all split over the issue of slavery. Both proponents and opponents of slavery used scripture and interpretation of the core of Christianity as the basis for their position. This issue was the greatest threat to protestant Christianity in the history of the country.
Although it is tempting to claim that the supporters of slavery were justifying their position, they actually had a stronger case. They argued that slavery was mentioned but not condemned in the Bible. There was even New Testament scripture admonishing slaves to obey their masters and to do so cheerfully. They had a God-given charge to protect the institutions established by God.
All that the opponents of slavery could claim was that slavery was abhorrent to anyone understanding the principles of Christianity. They claimed that an understanding of how God instructs us to treat each other has to trump textual references. They had a God-given charge to stand up for the oppressed.
This was not a debate over interpretation of certain passages, but rather over the nature of God and Christianity. After the abolishment of slavery and the gradual societal disapproval of attitudes of racial superiority, the division of the church over slavery became moot. But the base difference over the understanding of God did not go away. It simply didn’t have a “cause” to highlight it.
Now it does.
Again the church finds itself in debate over the nature of God and Christianity. And not incidentally, it is the same players taking the same sides.
On one hand, there is the camp of Christianity that claims that literal interpretation of scripture requires that they condemn homosexuality and fight against it. They have a God-given charge to protect the institutions set up by God and oppose evil. This is the same camp that championed slavery led, to some extent, by the Southern Baptist Church.
On the other hand, there is the camp of Christianity that claims that an understanding of Christ demands that you protect the oppressed and show God’s unconditional love. They have a God-given charge to champion justice and equality. These are the same folk who led the religious opposition to slavery, the Unitarians, Quakers, United Church of Christ, and Episcopalians.
A few years ago I took a look at the situation and realized that the mainline protestant denominations (Methodist, Episcopal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Congregational) all had one single issue that was dividing them internally, how the homosexual person fit into the church and society. I started making a rash prediction that within 10 years they would all split.
In the past few years this prediction has began to play out. The United Church of Christ (Congregational, Disciples of Christ, and a few other smaller components) has taken a strongly pro-gay stance, going so far as to endorse gay marriage and to pledge to work for equality. Consequently they lost a few member churches. However, it doesn’t look like a schism is likely.
The Episcopal Church voted to confirm the election of a gay man as Bishop of New Hampshire. Some churches have left the American fellowship and placed themselves under control of other foreign branches of the Anglican Church. Also within the Episcopal Church a group of dissident churches has established itself and a split is almost inevitable. This issue may actually go further than the Episcopal Church and result in a split of the 72 million member Anglican fellowship.
The Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian churches are all trying their hardest to avoid conflict and trying to appease everyone. The result sounds something like “Homosexuality is sin, but maybe it isn’t. And gay people are both welcome and opposed in our pulpits.” Perhaps they’ll find a way to work things out, or maybe they can hold together until homosexuality as an issue cools. But the underlying difference in how God is understood is not going away.
But the first official split caught me completely by surprise. In a news story, the LA Times reported that the Pacific Southwest region of the American Baptist Church has announced that it is splitting from the denomination because it had failed to declare homosexual practice incompatible with Christian Scripture. The West Virginia region may soon follow.
The leader of the region stressed that the move “is not a gay-bashing issue. This is an authority-of-Scripture issue.” As I stated above, it goes to a separate understanding of the nature of God and Christianity.
This, in my opinion, is but the first of several splits or reorganizations over the understanding of homosexuality and Christianity. And I anticipate that the claims of the Ex-gay movement will play loudly in the rending. Although the tiny American Baptist Church with only 1.5 million members will probably not get a lot of attention, when this complete reorganization of protestant Christianity is over the impact on the country will be huge, going far beyond this one issue and resulting in a clash over the nature of religion and its place in society.
Because the repression or liberation of gay people does not have a significant regional economic impact in the way that slavery did, I don’t anticipate any repeat of civil hostilities specifically over issues relating to homosexuality. But if the religious bodies again become fractioned, which I believe is inevitable, much of the glue that holds the nation together will be gone.
Some other conflict could again leave this country with divided camps, each viewing the other as the enemy.
This is so incredibly tragic! I find that this polarization is spreading along religious and political lines all over this country. It is precisely this polarization (“us against them”) that will weaken this nation tremendously! The saddest thing of all is that the Christian right and conservatives pretty much everywhere don’t have a clue that they are a major part of the problem. If things are going to change we have got to hang in there and love all people but stand our ground for civil and human rights everywhere. Don’t let them get away with their subtle bigotry no matter what form it takes. We need to communicate this and keep on top of it.
Tax their properties. All of them.
Wow. Great article. I wish more people would make the connection between old church insanity about the righteousness of slavery and new church insanity about the righteousness of homophobia.
Too many people just don’t have any historical perspective or refuse to believe that history has anything relevant to say about today.
But then, many people who are anti-gay and who also remain racists (black or white) aren’t interested in understanding others as much as they are interested in protecting world views which have long comforted, consoled and justified.
I have noticed not nearly so many cracks in the Jewish temples across the country.
The same ideological belief of ‘maybe’ that permeates the Jewish faith, was why Jesus wasn’t taken so seriously as the son of God in the way he described himself.
But as a brilliant rabbi who allowed power to go to his head.
Only the strictest and most isolated Jewish communities work to change gays and lesbians, but do not isolate them from community concerns and support.
There is a growing tradition of understanding and best of all, acceptance and reconciliation.
Buddhists have pretty much been mellow about homosexuality for a long time now.
This particular schism is evident of an impossible rigidity.
With the blame going to homosexuals. The ridiculous logic being ‘see they won’t go away and this break up is ALL their fault!’
Nuttier things have happened.
I don’t have any sympathy.
Aren’t we told it’s the rigid that breaks and what can bend, doesn’t?
Timothy — nice job!I’ll try and dig out a ref. from many years ago that was a summary of the positions taken during the slavery splits in the 1840’s (and, if I recall, voting for women in the 1890’s).There are echos all the way through. One of the basic “compromise” positions — that while slavery itself may possibly not of itself be regarded as biblical sinful, none the less no church member today may own slaves — is awfully like, to me, the “homosexuality is not God’s plan, but no one should be cruel etc” approach adopted by many.Personally I’m perfectly at ease with the idea of church communities going at one another hammer and tong. At least that way they’ll stop bothering people who aren’t even members.
And agree raj, though I wouldn’t stop at property.Churches — almost without exception — are not “clubs” of people that are membership-based, able to vote, join the commitee etc. We’re not talking about the local netball team here. They operate like any other business… not a democracy, run by professional managers (or even wholly owned by one) and in it for $profit.I presume you may have a firm opinion about the “church tax” in Germany? 🙂
Regan DuCasse at September 17, 2005 09:48 PM
The same ideological belief of ‘maybe’ that permeates the Jewish faith, was why Jesus wasn’t taken so seriously as the son of God in the way he described himself.
I don’t pay a whole lot of attention to the Wholly Babble, but I have read that others noted that he (if he even existed, which is a subject for debate) didn’t describe himself as the son of god. At least in Matthew et al.
grantdale at September 17, 2005 10:40 PM
And agree raj, though I wouldn’t stop at property (taxation)
You won’t get an argument from me. I live in Wellesley MA, more than half of which is occupied by Wellesley College, Babson College, various churches and so forth, all of whose property is prop-tax exempt. Wellesley and Babson don’t benefit the residents of the town. Most of their students are obnoxious people from out of town, out of state, and more than a few of them are from out of the country (the US). Yet we provide them with police and fire protection. Tax them all. They don’t even pay payments in lieu of taxes. We should just let their buildings burn down, if a fire breaks out.
BTW, I am quite familiar with the Kirchensteuer (church tax) in Germany. It is assessed on the income of church members based on the Einkommensteuer (income tax) It is a particular percentage of the member’s income tax. The last I read is was something like 7-8% of the income tax, although at least the Roman Catholic Church, Inc. RCCI) was trying to get it pushed higher. The churches for which the Kirchensteuer is assessed are the RCCI, the ELKD (Evangelical Lutheranische Kirche in Deutschland–the Lutherans, which, despite its “evangelical” prefix is actually relatively moderate) and, more recently a Jewish sect..
If someone doesn’t want to pay a Kirchensteuer, the solution is simple: don’t become a member of a church. There is no requirement that anyone be a member of a church. And, more than a few people aren’t, which is why the RCCI is pushing for the rate to get pushed higher.
grantdale at September 17, 2005 10:40 PM
I will expound on the Kirchensteuer aspect a bit, but from a profoundly different direction. My partner immigrated from Germany (Munich) with his mother and father in 1957. I read his mother’s German government issued passport. It listed her religion (she was Lutheran). If the German government knew that she was Lutheran, it isn’t much of a leap to conclude that they probably knew who were Catholics and….who were Jews.
Admittedly, this was in 1957. But it’s doubtful that it was particularly different in 1937, 1927 or 1917. I’m sure that I don’t need to expand on this, and I will admit, it would be very painful for me to do so.
I agree with Raj: tax the churches and ministries. Make the American “Family” Association, the “Family Research” Council, Cammeron’s “Family Research” Institute, Concerned “Women” of America, PFOX, Focus on the Family, LIA/R, the 700 club, the Massachusett’s “Family” Council (God, there’s so many of those parasitic organizations out there) etc. pay back taxes on every cent of profit they’ve make. Tax ’em to oblivion.
Thanks raj — that’s what I meant.I thought it would be good to hear from an “embedded reporter” :-)I understand the churches are in a double-bind (not that this bothers me). Younger Germans are not “joining” because they are 1) frankly, not religious and 2) they don’t want that extra tax. As the older members had died off, the churches are calling for a higher rate rather than cutting their costs. And so on and so on.I also don’t like the idea of anyone keeping central records of my religious, political or social memberships. Ain’t nobody’s business but my own.
I just re-read my post on the German Kirchensteuer (church tax). Lest there be any misunderstanding, the government is the collector of the tax, but the proceeds of the tax are paid over to the various establishments of religion from whose members it was collected.
Grantdale: you are quite correct regarding church membership and attendance in Germany. The churches have been deemed wonderful museums in some print media. But from what I have seen in 20 years of travel to Munich, for example, they are dark and dingy and smelly places. And continually under renovation.
From what I have read, the Anglican communion is heading for a split, with more than a few Anglicans looking to Nigeria for guidance. Nigeria? Nigeria as the fount of morality? I’m sorry, but that strains credulity. Nigeria is the country in which, only a couple of years ago, a woman was sentenced to death because she was raped. She didn’t choose to be raped. She didn’t put herself out to be raped. But she was raped. (Fortunately, she was spared execution, only because of the international outcry in her case.)
That is supposed to be the Anglicans’ source of morality? I am literally appalled.
Urgh, not a good example raj…Northern Nigeria is overwhelmingly Muslim, and shari’a law applies in parts (I think it’s about 10 or 12 out of the 35 or 40 states — sorry, googles on the fritz). There have been several high profile cases in recent years of trials under shari’a law. Those will be the one’s you’re probably thinking of.At least they get a sham trial, I guess. Most of the rest of Nigeria is ostensibly christian, but is heavily traditional; “offenders” are dealt with by the family, no trial, no publicity, they are just found dead in a ditch.A better reason to encourage the Anglican split would be that the anti-gay are largely of the Developing World and the conservative rump in the West. eg The Primate of Nigeria (“primate”, pfft how appropriate!) is very outspokenly anti-gay… but takes a supportive line about polygamy. Apparently because polygamy is Nigerian tradition but homosexuality was, of course, introduced by the depraved Europeans.Obviously his reading of history is no better than his understanding of hypocrisy — and I’d be hard pressed to imagine why I’d want to be in the same church with him and his ilk. Many in North America, the UK and Australia/NZ would prefer the split rather than have the church dominated by such people.
Just a small point – the Disciples of Christ are not a component of the United Church of Christ, as the post seems to indicate.
Brian,
I appologize and thanks for the catch.
Both the Disciples and the UCC claim the Campbell-Scott Movement (who called themselves simply “Christian” churchs) as part of their history.
Without doing research (and I hope I don’t get this completely wrong) a chunk of the Christian Church (called “Christian Church in the US”) merged with the Congregational Church to become the Congregational Christian Church. This merged a decade or so later with the Evangelical and Reformed Church to become the United Church of Christ. However, it seems that part of the Christian Churches did not do this merge thing, and instead became the Disciple of Christ.
That may not be fully accurate and I apologize if it’s way off.
For those on the “tax the churches” way of thinking, a few things to consider:
First, any business income not related to the purposes of a non-profit is taxed. For example, if a church owned a coffee shop, the net income from the coffee shop is taxed (though the rates are not the same as a for-profit business).
Second, tax is based on profit not revenue. Most of a church’s income is spent on things that are deductible (though some may not be) so income tax would not have as significant an impact as you might suppose.
Third, the most significant issue relates to property taxes. That might make a difference.
Finally, this whole line of thinking sounds more punitive than based on principle. It comes across as “I don’t like churches and would like to tax them out of existence.” However, what applies to churches mostly also applies to other non-profits. So before you tax the churches out of existence, ask yourself if you want to do the same to AIDS Project LA or GLAAD or the Red Cross.
Or perhaps you are the sort of person that believes in taxing the things you don’t like and giving breaks to the ones you do.
grantdale,
“Churches — almost without exception — are not “clubs” of people that are membership-based, able to vote, join the commitee etc. We’re not talking about the local netball team here. They operate like any other business… not a democracy, run by professional managers (or even wholly owned by one) and in it for $profit.”
I think you may be mistaken about the control of churches, at least in the US.
With the exception of the Catholic Church, I believe every other Christian church is democratic. Churches have membership rolls with voting members. Usually there is an elected Board that administers the local church and hires the minister. Major decisions on church policy or even on local doctrine (e.g. will the church become a reconciling congregation) are voted on at annual meetings.
The local churches send delegates to conventions where they determine the beliefs, direction, and bylaws of the denomination (e.g. can a church conduct gay weddings and stay in the denomination).
The big issue with the Episcopal Church was when the delegates to a Convention VOTED to confirm a gay Bishop ELECTED by his diocese. The MEMBERSHIP of several local churches VOTED to disassociate with the denomination.
A local church can be ousted by the national leadership (also elected) or can vote to disassociate with a denomination. Several have this year over issues of gay people.
It doesn’t get much more democratic than that.
grantdale at September 19, 2005 11:03 AM
I agree with you about northern Nigeria. But some of the Anglican and particularly American Episcopalians split-offs have been reported as looking to a Nigerian bishop as head. Other split-offs have been reported as looking to a Ugandan. The RCCI (Roman Catholic Church, Inc) has trotted out a Nigerian bishop to rant against gay people.
I’m sorry, and I’ll put it to you bluntly, but anyone in the US or Europe who looks to sub-saharan Africans for moral guidence is stupid.
Just my humble opinion.
Hmm, I also know about caucusing from a previous life…Individual churches can and do vary on the membership/inclusion etc. You’re quite right to point out the Anglican (whoops, sorry Episcopal) saga as a good example. Southern Baptist churches are reportedly meant to operate as their own church group, but we’ve all seen where that’s taken individual churches that decide not to tow the party line.Without splitting hairs — many companies also have “democratic” means of employee feedback and that doesn’t make them a democracy, and with the exception of a few states almost no country is democratic (we nearly all have “representative government” by a Parliament, Congress whatever). I’m not even going to mention the weirdness of the U.S. Electoral College!I wouldn’t want the form of the membership structure to determine if a church is or not eligible for tax-free status. In operation, many resemble an accounting or law partnership… I’d be looking at, as example, how much income is derived from commercial activity and what % of their “religious service” is provided for free to anyone who cares to walk in the door with questions. On those measures some are very clearly not deserving a tax-free status. Of course, others disagree 🙂
Raj, one of the conservative rumps is the Sydney Archdiocese. Yes, Sydney.Peter Jensen is up to his grubby armpits in the push for a split.There is no reason moral guidance couldn’t come from sub-Saharan Africa (or anywhere else for that matter), but in this particular case both Nigeria and Sydney are run by two anti-gay characters who also happen to be proud of their ignorance. And the Yukon Territory. And Uganda. And Kenya. And…
Timothy,
I’ve been on vacation and out of the loop lately, but I have to leave my 1.5 cents here, which is to say that this is probably the most cogent discussion of the state of Christianity today. Timothy, you’re a genius!
You make a good point. It’s hard to see how an amusement park has a tax-exempt purpose. Although, it sounds like a TERRIBLE way to spend a day so maybe it is religious and informative rather than an amusement (unless you find unintentional campiness amusing).
In any case, there are detailed rules about what can and cannot be exempt and no matter how you draw them someone will fall through the cracks. It irks me that the Scientologist get to be a religion, but that’s just my personal view.
jim
thanks (blush)
God loves all people,christian and non-christian alike! God will punish the sinner! Repent! Tommy