Showing posts with label UCC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UCC. Show all posts
Monday, April 19, 2010
The Language of God
You can click on the movie to see it larger on YouTube! Enjoy!
Be Good to Each Other,
Rev. Josh
041910
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Vindication
Those of you who have been following this blog probably remember my post concerning the IRS and how it was threatening the non-propephet tax-exempt status of the United Church of Christ. The complaint against the denomination was a response to Senator Barack Obama's address to General Synod, the biennial national meeting of the UCC. Sen. Obama was invited to speak to his own denomination at General Synod months before he announced his candidacy for president and as you can see below, the UCC did everything in its power to avoid officially endorcing Sen. Obama's campaign. Nevertheless, Sen. Obama supporters did set up tables outside of the convention center (on public property) and Sen. Obama mentioned his candidacy in the speech itself.
After a great deal of research and thought, I came away not knowing if the UCC had abided by the letter of the law, though I remained convinced that we were very much in the spirit of it. Apparently the IRS has been satisfied, though, as the latest news is that the UCC has been cleared of any wrongdoing concerning Sen. Obama's appearance at General Synod! Huzzah!
Be good to each other,
Rev. Josh
052208
After a great deal of research and thought, I came away not knowing if the UCC had abided by the letter of the law, though I remained convinced that we were very much in the spirit of it. Apparently the IRS has been satisfied, though, as the latest news is that the UCC has been cleared of any wrongdoing concerning Sen. Obama's appearance at General Synod! Huzzah!
Be good to each other,
Rev. Josh
052208
Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Feeding the Troll?
For the first time (ever, I think) I've gotten a comment on my blog from someone who's name I don't recognize. I don't know for sure if this is someone from my community, or just someone connected with UCCtruths. I suspect that it is the latter, canvassing the internet for blogs making reference to the IRS investigation of the United Church of Christ, and slapping a rather nasty comment onto those that side with the UCC.
Which isn't to say that there isn't some truth to what "Drew" pointed me towards. He attached this link to the the comment, and if this letter is indeed accurate and legitimate, I'll have to slightly revise my position. As I said (and "Drew" ignored) at the end of my post, I reserve the right to be wrong. I am not an IRS lawyer, so I don't know for sure if the position held by either side is correct.
Assuming, for the moment, that this letter completely accurate, then elements of Sen. Obama's speech crossed the line. As I pointed out in the last post, he was hardly the first to cross that line, but there it is. I remember the general excitement that Sen. Obama would be speaking at General Synod, but I honestly can't remember one way or the other concerning the UCC pushing the idea that a presidential candidate would be speaking to Synod. As to the rest of it, UCCtruths sums it up better than I could:
Even though UCCtruths makes some interesting points that should be considered, I have a difficult time wading through their tone. There's something terribly absolutist about the way they say things that just sets my teeth on edge. Then again, perhaps I'm guilty of reading their blog with the tone of "Drew" still ringing in my ears.
Here's the comment "Drew" left on my blog:
So, what do I know about "Drew"? He or she wants me to look at the link to UCCtruths, which I have done. He or she wants me to carefully consider his or her point of view, which I have done. He or she wants to win me over to the position of the IRS. This, he or she has not accomplished. To be quite frank, "Drew" is lucky that I went so far as to click that link this morning. Because his very first words are such an egregious and disgusting attack that I very nearly deleted his comment out of hand.
"Before you drink the punch..." is an obvious reference to the Jonestown Massacre. Evidence and eye-witness accounts of the very few survivors of that tragedy show that most, if not all, of the 909 people who died were, in fact, murdered. Referencing such a horrendous event in such an off-hand manner is not a good way to start with me.
I have been a member of the United Church of Christ my whole life. I was ordained by the UCC. I have worked as a delegate for two different General Synods, and I have seen first hand how our denomination is made up of an extremely diverse group of people with different theological emphases, different cultural backgrounds and different political ideals. What makes them special is that they are willing to come together, pray together, worship together, and openly work together on some very difficult issues. They respect—no—they treasure being exposed to new ideas and opposing viewpoints. As one columnist for the Hartford Currant wrote, "Really, sending the IRS after these people is like having the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms kick down the door of a bunch of nerds playing Dungeons and Dragons."
Seriously, though, I know these people, and even when I don't agree with them, I trust them. I am deeply insulted that "Drew" decided to make an anology between the United Church of Christ and Jim Jones. I hope, for their sake, that "Drew" is not one of the UCCtruth people, because he or she is not doing them any favors.
As for UCCtruth, I'm glad they're there. Their site says that every denomination should have one of these, and they have a point. If we are never challenged, never criticized, we never grow. However... they refer to the UCC's argument against the IRS allegations as if it were simply a tactic to get the UCC out of trouble. Is it really so shocking to consider the idea that the UCC is arguing that "that the spirit of the IRS rules are to prohibit churches from endorsing a candidate and the UCC went to great lengths not to endorse a candidate," because that's what they believe?
So, revision time: I personally believe that those laws are on the books for the purpose of keeping religious organizations from endorsing candidates. I know for a fact that we went out of our way to not endorse Sen. Obama. If every letter of the law was not followed, then yes, there should be some consequences. I do not, however, believe that yanking our tax-exempt status is a punishment that fits the crime. I believe in the separation of church and state, but I do not believe that means that church and state should not be in communication. And I believe these things strongly enough to provide a link to the Legal Defense Fund again, just in case you feel moved to contribute.
Make up your own minds,
and be good to each other,
Rev. Josh
030508
Which isn't to say that there isn't some truth to what "Drew" pointed me towards. He attached this link to the the comment, and if this letter is indeed accurate and legitimate, I'll have to slightly revise my position. As I said (and "Drew" ignored) at the end of my post, I reserve the right to be wrong. I am not an IRS lawyer, so I don't know for sure if the position held by either side is correct.
Assuming, for the moment, that this letter completely accurate, then elements of Sen. Obama's speech crossed the line. As I pointed out in the last post, he was hardly the first to cross that line, but there it is. I remember the general excitement that Sen. Obama would be speaking at General Synod, but I honestly can't remember one way or the other concerning the UCC pushing the idea that a presidential candidate would be speaking to Synod. As to the rest of it, UCCtruths sums it up better than I could:
Obama was not a candidate for office when invited, Obama only slipped twice in his speech in reference to his candidacy and that volunteers were campaigning outside the Civic Center and could not be controlled by the UCC.
Even though UCCtruths makes some interesting points that should be considered, I have a difficult time wading through their tone. There's something terribly absolutist about the way they say things that just sets my teeth on edge. Then again, perhaps I'm guilty of reading their blog with the tone of "Drew" still ringing in my ears.
Here's the comment "Drew" left on my blog:
Before you drink the punch on this, you should read the actual complaint that outlines the rules and specifically how they were violated:
http://www.ucctruths.com/irs.pdf
So, what do I know about "Drew"? He or she wants me to look at the link to UCCtruths, which I have done. He or she wants me to carefully consider his or her point of view, which I have done. He or she wants to win me over to the position of the IRS. This, he or she has not accomplished. To be quite frank, "Drew" is lucky that I went so far as to click that link this morning. Because his very first words are such an egregious and disgusting attack that I very nearly deleted his comment out of hand.
"Before you drink the punch..." is an obvious reference to the Jonestown Massacre. Evidence and eye-witness accounts of the very few survivors of that tragedy show that most, if not all, of the 909 people who died were, in fact, murdered. Referencing such a horrendous event in such an off-hand manner is not a good way to start with me.
I have been a member of the United Church of Christ my whole life. I was ordained by the UCC. I have worked as a delegate for two different General Synods, and I have seen first hand how our denomination is made up of an extremely diverse group of people with different theological emphases, different cultural backgrounds and different political ideals. What makes them special is that they are willing to come together, pray together, worship together, and openly work together on some very difficult issues. They respect—no—they treasure being exposed to new ideas and opposing viewpoints. As one columnist for the Hartford Currant wrote, "Really, sending the IRS after these people is like having the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms kick down the door of a bunch of nerds playing Dungeons and Dragons."
Seriously, though, I know these people, and even when I don't agree with them, I trust them. I am deeply insulted that "Drew" decided to make an anology between the United Church of Christ and Jim Jones. I hope, for their sake, that "Drew" is not one of the UCCtruth people, because he or she is not doing them any favors.
As for UCCtruth, I'm glad they're there. Their site says that every denomination should have one of these, and they have a point. If we are never challenged, never criticized, we never grow. However... they refer to the UCC's argument against the IRS allegations as if it were simply a tactic to get the UCC out of trouble. Is it really so shocking to consider the idea that the UCC is arguing that "that the spirit of the IRS rules are to prohibit churches from endorsing a candidate and the UCC went to great lengths not to endorse a candidate," because that's what they believe?
So, revision time: I personally believe that those laws are on the books for the purpose of keeping religious organizations from endorsing candidates. I know for a fact that we went out of our way to not endorse Sen. Obama. If every letter of the law was not followed, then yes, there should be some consequences. I do not, however, believe that yanking our tax-exempt status is a punishment that fits the crime. I believe in the separation of church and state, but I do not believe that means that church and state should not be in communication. And I believe these things strongly enough to provide a link to the Legal Defense Fund again, just in case you feel moved to contribute.
Make up your own minds,
and be good to each other,
Rev. Josh
030508
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
IRS BS
I don't like talking politics. However, some of you have been asking me about news reports that the United Church of Christ is under investigation by the IRS and that the IRS is in fact threatening our denomination's tax exempt status.
The reports are true. Here is an article from the UCC site explaining the whole thing. In fact, they even supply this link to the actual letter from the IRS.
Basically, the IRS is arguing that having Barack Obama speak at General Synod constituted an endorsement of his presidential campaign by the UCC. Here's why I think they're wrong: Sen. Obama, a long time member of the UCC, was invited as one of 60 diverse speakers, all of whom were asked to speak about the intersection between their faith an their respective vocations. He was invited to do this before he announced his candidacy. Once it was clear that he was running for president, the UCC carefully researched the very laws that the IRS accuses them of breaking. The letter from the IRS mentions Sen. Obama's campaign crew being outside the convention center. They were outside the convention center because they were banned from being inside General Synod. Also... well, check this out:
Did Sen. Barack Obama's speech get too political? I don't know. Was it too political in January when both Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke separately to the National Baptist Convention of America? Was it to poitical in April of 1996, when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, spoke before her denomination's General Conference? Was it too political when President Ronald Reagan gave his famous "Evil Empire" speech before the National Association of Evangelicals? Was it too political when John F. Kennedy appeared before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to explain the “so-called religious issue” and “to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election.”?
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that the National Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, the National Association of Evangelicals, nor the Greater Houston Ministerial Association had their tax exempt status investigated by the IRS.
So here's the thing, as the general minister and president of the UCC pointed out:
That's why I'm a little hot under the collar about this. Not because it happened to the UCC specifically, but because it happened to anybody. The laws that the IRS are citing are supposed to be in place to keep religion from screwing up the political process and are not supposed to be interpreted so narrowly that they abridge our 1st Amendment rights to free speech. I don't like it when certain politicians trot out controversial topics with severe religious overtones during elections, but I support their 1st Amendment right to do so. I certainly think it is important for poloticians and church members to thoughtfully relate their personal faith to their public responsibilities.
I feel the need to provide a link to the UCC's Legal Defense Fund, but I'm not going to ask you to contribute. I put it here merely to save some time for those of you who were of a mind to contribute already.
That's about all I have to say about that. I reserve the basic human right to be wrong. Perhaps Sen. Obama's speech, despite the best efforts of the UCC to abide by the law, truly did break it. I guess we'll see.
Speak your mind,
but be good to each other,
Rev. Josh
030408
The reports are true. Here is an article from the UCC site explaining the whole thing. In fact, they even supply this link to the actual letter from the IRS.
Basically, the IRS is arguing that having Barack Obama speak at General Synod constituted an endorsement of his presidential campaign by the UCC. Here's why I think they're wrong: Sen. Obama, a long time member of the UCC, was invited as one of 60 diverse speakers, all of whom were asked to speak about the intersection between their faith an their respective vocations. He was invited to do this before he announced his candidacy. Once it was clear that he was running for president, the UCC carefully researched the very laws that the IRS accuses them of breaking. The letter from the IRS mentions Sen. Obama's campaign crew being outside the convention center. They were outside the convention center because they were banned from being inside General Synod. Also... well, check this out:
Did Sen. Barack Obama's speech get too political? I don't know. Was it too political in January when both Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke separately to the National Baptist Convention of America? Was it to poitical in April of 1996, when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, spoke before her denomination's General Conference? Was it too political when President Ronald Reagan gave his famous "Evil Empire" speech before the National Association of Evangelicals? Was it too political when John F. Kennedy appeared before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association to explain the “so-called religious issue” and “to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election.”?
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that the National Baptist Convention, the United Methodist Church, the National Association of Evangelicals, nor the Greater Houston Ministerial Association had their tax exempt status investigated by the IRS.
So here's the thing, as the general minister and president of the UCC pointed out:
"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."
That's why I'm a little hot under the collar about this. Not because it happened to the UCC specifically, but because it happened to anybody. The laws that the IRS are citing are supposed to be in place to keep religion from screwing up the political process and are not supposed to be interpreted so narrowly that they abridge our 1st Amendment rights to free speech. I don't like it when certain politicians trot out controversial topics with severe religious overtones during elections, but I support their 1st Amendment right to do so. I certainly think it is important for poloticians and church members to thoughtfully relate their personal faith to their public responsibilities.
I feel the need to provide a link to the UCC's Legal Defense Fund, but I'm not going to ask you to contribute. I put it here merely to save some time for those of you who were of a mind to contribute already.
That's about all I have to say about that. I reserve the basic human right to be wrong. Perhaps Sen. Obama's speech, despite the best efforts of the UCC to abide by the law, truly did break it. I guess we'll see.
Speak your mind,
but be good to each other,
Rev. Josh
030408
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
