What Does Jerusalem Have to Do with Washington D.C.? Rethinking the Churches Role in Law and Public Policy (original) (raw)

What Does Jerusalem Have to Do With Washington D.C.? Rethinking the Church’s Role in Politics

2015

The Mission of ICLS is to train and encourage Christian law students, law professors, pre-law advisors, and practicing lawyers to seek and study Biblical truth, including the natural law tradition, as it relates to law and legal institutions, and to encourage them in their spiritual formation and growth, their compassionate outreach to the poor and needy, and the integration of Christian faith and practice with their study, teaching, and practice of law.

The Role of the Church in the Political dynamics of the day

Church - State relations have always been dicey in history especially when the church has become party-political. This paper was meant to make clear that the church by its very nature is political, as long as it remains a voice of the voiceless. However there is a thin line between that role of the church and where the church begins to champion some political party propaganda.

Between Capital and Cathedral: Essays on Church-State Relationships

Journal of Church and State, 2014

Nothing in this world is static. Not even Church 1 and State 2 relationships. As change is ringing in the social, political and ecclesiastical spheres of South Africa, so it is necessary to relook the notion of Church-State relations in this country. Coming from a past where the Church held a dominant position in society-both in the promotion of and in the resistence to the apartheid system-the Church now finds itself in a new context, a constitutional democracy. All of a sudden its voice has to compete with other voices, its power limited to the understanding that it is but one role-player in a society which is trying to find its feet. What does this mean for the identity, place and role of the Christian Church? This collection of essays seeks to address specifically this question. In the first essay, a well-known voice in South Africa regarding Church and State relations, Prof. Peter Storey, outlines the critical distinction that needs to be made between the place and role of the Church and that of the State. Speaking from his experience of a past where the lines were blurred all too often, Storey urges the Church to remain faithful to its roots, namely its devotion to God, while playing a critical prophetic role in society. The Church needs to find its own identity and should not succumb to the temptation of becoming an instrument of the State by being entertained in the halls of Caesar. Another real attraction that should be resisted is the idea that the State could serve as an instrument of the Church. On this point, Prof. Rieger speaks from the perspective of the United States of America, which is largely seen as a nation which functions under a Christian democracy. Although the USA may deny this notion, Rieger clearly outlines the influence the Church has on the State, warning that the Church's close proximity to the State leads it down a path where the legitimacy of its prophetic voice is called into question. Is it easier for a Christian to live in a Christian State than to live in a non-Christian State? Rieger concludes that it is not. A Christian State is not ideal for a diverse community which shares many cultures, religions and belief systems. When the Church is situated too close to the State and the State is caught up in controversy, it becomes all too easy to demonise the Christian religion, thinking that the State is a true representation of that which the Church stands for. 1 Throughout this work, "Church" refers to the universal Church, while "church/es" refers to local worshipping communities or denominations. 2 Throughout this work, "State" refers to powers of governance, while "state" refers to the noun which depicts the subject of discussion's particular condition.

State and Church and the State of the Church [2016]

Engage, 2016

Before every election, we hear promises of would-be messiahs who want to and know how to save our nation from its current state. Faced with the two parties, as in every election, many silently want to echo Mercutio’s dying words in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet as he curses both the Montagues and Capulets: “A plague o’ both your houses!” Yet we know that division and sibling rivalry are the default human condition from the very first family in Genesis. We also know that it is into this flawed humanity that God spoke grace and within it that God elected Israel. If the Bible teaches us anything, it is that God works providentially with actual human history and broken human beings. If we think any candidate or president will rescue us from what ails the universe, then a review of history or a simple glance at Augustine’s City of God might suggest a more sobering wisdom. At the least, we might learn humility.

What is Caesar's, What is God's: Fundamental Public Policy for Churches

Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 2021

Bob Jones University v. United States is both a highly debated Supreme Court decision and a rarely applied one. Its recognition of a contrary to fundamental public policy doctrine that could cause an otherwise tax-exempt organization to lose its favorable federal tax status remains highly controversial, although the Court has shown no inclination to revisit the case and Congress has shown no desire to change the underlying statutes to alter the case’s result. That lack of action may be in part because the IRS applies the decision in relatively rare and narrow circumstances. The mention of the decision during oral argument in Obergefell v. Hodges raised the specter of more vigorous and broader application of the doctrine, however. It renewed debate about what public policies other than racial discrimination in education might qualify and fundamental and also whether and to what extent the doctrine should apply to churches, as opposed to the religious schools involved in the original case. The IRS has taken the position that churches are no different than any other tax-exempt organizations in this context, although it has only denied or revoked the tax-exempt status of a handful of churches based on this doctrine. The emergence of the Bob Jones University decision in the Obergefell oral argument, along with developments over the past several decades both with respect to the legal status of churches and what arguably could be considered fundamental policy, render consideration of these issues particularly timely. This Article therefore explores whether there are emerging conflicts between a significant number of churches and what could be considered fundamental public policy, not only with respect to sexual orientation discrimination but also with respect to sex discrimination, sanctuary churches, and other areas. Finding that there are several current or likely future such conflicts, it then explores whether there are philosophical and legal grounds for treating churches differently from other tax-exempt organizations for purposes of applying the contrary to fundamental policy doctrine and the related illegality doctrine. Drawing on both the longstanding concept of “sphere sovereignty” and emerging work in the area of First Amendment institutions, the Article concludes that churches should not be subject to the former doctrine while still being subject to loss of their tax benefits if they engage in or encourage significant criminal illegal activity. The Article then concludes by applying this conclusion to the identified areas of current or likely future conflict to demonstrate how the IRS and the courts should apply the Bob Jones University decision to churches.