Religion – Page 9 – Warren Throckmorton

What Should Christians Do in Response to Charlottesville?

The disgusting displays of racism last weekend in Charlottesville have been a wake up call to many Christians.

The disgusting displays of racism last weekend in Charlottesville have been a wake up call to many Christians. Some Christian leaders have denounced the resurgence of white supremacists while others have remained silent. The president took two days to declare specifically and clearly that racism is evil. Some evangelicals have defended his slow response while others have called him out for taking so long. Because of the diversity of views under the label evangelical, there is little chance for a unified response among those who identify with that word.
Even though national media statements are important, ultimately the response of local churches will move us toward or away from racial reconciliation. In response to the events in Charlottesville, I hope more Christians will consider at minimum these responses.

1. Denounce racism locally and nationally

There should be no delay for church leaders to denounce racism and racist groups. Statements must be clear and to the point – racism is wrong and antithetical to the Gospel. Racial supremacy is evil and a cancer in the church. Historically, many in the white church fought integration and used the Bible as a reason. This should not be denied or politicized.
Local church pastors and people in the pews must hold national leaders to this same standard. When there is silence from those who have a national platform, we must ask why and mark those who can’t or won’t call out racism.

2. Put aside politics

Whether you supported Trump or not, this is no time to defend the improper actions of your political favorites. Currently, some Trump supporters are defending his slow and confusing response to white supremacy on display in Charlottesville. This political posturing doesn’t help the situation and improperly gives loyalty to Caesar instead of God. On the other hand, Christians must work with the current administration to make change and not simply criticize to score political points against the president.

3. Take the lead in removing Confederate symbols from the public square.

Although this may be controversial, I think it is crucial right now. I believe churches should take the lead in community efforts to remove vestiges of pride in the Confederacy. Some Christians defend Confederate symbols. but I think they are wrong.
Defending Confederate symbols has become a signal for white supremacy. All reasons for flying the Confederate flag or allowing Confederate statues to remain in place ultimately come back to a defense of a painful and evil time in American history. In America today, the display of a Confederate symbol is analogous to the display of a swastika. Americans have the right to free speech but the church is called to a higher standard. I support all lawful means to put Confederate symbols in the museum and out of the public square. Such action would go a long way toward my next point.

4. More action, more learning, less preaching

In addition to action to attack racist symbols, evangelicals, especially those in majority white evangelical churches, must talk less and learn more. White evangelicals must learn about white privilege and the vast differences in perception of society. African-American and whites often see problems and solutions differently. As a white evangelical, I need to listen and learn more, and talk less. I realize as I write this that I may not have gotten more wrong than right in this article. I welcome dialogue and see this piece as an effort to contribute to discussion and learning.
There are two organizations I can recommend (there are many good ones, I just happen to know the leaders of these groups).
Race to Unity
Return to the Roots of Civil Rights Bus Tour

Tomorrow I Will Be On Up for Debate with Julie Roy – Should Christians Be Nationalists? (UPDATED)

At noon (ET) tomorrow, I will be on the Moody Radio Network program “Up for Debate with Julie Roy” to discuss the question, “Should Christians Be Nationalists?”
The guest taking a contrasting position will be Ken Klulowski who is the Legal Editor at Breitbart News and Senior Counsel & Director of Strategic Affairs at the First Liberty Institute.
I originally wanted to debate whether or not America is a Christian nation.
You can listen online here: https://www.moodyradio.org/upfordebate
As background, see these posts on the subject (here, here, and here)
UPDATE: (7/1/17)
The show went well I think in that both sides had the ability to make important points. I do want to correct or least amend a couple of Ken Klukowski’s claims.
On one occasion he said he didn’t recognize James Madison from my quote of Madison and then said Madision’s views could be discerned by his vote for chaplains in Congress. He also said most of the founders had seminary degrees.
One. my Madison quote is sound and two, Klukowski did not tell the rest of the story on Madison. Later, Madison forcefully disagreed with the funding of chaplains and said so here.
On the founders and seminary degrees, this is a distortion made famous by David Barton. See this piece about that misleading claim.
See also my daily series on the Constitutional Convention:

1787 Constitutional Convention Series

To read my series examining the proceedings of the Constitution Convention, click here. In this series, I am writing about any obvious influences on the development of the Constitution which were mentioned by the delegates to the Convention. Specifically, I am testing David Barton’s claim that “every clause” of the Constitution is based on biblical principles. Thus far, I have found nothing supporting the claim. However, stay tuned, the series will run until mid-September.
Constitutional Convention Series (click the link)
To follow on social media, click the following links:
Facebook (blog posts and news)
Facebook (Getting Jefferson Right – history news)
Twitter

Federal Tax Forms Show Why the Sekulow Family Business Should Be Investigated (UPDATED)

The UK Guardian reported yesterday that two state AG’s (NY and NC) will look into the finances of Trump lawyer Jay Sekulow and his fundraising charities. Examining the federal tax forms from Christian Advocates Serving Evangelism (2015 990), I can see why. Remember CASE is the nonprofit which serves as the fundraising organization for Sekulow’s American Center for Law and Justice, supposedly a religious liberty law firm.
According to the IRS, family relationship on the board of a nonprofit raise a red flag:

Irrespective of size, a governing board should include independent members and should not be dominated by employees or others who are not, by their very nature, independent individuals because of family or business relationships. The Internal Revenue Service reviews the board composition of charities to determine whether the board represents a broad public interest, and to identify the potential for insider transactions that could result in misuse of charitable assets.

It seems obvious that a nonprofit should not be organized like a closely held family company. Now look at the board of Sekulow’s CASE:

Perhaps the name of the organization should be changed to Christian Advocates Serving Sekulows.
The only person on the board who is not named Sekulow is Colby May. However, he cannot be considered an independent board member because his income is dependent on grant money received from CASE/ACLJ. May runs the ACLJ’s DC affiliate which is completely funded by CASE/ACLJ. A review of ACLJ-DC’s 990 form shows May as the Director.

ACLJ-DC’s income was reported on the 2015 990 as $853,796.

As can be seen on ACLJ’s 2015 990, a grant of the exact same amount was given to ACLJ-DC.

I suspect CASE might have to provide more information to the AGs about how executive compensation was decided since none of the board members can be considered independent. Again, the IRS guidelines specify independence in setting compensation.

The Internal Revenue Service encourages a charity to rely on the rebuttable presumption test of section 4958 of the Internal Revenue Code and Treasury Regulation section 53.4958-6 when determining compensation of its executives. Under this test, compensation payments are presumed to be reasonable if the compensation arrangement is approved in advance by an authorized body composed entirely of individuals who do not have a conflict of interest with respect to the arrangement, the authorized body obtained and relied upon appropriate data as to comparability prior to making its determination, and the authorized body adequately documented the basis for its determination concurrently with making the determination.

The CASE/ACLJ 990 form indicates the Sekulows and CASE/ACLJ engaged in four sizable mutual transactions as well as a major one involving a company half-owned by Jay Sekulow. See below:

Given the fact that none of the board members can be considered independent, how could this board prevent conflicts of interest as defined by the IRS?

B. Conflicts of interest. The directors of a charity owe it a duty of loyalty. The duty of loyalty requires a director to act in the interest of the charity rather than in the personal interest of the director or some other person or organization. In particular, the duty of loyalty requires a director to avoid conflicts of interest that are detrimental to the charity. Many charities have adopted a written conflict of interest policy to address potential conflicts of interest involving their directors, trustees, officers, and other employees. The Internal Revenue Service encourages a charity’s board of directors to adopt and regularly evaluate a written conflict of interest policy that requires directors and staff to act solely in the interests of the charity without regard for personal interests; includes written procedures for determining whether a relationship, financial interest, or business affiliation results in a conflict of interest; and prescribes a course of action in the event a conflict of interest is identified.

According to the 990, a third party expert reviewed the 5-million payment to Sekulow’s law firm and said it was all fine. I hope the AGs get to interview that third party. In the spirit of transparency, I call on Sekulow and company to disclose the identity of the expert and the basis on which the transaction is reasonable.
I hope the attention Sekulow is now getting will shine a light on the disgusting fund raising practices too many Christian charities use. Many such charities flaunt the very values and beliefs they claim to be upholding.

Supreme Court Decision: Should Public Funds Help Build Church Playgrounds?

The Supreme Court today said yes: if other nonprofits are eligible for state funds to refurbish a playground, a church shouldn’t be denied the same funds on account of being a church. In Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia MO v. Comer, the Court decided 7-2 that states may not discriminate when awarding such funds (read decision).
At issue was a ministry of Trinity Lutheran — their daycare — and funds which they wanted from MO for placing a rubber surface on the space. MO had a rule which eliminated churches on antiestablishment grounds. The court said the state could not refuse to provide funds to a nonprofit just because it was a church.
On the surface, this may seem like a win for churches, but I am not so sure what strings may be attached, nor does it seem wise for tax dollars to go to a church, even if the church uses those funds for playground resurfacing. Eventually, those dollars aid the church in religious purposes, it seems to me, which might not seem so bad when it is your church but might seem to be a problem when it isn’t.

Did the American Founders Want the Bible in Schools?

Tim Barton, son of self-styled historian David Barton, wants you to believe the founding fathers wanted the Bible taught in schools.

Tim Barton, son of self-styled historian David Barton, wants you to believe the founding fathers wanted the Bible taught in schools. Watch:

In the video, Barton focused on Benjamin Rush, a Philadelphia physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Barton said,

But what’s cool about him is when we became a nation, he wrote a series of essays to help guide and shape America, and what we thought and how we did it, and one of the essays he wrote was on education. It’s this essay right here and it was on the defense of the use of the Bible in schools. He’s arguing that we need the Bible in every school in America. Benjamin Rush believed that if we were going to make it as a nation, the way we had to do it was use the Bible in schools.

The caption for the video on Facebook is:

Who was the Father of Education in America? Here is the proof that our founders wanted the Bible in schools. Watch. Like. Share.

Is Rush’s letter proof the founders wanted the Bible in schools?
In 1791, Rush wrote a letter on education to Jeremiah Belknap which was republished by the American Tract Society in 1830. In the letter, Rush defended the use of the Bible in schools. However, Rush’s defense should raise a question. If the Bible was in such wide use, then why would Rush need to argue for its inclusion?
In fact, Rush said in his letter that the Bible in schools was out of fashion, so to speak.

To the arguments I have mentioned in favour of the use of the bible as a school book, I shall add a few reflexions.
The present fashionable practice of rejecting the bible from our schools, I suspect has originated with the deists. They discover great ingenuity in this new mode of attacking Christianity. If they proceed in it,.they will do more in half a century, in extirpating our religion, than Bolingbroke or Voltaire could have effected in a thousand years. I am not writing to this class of people. I despair of changing the opinions of any of them. I wish only to alter the opinions and conduct of those lukewarm, or superstitious Christians, who have been misted by the deists upon this subject. On the ground of the good old custom, of using the bible as a school book, it becomes us to entrench our religion. It is the last bulwark the deists have left it ; for they have rendered instruction in the principles of Christianity by the pulpit and the press, so unfashionable, that little good for many years seems to have been done by either of them. (emphasis added)

What? The Bible was rejected from schools during the 1790s? Eliminating the Bible was a fashionable practice?
Rush calls using the Bible in school a “good old custom” and blames another problem on their disuse:

The effects of the disuse of the bible, as a school book have appeared of late in the neglect and even contempt with which scripture names are treated by many people. It is because parents have not been early taught to know or respect the characters and exploits of the old and new testament worthies, that their names are exchanged for those of the modern kings of Europe, or of the principal characters in novels and romances.

Rush apparently viewed a lack of biblical naming to be a problem which would be addressed by returning Bibles to education. Since Rush complained that parents didn’t get Bible instruction in school, the use of the Bible in school must have dropped off long before the 1790s, at least according to Rush.
With his letter, Rush was going against the trend not setting the pace.

One Founder Doesn’t Mean All Founders

Another problem is that Barton generalizes from Rush to all founders. This, of course, is not appropriate method. At least one other founder spoke against using the Bible with young children — Thomas Jefferson. On that subject in his Notes on the State of Virginia, Jefferson wrote:

Instead therefore of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of the children, at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious enquiries, their memories may here be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history.

No doubt some founders were fine with the Bible as a text and other were not. The problem here is the generalization to the point of misinformation. There was no national policy on the subject and some schools required Bible training while others did not. By the 1880s, many schools had stopped using the Bible (see the Cincinnati Bible Wars) at all.
If Wallbuilders would like to feature another essay by Rush as an example for current practice, I have a suggestion below: