Gay Marriage: "a replay of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy that took place a century ago?"

My fear is that the Federal government will link acceptance of gay marriage / lifestyle to 501(c)(3)

We’ve got this basket of benefits:

• Pastoral housing allowance
• Off property tax roles (Churches do not pay property taxes)
• Deductibility of donations
• Plus churches are not required to file 990’s (I actually think churches should .. but that’s another discussion)

Think about how BJU lost tax exempt status (Bob Jones University v. United States) 30 years ago

Losing that basket of benefits would end church as we know it in America. You would, in my view, have many evangelical / fundamentalist churches cave to the government pressure to save themselves … others would have to radically change the way they do their financial affairs.

He says:

It is possible that evangelicals could repeat the mistake of last century’s fundamentalists by choosing to withdraw from societal and cultural engagement in order to preserve purity of identity. The result would be the inevitable downplaying of the public implications of the gospel we preach. Our kids will then be the ones with the “uneasy conscience” of last century’s Carl Henry, urging us out of our ghettos and back into the public square.

As if it is the fundamentalists who are to blame for the loss of impact of the church. It was the moderates (i.e., New Evangelicals, i.e., Carl Henry, et al) who caved on the gospel for respectability’s sake and consequently allowed the vast majority of relatively conservative Christianity to fall into a weak, pathetic imitation of the world - resulting in the mess we are in now.

This is what I’ve been saying:

“The ironic outcome of the fundamentalists / modernist controversy of the early 20th century was that the churches and institutions that accepted liberal theology have become largely irrelevant. They were gutted of their message and their heart. Their constituents had no need for them any longer. The same will be true of Christians who compromise to the changing norms of culture. In seeking to be accepting of the spirit of the age, they will find their Christianity to be no longer relevant. If they accept what God says is sin, there is no need for Christ to save anyone from it.”

In a way, I’m glad for the fiery trial that will refine the true Church (1 Peter 4:12-19). I believe that those who capitulate to the world will ironically lose their relevance as they lose their message of redemption. I think those on the fence will eventually turn their backs on Christianity altogether.

“Losing that basket of benefits would end church as we know it in America.”

I am in Australia and our churches don’t have those ‘benefits’. I truly hope the backbone of the American church is not dependent on government welfare.

“[H] ow is it consistent with the belief that the church is the body of Christ, a belief I share, to think it has no intrinsic life to be relied on, and must, for the sake of its survival, be fastened to a more vigorous body, that of the nation?”

Many churches, particularly smaller ones, would be severely impacted if the costs of property taxes were added to their budget. Many of the pastors of those churches would face an increased tax burden as they would have to pay income tax on their housing allowance or the fair market value of church-provided housing. We may differ on whether these benefits are appropriate, but they are helpful. As to the 990 issue, I agree with Jim in that churches should file them. I can only imagine the raised eyebrows at the IRS if they got a look into the way churches handle money.

The BJU case was based on a religious institution that had a practice that violated “public policy” (a nebulous term). We’re seeing the day when the “public policy” will soon be the acceptance of gay marriage. Churches may still be able to practice their conviction but they won’t be tax exempt.

Soon churches will have to chose.