Many of our readers are interested in the question of how Christian colleges and universities evaluate and document their identity. We can talk about curricula, hiring principles, governance, and many other factors.
A ruling this week from the National Labor Relations Board has declared that St. Xavier University in Illinois is too “secular” to claim a religious exemption from certain laws and rules governing the unionization of adjuncts. As one official noted,
There is no evidence that the university would discipline or fire faculty if they did not hold to Catholic values,” he wrote. “A faculty member’s religious values, or lack thereof, play no role in their hiring or retention at the university and are not a subject of their evaluations” or judgments of their suitability for promotion. The university’s mission, he said, is “to educate men and women irrespective of their religious beliefs.
The NLRB report further observed a
lack of any reference to religion in Xavier’s articles of incorporation; the presence of only five members of its founding religious order, the Sisters of Mercy, among the 24 voting members on its Board of Trustees; its reliance on the Catholic Church for only a small portion of its funds; and its lack of any requirements that students take courses in Roman Catholicism.
I personally don’t think it’s the right of any governmental agency or authority to start evaluating the religiosity of an institution; that’s a sword that could cut in a number of different ways that clearly run afoul of the First Amendment.
Having said that, while I have no knowledge of St. Xavier or their internal representations of their identity (and would prefer to consider the larger question here, not the specifics of that institution), I do think that this works at a problem that is endemic to religious higher education. In politics, there are “RINO”s (“Republicans In Name Only”); “Christian” higher education has plenty of those kinds of places too: “CINO”s. We need more, and stronger, institutions of higher education that propagate the Christian Intellectual Tradition, not fewer, but the question constantly comes back to the working definition of what it means to be “Christian.”
If the word “Christ” doesn’t appear in the hiring principles, the curricula, the governance policies, or student outcomes, when how exactly is an education “Christian”? If the words “Scripture” or “Church” likewise are absent, then I have a hard time seeing exactly what is “Christian” about the identity. If the historical creeds are absent from any sort of voice in defining the identity, when what is “Christian” about it?
To some extent, this is a question of lexicography: how does one define “Christian”? The American Heritage Dictionary (3rd edition) has this as its first definition: “Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.” I think that most of our readers would be able to embrace that definition as a starting point at least, a bare minimum.
Too many “Christian” organizations, however, have adopted the fifth and final definition: “showing a loving concern for others; humane.” That is not a definition of “Christian” but is a synonym for “kind.” By that definition, a Buddhist, a Muslim, or an atheist can be a “Christian” as long as s/he is good-hearted. It’s a basic logical observation: All Christians should be kind but not all kind persons are Christian. In lexicography, the first definition is prescriptive; the latter is descriptive. Ideally, the two terms should be consonant, but the reality is that the latter definition is not enough; if we follow only the latter definition, we are quickly in contradiction to the first (and primary) definition.
Indeed, this matches the problem we have with defining the Gospel: is the Gospel that Christ has risen and has dealt fulsomely with the Curse or is the Gospel that we are supposed to be nice to one another? One is a stumbling block (1 Cor. 1:23) and the other is a kindergarten lesson in ethics.
The NLRB ruling raises a question that I’ve heard many a preacher invoke on a Sunday: if you were to stand trial for your faith, would there be enough evidence to convict you? I don’t like the judge in this case, but I do like the question.
June 3rd, 2011 | 8:20 am | #1
What is motivating the NLRB to do this?
If a church has a dinner party, ladies tea, or hosts some other event, does it then cease to be a church? If land owned by a church never sees services conducted on it, is it no longer to be treated as church property? The immediate implications are frightening.
June 3rd, 2011 | 1:51 pm | #2
I like the question, too.
June 3rd, 2011 | 6:56 pm | #3
“I personally don’t think it’s the right of any governmental agency or authority to start evaluating the religiosity of an institution; that’s a sword that could cut in a number of different ways that clearly run afoul of the First Amendment.”
I agree to the extent that there is always a concern for violation of church and state, but I think that in this case there is some necessity to judge how “religious” an institution really is considering that a “religious” institution gets unique legal and tax status.
If we simply allow institutions to get their benefits, without actually making sure that they are in fact religious institutions, than that creates a serious problem. Does a building become a school simply because the people learning there call it a school? And since we’re calling it a school, should it also receive state funds? I think that if an institution is accepting special status or state funds, then there should be some sort of organization making sure that the funds are actually going where they are supposed to go. That’s just monetary stewardship. If I were to donate $1,000 to a “cancer research center” I would want to make sure that it isn’t simply some people who are looking for free money.
Collin, you said,
“What is motivating the NLRB to do this?….The immediate implications are frightening.”
Is it unheard of for a institution to have some sort of honesty check when they are accepting special legal and tax status and benefits from the government. It would be a different story if the school agreed to operate like any other school, and didn’t accept special status. But since the school is accepting benefits, then there needs to be some kind of check to make sure that a “religious” institution isn’t simply a group of people that are wanting special status.
I think that the implications of a system that has no regulation that gives out special benefits to anyone claiming to be a religious institution is far more frightening.
June 6th, 2011 | 8:33 am | #4
[...] The Obama administration is using the NRLB to attack more than Boeing on behalf of their union buddies. I am getting visions of Senator Palpatine and his ranting about bureaucrats before he became emperor. Do you think Obama is a Star Wars fanboy? [...]
June 6th, 2011 | 9:59 am | #5
[...] “‘Christian’ Colleges, the Gospel, and Identity,” Gene Fant writes: [...]
June 6th, 2011 | 10:14 am | #6
Is it unheard of for a institution to have some sort of honesty check when they are accepting special legal and tax status and benefits from the government.
Do other forms of nonprofit organizations get subjected to this treatment?
We give special tax and legal benefits to all sorts of nonprofit organizations.
Does Planned Parenthood get audited to make sure they are doing what their mission statement says they are doing? If religions aren’t being singled out for special treatment, then the government ought to have the right to go into organizations like Planned Parenthood and evaluate whether or not the government feels PP is staying true to its mission statement – with the goverment, not PP, being the entity that gets to decide how the mission statement should be interpreted.
June 6th, 2011 | 11:22 am | #7
Hi there,
There is a difference between Christians and Atheists and it is who has the heart of God or not. I totally get that the Christian Schools should have the “Christianese” language when hiring or in the curriculum, but let us just ask some questions: Why are these institutions adopting the “kind” policy suddenly? What, essentially do they entail? Are many Christians kind at all? Are many atheists without morality because they are not Christian? What are some ways to implement the heart of God while remaining a Christian institution?
I am unsure to the answers to those questions as I am a believer in God and attend a secular school built on social change and building communities. We have to discover a new way of thinking to reach the ones God wants us to reach.
Thanks.
June 6th, 2011 | 11:46 pm | #8
“Does Planned Parenthood get audited to make sure they are doing what their mission statement says they are doing?”
Is anyone worried that Planned Parenthood isn’t living up to its “mission statement,” whatever that might be?
June 7th, 2011 | 2:13 am | #9
Blake,
“Do other forms of nonprofit organizations get subjected to this treatment?”
Yes, in fact, many non-profit organizations do. I worked for a soup kitchen (not religiously affiliated) a couples years ago while they were going through an audit to make sure that they actually were fitting the proper codes required in order to achieve non-profit tax status. Additionally, another homeless shelter that a friend of mine was a contractor for also had to go through some checks to make sure that the work he was doing for the homeless shelter was for purposes that wouldn’t jeapordize the non-profit status of the organization (also non-religious).
“Does Planned Parenthood get audited to make sure they are doing what their mission statement says they are doing?”
First, this is an argument for why the government should be consistent with the organizations it looks into, not whether looking into them is actually wrong. Second, you’re characterizing the audit in a way that isn’t true. The purpose of the audit it to make sure that the institution fits the criteria for tax exemption, not whether they adhere to their mission statement.
“If religions aren’t being singled out for special treatment, then the government ought to have the right to go into organizations like Planned Parenthood and evaluate whether or not the government feels PP is staying true to its mission statement”
Like I said, the audit isn’t to make sure they adhere to their own mission statement, it’s to assertain whether they fill the criteria for tax exemption. Secondly, yes, the government could audit Planned Parenthood if they wanted to. Just as the government can realistically audit any organization or any person that they want.
“With the goverment, not PP, being the entity that gets to decide how the mission statement should be interpreted.”
Once again, you’re creating a false scenario. The government doesn’t decide an organizations mission statement. The government doesn’t tell an organization that they have to file for tax exemption. The government decides the criteria for tax exemption, and then if the organization wants to file for tax exemption, they ought to fill the criteria for tax exemption. The government didn’t tell the school to file as a religious institution. It was the school that claimed to be a religious institution, and subsequently filed for tax exemption. The government decided to do an audit to make sure that the school wasn’t a secular school claiming to be a Christian school in order to gain tax exemption.
I’m not really sure what you’re argument is. All you’ve stated is that you have a problem with Planned Parenthood not being audited. In other words, you feel like the government isn’t being consistent with it’s auditing. If that’s your argument, then I agree. The government should be consistent. I love consistency.
If you have a problem with the government actually making sure that organizations aren’t falsely calling themselves “religious” or “non-profit” in order to gain an unfair tax advantage then argue that, don’t point out a SINGLE organization and claim “Ah hah! They haven’t been audited. Auditing is wrong!” So far, all you’ve said is that the government is inconsistent. BIG SURPRISE. I would love the government to work perfectly and be perfectly consistent too. But just because the police have incorrectly arrested someone doesn’t show that the Police Force should be abandoned, it means that the Police Force should just do a better job. In which case I agree, the government should audit more organizations.
June 7th, 2011 | 9:03 am | #10
The PP analogy is a weak one. Let’s go with a 501(c)(3) that specifically and admittedly violates IRS rules and yet is under no scrutiny: MediaMatters.org. These folks are political hacks who distort information to advance political ideals. Yet they enjoy a tax status which is unchallenged. Read their About page.
June 7th, 2011 | 7:30 pm | #11
“These folks are political hacks who distort information to advance political ideals”
I don’t find anything in the 501(c)(3) qualifications and restrictions that they directly violate. Being “political Hacks” isn’t in violation as long as they don’t support through monetary or endorsement any specific candidate. All they really state is that they apparently don’t like conservative “misinformation”. They don’t actually promote any specific candidates or even endorse voting, for or against conservatives.
This is directly from the IRS website;
Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
Nothing from the IRS says that you can’t have a political focus. As long as an organization doesn’t endorse a specific candidate or encourage voting, they’re in the clear.
“Read their About page.”
Nothing in their about page violates the 501(c)(3) regulations for the IRS.
I will admit that after reading some of their blogs and posts, that they definitely ride the line, and I’m sure that when the 2012 elections roll around, they will be even more so. It would probably be a good idea for the IRS to audit and investigate the company to see if there is some possible involvement with the elections that could violate their tax exemption status.
“and yet is under no scrutiny”
Actually, Mark Levin, a popular conservative show host has long advocated for the auditing of Mediamatters.org. So you aren’t alone in that proposition.
June 7th, 2011 | 9:28 pm | #12
Really? The organization is expressly against the “conservative” message and, being formed for the express purpose of defeating W, is always intent on winning seats for the progressives. As such they *influence voting* and thus candidate success. That amounts to an admission of a violation. Just because they employ a negative terminology does not change that facts. And selective quoting of IRS rules is not a sound argument make.
Yes, many have challenged MM. But public criticism is not IRS or FEC scrutiny. The organization needs to be asked to pay its taxes.
June 8th, 2011 | 4:18 pm | #13
“The organization is expressly against the “conservative” message and, being formed for the express purpose of defeating W”
Both claims are wrong. The organization is purposed to correct misinformation that is spread through media outlets, specifically conservative media outlets. Having a political focus or certain political favors does not “influence voting”. You’re link between having a political aim and influence voting is a weak one. If such were the case, than any church that talks about anti-abortion or anti-contraception should also lose their tax exemption because they preach a position that is conservative, and therefore “influence voting” by convincing their members to vote for any candidate that doesn’t support abortion.
And where on the page does it talk about defeating W? Either I missed it after reading the about page 5 times or that was fabricated. I’m missing your claim about their mission to defeat the conservatives in their about page.
There is a reason that tax exemption laws are written the way they are. Having an “influence voting” is not considered being active in politics. An organization can “prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.” which to me seems to be exactly what the about page of mediamatters.org claims to do. It’s virtually impossible for an organization to not be linked to “As such they *influence voting* and thus candidate success” by your standards because quite frankly any activity or stance that an organization is involved in can be linked to a political party. Here’s an example if we were to take your argument as true: Planned parenthood (which you specifically said was “The PP analogy is a weak one.”) gives abortions. It’s the position of a certain candidate that abortion should be illegal. Therefore, planned parenthood is “influencing voting and thus candidate success” of the candidate that is running against said individual because they are supporting a position that is contrary to the candidates.
It’s such a loose and weak connection and argument that you make that any non-profit organization can be twisted into losing their tax exempt status.
They don’t give money to a specific party. They don’t support a specific candidate. They don’t support a specific democratic or republican party. They correct misinformation.
“The organization is expressly against the “conservative” message and, being formed for the express purpose of defeating W.
You quoted “conservative” message as if that were a quote from them. Find me where in their about page they claim the conservative message is wrong, and that they were to defeat W. It’s not there.
“And selective quoting of IRS rules is not a sound argument make.”
The IRS regulations for tax exemption is a public webpage that anyone can access. I’m not using selective quoting, you can read the context for yourself. If you make a claim to discredit me then have a contrary claim of your own. How is it that I’m using selective quoting? If it’s out of context, then show me where in the context that I’m wrong.
The fact still remains that you haven’t effectively shown how Mediamatters violates their tax exemption in the rules set forth by the IRS (which you haven’t once shown where in the IRS rules that an organization can’t have a political focus). So far, the only argument you’ve made also ties in most non-profit organization including the Catholic church (avid stance on anti-contraception and anti-abortion, which IS a political issue).
June 8th, 2011 | 9:02 pm | #14
Online colleges are great when people are tight for finances. When people are tight in finances, it usually means that they are working odd hours in order to save money. So they are also tight on time and need a flexible class in order to get the degree to apply for a better job in a field they would enjoy better. Online schools also are cheaper in the sense that you wouldn’t need to drive to the class nor would you be spending money on being on campus in a dorm room. There are many benefits to going to college online.
June 9th, 2011 | 4:53 pm | #15
[...] ““Christian” Colleges, the Gospel, and Identity,” Gene Fant, Evangel [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact