Discussion of Harding University’s efforts at citizenship education continues here.
BACKGROUND: Harding University Films
- Interest Rates Can Go Lower, But You Won’t Like It
AssetBuilder Inc. - Registered Investment Advisor - Markets Have Feelings: “Can you imagine how hard physics would be if electrons had feelings?”
Behavior Gap - Inflation As a Hidden Tax Increase
My Money Blog - The Financial Con Of The Decade Explained So Simply Even A Congressman Will Get It
zero hedge - on a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero - Money and Basic Math: Some Thoughts and Six Quick Tips
The Simple Dollar Read More
{ 15 } Comments
What bothers me isn’t so much the political position George Benson moved Harding, but that a church institution moved into politics at all. I can only imagine how horrified Jim Harding would have been if he’d lived to see his name attached to such worldliness.
I guess I would disagree that it is a “church institution.” It is a school with a commitment to Christian education and a student body drawn heavily, but not exclusively, from the restorationist tradition.
It’s not the church. It engages in all sorts of “worldliness” such as the sports programs, training nurses, and certifying public school teachers. Yes, it brings to all these activities a Christian perspective and attempts to integrate faith and learning to whatever degree is appropriate. How is this horrifying?
Its a church institution of the A Capella Churches of Christ. It is mainly been supported by the CoC, it sponsors all sorts of Christian functions with the CoC being the intended audience, and it will only hire CoC personel exclusively.
I do not fault Harding for having a political voice. Politics is part of the world and Christianity is called to address the world, therefore Harding as a CoC-Christian institution should have something to say about the social-political realm of our world.
In my humble opinion, what bothers me is when Harding or any other Christian institution allows secular politics to shape its Christianity rather than its Christianity shaping the political landscape of the world.
I guess I would disagree that secular politics shapes Harding’s Christianity. I’d say that, to the extent that it makes sense to speak of an institution this way, its Christianity shapes its view of citizenship education. That’s a good thing. Harding doesn’t engage in “politics,” per se, but it does promote, through ASI, an understanding and appreciation of the unique benefits of the American Founding. If that has partisan political implications, it is only because one party is increasingly uncomfortable with these ideas. That doesn’t mean that ASI’s purpose is to promote one party over the other.
It is a Christian school, not a church and not a political entity.
It has a broader and more worldly purpose than the Church. It’s a liberal arts college, which is accredited by the State and grants educational degrees after a course of study in exchange for money. I would oppose a church establishing something like the American Studies Institute.
But, Harding is not a church, and it is not the Church.
When was the last time Harding invited a Democrat to speak at its ASI series?
Zell Miller will be speaking on April 26, 2006. Wesley Clark was an ASI speaker, as was James Zogby.
In fact, if you look at this year’s schedule there isn’t a single Republican politician on the list.
Many of the speakers in the past have been neither Republican nor Democrat, but foreign leaders like Margaret Thatcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Lech Walesa or apolitical figures like Bobby Bowden, Gene Stallings, and Zig Ziglar.
Sometimes, the speakers are not focused squarely on the ideas at the core of the stated purpose of the program. Still, it’s not just a platform for Republican politicians, as critics often charge.
While I agree that Harding is not the church, it is defined as a “church institution” by IRS ruling 70-549, which allows all of its faculty to be “ordained ministers,” thereby qualifying for the ministerial housing allowance. By claiming church status with the IRS, Harding also doesn’t have to disclose the salaries of its administrators. In that regard, Harding is one of only a handful of universities that claim they have “church” status…the others (I think) include BYU and Bob Jones.
Actually, I re-read 70-549 and realized the official wording is “integral agency of the church.” So, while HU doesn’t claim that it’s a church institution per se, it does claim that it is an “integral agency of the Church of Christ (sic).”
Thanks. For those interested, here’s a link to the ruling:
Is this ruling specifically referencing Harding or does Harding claim the same status as the school referenced in this ruling? Just wondering.
This is interesting, but I doubt that those critical of the American Studies Institute would change their tune if Harding’s faculty salaries were subject to a different tax treatment. If so, then their real problem would be with the tax treatment, not with the nature and purpose of ASI.
No, 70-549 isn’t speaking of just Harding - it’s speaking of colleges and universities that have strict denominational requirements (HU certainly falls under this umbrella) and claim 70-549 status (which HU claims).
But the law seems pretty clear that with these words:
“the college is most rigidly and continuously governed and controlled by the board of directors who are, in turn, under the control of the elders of the church in which they have their membership”
that legally speaking (well, IRS-speak), Harding University is under the control of the elders of the congregations where its board members are congregants.
And I really don’t want to turn my comments towards the political overtones seen throughout HU’s history (seriously - I don’t want to go there this morning), but I think the issue may lie in HU being fairly political while claiming church status (to benefit faculty members who want to avoid paying taxes on their housing expenses). The thinking may go like this: it would be just as problematic for HU to embrace a left-leaning political discourse and claim church status as well. I’m not saying I buy this perspective wholehog, but it does muddy the waters.
Do ACU, Lipscomb, and others claim the same status?
If they did and if they sponsored a lecture series with guest speakers who criticized the budget priorities of the Republican Congress, I seriously doubt whether GKB would complain about it. Would you?
In light of your comments here about this L.A. Times article, I wonder if you saw this post, which I found through this post on Fishkite. What do you think of that issue relative to this one?
For me, the sermon that drew the letter from the IRS, as described by Patterco seems much more problematic than anything ASI has ever done. ASI has never gotten anywhere near as close to urging the election or defeat of a particular candidate for office as did the church mentioned in that article. That’s why I disagree with the statement that Harding has, as Milton said, “moved into politics.”
Moreover, a guest speaker addressing an audience in the Benson Auditorium is quite different from a church official speaking to a congregation. The latter implies a much greater sense that the institution itself is endorsing the message than the former does.
And I don’t see much criticism among anti-ASI folks of Sojourners‘ tax status or of its blending politics and religion.
Again, my purpose in commenting here was not to argue about whether or not ASI, All Saints-Pasadena, or Sojourners are politically-biased (they are), because I haven’t decided how I feel about how taxation/exemption questions should apply in these cases (Is indecision accepted here?
) To my knowledge, no member of the Sojourners staff qualifies for a ministerial housing allowance simply because they’re an employee of a 501c organization. In fact, though I was amused by the controversy over All Saints (and their defense from Ted Haggard and many other conservative evangelicals), I don’t really feel strongly either way to comment/argue, other than to say that it’s obvious that churches on both sides of the political spectrum violate the spirit of the law.
But my comments aren’t directed towards 501c, they’re directed at 70-549 and whether or not “our” universities should be considered church agencies.
ACU and Lipscomb have both claimed 70-549 status, though anecdotally I know Lipscomb faculty members participate in the MHA (ministerial housing allowance) at percentages smaller than those at Harding or ACU.
I’m not trying to argue a point here; I just think it’s funny that so many people (both in and out of “our” university communities) claim that the “university is not a church and a church is not a university” but legally defy these notions by granting themselves church status so their faculty can make more money. Not that I’d ever suggest that some are using the “priesthood of all believers” theology for financial gain.
Sure, I’m just trying to clearly understand what you think, which is why I asked, “What do you think[?]” If the answer is undecided, then that’s what it is.
No, but the person who preached the anti-Bush sermon at All Saints-Pasadena probably does, which makes it relevant to the discussion. As for Sojourners, I assume they get a different kind of “tax subsidy,” but I don’t know how they’re organized. Many, many groups like Sojourners, on both sides of the political spectrum receive favorable tax treatment and engage in activity that some consider “political.” But, I think it is a mistake to use that term for what is really ideological activity rather than political. I think the spirit of the law regarding prohibited political activity for certain groups is aimed at electioneering, not ideology. I’ve not seen ASI do anything even close to electioneering and merely advocating an ideology doesn’t violate the spirit of the law.
Chiming back in the discussion for a moment.
I will leave all the legalities on what constitutes being a church institution to those of you who understand American law. From where I sit (and where I sat in the School of Biblical Studies while at Harding in Searcy) it sure seemed like Harding was an A Capella Churches of Christ institution given the fact that the only view of Christianity that is promoted is a traditional A Capella CoC ideology. I not saying this is right or wrong, it is their school and the leaders have the right to run it as they see fit.
As for polotics, I often felt like some of my professors believed that one could not be a Christian without championing the Republican / political-conservative cause. NO I am not a Democrat. I find plenty of view promoted by the Democrat that are outright un-Christian. BUT I think the Republican party has its fair share of un-Christian policies too. But again this is why I simpply want to be Christian only — religiously, socially, philosophically, and politically. As hard as that may be, it is worth the struggle.
Post a Comment