Never before in the history of Baptist life in North
America has it been possible (or perhaps desirable) to secure a government secured
loan. Now suddenly, because of the CARES ACT, it is possible. But is it wise?
Within a week of creating a brand new precedent for churches there are webinars
about how to access relief funds via this new legislative action, but there are
no webinars discussing the long-term implications of doing so. Little if
anything I’ve read thus far about the CARES ACT, churches, and Payroll
Protection includes any caution for churches. There are several questions that
are unanswered.
Is it Biblical? This
is where churches ought to start. We are not mere pragmatists. Historically
Baptists have been very forceful (and rightly so) about the fact that we are “people
of the book.” I can’t find a biblical precedent for local churches in the New
Testament being funded by government assistance. I have a feeling that our forebears
in Baptist life would be aghast at the suggestion. I’d be interested to hear New
Testament, Biblical arguments for accepting government assistance to meet
payroll. I can’t imagine such an argument that didn’t include a significant
amount of eisegesis.
Is it Biblical to fund the church’s work in any other
means than by reaching people with the Gospel and discipling those people so that they practice sacrificial
generosity as part of their worship? And God help if the thought enters our
mind of “debt forgiveness” as a motive for securing this kind of assistance.
Where is the Christian ethic in that?
Is there a modern,
American historical precedent? I have great difficulty squaring churches
and Christian non-profits receiving help through the CARES ACT with the
establishment clause in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Early
Baptists (see the Danbury Baptist Association, October 7, 1801) opposed
government establishment of any religion. They also detested government interference
with the free expression of any religion. This is foundational to modern
American Baptist (and religious) understanding. In a day of decreased
denominational importance maybe the weight of this escapes our notice.
Is this a slippery
slope? I’ve heard some slippery slope
arguments about the implications for religious freedom related to government
mandated social distancing. “If we let them make us stop meeting now, what will
keep them from doing again for another reason?” I don’t share that concern.
Maybe I am naïve. But I am concerned that we will crack the door for future
government interference and regulation by seizing on this offer of relief.
What are the
alternatives? I know that there are churches which will be in a precarious
situation if this pandemic and the subsequent economic impact stretch on for
much longer. Some churches and other Christian non-profits have started the
process of applying for relief already. This is an indicator of a bigger,
underlying problem. This crisis is hastening the process of financial decline
that was in place before the Covid-19 issue. Many churches already needed to
explore assistance. But that requires releasing some control. Many churches
need assistance from the resources inherent in cooperative spiritual community,
not from the US government.
Do we need a quick
fix? I don’t think so. Here’s a hard truth: if churches can’t adjust their
ministry behaviors to be solvent when something unexpected hits, they may be
just kicking the can down the road. If we are not careful, we’ll let the
government become like the enabling parent whose interference keeps their child
from experiencing the pain that becomes the catalyst for change.
Comments