Welcome to my weekly digest for May 19, 2023. For new subscribers, this contains a roundup of my recent writings and podcasts, as well as links to the best articles from around the web this week. You can control what emails you get from me by
Regarding the Jake Dell article, where are people who want to try this strategy of reconquest in mainline denominations supposed to find faithful pastors? Typically the pastors are even more committed to the progressive agenda than the few old people who remain in the pews. To quote from his article:
"The mainline denominations, meanwhile, could get a new lease on life as legacy trust funds, (think: the Ford, Mellon, and Carnegie foundations) promoting progressive causes, world without end, or at least until Jesus returns."
I have become convinced this is the playbook at most mainline denominations for a few years now. This gives them a strong incentive to hang onto to power and more importantly the financial assets of these churches. Reforming a church may be possible, reforming one of these denominations is not.
That leads to the problem of if the church owns its building, etc. Also based on personal experience, most of the nice old people you meet at these mainline churches have no interest in rocking the boat and just want to know this church is where their funeral is going to be held when they die. God bless anyone who tries, but it will be much more difficult than he suggests.
Honestly, rather than activists, I think the Mainline churches increasingly consist of a corrupt leadership class of sinecures. As the denominations diminish in size, the responsibilities of leadership diminish as well and the job actually becomes easier as they grow less dependent on donations and more able to live off their investment returns. That doesn't mean they'll do literally nothing; they'll each pursue their individual pet projects that help themselves sleep at night. Some will be more academically-minded and will essentially treat their positions as endowed professorships, for example, to write on whatever topics they fancy.
But what they won't do is change their structure to become foundations that give out large grants because, legally, they don't have to (non-operating foundations are subject to a 5% annual payout rule, operating entities like churches are not), and there is no precedent for doing so. I suspect that the foundations you name would give away much less money if they could help it -- they would have much rather hoard assets and increase their own salaries -- but they have both the legal obligation as well as a long-established expectation and raison d'etre of giving away a certain amount of money. And it helps with the fundraising.
In the end, while the people in charge of those foundations are surely leftists, I'm also confident that they're not exactly Lenin-like aescetics; they care about themselves and their families much more than they care about advancing any left-wing causes, but it turns out that donating their foundation's funds to leftist causes is also good for their personal wealth and status.
I worked for the Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana for two years after Hurricane Katrina, and I can verify that in practice, they won't actually pay out money when they can avoid it. Episcopal Relief and Development, as well as the UMC and ELCA versions of that org, all ran major operations but billed the Federal Government for expenses under the Katrina Aid Today grant. And part of the eligibility for those grants was that we could not proselytize in conjunction with any relief efforts. They even took the crosses off the walls of the parish building where we worked, to ensure compliance with federal grant rules.
As far as I know, the only orgs that were paying for relief efforts out-of-pocket after Hurricane Katrina were Pat Robertson's guys. Sure, we gave out donations from individual parishes, but the diocese itself gave out little to nothing that I know of.
I agree, but at some point when they literally run out of people in the pews, these churches have to do something else. I also suspect the number people in both the pulpits and administration who still or ever held genuine Christian faith and would affirm basic tenants of the faith is quite low, probably below 25% in most mainline denominations. It may help their employment and networking prospects with other non profits if the organizations they work for are no longer considered Christian churches. There may be another way they plan on playing this out so they aren't subject to the 5% payout rule, but it obviously isn't winning converts to Christianity.
I'm not sure I'm right here, but why do you say they *have* to do something else?
Let's imagine a PCUSA that has been winnowed down to a single church that also operates as its denominational headquarters and has average Sunday attendance of perhaps 100 (consisting mostly of staff and their families), and has roughly $1 billion in net assets (the PCUSA lists $600 million today), as it has sold off real estate and otherwise succeeded in preserving its wealth amidst its downsizing.
This "church" has annual collections below $1 million, while it generates an average of $50-100MM in investment income.
Is there an IRS rule that prohibits that state of affairs? I only know of one, which is "private inurement" -- the IRS might go after a nonprofit, including a church, if it enriches its executives excessively (this happened to L. Ron Hubbard). You couldn't get away with paying your President $10 million/year for running an organization that barely exists. But I imagine you could pay him $300,000, part of which is a non-taxable housing allowance, for a job that's essentially part-time, while having any number of $50,000 - $100,000/year sinecures available for his extended family. My understanding is the nonprofit world is full of sinecures like this, so there would be plenty of accountants and lawyers available to help design this scheme.
Keep in mind that we have past experience with the viciousness of Mainliners when someone tries to deviate from their line. ECUSA and UMC have histories of filing lawsuits and selling churches out from under anyone who rocks the boat, and the courts have largely sided with the organizations against the parishioners.
Even if you find an amenable priest, even if you get enough "colonists" to take over a dead parish, your hate-filled bishop can sweep in and destroy it all out of spite.
That's certainly a risk. But I've actually been part of a PCUSA congregation that successfully managed the exit. It depends on the circumstances and where you are.
Regarding the Jake Dell article, where are people who want to try this strategy of reconquest in mainline denominations supposed to find faithful pastors? Typically the pastors are even more committed to the progressive agenda than the few old people who remain in the pews. To quote from his article:
"The mainline denominations, meanwhile, could get a new lease on life as legacy trust funds, (think: the Ford, Mellon, and Carnegie foundations) promoting progressive causes, world without end, or at least until Jesus returns."
I have become convinced this is the playbook at most mainline denominations for a few years now. This gives them a strong incentive to hang onto to power and more importantly the financial assets of these churches. Reforming a church may be possible, reforming one of these denominations is not.
That leads to the problem of if the church owns its building, etc. Also based on personal experience, most of the nice old people you meet at these mainline churches have no interest in rocking the boat and just want to know this church is where their funeral is going to be held when they die. God bless anyone who tries, but it will be much more difficult than he suggests.
Honestly, rather than activists, I think the Mainline churches increasingly consist of a corrupt leadership class of sinecures. As the denominations diminish in size, the responsibilities of leadership diminish as well and the job actually becomes easier as they grow less dependent on donations and more able to live off their investment returns. That doesn't mean they'll do literally nothing; they'll each pursue their individual pet projects that help themselves sleep at night. Some will be more academically-minded and will essentially treat their positions as endowed professorships, for example, to write on whatever topics they fancy.
But what they won't do is change their structure to become foundations that give out large grants because, legally, they don't have to (non-operating foundations are subject to a 5% annual payout rule, operating entities like churches are not), and there is no precedent for doing so. I suspect that the foundations you name would give away much less money if they could help it -- they would have much rather hoard assets and increase their own salaries -- but they have both the legal obligation as well as a long-established expectation and raison d'etre of giving away a certain amount of money. And it helps with the fundraising.
In the end, while the people in charge of those foundations are surely leftists, I'm also confident that they're not exactly Lenin-like aescetics; they care about themselves and their families much more than they care about advancing any left-wing causes, but it turns out that donating their foundation's funds to leftist causes is also good for their personal wealth and status.
I worked for the Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana for two years after Hurricane Katrina, and I can verify that in practice, they won't actually pay out money when they can avoid it. Episcopal Relief and Development, as well as the UMC and ELCA versions of that org, all ran major operations but billed the Federal Government for expenses under the Katrina Aid Today grant. And part of the eligibility for those grants was that we could not proselytize in conjunction with any relief efforts. They even took the crosses off the walls of the parish building where we worked, to ensure compliance with federal grant rules.
As far as I know, the only orgs that were paying for relief efforts out-of-pocket after Hurricane Katrina were Pat Robertson's guys. Sure, we gave out donations from individual parishes, but the diocese itself gave out little to nothing that I know of.
Yes, lots of fake religious non-profits that are really just government contractors.
I agree, but at some point when they literally run out of people in the pews, these churches have to do something else. I also suspect the number people in both the pulpits and administration who still or ever held genuine Christian faith and would affirm basic tenants of the faith is quite low, probably below 25% in most mainline denominations. It may help their employment and networking prospects with other non profits if the organizations they work for are no longer considered Christian churches. There may be another way they plan on playing this out so they aren't subject to the 5% payout rule, but it obviously isn't winning converts to Christianity.
I'm not sure I'm right here, but why do you say they *have* to do something else?
Let's imagine a PCUSA that has been winnowed down to a single church that also operates as its denominational headquarters and has average Sunday attendance of perhaps 100 (consisting mostly of staff and their families), and has roughly $1 billion in net assets (the PCUSA lists $600 million today), as it has sold off real estate and otherwise succeeded in preserving its wealth amidst its downsizing.
This "church" has annual collections below $1 million, while it generates an average of $50-100MM in investment income.
Is there an IRS rule that prohibits that state of affairs? I only know of one, which is "private inurement" -- the IRS might go after a nonprofit, including a church, if it enriches its executives excessively (this happened to L. Ron Hubbard). You couldn't get away with paying your President $10 million/year for running an organization that barely exists. But I imagine you could pay him $300,000, part of which is a non-taxable housing allowance, for a job that's essentially part-time, while having any number of $50,000 - $100,000/year sinecures available for his extended family. My understanding is the nonprofit world is full of sinecures like this, so there would be plenty of accountants and lawyers available to help design this scheme.
Keep in mind that we have past experience with the viciousness of Mainliners when someone tries to deviate from their line. ECUSA and UMC have histories of filing lawsuits and selling churches out from under anyone who rocks the boat, and the courts have largely sided with the organizations against the parishioners.
Even if you find an amenable priest, even if you get enough "colonists" to take over a dead parish, your hate-filled bishop can sweep in and destroy it all out of spite.
That's certainly a risk. But I've actually been part of a PCUSA congregation that successfully managed the exit. It depends on the circumstances and where you are.
I’m reminded of Kipling:
“ If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;”
Let's just say it isn't easy. But I was part of a church that successfully did something like this.