Did Kentucky Court of Appeals “Cheapen” Ministry?
My feelings aside for what has become of the historic mainline seminary related to my denomination, this article about an ongoing lawsuit by two dismissed professors validates a movement within some mainline denominations, mine included, that cheapens what “ordained minister” means. Yes, we affirm the priesthood of all believers, but that means that all baptized believers are responsible for, expected, to participate in the ministry of a congregation and of the Church. Some are stilled called to ordained Christian ministry of the universal Church. Our context needs an educated clergy not to maintain the status quo of the Church, nor defend Christianity in the United States. Rather, we need an educated clergy, of all kinds, to avert the fundamentalists within all religions bent on creating systems of domination based on violence, fear, and scarcity.
It is understandable that the courts do not want to get involved in settling disputes within expressions of religion, but the courts do have the responsibility to keep the rules fair, to manage those that accept public money to support ministry, and understand what they are or are not commenting. The quick read of the opinions ruling against the plaintiffs is that anyone working for a religious institution is considered “legally” a minister. Really? The custodians are ministers? The support staff are ministers? What does minister mean? One judged based the ruling on something that Justice Alito wrote in a case earlier this year in response to a woman who was fired from a teaching position at a Michigan religious school.
Justice Samuel Alito — in a concurring opinion — said the term “minister” is a legal shorthand for any employees “whose functions are essential to the independence of practically all religious groups. These include those who serve in positions of leadership, those who perform important functions in worship services and in the performance of religious ceremonies and rituals, and those who are entrusted with teaching and conveying the tenets of the faith to the next generation,” Alito said.(1)
Why were the professors dismissed? You can learn a bit of LTS’s issues by reading the article. I’m not as concerned for the professors nor the seminary as I am about how “ordained minister” is being defined in our culture. I wonder if the attorney’s for the professors looked at the W-2’s during their employment at LTS. I’m an ordained minister and when I’ve worked for congregations or institutions that recognize my “ministerial status,” they’ve followed the tax code and not withheld FICA from my compensation. They recognized the “ministerial exception” and I was required to pay the Self-Employment tax of 15.3% (social security and medicare). When I’ve worked for businesses that did not recognize my “ministerial standing” for which I was not performing the role of minister they withheld all the appropriate taxes from my check. Why is this important? Religious institutions protecting themselves by claiming employees as “ministers” and claiming a religious exception or privilege cheapen what “ordained minister” means in our culture. Does a person who get “ordained” through the Internet to perform a wedding for friends, but is also working for a CPA firm, pay taxes as a “minister” for that one act or for their entire compensation?
In a local museum a display discussing the importance of spiritual leaders and intercessors within the Native American community provides some helpful fodder for a dialogue about what “minister” means. “With this knowledge comes great responsibility to intervene on behalf of the community to perform rituals in order to heal the sick, give thanks for bounty, and to honor the dead among other things.”
—-
Note
1. Peter Smith, “Kentucky Court of Appeals upholds Lexington Theological Seminary’s dismissal of professors,” The Courier-Journal.com, July 27, 2012.