Where does Belief End and Civics Begin?

February 2009. There are two ongoing cases involving potential financial mismanagement at religious institutions that are leading to acrimonious civil disputes. In both these cases, there has been alleged wrongdoing regarding the finances of a religious body. But there are many in that particular religious body that do not think the dispute is over financial mismanagement -- they think that the secular government is interfering in church matters, using the financial issues as a pretext for religious persecution.

(I) -- Diocese versus Parish in Colorado Springs:

Colorado Springs, Colorado is sometimes called the Evangelical Protestant Vatican. For many years, the largest Episcopal parish in Colorado Springs was Grace and St. Stephen's Episcopal Church. Among other things, the parish owned a beautiful neo-gothic church building, a parish house, and a generous endowment fund. For an Episcopal church, it was fairly conservative, but was long loyal to the national Episcopal Church. Father Donald Armstrong was the parish's long-time Rector (i.e. pastor or priest). Through the mid-2000s, Father Armstrong continued to proclaim loyalty to the Episcopal church.

Then in 2006-2007, the Episcopal Diocese of Colorado began to suspect that Father Armstrong had funneled money earmarked for "single, unmarried seminarians" from a Grace Church trust fund to pay for his two children's college tuition. Suddenly, and at about the same time, Father Armstrong began to have very public doubts about the continuing doctrinal purity of the Episcopal church. The dispute came to a head in the spring of 2007, when Father Armstrong and the vestry of the parish voted to "secede" from the Episcopal Church. The Bishop of Colorado responded by stripping Father Armstrong of his position. Furthermore, the Diocese of Colorado notified Colorado Springs police that it suspected financial wrongdoing by Armstrong - resulting in a Nov. 25, 2007, warrant authorizing a search of the church.

Since then, those of the parish congregation who agreed with Father Armstrong's doctrinal position claim the complaint was pure animas against doctrinal differences. They currently remain in possession of the parish's buildings and trust funds. Those of the parish congregation who disagree have sided with the diocese, and are now worshipping at First Christian Church as a "home in exile." . . . Even as I am writing in February, 2009, a civil trial is being conducted, trying to determine who has the rights to the parish's buildings and trust funds.

State of Utah versus the FDLS and its Trust Funds:

Also in February, 2009 I finally listed to the podcast of Episode 373: The New Boss from "This American Life. "Act 2" of the episode is described as follows: "A Trust Without Trust."

An accountant, Bruce Wisan, is hired by the state of Utah to clean up a very complicated mess in a complicated place: Short Creek, home to hundreds of members of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints—or FLDS, which practices polygamy. The community had been run by the notorious Warren Jeffs, now in prison for rape. Jeffs had been in charge of the FLDS church, and also of the giant trust which church members paid into all their lives. But when Jeffs became a fugitive, he began to mismanage the $112 million trust, and so the Utah attorney general stepped in, giving Wisan control. Wisan had plans: He was going to modernize the town utilities, improve the roads, and most important, give people titles to their homes, which under Jeffs were owned and controlled by the church trust. But Wisan quickly ran into an enormous problem: The majority of people in Short Creek would have nothing to do with him or his ideas. Claire Hoffman reports. Claire also wrote about Wisan for Portfolio Magazine in June 2008, in an article called "Satan's Accountant."

Questions:

In both these cases, the two sides have entirely different views of the financial aspects of the dispute. One side sees the dispute as a entirely spiritual, where the financial issues are a cover for religious persecution; the other side sees a cloak of religious piety being thrown over simple financial misconduct. . . . Which side is right? Or does the truth lie somewhere between the two sides?

The side accused of misbehaving in both cases is waging a fierce battle to maintain its control of financial assets. (Parenthetically, we must recognize that the magnitude of alleged misbehavior is much great in the FLDS case than in the Episcopal case.) Neither side in either dispute seems to inclined to "turn the other cheek" as suggested by the Founder of their religion. . . . Is there a neutral way to determine which side is more likely to be correct, without resorting to unprovable doctrinal arguments?

What is the role of the State in relation to these sorts of religious disputes?

And one final comment -- I have friends who would point to the fury of these disputes as reflecting the bad influence of religious belief.

I am inclined, however, to think that it shows that religious ideology can be used to cloak power-plays quite effectively. . . . One of my favorite quotes from C.S. Lewis is in the form of a toast by the devil Screwtape: "All said and done, my friends, it will be an ill day for us if what most humans mean by 'Religion' ever vanishes from the Earth. It can still send us the truly delicious sins. Nowhere do we tempt so successfully as on the very steps of the altar."

I take this to mean spirituality is a potent force in the world -- whether for good (Archbishop Desmond Tutu) or for ill (The Spanish Inquisition) -- or to paraphrase the old nursery rhyme, when it is good, it is very good, but when it is bad, it is horrid.

So the final question would be . . . How do we preserve the good aspects of religious belief and get rid of the horrible parts?