End the 501c3 non-profit tax exemption. PLEASE.

I’m not the first person to say this. I’m sure I won’t be the last, either.

Follow me for a moment: Eliminating the tax exemption for churches is a win-win scenario for both the church and the government.

“How?” You may ask. “How is my church–which is already strapped for money–having to pay taxes a good thing?”

I’m glad you asked!

In 3 different Gospels of the New Testament, when asked about taxes,  Jesus commanded His followers to give to Caesar that which is Caesar’s. I think that’s pretty clear. The church is supposed to be part of the community we’re in.

Here’s another view (if Jesus’ command isn’t enough): Go back 100 years. In most communities, the church was the center of activity.

It was more than a just a place of worship. The church was a shelter in emergencies. It was a community center. A child care center. A soup kitchen. A voting booth. A sports complex. A meeting hall. A school. A library. A recruiting center. A hangout. It was a rallying point in times of crisis, a distribution center in times of need, and a stockpile in times of plenty.

So what happened?

I would argue that in the wake of the failed experiment of Prohibition, the American church retreated into itself and left a void–a void that came to be filled by the government. And every time the government opened up a service, the churches retreated even further into themselves. After all, if the government is going to do all these expensive things, why should God’s people spend God’s money on it?

Newsflash: Because that’s what Jesus told us to do.

Besides, if churches suddenly have to come up with another 30% or so to pay for these buildings and properties that sit vacant 5 or 6 days out of the week maybe they’ll be encouraged to do something more with what they’ve been blessed with. A little bit of creative thinking could certainly go a long way.

Here are a few ideas to get you started:

• You know the plan for that new playground or park that your town has been trying to raise money to buy? Why not a partnership on land the church owns?
• Your local running club needs a place to run? See above.
• The local soup kitchen is having problems? Get involved. Not just monetarily, but physically.

I’ve been to more than my share of conferences. Prophetic conferences. Worship conferences. Pastor’s conferences. Ministry conferences. Evangelism conferences. Deliverance conferences. You name it, I’ve seen it.

Over the years, Christians have done a great job of refining the conference model. But then we stopped, and where the Christian community stopped, other groups kept refining and improving. “Barcamps” are cropping up all over. Some high-profile events are doing away with “green rooms.” Fan gatherings like Tekkoshocon and Otakon are inspiring a new generation of fandom within their circles of influence.

Now is the time for a new kind of Christian conference. Not a conference run by a church, or a ministry, or a pastor, or defined by its epic offertories–but an event run by people, for people.

I was encouraged this past summer by the Wild Goose Festival, which had an amazing program and diversity.

I’m ready for a new kind of conference–are you?

Okay, no more silliness, on to a movie review of a part 1 of a movie that does NOT involve wands, invisible skeleton horses, chest hair, and a totally badass Ralph Fiennes.

On to Atlas Shrugged part 1.

If you’ve never been able to work up the enthusiasm to read Ayn Rand’s excellent book about the interplay between government and business, don’t worry, you’ll never have to: It is now a movie.

Now, because Atlas Shrugged eschewed the traditional Hollywood route, it’s only been showing in a handful of theaters nationwide. A few days ago some friends and I took an afternoon and drove to Washington, D.C. (okay, Bethesda, MD) to see it. One hundred miles was the closest theater showing the movie.

For those of you unschooled in the awesomeness that is Rand, I won’t spoil anything for you.

The movie itself is very well done and /looks/ like a slick Hollywood production. This tends to be a flaw in many independent films, but thankfully it seems as though these folks held out for the right team of filmmakers.

Most of the actors were well cast. Oil magnate Ellis Wyatt was particularly good, as were Henry Reardon, James Taggart, and the political jockey Mouch. Dagny Taggart, on the other hand, wasn’t quite as good as her costars. Not that she was bad, but she simply played the awkward back room operations executive-cum-entrepreneur a little too awkwardly.

What really shines, though, is how well things like Rand’s “anti-dog eat dog rule” and “equalization of opportunity act” are presented and handled. Note I did not use the term “fictitious” when referring to these. Anyone who has been paying attention to what President Obama has been saying lately will be terrified by this movie, and how predictive it feels. Remember, Atlas Shrugged was written in the 1950s. It is more true, and more relevant, to today than ever before.

I’m looking forward to seeing parts 2 and 3. Go see part 1 and let me know what you think!

EDIT 4/20/11

I identified today the biggest part of Atlas Shrugged part 1 that didn’t work for me: The scope and size. Sure, the offices of Taggart and Rearden were posh. Yes, there were fancy dinners and Lavish parties. But how many people actually worked for these companies? Give me a sense of scale!

When Dagny Taggart is trying to save her railroad, how many jobs are we talking? When the rail workers union threatens a walkout, how many families are we talking about losing their livelihood? When Reardon is forced to sign over control of his companies, how many families is the government forcing him to abandon?

The size issue is important, because the very premise of Atlas Shrugged is rather unpopular right now, given that governments and their agencies have repeatedly (and quite successfully) managed to convince the rank and file voter that corporations are the root of all evil (contrary to even the most cursory exposure to actual facts). If I am supposed to feel sorry that wealthy business owner is being attacked, it’s helpful to know what the stakes are.

To those of us in the post-Charismatic world, this comes as less of a surprise and more of a relief. To mainstream Catholicism and Evangelicalism, however, this announcement has been met with skepticism, anger, understanding, hostility, bewilderment, disdain, surprise, disbelief, and a fair number of other adjectives. To many, you can’t separate the “Christ” from “Christianity.”

I would argue, however, as others have, that Rice did not leave the Church, but rather she left the institutions of man that are mistaken for “The Church” (I’m looking at you, Vatican! Among others, collectively known as “the church” [note the small "c"] . Instead, what Rice has done is bring to the forefront of modern thought the schism that exists between “religion” and “relationship.” Over the past 2,000-some odd years man has taken what is meant to be an experiential relationship with Jesus the Christ (no man can come to the Father unless he knows Me) and replaced it with a set of rules and regulations meant to determine the “legitimacy” of your conversion experience (and subsequent lifelong belief system).

Jesus, among the many things he did, was no fan of “religion.” In fact, Scripture is rife with events that paint a picture of a Jesus constantly at odds with the religious powers of His day. The money changers in the temple? Sanctioned by the religious powers. A ban against work on the Sabbath, even to do good deeds? Strict adherence to religious Law. Healings and miracles? Anathema, because “God doesn’t work like that.” In the end, it was even the “religion” whose prophecies Jesus was fulfilling that saw Him executed.

Instead, Jesus taught relationship with the Almighty rather than strict obedience to a set of rules and regulations. He returned what was a crime punishable by death with forgiveness and understanding. He healed the sick, cured the fallen, and supped with the hated and the unclean. He was the opposite of what “religion” wanted him to be, yet man still institutionalized and cast in stone and built an edifice of rules and rites around what He preached as a personal relationship with the Almighty Father.

For my part, I applaud Mrs. Rice’s taking a stance against injustice, bigotry, and Biblically unsupportable positions in favor of a relationship with the Living God.

Among other things, we talked about what it takes to be an author–a published author–in today’s climate of digital printing and immediate release.

Anybody can be “published” today. You just have to look at the proliferation of self-publishing companies like Lulu and Create Space to see this is true. And there is nothing wring with self-publishing your work. In fact, for many writers, self-publishing is an excellent choice. Despite the negative connotation that “self-publishing” (or “vanity publishing”) tends to carry, what can show an author’s commitment to what they’ve written more than being willing to put their own money behind their work?

With this, many writers wonder why they need a publisher to begin with. Some writer’s don’t. But some do. How do you know if you do?

The short answer? It depends. (I know, not very helpful!)

First, what category are you writing in? Fiction? Nonfiction? Religion? Biography? History? Or some other category? (Here is a pretty extensive list of the categories that bookstores use to classify books.) Once you know what category your book falls into, you’re off to a decent start.

Second, think about promotion. Yes, we all think of this as “the publisher’s job,” but more often publishers aren’t simply asking authors to be involved in promotion, they are requiring it. Why? Because today readers want to be connected to the writers of the books they crave. And who better than to engage the reader where they are at than the author?

This isn’t just for authors of the latest tell-all about the politician-of-the-moment or the latest self-help craze, either. It’s something that every author has to consider.

As a writer, if you’re not willing to go pound the pavement, create a Facebook page, or promote your own book, why should a publisher (who is likely risking significant dollars on putting your book in stores) be willing to do what you are not?

If you’re writing fiction, attend readings. Post chapters on the internet on any of the myriad writing forums. Hone your craft. Take criticism seriously. Seek out professional editors. And if you’re looking for a publisher? Try to match your manuscript to a publisher that works with the kind of book you have written. Don’t pursue Harlequin to publish your science fiction action adventure. TOR will likely be less than ecstatic about your historical romance novel.

In the case of nonfiction, most publishers will be looking for someone who already has some kind of authority in their field, or the ability/willingness/possibility of becoming that.

Approaching a “big” publishing house can be scary. Many publishers won’t even talk directly to authors, hence the concept of the “literary agent”. Think of a literary agent as a real estate agent, but for your book. In the same way that most people don’t want to deal with the vagaries of selling a house, many publishers would rather deal with an agent who knows the ins and outs of publishing than with an author whom they have to teach about publishing.

Now, there are some publishers who will take what’s called an “unsolicited manuscript,” which is just a polite term for “something we didn’t ask for.” How do you know if the publisher you have your heart set on will talk to you or requires you to have an agent? Look them up and find out. Go the publisher’s web site, send them an e-mail, or even call them. In general, EVERYONE in a publishing company knows what their company’s policy is on manuscript submissions. Everyone.

Okay, so I really didn’t get into “What kind of author are you?” in this post. I guess that means there will be a Part 2.