IRS going after Baptist preacher

First of all the Pastor is an employee of the Church , he does not own it, if a Pastor wants to use free speech outside the Church that's fine and dandy but he should never use the influence of the pulpit to steer a congregation. People should take the time to educate themselves on candidates and issues.

 

If this church has filed for and received tax-exemption from the government, they should abide by the requirements for which they applied.

This church and pastor should be held accountable for what they said they would do. If they have violated the rules concerning endorsing political candidates, they should lose their tax-exemption.

 

Rev, if you're going to rely on an organization with an agenda for the evidence to back up your claims, you're likely to get burned, post #15 notwithstanding. Granted, the issues between the church in Indianapolis and California are different, but the potential outcome could be the same. That church in Indy didn't lose their tax exempt status. They lost everything.

Tim Reynolds

 

Everyone has an agenda. No one is nuetral on an issue.

Because they didn't pay out employee taxes. Churches cannot lose their tax exempt status.

 

Supposedly in America freedom of speech is for everyone. That should go for the tax exempt church.

 

It seems sort of odd to me. I have see Obama, Clinton, Edwards and other speaking on Sunday mornings in churches. Yet, no one seems to challenge this. There is a double standard. Democratic candidates speak in churches all the time. Yet, let a conservative pastor promote a conservative candidate and the IRS is all over them. Magnetic Poles if you don't want your pastor speaking about a candidate that's fine. Find a church and a pastor who will go along with that. But, you have no right telling me what to say from my pulpit and neither does the goverment.

 

Just because a person is invited to speak at a church, or anyplace else, does not mean that the pastor or anyone agrees with them on any or all points. A person may be invited so that the members can hear first hand why the speaker's message may or may not be agreed to.

Gee, I've heard some preachers speak in church I've attended and I did not agree with anything they said. But I will defend their right to speak, and their right to be wrong. I am a traditional Baptist, not a modern legalistic one. :tonofbricks:

 

"I am a traditional baptist, not a modern legalistic one." What does that mean? What does it have to do with this thread? Before LJB changed the rules, there were no limits on what a church or pastor could say. So, tradition is in favor of freedom of speech that isn't limited by paying taxes.

 

And the government is wrong. :thumbs: Most folks, especially liberals, are afraid of pastors and churches because of the powerful influence that they can have in an election. God forbid that a pastor endorse a candidate that best reflects the values of the congregation. God forbid that people of faith allow their faith to influence their choice. That would be detrimental to our supposed democratic values.

 

You are mixing subjects .... remember 'render unto ..........' After all as Huey Long said, "You can't fight the Feds. they have the bomb. [just joking.] But I am serious about benig a traditional Baptist. As a child growing up in a conservative SBC church we were taught tolerance [God doe not need us to defend Him], protecting others rights, and witnessing our own faith. We were taught creeds were not Baptist, that legalism is not Baptist. We were taught that belief in secondary issues, such as inerrancy, are not litmus tests of a Christian. Many Baptist today are no longer really Baptist ... sorry to say. :tonofbricks: :tonofbricks:

 

Speaking the truth is not "politicing". Anyway, the bricks are hurting. We can bang our heads on the wall. Thank God the CBF exists for "so called" traditional Baptist. Have fun!!

 

A lot of things seem to be taken as facts which have not been shown. Many-- not all-- of these "traditional" Baptists are in churches which ordain women and welcome homosexuals and fornicators. They take no stands against local liquor sale elections or state elections for parimutuel wagering. "Traditonal" Baptists-- assuming you mean Baptists in general decades ago-- did these things those claiming the title today do not. And from the "separation of church and state" angle, Baptists were the largest denomination in the south and midland parts of the country, and in the large majority of these areas, city council meetings and high school football games began with a prayer; so there seems little doubt Baptists ('traditional' or not) did not play any big role in getting rid of the organized prayers, as modern, per se, 'separationists' claim is essential. I remember a listing for the agenda of the local PTA in my community, and it included a 'devotional' by ministers of various churches, including my Baptist-- traditional, I certainly thought-- church.

So where does the idea come from that groups like the CBF are so "traditional?" [For the record, I don't ask this question because I'm more SBC than CBF, which I am not sure is true.]

 

My point is that the CBF claims to hold onto traditional baptist beliefs. But, its a farce as far as I'm concerned. Oh yes, they trumpet local church autonomy and the priesthood of the believer. But, in most cases they ordain women as pastors, do not hold to the inerrancy of the scriptures, have congregations that accept homosexuals, preach that the pulpit is no place to endorse a political candidate, etc. Those things are not traditional in that most Baptists of old would roll over in thier grave if they knew what many so called Baptists of today espouse as being traditional. Go ahead and dump the bricks but the truth is the truth.

 

I belive Jesus was quite clear on not having inappropriate things going on in His Father's house. Jesus ran off the money changers and he would have ran off anyone espousing personal politics as well.

God forbid that a Pastor misuses his influence over a congregation. You have the word of God already to influence you to do what is right what more do you need?

 

You sure can't prove that. It was in the temple that he criticized the Pharisees-- a political party-- and scribes, and the Sadduccees, another political party. There were not elections, as we know them today, but to say he left politics alone is untrue. Besides, are you saying it would be 'appropriate' to get a whip and chase anybody out that does talk politics? That the church facilities today do not rank with the temple of the pre-gospel era is not a necessary argument-- it works either way.

Okay, we don't need churches for anything? Good enough, bud.

 

Alcott, We are in the world, we are not of the world. You go to church to worship God not to worship worldly things. Use the Church for preaching God's word not opinions of politics.
Is that good enough for you Bud? :thumbs: