Is "jesus Is Coming Soon" A Reason To Be Apathetic?

LE,

Are you really suggesting that I preach from the Mayflower Compact? Or do I misunderstand you?

How does that reconcile with the command to "Preach the word"?

Perhaps my question was unclear: I am wondering what Bible text I would use to preach about the loss of religious liberty in America.

 

But have no problem at all with a pastor who says "Vote for Ron Paul!"

 

I would prefer that a candidate not endorse any candidate, but instead teach about the Biblical issues and encourage their congregation to support only the candidates who will support the right issues, regardless of their party affiliation or chances of winning the election.

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."

—John Quincy Adams

“Duty is ours; results are God's.”
—John Quincy Adams​

 

I assume the first "candidate" should say "pastor" and I agree with you.

 

Of course you agree, the IRS says you have to or you lose your 501c3 status. What biblical reason can you give for a pastor not endorsing a candidate?

 

Yes, good catch!! I guess I had a brain slip while typing my reply. :laugh:

 

Pastor Larry, if you have a significant number of voters in your church that are registered Democrats and vote the "party", I believe you are not teaching them properly. IMHO, no Christian could support the Democrat Party's platform, if properly educated. And that is your job, again IMHO.

 

We don't have 501c3 status. (Am I repeating myself here?????????) This is a total non-issue.

The Bible doesn't endorse a candidate, so therefore, I do not.

 

I agree. I think many Republican candidates are equally as bad. But since I don't conduct vote checks or party affiliation examinations, I have no idea. I talk about moral issues that the Bible speaks about, and how these issues affect everything we do in life.

 

Why on earth would you give up or not opt for the 501c3 status, if you aren't going to keep your parishioners abreast of political machinations? You are tossing money into the "system" where it is wasted.

 

Without the 501c3 status why would you stop at saying Hillary's support of abortion is wrong. I just don't get your reluctance to take advantage of your free status. I fought hard to get rid of ours and lost, but at least got the elders to address some of these issues. You have the bully pulpit.

I never thought I'd say this but you should reconsider your churches status.

 

Fundamentally because of our mandate. Our mandate is disciple making, not nation building.

However, we "toss no money into the 'system.'" I am not exactly sure what that means, but there is a difference between 501c3 status and tax exemption. 501c3 status is something you apply for and receive approval for. It is a lengthy process of about a 150 page application, I think. A friend of mine did it for his church.

In tax exemption, a church is treated under 501c3 but they are not officially 501c3 becuase they have not applied. For churches, tax exemption is automatic. 501c3 is not.

You guys seem to be making this all about money. To me, the money is a non-issue. The issue is the mandate of the church. What is the church supposed to be doing? The answer is singular: Building disciples. You can't build disciples by preaching politics. You build disciples through preaching the word.

 

Why would I mention Hillary? I have said, and do say, (and will say this Sunday in fact in our discussion of life) that there are moral issues that have become political footballs. As Christians, I do not see how we can support a politician is in favor of something God is against.

But that is not endorsing a political candidate. It is talking about a moral issue that the Bible clearly addresses.

I am not sure what you mean by "free status." We are free to pursue God without tying his message down in politics. I think in some churches, were it not for the political page of the newspapers, these pastors would have nothing to preach.

The biggest problem in our country is not that the IRS is messing with churches. Or that the government is taking away religious liberty. Or that abortion is being kicked around on campaigns.

The biggest problem is that churches are messing with the gospel. You guys seem intent on a top down or outside in method of changing society. The NT gives no hope or mandate for that in the church. The hope is an inside out change, from the heart to culture and politics and government.

 

The IRS considers a church 501c3 as long as they meet the requirements of a 501c3 organization. If you were so inclined to get political from the pulpit, the IRS could decide to go after you just like they did Greg Dixon.

 

Amen! Very well said!

 

Society is changing of its own accord, and it is only going to get worse until the Lord returns. We can only hope to be used to save some from the fire, and be found without compromise when He comes.

 

First, with the great glory and responsibility of preaching the unchanging truth of God's word, why would I stoop to talking about politics? If I am going to offend someone, I am going to do with something better than the latest Washington squabble. The only thing I am permitted to offend with is the gospel of Christ, died, buried, and rose again, and the salvation that comes through faith alone. (That message is offensive even here on the BB.)

However, as I recall the situation with Dixon, the IRS did not go after him for his politics, but for his refusal to pay taxes, just like Hovind. He too disobeyed Christ, brought great shame on the church and the gospel, gave up the property (talk about bad stewardship of the offerings of the church ... those people gave all that money and now have nothing to show for it), and he owes more than 100,000 in personal income tax. Shameful ... absolutely shameful

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indianapolis_Baptist_Temple

 

All they wanted from Dixon was for him to sign on the dotted line and become a licensed 501c3 church and the whole thing would have gone away. At least if I recall correctly. I'm not going to try to back that statement up though.

 

I thought ordained ministers are exempt from income tax and may also opt out from Social Security and Medicare taxes. From what I understood, the IRS wanted Dixon's church to withold taxes from it's employees, the church instead paid their employees, who then paid their taxes themselves. There were multiple audits done over the years on these employees, and they all passed these audits.

 

Ordained ministers are not exempt from income tax. They pay just like everyone else. It is churches that are exempted from income tax.

They are considered self-employed for SECA purposes (social security tax). They may opt out of SECA if they have a conscientious objection to receiving benefits from a government program. You have to conscientious object to receiving benefits, not paying them. It must be based on a religious objection, not a practical concern or some such.


I think the Hovind and IBT/Dixon case was essentially the same. Neither was withholding taxes from employees. I can't remember all the ins and outs of the IBT case.