Pastor asks followers to pray for his critics to die

I agree with you. I wasn't referencing your statement, just making a comment in general.

 

Okay, I just didn't want to be misunderstood.

Thanks!

 

That pastor had better be careful about putting curses on people. It might fly back in his face.

 

True. I'm just saying, I met the man, had dinner with him and for whatever my discernment is worth, I believe him to be a faithful Christian. I am also aware of his church's works and I've read some of his writings and so with all of that, I'm going to stand by him while he's being persecuted.

It's a similar story but it isn't written favorably to the Christian.

There are seemingly more mentally unstable folks today than stable. One can not worry about how some chem head is going to respond to a prayer.

As a vice president for the SBC I would think that he would have some authority to speak for the SBC. Regardless, that is an SBC matter and not germane to this issue.

Ratting out a Christian to the IRSS because he endorsed a presidential candidate is neither a patriotic nor a Christian trait. Do you like freedom? In the land of the free should a pastor be free to express his opinion on who he believes should be president?

Shame on them for doing so. Is the Americans United working against the state having preachers be tax collecting agents for the state? Are they working against the "Clergy Response Team" or is it just certain elements of separation they are in favor of?

Where in the Constitution would I find the following Constitutional principle?

Perhaps, you're right. Maybe it makes them spiritual cannibals?

 

I would not call what this nutjob preacher is doing as much different than the death sentence against Salman Rushdie pronounced by Khomeni. Also, if this guy is following the law of the land, and rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's, he wouldn't have any IRS problem. As for him speaking for the SBC, that would be only when he speaks in that capacity. He should not speak for himself on SBC letterhead. All in all, I support the AU position, and condemn the hateful rhetoric of this rogue preacher.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing a thread you participate in where you support Christians.

 

I absolutely do when they are in the right. But just calling yourself a Christian doesn't buy my support. They must demonstrate it, and calling for the death of your political opponents doesn't look "Christian" to me.

 

Why do you think he's being persecuted? More specifically, why do you think someone alerting the IRS to questionable actions in apparently violation of the tax codes is persecution?

Jesus said that we are accountable for every word we say. A wise person would know that saying something like that can have very adverse consequences. Perhaps Pastor Drake is merely unwise and not malicious.

It is germaine to the issue since he was recently given a detailed explanation why one cannot claim tax exception for your organization and, at the same time, use your organization to officially promote candidates.

Your words astound me:

"Ratting out a Christian..." <- Christians should not be held accountable to a standard that is at least as high as the unregenerate? That's patently unbiblical.

"...is neither patriotic..." <- Shouldn't our love for our country include helping our government enforce our laws?

"...nor a Christian trait" <- I can't disagree more.

I love freedom... But I don't like it when everyone "does what is right in their own eyes." Christians are responsible to obey the authorities (see Romans 12) unless the law somehow makes it impossible to be obedient to Christ. And if one is convinced that they must break the law for the sake of the gospel, they should also accept the consequences of their actions without complaining (like Christ did when He was unjustly accused). Certainly, a Christian in that situation should present their case in a court of law to explain and defend their actions, as they are given opportunity, but they shouldn't try to exact vengeance or call down fire on their enemies (again, look at the example of Jesus and the early disciples like Paul and Silas).

Sure, but not using the tax-exempted means of doing so, like before a meeting of a tax-exempt congregation, in the tax-exempt official documents of that organization, etc. If he wants to turn his congregation into a political action committee, he needs to not accept tax-exempt status.

I'll be sure to pass that one along...

I'm not as familiar with AU's work as I am the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, so I can't be absolutely sure... But as I remember, they are against forcing religious organizations to release financial records, regarding giving by members, to the IRS. (I assume that's the issue you're referencing.)

I don't know anything about the "Clergy Response Team," so I cannot comment on that.

As far as I can tell, Americans United supports institutional separation of church and state rather consistently... like the Baptist Joint Committee.

"Separation of church and state" is a shorthand way of presenting the first article of the First Amendment at the Constitution. The First Amendment was born out of a very specific context where Baptists and other Christian groups were agitating for religious liberty through the complete separation of church and state... along the lines of what was established in Rhode Island (founded by Roger Williams, a Baptist) when he was forced to flee the authorities of Massachusetts for going against the beliefs of the established Congregational Church. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison successfully worked for the disestablishment of the Anglican church in Virginia through the passage of The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and then pursued the same goal (urged by Baptist leader Isaac Backus) for the Bill of Rights. Although Jefferson was in France at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, he kept in touch with the proceedings. And then later, when he was President, he referenced his previous work, as well as Roger Williams' work, when he wrote his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, assuring them of his fidelity to their commonly held principles and also paraphrasing Roger Williams' writings about the need for "the hedge of wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world."

And if you're one of those who claims that separation of church and state is not in the Constitution because those very words do not appear there, let me ask:

- do you reject "the separation of powers" because those words don't appear?
- do you reject "innocent until proven guilty" because those words don't appear?
- do you reject "the Trinity" because those words don't appear in the Bible?

I hope not.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. However, Baptists who understand, appreciate and hold to the bibical Baptist understand of the ideal of religious liberty, are to be praised. History, scripture and common sense teach us that linking church and state only leads to trouble for both church and state, and diminishes the moral authority and confuses the message of the Kingdom of God among the unregenerate.

 

.

I doubt God will bless either of the prayers. That is an outrage. Using the Holy Name of God to fight his pathetic political fights. How was this guy ever elected to a leadership position in the SBC?

The Bible says obey civil law. In this country, if you are going to take the tax breaks (quite worldly in itself), then stay neutral.

To pray for the death of a human being is nothing less than murder in the heart.

I was thinking of supporting Huckabee, but if this is the type of trash he is attracting, then he can join Giuliani, McCain, and Romney in the dumpster.

 

I've been waiting for some nut to say that, because I am sure I can prove otherwise:

In its site, www.au.org, AU has hordes of articles about reporting a certain church or church-related 501.c.3 organizations to the IRS. But look at their-- Barry Lynn's, in particular-- excuses for refusing to do so for the appearance of Barak Obama at the United Church of Christ (yeah, right) convention in June: http://blog.au.org/2007/06/25/no-fo...-church-event-doesnt-violate-federal-tax-law/ .

The only part I will quote from this article here (written by Lynn) is:
"During his speech, Obama mentioned his presidential run. He shouldn’t have done so, and I am disappointed that he made the reference. But those remarks did not transform the event into a political endorsement."

Previously in the article Lynn had stated that Obama's appearance was not problem as long as he came to speak about non-political matters. Then he speaks of his candidacy and it is still no problem. If anyone calls this "consistent" on UA's or Lynn's part, you have baloney in your brain.

And for the record, in the comments on the article, even the agnostics/atheists who do most of the posting there [surprised?] have taken issue with Lynn over this, calling it "hypocrisy."

Now, back up your claim of "consistency" further, if you can.

 

Thank you for ascribing the qualities of a nut to me.

Hmm... When Obama announced his candidacy, the invitation should have been withdrawn.

Maybe not, but I'm sure it appeared to be something of an endorsement because of his candidacy.

I agree.

I disagree with Lynn's perspective. I understand that they did not intend for him to mention his candidacy, but one he did, that put them into violation.

I think the difference lies with intention. Apparently the UCC did not intend to violate the rules. It is pretty clear that at least some of those whom they report fully intend to politicize their congregational meetings.

Nevertheless, they went over the line because they allowed Obama to speak and he took them there. They need to admit that instead of trying to do damage control.

I tend to agree.

You'll notice, I said, "As far as I can tell ... rather consistently" I did not make a blanket statement regarding their actions for all time. I freely confessed earlier that I am much more familiar with the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty's work than Americans United. I am not a member of American's United, but I have met Barry Lynn at a function and have had a brief conversation with him a few years ago.

Now why are you so hostile, calling me a "nut" for giving my general impressions of AU?

 

Well, I might have said "fruit," but I don't know that much about your personal life.

Regardless, now you want to do "damage control" and say didn't know the organization that well, but apparently well enough to say they were "rather consistent." Do you still say that?

 

Is your real name "Ann Coulter"?

Is your argument so weak you have to bolster it with name-calling?

I simply pointed out that I hadn't set myself up as an authority on AU. I followed them somewhat closely through the 1990s, but haven't paid that much attention to them since about 1999. I prefer the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty.

They used to be. It looks like Barry Lynn may be slipping.

I don't know. You've demonstrated one valid issue. Do you have others or is it just the one?

I know this might amaze you, but I an open-minded and able to be persuaded if you have evidence. There's no reason to attack.

 

They are interfering with his church, they are causing him to spend time on this matter rather than the Lord's work, they are desirious to have his exemption stripped from him. In addition, this is not how it is done. If Pastor Drake has offended the AU organization and if the AU organization has Christians in it as you allege, then they should abide by the instructions provided in 1 Corinthians 6, not narc him out to the IRSS.

Perhaps and perhaps you are unwise for pinning someone else's potential sins on Pastor Drake.

It's unbiblical for Christians to take other Christians to the civil magistrate prior to addressing directly or with wise elders.

Yes and the highest law of the land is the U.S. Constitution which guarantees the right to freedom of speech which is all Pastor Drake exercised. However, I will concede that he made a fundamental error as have tens of thousands of other pastors, in yoking up and not separating from the state by becoming 501c3. He needs to cast off these shackels so that he might legally (as in constitutionally) speak freely.

What specifically are you referring to in Romans 12? Is a pastor obeying Christ when he has the state telling him what he can or can not say? Shouldn't this be the domain of Jesus Christ if Jesus Christ is the head of the church?

I will concede your point. All churches are non-taxable by way of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It makes no sense to me why pastors don't believe in separation of church and state.

Cool. Thank you.

Oh praise God if that's what your organization works towards. How did you all help the Hovinds when they desired not to be tax collectors for the IRSS?

It's just another example of how the separation of church and state is very one sided in its separation.

That's nice but surely you do not think the first amendment applies in this matter. If it did would not Wiley Drake have freedom of speech or does that only apply to pornographers and artists?

I am saying that I believe that Christians in this day have a tendency to spiritually eat each other whenever the state puts them on the spit.