Pastor Accused of Politics From Pulpit

You obviously either have never had a *real* pastor or have no conception whatsoever of what a *real* pastor is...

Being a pastor *is* a job...

And, contrary to popular opinion it is a 24/7 job at that as opposed to the basic 8 hour day most of us work... </font>[/QUOTE]Terry's democratic heart is only soft toward likeminded souls. It's alright for the government to give a handout to the "right" people but let any "right winger" get something and he's adamantly opposed!

 

As usual, Hardhead and (Un)SpiritualMadMan misunderstand my point.

I agree that Pastoring is a job, and probably a difficult one at that. I know I would not want it.

However, what I was saying is the same thing I have encountered here. When I have complained about being injured and unable to find a good job, I am told that is is not the governments job to meet my needs, if I am unable to do so on my own, too bad. So, I am saying to Hardsheller and all other pastors, if your ministry is unable to supply your needs, get another job.

 

Don't worry Terry. We Will!

So far I haven't had to. I've been blessed.

And if Uncle Sam wants to continuing giving me a break on my income taxes, I'm gonna continue to take it.

 

I hope you continue to do well financially. I would not wish my situation on anyone.

I don' blame you, as long as it is legal for you to have a tax break, enjoy it. I know I use the hospital emergency room often and will continue to do so when needed.

My point is that Pastors are called to "preach the gospel." If the government passes a law, such as the 501-C-3 tax-exempt provision, I would think that a church has two options. Either refuse this exemption and preach whatever they want to or abide by the rules and work to change them.

 

Let's be clear that LBJ snuck this provision into a bill. It is doubtful that anyone knew what they were voting for. In 1954, LBJ was the master of the Congress. In other words, this 501-c-3 was never debated.

 

Well, for income tax purposes. We still have to report it as SECA and pay taxes on that. Any amount not used for housing or above Fair Market Value is then taxed with SECA plus income tax.

 

Terry,

You haven't heard an uncaring or unfeeling response form me as regards job hunting or loss of job...

I've been there and am very well aware of the general lack of love, mercy and compassion the church in general has when a person is no longer able to tithe...

I also know that there are times when there is literally nothing you can do to get a job...

I have been unemployed and turned down because I was over qualified... But, there were no jobs available for which I was qualified for...

Didn't matter as far as the church was concerned I was one of those who was refusing to work...

As for my being 'unspiritual' the 'religious elite' called Jesus Beelzebub... So, I am in good company..

As for our response to your earlier retort... You did not give us any information upon which to even consider that you might have any Grace of Mercy in your heart for pastors...

I got more help from individual pastors than I did churches... But, I have to admit it was the total strangers and special friends the Lord miraculously brought along at just the right time that allowed us to survive two stints of extended unemployment...

 

I will admit that I am hard on pastors. Judging from past experiences, I have ample reasons.

 

Well, for income tax purposes. We still have to report it as SECA and pay taxes on that. Any amount not used for housing or above Fair Market Value is then taxed with SECA plus income tax. </font>[/QUOTE]Not if the pastor has opted out of Social Security!

 

Off topic, but it is unfortunate Terry that you allow your past experiences with pastors to cause you to have such feelings toward all pastors. Idon't think "reasons" is the proper term. Bad experiences of the past do notgive one a legitimate reason to "be hard" on pastors today.

 

If the government passes a law, such as the 501-C-3 tax-exempt provision, I would think that a church has two options. Either refuse this exemption and preach whatever they want to or abide by the rules and work to change them.

It is plain you are an advocate of the government putting religious bodies into 2 classes; one, those that do not teach what government tells them not to teach, and, two, those that teach those things anyway. The first group is financially rewarded by the government; the second is not.

It's the converse of what existed in Virginia before the Virginia Statute for Relgious Freedom, the forerunner of the First Amendment to the US Const. Before this act, the state gave support and preference to the Episcopal Church in that state; others were given no support. The act recognized the equal status of all churches and stopped government support for one. Now, the government supports any church, but not by giving funds, rather by exempting certain money that would otherwise go to government. But that's only if that particular church agrees not to teach certain doctrines. So, as Virginia once gave financial support to a church which did teach certain doctrines to the exclusion of those that did not, now churches which do teach certain doctrines are required to pay for teaching them while other churches teach as they will for nothing.

 

I assume you are talking about the well known doctrine of Republicanology as being a forbidden doctrine?

 

I have never heard such a word as republicanology.

 

I guess I should have used the [sarcasm] code around republicanism, sorry.

My point was that what is being judged here is not a doctrine, but a political message.

If a church,any church, chooses to become a political orgnaisation they should give up their right,not privilage,to tax exempt status.

That is whether they are preaching the doctrine of "republicanology" or "democratology" .

 

A hearty AMEN!!! Cut this one out and paste it on your refrigerator, folks.

 

Suppose the government raised taxes to 100%? Would that be sin, or can "the government" do no wrong, placing it co-equal with God?

Is taking one person's property forcibly and giving it to another not sin (theft)? Is the government exempt from the laws and principles that govern individual behavior?

Is breaking the law (gun confiscation or other constitutional issues) a sin for an individual, but not a sin if done by a group through a "democratic" process?

Who is God...the Triune Godhead, or the government?

 

Alcott is correct! Glad to see that there is still some rugged individualism in the Southwest!

Certainly, it is not necessary for preachers to tell you to vote for Kerry or something like that, but the federal law since 1954 would not allow that to be done theoretically although in actuality the iron-fisted bureauracy aims their blows against conservatives and Evangelicals and not liberals like blacks and Catholics.

It seems incredible that people want the government to control Evangelicals but everyone would grant that liberals are too numerous to be controlled. Do you think that the government has the ability to control what is said in mosques located in these God-forsaken big cities.

Preachers deserve freedom of speech. Without the courage of preachers during the American Revolution against England, there would be no freedom of speech for anyone today.

LBJ had a malicious intent. He was forced out of office in 1968 due to his credibility gap that made it impossible for him to speak in public except at military bases. Everyone was saying that you knew LBJ was lying if his lips were moving.

Look for a moment at the Catholic Church. The Pope, who says that he is the sole representative of Jesus on earth or the Vicar of Christ, is so egotistical that he even calls himself a head of state and receives ambassadors. In fact, the current Pope seems more interested in leftist international politics than anything else. Who is going to control the Pope's incessant anti-American and anti-Israeli political speech? Yet his sullen speeches are broadcast into the USA all the time.

 

No one is arguing about the right to do it. The question is should it be financed by the taxpayer? I say - NO!

No to Catholics
No to liberal churches
No to homosexual "churches"
No to Baptist churches

No - no - no!
If your church wants to do get involved, pay taxes like everyone else!

 

Suppose the government raised taxes to 100%? Would that be sin, or can "the government" do no wrong, placing it co-equal with God?

Is taking one person's property forcibly and giving it to another not sin (theft)? Is the government exempt from the laws and principles that govern individual behavior?

Is breaking the law (gun confiscation or other constitutional issues) a sin for an individual, but not a sin if done by a group through a "democratic" process?

Who is God...the Triune Godhead, or the government? </font>[/QUOTE]