Right or wrong: Church to shield illegals!

[righteousdude2]

Riverside church says it will offer sanctuary to immigrants at risk of deportation – Press Enterprise

I used to work a mere two blocks away from this church. It is one of Riversides oldest churches, and its building is a historical site.

The reason for this OP, is to secure your opinion of their open invitation to illegal residents in an effort to shield these people from deportation. This is a church that is as far left as possible, because they also open their doors to the LGBTQ community, even having one as a pastor.

Beside the laws they are thumbing their nose at, by shielding illegal residents from deportation, something that could easily see their federal tax exempt status pulled, I am more concerned about the Biblical right or wrong, by shielding illegals from deportation.

SO, "What Would Jesus Do?" And please submit scripture to back your view on the right or wrong of their stand for illegals and protecting them from deportation.

Thanks for taking the time to provide your opinion as to whether the Bible would support their most recent attempt to go against the the laws of the land.

 

[rlvaughn]

There are many "liberals" who just don't like immigration law and the enforcement of it, and I think they have little interest in the Bible other than the few things they think it supports that they believe. Israel living in their land and following the strong admonitions toward treating the stranger fairly came after they drove out the inhabitants of the land who were there before them. Those who use the law to establish their views on illegal immigration are often speaking with "forked tongues". For example, some of these same people unceremoniously wad up and throw away anything the law speaks on homosexuality.

We have a problem of not having a full view and interest in what the Bible might say about this subject. I profess to not knowing the full extent. Too often when I try to read with profit on the subject I find someone is using the scriptures to prove one political point or the other. I recently read a defense of the immigrant which used Exodus 12:49, which in the KJV says, "One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." Some how this, in the writer's mind, supported his view in favor of illegal immigration and sanctuary -- which text simply shows that strangers must accept the law of circumcision if they would eat of the Passover.

Numerous approaches to immigration and protecting immigrants range from not wishing to dilute a “Christian America” with non-Christian immigrants (including protecting borders and the American way of life) to a missionary approach (“God has sent them here to hear the gospel”) to focusing mostly on humanitarian needs of the immigrants. God’s law to Moses distinguished between Jews and foreigners. While requiring they be treated fairly, it made some differences in how they stood legally (e.g., Exodus 22:21; Exodus 12:43-48; Deuteronomy 15:3; Deuteronomy 23:20). For myself, I have not satisfactorily figured out how all of this should translate to our country, our laws and our situations (I believe it does, but I need more study to be more confident).

A full view must integrate the Bible teachings on life. Immigrants are worthy of human dignity. The Bible also teaches the Christian to obey the law. We must balance the application of Christian obedience to law and the constant expression of love (even to our enemies).

Christ’s teachings favor, when necessary, putting people over strict legal obedience (Luke 14:2-6). So I think there are occasions where obeying God over man might cause us to "trump" the immigration law. I don't think this is what most of the "sanctuary" people are doing. They just don't like the law. Nevertheless, the rule of civil authority is not absolute. Only God’s moral law binds our consciences. Government authority ends when and where it contradicts God’s moral law. Though not an immigration case, German disobedience toward law and Hitler in supporting, protecting, and hiding Jews from deportation and death is a good example of how a higher moral law could require us to disobey a lesser civil law.

 

[annsni]

People came to this country breaking the law. The church is going to help them to continue to break the law. That is wrong.

Should the church decide to employ a lawyer to assist illegal aliens in becoming legal and they decide to help financially as well - awesome. Go for it. Within the law.

 

[rlvaughn]

I would add that deporting immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally is not some inherent form of persecution as some would have it. In many cases folks try to portray those who simply migrated to this country (illegally) to take up permanent residence as if they are refugees -- persons who have been forced to leave their country in order to escape danger, such as religious persecution. This confusion clouds the issue further.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I don't believe pulling their tax exempt status is a good idea because it sets a very bad precedent.

But I do believe the leadership of the church should be prosecuted. as it is a crime to harbor illegal aliens.

If it were our church, and we were talking about a member who was here illegally, we would tell them, "We love you, but you need to repent, go home and start pursuing legal citizenship. We will sponsor you and we will support you while you're going through the process to come here legally, but you sinned by coming here illegally and are continuing to sin by being here illegally. We love you and want to help you. In order to help you and to preserve the integrity of the church, you need to go home and come back legally."

 

[JohnDeereFan]

I would add that deporting immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally is not some inherent form of persecution as some would have it. In many cases folks try to portray those who simply migrated to this country (illegally) to take up permanent residence as if they are refugees -- persons who have been forced to leave their country in order to escape danger, such as religious persecution. This confusion clouds the issue further.

You should try reading the Palm Beach Post sometime. They make no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants and to hear them tell the story, every immigrant, even the legal ones, are hiding under the bed shaking in fear.

This being South Florida, we have a lot of immigrant neighbors and the ones who are here legally, tend to be very offended by being lumped in with the illegals.

Also, the Cubans here can't stand the Mexicans, which I realize has nothing to do with what we're talking about, but I just find amusing for some reason since we're the ones who are always called "racists" for wanting immigration laws to be followed.

 

[annsni]

I don't believe pulling their tax exempt status is a good idea because it sets a very bad precedent.

But I do believe the leadership of the church should be prosecuted. as it is a crime to harbor illegal aliens.

If it were our church, and we were talking about a member who was here illegally, we would tell them, "We love you, but you need to repent, go home and start pursuing legal citizenship. We will sponsor you and we will support you while you're going through the process to come here legally, but you sinned by coming here illegally and are continuing to sin by being here illegally. We love you and want to help you. In order to help you and to preserve the integrity of the church, you need to go home and come back legally."

Yep - That's exactly how we would (and have) done it. Encourage obedience to the law and assist them in doing things legally.

 

[JonC]

You could put anything in place of illegal immigrants. Should the church shelter people who have committed crimes against a government from that government? Normally, I think the answer will be "no" because the Kingdom is not of this world.

 

[Salty]

Is it only illegals aliens they will give sanctuary to? Now, if they were to give sanctuary to any person subject to arrest for any illegal act - including murder, sexwal, robbery, ect. then......

 

[Revmitchell]

I don't believe pulling their tax exempt status is a good idea because it sets a very bad precedent.

It is not possible to pull a churches tax exempt status.

 

[Calminian]

God is the author of borders.

You have set all the borders of the earth… —Psa. 74:17​

And He has made from one blood every nation of men…and the boundaries of their dwellings —Acts 17:26​

And He has given authority over those borders to the governments He ordained (Rom. 13).

Christians should never encourage immigrants to cut in line in front of other immigrants. This is not only legally wrong, it’s morally wrong. Instead, Christians should be active in encouraging immigrants to honor (Romans 13:7) the nations they wish to move to by following their immigration laws.

 

[Reynolds]

It is not possible to pull a churches tax exempt status.

Yes, it is possible. It does not happen often, but it is possible.

 

[TCassidy]

Yes, it is possible. It does not happen often, but it is possible.

In order to do so the church has to be declared "not a church." There are two test cases, Indianapolis Baptist Temple verses the IRS (UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INDIANAPOLIS BAPTIST TEMPLE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-1102. Decided: August 14, 2000) and Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983).

The Bob Jones case is not exactly on point as it is incorporated as a University not a church so Title 26, USC 508c1a does not apply.

But IBT lost all of its property for refusing to withhold taxes from non-ministerial employees.

The latest I know of is Kent Hovind and his Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, Florida. Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2006 and was released in 2015.

 

[rlvaughn]

In order to do so the church has to be declared "not a church." There are two test cases, Indianapolis Baptist Temple verses the IRS (UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INDIANAPOLIS BAPTIST TEMPLE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-1102. Decided: August 14, 2000)

On what grounds did they declare IBT "not a church"?

 

[TCassidy]

On what grounds did they declare IBT "not a church"?

They didn't. They charged the church with failure to withhold taxes (for 16 years) of non-minister employees. The taxes, fines, and penalties exceeded the value of the property so the IRS took it. The church appealed it and lost. Costly mistake.

As a church is automatically considered a 501c3 non-taxable entity there is no mechanism I am aware of to take that status away. But the IRS can do an end run around Title 26 just as they did in BJU v IRS, IBT v IRS, and IRS v Kent Hovind.

 

[TCassidy]

On what grounds did they declare IBT "not a church"?

The IRS didn't. IBT did. They dissolved their original incorporation and re-registered as "Not A Church, Incorporated," which they also dissolved in 1989. "Not A Church, Inc." was established to handle IBT's legal affairs. Finally, the church argued, section 501(c)3 is unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment guarantee that Congress will make no law abridging the free exercise of religion.

They did it to themselves.

 

[Reynolds]

In order to do so the church has to be declared "not a church." There are two test cases, Indianapolis Baptist Temple verses the IRS (UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. INDIANAPOLIS BAPTIST TEMPLE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 00-1102. Decided: August 14, 2000) and Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983).

The Bob Jones case is not exactly on point as it is incorporated as a University not a church so Title 26, USC 508c1a does not apply.

But IBT lost all of its property for refusing to withhold taxes from non-ministerial employees.

The latest I know of is Kent Hovind and his Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, Florida. Hovind was sentenced to 10 years in prison in 2006 and was released in 2015.

Landmark Church in Bingham, N.Y. is the one I had in mind. Even in that case the court said that even though the church was no longer tax exempt, it did not have to pay taxes on donations.

 

[TCassidy]

Landmark Church in Bingham, N.Y. is the one I had in mind. Even in that case the court said that even though the church was no longer tax exempt, it did not have to pay taxes on donations.

That was a case where the church not only violated the prohibition against endorsing a political candidate but even publicly asked for tax free donations to pay for the newspaper add. And the final outcome was that the church only had to pay taxes on the money that came in to help pay for the add. The church is still operating (under a different name) and is still tax free.

 

[Revmitchell]

Yes, it is possible. It does not happen often, but it is possible.

No its not. The church's tax exempt status is not dependent on the 501c3 letter. The church has a special section of the IRS code that makes it automatically exempt. There is nothing in the code that gives room or reason to remove it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Landmark Church in Bingham, N.Y. is the one I had in mind. Even in that case the court said that even though the church was no longer tax exempt, it did not have to pay taxes on donations.

The court did not say they were no longer tax exempt. It said they could lose their 501c3 letter. The church's tax exemption is not dependent on that status.