On more than one occasion for more than one reason I and many others have raised concerns about the decline of religious freedom in America. I know. There are those who will pound the table and deny it, but this whole uproar in specific opposition to religious freedom in recent places like Arizona, Indiana, and Arkansas paints a different picture. So what's next?
The most oft-repeated warning I've seen is that the left will target churches to revoke their tax status. The rule of the immoral majority at present is "You will either embrace the gay lifestyle or you will suffer" (always offered as some sort of "tolerance" demand, as if that makes sense) so anyone that holds--either because of the clear presentation on the subject in Scripture or from other sources--to the view that such behavior is immoral should expect to suffer. And biblical churches are currently not willing to give in on this point, so they should expect the same.
Here's my question. Should it matter?
The governor of Arkansas said that one of the reasons he didn't sign the bill in his state was because his son asked him not to. More than one politician has changed his view on gay mirage because his or her son or daughter declared themselves gay. The state of Indiana is beleaguered economically because their government decided that the First Amendment was still in effect and they're bearing such consequences that they're planning to change the law. In all these cases (and, please, feel free to find many, many more), consequences rule ideas. In this version of the process, we see what it costs and then determine what's right.
We're like the Pharisees in Luke 20 when they demanded Jesus tell them by whose authority He was acting. He asked them a counter question. "I also will ask you a question. Now tell me, was the baptism of John from heaven or from man?" (Luke 20:3-4) These religious leaders considered several things. "If we say, 'From heaven,' He will say, 'Why did you not believe him?' But if we say, 'From man,' all the people will stone us to death, for they are convinced that John was a prophet." (Luke 20:5-6) What they did not consider was what was true. They answered they didn't know and Jesus refused to answer their question.
So, here we are. Do we determine what is right by the consequences? Or are there things that are true regardless of the consequences? Jesus said, "Whoever does not take his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me." (Matt 10:38) This assumes 1) that "follow Me" is the right thing and 2) there are consequences--"his cross"--for doing the right thing. So will we do what's right despite consequences, or will we reorder what is right to eliminate what is unpleasant? There are voices out there arguing for a "Christian litmus test". If you hold to biblical Christianity, you shouldn't be allowed to ..., and they'll put several things in there. Teach your children. Own a business. Take public office. Live. It all depends on the voice and how extreme they might be. Do we determine what is right and true by what it costs, or do we take up our cross and follow Him? Personally, the consequence of "not worthy of Me" is far worse than anything Man can do to me.
8 comments:
Great points. Reminds me of this that I was working on yesterday: "Hebrews 13:5–6 Keep your life free from love of money, and be content with what you have, for he has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” So we can confidently say, “The Lord is my helper; I will not fear; what can man do to me?”"
We know that man do do plenty of evil to me, but it is insignificant compared to what Jesus has done and will do for me.
"We know that man do do plenty of evil to me ..."
I lay that up against "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword? ... No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us." (Rom 8:35-37) I want to be able to be like the disciples, "rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the name." (Acts 5:41) It's the "rejoicing" part I've got to learn.
If the Church would quit putting their financial stability at the whim of their tax exemption, then they wouldn't be intimidated by threats of loss to that.
Get rid of the tax exemption voluntarily so the leadership can't be muzzled speaking about social/political issues.
Glenn,
When I wrote, "Here's my question. Should it matter?", that's exactly what I was thinking. When did we decide it was a good idea for churches to make financial bargains with government in exchange for limiting what is said?
My understanding is historically governments didn't tax the church because of the separation of the two. It wasn't until the last century that the LEFT decided that if the church was exempt from taxation then they shouldn't be allowed to have any political say-so. That in itself was a violation of the 1st Amendment, but the LEFT, who essentially has run the nation for the past several decades, somehow convinced everyone of their position. It was at THAT time the Church should have fought it on 1st Amendment reasons or told the gov't to take their tax exempt status and shove it where the sun doesn't shine. But Church leaders just saw money and couldn't let that go.
They can voluntarily let go of their 501c status, but money is still more important to them than anything else.
Churches have been unofficially tax exempt since the founding of the nation. In 1894 they were given official tax-exempt status. In the 1950's Lyndon Johnson was having problems in his state of Texas with nonprofit organizations including churches who were speaking out against him. So he introduced the Johnson Amendment that created the 501(c)(3) section of the tax code. This give tax exemption with the stipulation that these organizations refrain from participating, directly or indirectly, or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate. Just one of the attempts (fairly successful in this case) to limit the speech of Christians. I agree with you that it is sad (frankly, astounding) that churches prefer financial benefit to the freedom to say what God leads them to say.
AHA!! Thanks for that lesson.
SO it was JOHNSON who did that!! Go figure; I said it was the LEFT. Mr. Socialist who did more to damage this nation than anyone since Roosevelt until the advent of Obama.
I don't see a conflict with churches supporting their tax-exempt status. I'd like to see them openly oppose Johnson's amendment and the rest of us support its abolition as well.
Post a Comment