501(c) That?

One of our responsibilities in these troubled times is to look at the cultural chess board while taking care to think three moves ahead. We need to look at our current conflicts in the light of the year of our Lord 2022. Those who do not anticipate the future are doomed to go through it, as Santayana didn’t quite say.

I have already written that Christians need to make the current battle a battle over our right and responsibility to speak the truth. If we start to trim our discourse to make their hypocritical commitments to free speech less obviously hypocritical, we will quickly find ourselves in the next phase of battle, which will be over taxes, tax exempt status, 501(c)3 organizations, and so on. The next battle will be about defunding the Church. And I would rather fight over defending the truth than I would over defunding it.

The beak is to peck your eyes out.
The beak is to peck your eyes out.

Of course, if we get there I will be happy to fight there, but all things considered, I prefer my goal line stands on the seven-yard line instead of the one-yard line.

In an abrupt metaphor shift, I say this because of the position of the chess pieces on the board. This is not simple speculation on my part. During the oral arguments of Obergefell before the Supreme Court, this issue was brought up by one of the justices, and he was told plainly that this “would be an issue.” And here is why it has to be an issue.

In 1983, Bob Jones University lost a case before the Supreme Court (8 to 1), in which it was decided that it was acceptable to revoke the tax exempt status of a religious institution if the practices of said institution were contrary to a compelling government public policy. The public policy in that case was eradicating racial discrimination.

Bob Jones had a university policy that prohibited interracial dating. The merits of their policy are neither here nor there when it comes to the constitutional issue, but it should be said — once again — that bigots are among the best friend that the statists ever had. They are the gift that never quits giving. Moses couldn’t have been a student BJU, even if he had agreed to live off campus with that Cushite woman (Num. 12:1).

Now everybody ought to know that if you take the king’s coin you become the king’s man. Government money always comes with strings. Christian organizations (philanthropic, educational, etc.) that receive actual federal largesse are just asking for federal meddling. You accepted that $100,000 gladly enough. Why are you now bucking when they cluster around with some mandatory suggestions?

So many Christians, wise to their tricks, refused to take any federal grants, subsidies, and so on. Good on them.

But the government is good at figuring out ways to redefine everything to their own overweening advantage. In their totalitarian economy, they are giving to you when they let you keep your own money. When they allow a donor to an organization to keep some more of his own money in return, they pat themselves on the back for their overflowing generosity. And all they had to do was stand there with a gun, not taking any money. So when they did not take $100 from Smith because he had given $1000 to Jones University, they then take the full credit for having donated that 1K to the university.

You didn’t think you were taking any government payments, so ha ha! He who breathes the king’s air becomes the king’s man.

So here it is in a nutshell. Simply having 501(c)3 status is considered by the government to be a financial gift to the organization in question. So whether you have ever taken a dime of their money or not, you did take the financially advantageous status of being a 501(c)3. People will donate to you for that reason, and so it is that the government takes the credit for giving you the status which enabled or prompted the gift. Now it has already been decided (8 to 1) some 32 years ago that the government could revoke the 501(c)3 status of any organization that was contradicting something that the government felt was of compelling interest. In that case, the interest was in eradicating racial discrimination. Now the federal government has said in Obergefell that homosexual mirage is a “fundamental right.” Review the rhetoric of the last ten years. Does the government currently maintain that eradicating discrimination against homosexuals is the same battle as eradicating racial discrimination? We know that it isn’t the same battle, but do they identify it as the same battle? You betcher.

Now what will happen to all the Christian organizations — and there are thousands of them — who will not want to cooperate with the new sodomite imperatives decreed from above? Married student housing at Christian colleges? A homosexual couple who want their nuptials to occur in the campus chapel? Employees of big Christian organizations that want the right to be openly homosexual whatever the organization’s code of conduct says?
This means, given the premises, the conclusion is a given. There is no way that Christian organizations that hire anybody, or that provide services to anybody, will be in any way permitted to function in accordance with their conscience.

Any solutions? There is only one solution, and three rearguard actions.

The solution is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. The solution is a proclamation of the crown rights of King Jesus. The solution is to preach the objective reality of man’s profound guilt before God, and God’s solution for that profound guilt in the shed blood of Jesus, the one who purchased His right to be King of the United States by means of His sacrifice on the cross.

And as we pray for the kind of reformation and revival that will make all the foregoing manifest, there are three things that we can do in the meantime as stopgap measures. These are admittedly like running from Godzilla while overturning chairs behind you to slow him down, but still. Worth doing, and anything worth doing is worth doing cheerfully.

In addition to things already said, these three stopgap measures are: 1. to keep any Democrat from coming anywhere near the White House in 2016, 2. if we must talk about defunding, then let’s make it Planned Parenthood, and 3. start developing a theology of civil resistance and disobedience. We need the kind of theology that will enable organizations to continue to issue tax receipts after they are outlawed, and equip citizens to prepare their tax returns accordingly. Remember — well-behaved Christians rarely make history.

180
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
16 Comment threads
164 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
37 Comment authors
timothyMark Allen SellsJane DunsworthholmegmDunsworth Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Johnny Simmons
Guest
Johnny Simmons

We need to prepare now to gather at any Church that gets shut down for refusing to pay taxes, to worship the Lord there and make them gas us and drag us away. On video.

Ben
Guest
Ben

The problem with a situation like this is that government might use provocateurs, which would be people pretending to be in the Christian resistance who shoot at the police rather than just stand there. This would give the police the justification for going all out guns a-blazin.’ This would be an even greater concern if there were cameras.

I know it sounds conspiratorial, but they’ve definitely done things like this before.

Rick Schell
Guest
Rick Schell

You are right, and its not conspiratorial. More people, church people, need to wake up to hows things work. Agent provocateurs are an almost everyday occurance, along with other “usefull” idiots, to cause media sensation and a visible excuse to act on the police/government part… In the case of churches, it will be very important churchman act swiftly to thwart provocateurs before they have a chance. Many of these people would have already gotten themselves into congregations being watched, so they may be trusted and known, others may show up during some issue to cause problems for a smear campaign,… Read more »

Rev. R. W. Shazbot
Guest
Rev. R. W. Shazbot

Churches aren’t going to be shut down for not paying taxes, and preachers aren’t going to be forced to marry two men. It’s schools and parachurch groups and small business owners that are in the crosshairs.

timothy
Guest
timothy

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers,
against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and
against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Those things rule those men.
Those things hate the Body of Christ; therefore those men hate the Body of Christ.
They will attack. Its what the devil does. It is the nature of sin.

A. James
Member

Did you add that to our growing list? “bigots”

“that bigots are among the best friend that the statists ever had.”
statists will use any one to their advantage, most especially those in society that will not stand up for the Constitutional freedoms of those with whom they disagree. THEY are the statists’ puppets–the statists uses people in the swelling public opinion to restrict the rights of others.

Nick
Guest
Nick

Christian schools and institutions are one thing, but might I suggest that churches simply stop representing the State in any marriage ceremonies that they perform, and then encourage the couple to head on down to the courthouse to be “married” civilly. That way, the State has no say in whom churches marry or do not marry in the eyes of God, and thus erase the need to deny 501(c)3 status. Plus, it’s just biblical. God owns marriage, not the government…why should pastors sign the license anyway? Marriage in God’s eyes is what matters, not the State’s.

Darlene Dufton Griffith
Guest
Darlene Dufton Griffith

Wouldn’t encouraging the couple to “head on down to the courthouse to be “married” civilly” be granting the State to be the Overseer of marriage? In my church, the Orthodox Church, marriage is a sacred act, an institution that is pledged and performed within the locus of the church. And so it is being discussed by some priests and others that parishioners not apply for a license through the state and marry within the church, period. It’s been done this way in the past. We don’t need the State to interfere and now is the best time to thrust those… Read more »

Nick
Guest
Nick

I don’t think going to the courthouse would be granting the State as Overseer of marriage, because civil marriage means exactly nothing except for tax breaks and such. I am distinguishing between “civil marriage” and “marriage in God’s eyes”. They are not the same thing, even though in our culture they are both called “marriage”. The real marriage in in God’s eyes, regardless of any involvement by the State. What I want is for the church to quite representing the State in marriage, and leave it up to the couple to decide whether to opt in for the tax breaks… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Why should we grant any legitimacy in what is a Covenant between God, husband and wife? Where in the Bible did God insert the state? To go further, (I am arguing with a polygynist on another blog and he illustrates by asking…) where in Scripture is the organized church even a part of it? He points to the Council of Trent as the start of the organized church inserting itself into what was the sole discretion of the husband (?). Now, I cannot argue this as I am not versed in the history of the Church, and I am probably… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

I think Nick’s point is that the state has no legitimacy in the covenant.

But if people want, in addition to the covenanted relationship, the state-recognized legal relationship with all the benefits and responsibilities attached to that particular relationship, they can go through the necessary steps to establish it, without involving the church in the state-recognized relationship at all, or the state in the church-recognized relationship. Two separate and distinct processes, but both important if we want the state to grant the protection of property laws and such.

I think I like it.

timothy
Guest
timothy

An consideration there is that the state is active on the divorce side too with all the ‘benefits and responsibilities’ attached to that.

Maybe Darlene can chime in on how her Orthodox tradition handles the divorce side.

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

Actually, I think that’s the important part. The civil authority is the only one with the ability to actually enforce custody and property rights. It’s a protection from having your kids and property taken from you with no recourse, should your spouse apostatize and abandon you.

timothy
Guest
timothy

The mano-o-sphere case is that the feminized state is in the business of just that. It serves the interest of the state by 1. subverting a covenant of God (marriage) 2. fracturing the family–the smallest unit of the civil society. 3. impoverishing men and subjugating (not submit,subjugate) them to their former wives. 4. making women dependent on the state as the father and provider. 5. ……??? i.e. it is in the interest of the (Godless) state for divorce to occur. This is distinct from the Christian government (which America once was) where the interests are wholly in empowering the covenant.… Read more »

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

This protection is especially crucial for any woman undertaking a genuinely complementarian marriage. I was blessed in that my husband was faithful with spousal and child support, but many deserting husbands are not. If they were accountable only to church elders as opposed to a judge who can put them in jail, they might respond like Napoleon: How many divisions has the pope?

carole
Guest
carole

(I am over posting right now, but there are a lot of interesting threads..) So this unveils the bigger problem of the state becoming our ‘father’, right? How was that handled before the state got involved? As church families aren’t we called to take care of abandoned women and children just as we are called to take care of widows and orphans? We rely on the state for everything to our shame. The richer we get the less we like to be charitable it seems. We have adopted worldly ways in this regard. Why do we rely on the state… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

But it is a matter of justice. No, the state should not step into the role of a father. And yes, the church should step up and help out if the father is not present or responsible. But still, the state should require that the father fulfill his role. If the state does not bear the sword in vain, then among the things it should bear the sword against are men who steal their wives’ property, and women who steal their husbands’ children. I am not saying they currently do these things well, but I am saying that it is… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Actually, if I saw the Church also pursuing men for not assuming responsibility for their own children with the same enthusiasm that they use when shaming the woman for having the child, and the same fervor they feel for breaking up any civil matrimony that the Church does not think is “Godly”….

Dan Homan
Guest
Dan Homan

Carole – that is a novel thought . . . seriously, the Church is charged with caring for the widows and orphans, perhaps if we had continued doing that through the years instead of building monuments to celebrate our self regard for culture things would not have gotten to this point in the first place. for the last two years we have been working with a local church that provides bag groceries for all who ask, and feeds and educates in the gospel families in 8 poverty hotels and trailer parks and city mission. as well as assisting members and… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I’m not sure that this is a valid charge against the church in the age of a fairly generous welfare state. Is the argument that we would provide additional assistance or alternative assistance? Shouldn’t the church welcome the opportunity to concentrate on evangelism only, now that they no longer have to “wait on tables”? I wonder if mercy ministries are more popular with Christians than other types of evangelism due to a satisfying “rice Christian” effect.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

The welfare state came into being because a century ago, being poor was a death sentence. Poor people knew this and increasingly turned to the second amendment to defend themselves from the the people they believed had passed the death sentence upon them. High school text books sometimes mention the ‘Wobblies’ or the WW I Veterans ‘Bonus Army’ revolt; sometimes students read “The Jungle” to get an idea of desperate circumstance that poor people lived under. There was also “The Tobacco War” in the 1910’s, an armed revolt of poor farmers in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, …against the Tobacco Companies who… Read more »

Jane
Member

“The welfare state came into being because a century ago, being poor was a death sentence. Poor people knew this and increasingly turned to the second amendment to defend themselves from the the people they believed had passed the death sentence upon them.” That is such an exaggeration. My grandfather was born in 1895 and grew up poor. He lived until 1973, became a middle class business man despite a sixth grade education, and never shot anybody in his life. None of his six siblings starved or shot anybody either. Yes, being poor back then was a lot more perilous.… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

My Great Grandfather was the Police Chief of Hopkinsville KY from about 1895 to 1925. – The poor farmers organized and waited until the City Government’s traditional “Christmas party” had ended in December 1907. They marched into town, secured the police station, the fire station, the telephone exchange, and the railroad depot. Then they burned down the Tobacco company warehouse, pulled up the rails, {one of the railroad workers was killed when he interfered}, pulled the tobacco company ‘buyer’ {same family name as my Great Grandmother’s} out of his house and beat him. The Sheriff (not being at the ‘Christmas… Read more »

Jane
Member

But most of them didn’t actually drop over dead as a result of their poverty, did they?

So was it a death sentence, or not?

And did everybody in America who was poor in 1907 live in Hopkinsville KY and participate in the riot?

I didn’t say that poor people weren’t at risk and didn’t sometimes respond with violence when mistreated. They were, and they did.

I said that calling poverty 100 years ago a “death sentence” and suggesting that a high proportion of them used guns to fight back was an absurd overstatement. And it is.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Actually no, it is not an overstatement, and yes,being poor was a death sentence. Yes they did drop over, and even though the charity of Churches was very important, Churches could do little to sustain and improve the lives of the poor. I maintain that this spectre of death a century ago actually drove political movements. I understand that, since the major killer in America today is stacked crispy bacon sandwiches that we buy for ourselves, it is hard to wrap our mind around the idea that the ferocity of armed battles against newly wealthy American Robber-Barons was perceived, then,… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

Really? All of them, with only a tiny number of exceptions due to special circumstances, dropped over dead in short order after becoming poor? So my grandfather was what, one in a million for surviving beyond the life expectancy of his generation? Because that’s what a death sentence is — you will shortly be dead unless a very unusual circumstance intervenes. Judges don’t pass death sentences and then observe that a pretty fair majority of the people actually live out normal lives thereafter. Well, at least that was the case before endless appeals came into vogue. If you use a… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Hi Jane, So you posted two links against my one link. (…and completed my logical fallacy bingo card this evening with yet another “straw man” fallacy – exaggerating my statement in order to attack it. Thank You. Your argument is is “fuzzy math”? My point(s) still is/are (- in answer to Barnabas’ ‘fuzzy’ implication that the welfare state just appeared out of thin air to replace religious charity…) 1.) The spectre of death and starvation and disease and deprivation a century ago actually drove violent political movements against the wealthy elites. (continuing my ‘fuzzy math’) – This was when the… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

I am not the one who used the phrase “death sentence.” Pointing out that what phrase actually means is not a straw man. My only objection is to that phrase. Why don’t you just admit and back down that “difficult conditions creating higher risk of death and incentive to fight back” (which I fully acknowledge) and “death sentence” aren’t the same thing If it was a death sentence, they ALL would have died in very short order. That is what a death sentence IS. People who are sentenced to death don’t maybe overcome their risks and about 25% of the… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Yes, using your “literalism”, the behavior of the people who think and behave as if they are under a ‘death sentence’ are irrational, for surely some may survive,… The poor Christians who are persecuted around the world for their faith, are not under a ‘death sentence’ because they are not being killed all together, sometimes they are merely disenfranchised, bereft of possessions or homes, and starving refugees – and left alive, or imprisoned for years on end, and only threatened with death sentences unless they convert and renounce their ‘apostasy’. This is all mere propaganda, so why should we pray… Read more »

carole
Guest
carole

Yes, I agree completely. Particularly with helping our own. I think this, sadly, can be the most neglected because in all honesty, it can be the hardest. In some ways it is easy to give money, things…but helping a brother or sister with childcare tonight, or tomorrow, especially if the child is not well behaved, is so difficult. A true commitment to one another is easy to promise, but not so easy to fulfill. Then we look to the state to do it….once in, hard to get out.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

He used to have the most Divisions, when Martin Luther stood against him.

;-)

holmegm
Guest
holmegm

Why should Paul appeal to his rights as a Roman citizen? Was he automatically granting legitimacy to Caesar worship? (Not saying that the situations are parallel in any other way, but in that bare principal.)

There can be reasons to deal with the state. And while we are still nominally a democracy, to not just cede the state entirely.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Why should Paul appeal to his rights as a Roman citizen?

Because he was about to be killed and that was an immediate out?

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

The original Protestant Reformers recognized the state’s role in matrimony as having to do with property rights, inheritance, disposition of chattel, and so forth, and ceded the rites of marriage to the government: Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564) began teaching that the Roman Catholic Sacraments are just signs containing no inner working, nor transformative grace, and of those signs there are only two sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Holy Matrimony is not a Sacrament, That immediately opened the door to their next finding; that the institution of marriage is under the purview of the state government, rather… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

I am new to this argument and it is a compelling one*.

Why have Christians elevated the state to the position of God in asking it and not Him for permission to marry? As I have heard, marriage licenses where not issued by the state until fairly recently in our history.

Pastor Wilson holds a different view (which mpsmith82 links to below https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/501c-that.html#comment-2144248289 ) based in (iirc) the civil necessity of unwinding messy cases.

*its also not boilerplate feminist doctrine (:

Jill Smith
Member
Jill Smith

My concern about that solution is that the state might decline to recognize the marriage. If that marriage fails, who would preside over the division of assets and awarding of spousal support? If one partner leaves not only his wife but the church as well, wouldn’t the state have to recognize any second (bigamous) marriage as the only valid union? What would be the implications for children of the sacramental marriage?

carole
Guest
carole

And now that the state is in charge of most folks retirement, what happens to stay home moms if they were left after many years…

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

You’d have to have strong consistent church discipline that would excommunicate an unrepentant abandoning spouse, and publicly identify that person to all the other churches so that they could never again have a church marriage while their abandoned spouse lives and the two are not reconciled. On the plus side, the part for the ceremony where the officiant says “If anyone knows a reason why these two should not be joined…” would actually have a purpose again. I’m pretty sure that in such a situation the children of the first union would not delegitimated, but you’d have to ask our… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

But how does a disposition by the church have any authority over someone who leaves the church? The church has no sword. Being excommunicated should happen in any case to someone who abandons a family or takes away the children from the other, but without the support of the state, an innocent parent could still be denied access to their own children without recourse. Same goes for assets — a church ban doesn’t get you back the property that is rightfully yours if there is no sword to bear on the person who makes off with all of it.

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

how does a disposition by the church have any authority over someone who leaves the church? It doesn’t. Of course if they attempt to steal the children or assets, then they could be prosecuted under kidnapping and theft laws. it is quite likely that if the abandoning spouse wanted either children or assets, that abandoned spouse would end up bereft of them. an innocent parent could still be denied access to their own children without recourse. Same goes for assets To be honest… it wouldn’t change much. Even now, the state is already complicit in such things. It would just… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

They can’t be prosecuted under kidnapping laws if they’re their own kids, and there’s no legal authority controlling how much right they have to them. Ditto to stealing property — if there’s nothing to say that a man can’t have “his” property because his “wife” has a claim to it, because she’s in no way legally recognized as a “wife,” I don’t think he’s legally stolen anything. Particularly if the property was not jointly owned, or was his before the marriage. BTW I’m not choosing “wife takes kids, husband takes stuff” for any particular reason other than it’s easier just… Read more »

ArwenB
Guest
ArwenB

If there is no state-legal-marital connection between them, then anything that is in the possession of one spouse, that is then taken by the other spouse, has by law, been stolen from the possessing spouse. it would be a matter for lawyers to sort out who actually/originally owned the taken property. As far as children, yes, it is possible under the law, for a non-custodial parent to take the children from the custodial parent and then be accused of kidnapping. If there is no legal connection between the parents, then any state agency mediating a custody dispute would have to… Read more »

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

“The only sword the church might bear is if its members agreed not to do any business…”

That’s not bearing the sword. I agree it’s a certain kind of power, but I’m using the expression “bearing the sword” as literally as St. Paul did.

mpsmith82
Guest
mpsmith82

Nick – Doug has previously written about the shortcomings of this approach, back when First Things was leading a push for ministers to pledge just what you describe:

https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/in-which-first-things-does-some-fourth-things.html

Nick
Guest
Nick

Yes, I’ve read that, and he brings up very good things to think through. But as he says, as long as a church does their homework, has systems and covenants in place, and structural authority to carry it all out, it could work well. Simply my two cents.

carole
Guest
carole

I hope Pr Wilson will revisit that post now that the first battle is over. I don’t quite understand point 2 yet.

Micah Pattisall
Guest
Micah Pattisall

With the current state of modern church – one that relies on production and charisma to attract the masses (and their purses/wallets) – having a non-profit status revoked will be a welcomed winnowing process.

Philip Larson
Guest
Philip Larson

The quip on BJU is clever; I was a student there when the policy was in effect, and on staff when it was revoked. But I’m not sure that she was black-skinned. Not like I actually care. Just musing: the Cushite woman (hā’iššâ hakkušîṯ). Commentators have puzzled over the identity of this woman for centuries. The solutions boil down to two: Zipporah (so, in the medieval period, Ibn Ezra), or some other woman, about whom we know nothing save that she was a Cushite (most English translations read “Ethiopian”) (so, in the same period, Rashbam).15 In the first instance, the… Read more »

Nord357
Guest
Nord357

Josephus tells us that he married an Ethiopian princess subsequent to his conquest of that kingdom.

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

I think the color of her skin and the exact identity of her tribe are less relevant, even to Doug’s point, than the fact that she was ethnically non-Jewish. Color aside, it still stands as a rebuke against the idea that violating ethnic “purity” in itself merits legitimate criticism. Even though her non-Jewish identity was evidently only an excuse to complain against Moses, the complaint is dramatically ruled out of order in toto, suggesting it’s not a valid complaint either in form or substance. Nor did God follow up with Moses, instructing him that while Miriam and Aaron were wrong… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

No one is really condemning BJU for an incorrect interpretation of scripture. If they were then they would be far more condemning of a Catholic school or a seminary teaching Arminianism. BJU is condemned for embarrassing American Christians by failing to sufficiently meet the standards of American secular egalitarianism. Any textual concerns are far secondary. No doubt as Christians continue to make their peace with feminism and then homosexuality, after the fact Biblical justification will be found through a finer textual interpretation and a half-articulated belief in progressive moral revelation.

Ian Miller
Member

Oh, I am condemning them for exactly that.

A. James
Member

“No one is really condemning BJU for an incorrect interpretation of scripture.” Enough once believed it was the correct interpretation (it was standard biblical interp in my circles–but it was not “bigoted/hateful” with enough other-ethnic holding to it as well, and my other-ethnic roommates never chaffed under the policy that were for all to abide by.). Now most believe it is the incorrect interpretation, and they indeed condemn them to the point that it blinds them to all else BJU or the Supreme Court case–or even yes, to other doctrinal error in the church. Religious political correctness… As an aside:… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I would find it difficult to make a scriptural case either way on the matter. The reference of the Cushite woman stands out as a man bites dog in the larger scriptural context.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Catholics rob our lord and savior of glory by making Mary our intercessor and Queen of Heaven but you would be hard pressed to find any Evangelicals calling Catholics evil these days. The fact that such blasphemy is not called evil while “bigotry” is can only be attributed to concession to the larger American culture.

carole
Guest
carole

I disagree, I hear people quite often calling Catholics evil. One common way is I consistently hear brothers and sisters referring to individual Catholics as not Christian. I hear this and that the Catholic church is the devil’s church not infrequently. Of course I hear it a great deal more in England, where the prejudice against the Irish is still great.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I think that you would agree that there is much less of this now than any time since the Reformation. Personally I find some Catholics to be excellent co-belligerants. Like Southerners they have just enough outsideness to give them a bit of cultural distance.

Ian Miller
Member

Rahab? Ruth?

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I’ll not get into a long defense since there may be scriptures employed on either side but I see Christians violating some of their own generally accepted rules of explication to strengthen their case against the bigots. One would be using acceptions to disprove the rule. How many hundreds of counterexamples to put up against that handful? How many scriptures against taking foreign wives,etc? Another rule of explication violated would be refusal to consider the authority of the historical church. The historical understanding of the church on a given scripture is not infallible but is almost universally given weight when… Read more »

Ian Miller
Member

Why devote an entire book to an “exception,” divinely ordain not one but two interracial marriages as part of your plan to redeem the world, if there wasn’t a lesson for bigots to learn from it?

Jane Dunsworth
Guest
Jane Dunsworth

There are no exceptions. Rahab and Ruth are not exceptions to anything.

The rule is, any woman within the covenant is fair game — it does not matter who her father was. Any woman outside, is forbidden. Rahab and Ruth were brought “in” before they became marriage possibilities for Salmon and Boaz.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

That’s “the rule”, is it? That’s one interpretation.

Ian Miller
Member

Agreed. Baranabas is hung up on skinism.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

Even if Jane is right I see similar covenantal arguments for paedobaptism but I don’t see anyone shunning credobaptists. Your zealousness for multiculturalism is greater than your zealousness for scripture.

Ian Miller
Member

As a credobaptist, obviously I see the issue differently.

Continually asserting your own scriptural zeal doesn’t make you right.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I am also a credobaptist and in a paedobaptist church. I do not assert my scriptural zeal, I criticize zeal based on public opinion. On many positions I realize that wise and godly people have read the scriptures and come to a different conclusion. For instance, on a good day I’m roughly 70% sure that credobaptism is correct. On such matters I display a distinct lack of “zeal” in that I teach my family what seems best and I may argue but I do not condemn those with a different interpretation.

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

God often exercised his prerogative to upend the established cultural and religious norms, at time even those he had explicitly established. It would be overreaching to say that this negates or condemns said norm.

Ian Miller
Member

It would also be overreaching to say it doesn’t affect the norm at all.

somethingclever
Guest
somethingclever

They believed in the “sin of Ham” interpretation. It was actually state law when they originally enacted it, and they corrected their theology as well. I’m not saying they should get a medal, but they made that choice knowing it would ostracize them from a decent number of their supporters. It should also be noted that when the policy was first in place there were no black students at BJU. The policy came up over a white and Asian student.

somethingclever
Guest
somethingclever

I would recommend reading the transcript of Larry King’s interview of Bob Jones III. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0003/03/lkl.00.html

Frank_in_Spokane
Guest
Frank_in_Spokane

A discussion of churches avoiding (or repudiating, as the case may be) incorporation:

—–><—– Missed it by THAT much.

Dave C
Guest
Dave C

I was a student at BJU when they lifted the policy. While I have no interest in defending the policy, I would defend them against the racist/bigot charge. They didn’t say that whites could date who they want but blacks could only date blacks. They said whites could only date whites, Asians only Asians, etc. Remember, there are plenty of blacks who are not supportive of interracial marriage. I’m not sure I ever heard it talked about but I think I remember hearing something about “settings the bounds of their habitation” verse. I would think Doug, of all people, would… Read more »

duellsquimby
Member

One wonders if the left saw this as a test case. It could have been a set-up in the scenario as you say above…

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Are the Christian people groaning under the despicable mandates of secularism to treat people equally?

Did Christianity ‘lose’ to the forces of secularism for declaring racism to be a false construct?;
– that there is no physical difference between people?,

– that discrimination against other people only occurs from disparity of treatment, and not from who they are or the condition of their lives?

timothy
Guest
timothy

Shouldn’t we all don high heels and get sex transformation operations to walk in our brother’s..er..sister’s shoes?

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

you should certainly learn to wash their feet, as our Lord Jesus Christ mandated.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Maybe take them shopping for a new pair of pumps–in the name of Jesus.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Feet washing first brother; Little steps.

timothy
Guest
timothy

How about face-lifts? Breast implants?

timothy
Guest
timothy

Maybe we should fund that abortion pool…who am I to judge. Wouldn’t want to hurt somebody’s feelings. They might think I am throwing stones!

timothy
Guest
timothy

Repentance is over-rated out-dated doctrine. Grace covers all!
The best thing is to just double down and sin like you mean it because Jesus loves you. Its all good, brother.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Hell schmell. Besides, the A.C. is too darn cold in the office anyway.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Douglas Wilson twists himself in knots to claim that the Government will attack the Christian Church for intransigence to abide with Federal Policies. At the same time he puts forward the idea that the Church should be politically active and use resources to effect changes to Federal programs, especially for the poor and for women, to the benefit of Patriarchal Hegemony. What makes this different than the work of a Political Action Committee, immediately subject to taxation? Douglas Wilson also ignores the judgement of the founders of The Protestant Reformation that matrimony is the purview of the state, and not… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Doug Wilson recognizes the Covenant nature of Government; you apparently do not.

Civil Government is subject to God; when it breaches its place in the agreement, it forfeits its legitimacy.
It is then our duty as citizens to correct that error by appropriate means and return Government to its proper relation to God.
If it refuses, then we remain true to God and do what needs to be done.
We are doing what needs to be done and we will do it.

You invert that order.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

I stand upon the words of our Founders: Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564) began teaching that the Roman Catholic Sacraments are just signs containing no inner working, nor transformative grace, and of those signs there are only two sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Holy Matrimony is not a Sacrament, That immediately opened the door to their next finding; that the institution of marriage is under the purview of the state government, rather than the Church. These are some quotes from the original Protestant Reformers: MARTIN LUTHER – “Marriage is a civic matter. It is really not, together… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

That is a worthwhile discussion. My bettor’s here can carry that banner.

However, that in no way removes the responsibility of government (and for the Christian to insist) that the civil government be in right relation with God. When a government affirms sin, then it is in rebellion.

Your government is not just in rebellion in its endorsement of perversion. It is a thief, it lies, it murders, it enshrines unequal measures, it does not deal justly with the poor or with children.

Houston, you got a problem.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Are the Christian people groaning under the despicable mandates of secularism to treat people equally?

Did Christianity ‘lose’ to the forces of secularism for declaring racism to be a false construct? (Douglas Wilson’s example above);
– that there is no physical difference between people?,

– that discrimination against other people only occurs from disparity of treatment, and not from who they are or the condition of their lives?

timothy
Guest
timothy

Did God really say….

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

God said –

“Who is this that questions my wisdom
with such ignorant words?” Job 38: 1

timothy
Guest
timothy

Anthony M. Kennedy

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

However, In his dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antionin Scalia has granted ME the power of final arbitration for all questions of love and matrimony in America.

Justice Antonin Scalia memorably wrote: “Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie.”

That is me.

IMHO “expanded”

;-)

timothy
Guest
timothy

I see. You are stoned. Silly me, I thought you meant stoned as in “rocks” but you mean stoned as in hippie stoned.

Do you like Bob Dylan music?

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

I do not own a lot of Robert Zimmerman’s vinyl. I’m one of the “Godspell” hippies that would argue with the Campus Crusade For Christ buzzcuts back in the day. We know what they are up to now.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/07/how-campus-crusade-for-christ-exports-homophobia-to-africa.html

– Worked stage crew for the Dead, back when there were alive., and ‘Yes’

And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, “Write, ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!'” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “so that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them.” Rev. 14:13

timothy
Guest
timothy

“Just leave this long haired country boy alone….”

Maybe we smoked dope together once.
.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Those of us that work in the American workplace are expected to behave with decency and professional decorum. If our fellow workers have lifestyles that are different than ours, it is not our place to discriminate against them based on our distaste. We are not expected to pry into the private affairs of our fellow workers, and our daily interactions are based upon the professional relationship. There is no room for prejudicial behavior. I find the claim that the Church ought to have a special tax free dispensation to practice discrimination based upon dubious cherry-picking of Bible verses to be… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

I do not speak for Doug or the church. I speak for myself.

There is no room for your perversion. We expect a modicum of virtue in our co-workers and when they lack it, we remove them from our work environment.

We are not the same people, we are not the same country. We are Americans, you are pagans. We will not be ruled by you.

There is no place for sexual deviants, liars or thieves in the workplace. There is no place for the reasoning of your pagan courts in our lives.

Your supreme court is ignored. Your laws are ignored.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

“…And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” Philippians 4:7

timothy
Guest
timothy

I am quite at peace with this Mark Allen Sells.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Well, clearly there is a place for liars and thieves both in the workplace and in the Church, for no one is removing either. They are together with us in communion, and they rule both the workplace and the halls of power where our elected officials do as they please.

;-)

timothy
Guest
timothy

Which is why I, after much time and deliberation, consider it, to now be illegitimate. As for “removing” I have removed myself from their affairs and set about rebuilding what God has given us. I fully expect Him to remain faithful and restore our land. That implies repentance by those who reject Him. If that is not forthcoming, (which it appears is not the case as the spiral into depravity and rebellion is tightening and accelerating) then God will (is, actually, imho) judge them–catastrophically so, in my opinion, and hopefully in my lifetime. As for civil rebellion, I am not… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Bless your Heart

timothy
Guest
timothy

heh. That’s all you got? Cripes we can’t even get a quality level of apostate around here. You must be from up North.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

I am from the finest family of southern planters. In fact, I am the first generation in my family, in several centuries, to live my life without the ‘help’ of African ‘servants’.

“…Happiness is a warm gun…”

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

If in your eyes it is a perversion to treat all people equally and not to presume to judge them, I stand with my Lord Jesus Christ in perversion. (John 8:1-11)

timothy
Guest
timothy

Did Jesus command us to approve of that adultery? To sanctify it? To celebrate it? No. No He does not. Furthermore, He commanded her to go and sin no more. Does the State expect us to approve of that ? To sanctify it? To celebrate it? Yes. Yes it does. Per your metric, as stated, when I tell an adulterer in the workplace to go and sin no more, your state will throw my ass in jail. Now, let’s talk repentance and outreach. Should and would I reach out to any fallen man who has repented and is earnestly seeking… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Yet adulterers and divorcees and liars and thieves are accepted to communion. The only ones who are barred from the table are those who think themselves perfected, and therefore have no need of Grace offered through the body of Christ. The condition of sin does not exclude any person from Communion with God or from any of the Holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Yet adulterers and divorcees and liars and thieves are accepted to communion.

No, all repentant are, no matter how grievous the sin God’s grace covers all sin. To enter into that grace one must repent. Your argument is that Christians must affirm sin.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

My argument is that the condition of sin does not exclude any person from Communion with God or from any of the Holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace. Yes, all sinners should acknowledge their sin and repent – but you have no part in that, except for yourself. Says John Calvin – “Surely, you should tell no man, lest he upbraid you; for you should confess nothing to a fellow servant, who may make it public. But show your wounds to the Lord, who takes care of you and is your kind physician. [Afterward he has God… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Yes, all sinners should acknowledge their sin and repent – but you have no part in that, except for yourself.

Repentence is and salvation is an individual act. The individual must make the move. However we are to urge this.
Jesus-“Go and sin no more” (i.e. repent)
John The Baptist. Repent.
Every preacher who has ever preached repentance.
Every witness who has helped a desperate sinner repent of their sin and turn to Christ must point out the sin.
Any boss who has told a male employee to go home and change the dress for a pair of slacks.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

It is not your part to check each communicant for lies, crimes, adulteries, and perversions before they approach the table for the holy supper.

The adulterer and the divorcee, the con artist and the bully, you no longer have the right or the power to subject them to shame or stoning, by the power of Jesus Christ.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Just being in Christ is to offend them. The very existence of Him is an affront to them.

You don’t get out much do you?

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

I am happily in Christ and am not oppressed in any way.

I will pray for you in your oppression.

timothy
Guest
timothy

So you have made your peace with the world then. How did you do that? Is it true that the world really can get along with Christ if we just temper things a bit?

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

“Lord grant me the serenity…”

I do just as you do, feed the poor, visit the imprisoned, clothe the naked,…

There is nothing in Matthew 25 about “…worry about gay marriage, shame the transvestite,…”

JohnM
Guest
JohnM

Mark Allen Sells, Is Matthew 25 all of the Bible you have? Do not deceive yourself with the old Jesus-never-said dodge. Let me point out an alternative to what I understand you, on the one hand, and Timothy on the other hand, to be saying. That would be found in 1 Corinthians 5: 11-13. If you cannot accept that you are an antinomian. If you do accept it I would be glad to hear that. Timothy, This is what I see: The church is the voice of prophesy in the world. The evangelical voice. However, I will maintain that it… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Hi JohnM. Civility is good and I like a civil space as it tempers relations within the bounds of human frailty–see my “did we smoke dope together” comment to MAS. What I will not obey from HR or anybody else is a prohibition on refusing to affirm sin. I have already resigned well paying jobs over this requirement from my bosses. Brandon Eich at mozilla was “let go” for refusing to affirm (by donating to prop 8) sin. In my opinion, this ‘pinch of incense’ entryism requires vigorous resistance and refusal now as the progression of degeneracy in the culture… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

You are absolutely correct . “… it is not our responsibility to make unbelievers behave like Christians. …beyond telling the truth we do not have the need or the authority to correct those outside the church. Within the church is another matter entirely.” Therefore Pastor Wilson’s call to use the Church’s resources to act outside the sphere of the Church [in the secular world outside of Moscow, Idaho] “…to make unbelievers behave like Christians…” in Government Courthouses and City Halls, – is wrong headed. Therefore the Federal Government SHOULD tax the Church severely for presuming to act beyond the mandates… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Our original Protestant Reformers recognized this also and ceded the rites of marriage to the government: Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564) began teaching that the Roman Catholic Sacraments are just signs containing no inner working, nor transformative grace, and of those signs there are only two sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Holy Matrimony is not a Sacrament, That immediately opened the door to their next finding; that the institution of marriage is under the purview of the state government, rather than the Church. These are some quotes from the original Protestant Reformers: MARTIN LUTHER – “Marriage is… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

…it is the gift of God; not as a result of works,…

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

You are only upset because God does not give you a say.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

And you believe that God imposes limits upon his Grace?

Puny God.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30lGrarz3MQ

timothy
Guest
timothy

I have asked you repeatedly for you to state the Gospel of Jesus Christ. You have never replied correctly.

And you believe that God imposes limits upon his Grace?

If you do not repent and turn to Him, you will never know Him or his Grace. You limit His grace by your refusal to repent. Your damnation lies squarely on your shoulders as you choose you over Him.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Good thing you’re not God then.

timothy
Guest
timothy

Notice, again that you do not state the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Do you know it? I don’t think you do. Prove me wrong if you can.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Tell me where you are and I will visit you in jail.

;-)

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

You stand in place of the Pharisees and ask for God’s blessing to rebuke and punish other people.

We know that the one time our Lord Jesus Christ returned from the dead after leaving his disciples was to bitch-slap a Pharisee (Saul).

You are on your own road to Damascus, may God bring you great enlightenment there.

timothy
Guest
timothy

John the Baptist preached repentance; Mark Allen Sells preaches accommodation. I have already received God’s “bitch slap” . Why the heck to you think I am bothering with your foolishness?

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Consider your own calling, brothers and sisters….
… God chose the foolish of the world to shame the wise,
… the weak of the world to shame the strong,
… the lowly and despised of the world,
those who count for nothing,
…to reduce to nothing those who are something,
so that no human being might boast before God.
1 Cor 1:26-31

freddy
Guest
freddy

Mark A Sells,

You smell of capitulation and compromise, an odious stench that rises to the heavens and is offensive to the nostrils of the Triune God.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

“Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice….

Keep me from the trap that they have laid for me
and from the snares of evildoers!
Let the wicked fall into their own nets,
while I pass by safely.” – Psalm 141

A. James
Member

In other words, you can call THEM bigots :)
These are much similar words thrown at BJU during their court case by Christians. What goes around comes around.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

How is the inter-racial scene at BJU nowadays? Did Christianity ‘lose’ to the forces of secularism for declaring racism to be a false construct?; that there is no physical difference between people?, that racism only occurs from disparity of treatment?

Are the people on campus groaning under the despicable mandates of secularism to treat people equally?

A. James
Member

They are doing all they can to make up for the “sins” of their past on this. http://www.bju.edu/about/what-we-believe/race-statement.php Countries were well-represented at BJU already, and continue to be. There are mixed-ethnic faculty/staff couples, and student dating/marriages easily known and easily seen. I never considered their interracial dating policy to be racist nor did any of my other-ethnic friends/roommates. We were all under the policy. Some of their parents preferred it. I think I already said it was more Sr./Jr. that held to a scriptural interpretation for the reason for their policy. III/Stephen have apologized, distanced from that incrementally. Under Pettit… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

So the problem becomes “taking from Caesar” and finding the strings attached… Twas ever thus.

carole
Guest
carole

Umm excuse me, did you say that there are no physical differences among people? If your argument is based on that, you may want to rethink it…

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

“We’re all human, aren’t we? Every human life is worth the same, and worth saving.” ― J.K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

My Question to you carole is why would you let secular government be the first to “….proclaim good news to the poor. …. proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free,…”, and then choose to be on the wrong side?

carole
Guest
carole

I wouldn’t. They didn’t.

Btw, it was only Jerry who died.

It sounds like you think we should have religious freedom as long as the state gets to dictate what our religion is. That pretty cage does not make me feel free.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

not a cage but a fence – our Protestant Founders ceded the rites of marriage to the government: Martin Luther (1483-1546) and John Calvin (1509-1564) began teaching that the Roman Catholic Sacraments are just signs containing no inner working, nor transformative grace, and of those signs there are only two sacraments (Baptism and the Lord’s Supper). Holy Matrimony is not a Sacrament, That immediately opened the door to their next finding; that the institution of marriage is under the purview of the state government, rather than the Church. These are some quotes from the original Protestant Reformers: MARTIN LUTHER –… Read more »

carole
Guest
carole

You seemed to have switched topics. Let’s say you are correct regarding a sacrament how does that reach the problems discussed in the pastors post?

It is so only when a matter of conscience is involved is in your own quote. The concerns brought forth are matters of conscience are they not?

I imagined your years in the crew were post pigpen, but perhaps you were fortunate enough to be there then. Were you? Regardless, Jerry’s death didn’t actually make all the Dead, dead.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

(no – before Keith and Donna left) The Rev. Wilson is basing his premise (above) on using the resources of the church for massive political action, making the Church, de facto a PAC, not a religious organization. He correctly predicts that the Church will lose tax exempt status. – and rightly so. The reason Rev. Wilson states for doing this is that he has determined (by cherry picking the scriptures – “Time for a Little Q&A”) that “… homosexuality is an objective sin” – I oppose this conclusion; objective sins are listed in the ten commandments. He is very subjective… Read more »

Christopher
Member

“Homosexuals do not want Douglas Wilson’s approval; homosexuals only want equal treatment under the law.”

If they don’t want approval then why are they asking to be married?

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

They asked the Federal Court to make a decision for the conduct of government for ALL the people. – Reverend Wilson’s Church in Moscow, Idaho was not consulted. In fact – I have more legitimate power to decide than Douglas Wilson does, having already presented my bona fides as a genuine 1960’s “Godspell” singing hippy. Supreme Court Justice Antionin Scalia has granted ME the power of final arbitration for all questions of love and matrimony in America. Justice Antonin Scalia memorably wrote: “Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality (whatever that means) were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

“…Pharisees and teachers of the Law of Moses are in for trouble! You’re nothing but show-offs. You lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. You won’t go in yourselves, and you keep others from going in.” Mattheww 23: 13-14

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

The current tour is not really the Grateful Dead community, it is the Brand Name that is on tour, which is why the mainstream media now embrace the idea of the group that was ‘outside’ for so long. When Jerry and Keith and Donna were there, the group was much more aware that they should not be seen as profiteers. They thought about ticket prices and comfort at the venues. The Steal Your face icon was homemade and shared, not a copyrighted logo. The obscene prices for seats in the current ‘final’ tour are a good indicator of how little… Read more »

carole
Guest
carole

mmm, I don’t know why I made the contrary point, just to be…actually… for no good reason whatsoever. My apologies.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

You missed a few: ‘Pigpen’ McKernan, Keith Godchaux, Brent Midland, Vince Welnick,…

not a good idea to play keyboards for that band

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Unless they are magically resurrected?

timothy
Guest
timothy

Kinda like the drummer for Spinal Tap.

BooneCtyBeek
Guest
BooneCtyBeek

Briefly, Mark. Businesses, especially large ones, go far beyond requiring professionalism. They require you to approve of the same sex attraction lifestyle. They are the ones making an issue of it, sticking it in my face, demanding my ‘sensitivity’ to it.

Second, and it has been discussed at length already, the government is not giving anyone a break by letting them or their organization keep their income. It is not their money.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Yes, as a member of an organization, I have received the memo from Human Resources that we shall refer to ‘Elizabeth’ (when she was hired), who became ‘Ailsbeth’, NOW as ‘Alexander’. I do not think of this as ‘…sticking it in my face’, since, beyond the professional courtesy of using a person’s chosen name, I do not have any business with that person’s personal life. Since a workplace can behave civilly towards people, and only a few ‘Christians’ are having a problem with it, I see the problem lies with the ‘Christians’. If a business does not want federal subsidies,… Read more »

freddy
Guest
freddy

“One of our responsibilities in these troubled times is to look at the cultural chess board while taking care to think three moves ahead. We need to look at our current conflicts in the light of the year of our Lord 2022. Those who do not anticipate the future are doomed to go through it, as Santayana didn’t quite say.” You apparently aren’t very good at chess. Look down the road as to where these wicked SJW’s intend to steer the ship. Brendan Eich comes to mind as these secular gatekeepers will run backgrounds on everybody. Obam’s Orwellian imminent database… Read more »

timothy
Guest
timothy

Christian organization HR sends out a memo that Caitlyn shall be referred to as Bruce since affirming a person in their sin is a sin.

Only a few heathens have problems with it. The stoners, of course, are cool with anything.

What now?

Christopher
Member

“If a business does not want federal subsidies, use of federal infrastructure, federal tax breaks, government permits, government business licences, etc. they can be douchebags* to whoever they want.”

Until the government decides otherwise.

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Well, businesses can continue to ignore laws they find odious and still receive some subsidies, tax breaks, stipends, use of public resources, …”Until the government decides otherwise.” Nestles is stealing ground water from California without a valid permit or licence. —> http://www.newsweek.com/nestles-california-water-permit-expired-27-years-ago-321940 Swift Meat Packing fired all the “white” American Union labor, and replaced them with Christian economic refugees (you call them ‘illegals’) since they have no civil rights here, when they contracted mad cow disease from unsafe working conditions, they got fired also. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/hormel-spam-pig-brains-disease If you are a businessman and you diliberately treat your workers like slaves, take away… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Not that this is anything new, a century ago when Teddy Roosevelt was ‘busting the Trusts’, my Great-Grandad was the Police Chief of Hopkinsville KY. (birthplace of President Jefferson Davis) . The ‘Tobacco Trust” tried to deal unfairly with poor tobacco farmers. The Farmer’s protest started in Hopkinsville, then turned into a shooting war through several southern states.

carole
Guest
carole

It’s also important, I should think, that the reason we are giving to our churches is not because of the 501c3po status. We should all pray that we will not give less because our tax return will look different. Shame on all of us, if it does.

Will Dole
Guest
Will Dole

You mean, we should give to our church to further the work of the gospel?

How unAmerican.

And how right.

Willis
Guest

On point number three (theology of resistance), I think we should remind everyone why the church is tax free. It is not because the government likes churches or because the government is doing us a favor. It is because the government has no right to take money from the KING. Jesus is King and the church is his people. A lessor kingdom (the Kingdom of the Nine Judges) has no right to tax a greater kingdom (the Kingdom of God).

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

“…Pharisees and teachers of the Law of Moses are in for trouble! You’re nothing but show-offs. You lock people out of the kingdom of heaven. You won’t go in yourselves, and you keep others from going in.” Matthew 23: 13-14

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Rev. Wilson’s conclusions and recommended remedies are the same in type, if not in kind, than the violence and murder advocated by his televangelist brethren.

http://reverbpress.com/religion/onward-christian-soldiers-pastor-urges-armed-response-gay-marriage/

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

As a matter of law, Mark Allen Sells is 100% correct on the tax deductions. Churches which do not agree to perform SSM will lose their deductions and exemptions. As long as the Gang of Five sits on the Supremes, no mere statute can change that. OTOH, there is a provision – – never invoked – – which allows Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supremes. Without Obama to veto it, Congress could remove (oust) both abortion and marriage from the court’s jurisdiction. But there are simpler ways which would provoke less outrage from the left. A bunch of… Read more »

A. James
Member

You sound particularly positive at the moment. Pardon me if I can’t rise to the occasion :) This post and the Video Sting post have me thinking the Bible and Legal Circles are getting all goofy again…that…or…my Bible circle is vastly different from others’ Bible Circle. I’m trying to figure out if it’s the Covenant theology or postmillenialism stuff or some people have chopped Galatians right out of their Bible or even the whole NT or something. And then, when does the legal circle to some not even matter any more because the Bible circle is greater and grander and… Read more »

A. James
Member

Also, you were speaking on a federal level. Do you think states are so limited now in areas of marriage/abortion/ObamaCare, that it’s a federal level battle primarily? Or is there still some merit to states doing as Alabama (if it still is, haven’t checked) in fighting the SS”M” and some of these states trying to take protective measures votes for pastors, etc… I find it interesting (or else I’m confused) that states still have some wiggle room on abortion (maximum number of weeks for an abortion limit, etc.) and Planned Parenthood type investigations, etc. but there remains no wiggle room… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

I see no evidence that civil disobedience can succeed as a means of confronting a powerful system. In the historical cases where civil disobedience has been successful it has been in confronting a lesser system while drawing on the strength of a more powerful system. By that I mean that you can successfully confront the governor of Alabama if you have the strength of the federal government on your side. Thus you can create a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants because the federal government and the media are against deporting these people even if they have narrowly failed to pass… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

1. Tiananmen Square in 1989, failure. Red Square 1990, failure. Red Square 1991, success. Don’t bet on the central gummit always winning. 2. Would Gandhi have succeeded against the Nazis half so well as against the Brits? 3. When George Wallace was standing in the schoolhouse door, he was in a failing minority generally regarded as being not only on the “wrong side” of not just history, but of morality itself. That’s why the pro-SSM folks have worked so hard to pose as the heirs of Selma and to frame the debate as though anyone who disagrees with any –… Read more »

Kelly M. Haggar
Guest
Kelly M. Haggar

First, the AP poll story on the results of their poll is at: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/a688e500e35e4cd0a7f927e02c33b8ea/ap-poll-sharp-divisions-after-high-court-backs-gay-marriage Second, on Congress limiting the jurisdiction of federal courts: U.S. CONSTITUTION, Art II, Section 2. START The judicial power shall extend to ALL CASES, IN LAW AND EQUITY, ARISING UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION [emphasis added] , the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state… Read more »

A. James
Member

I could vent about the “bigots” assertion…and note that those “bigots” took the legal steps they could on the merits of the First Amendment…only to be met with the decision that those “practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination”…and then were non-tax exempt for all these years only to thrive. So…they should have disobeyed over such an order? Is the goal here more worthy or necessary? Is it not bigoted to call others bigots when when we deem our tax exempt status more worthy of not just a legal process (I hope that… Read more »

Barnabas
Guest
Barnabas

“The truth is that the weapons of “activism” are not weapons which the weak can use against the strong. They are weapons the strong can use against the weak. When the weak try to use them against the strong, the outcome is… well… suicidal. Who was stronger – Dr. King, or Bull Connor? Well, we have a pretty good test for who was stronger. Who won? In the real story, overdogs win. Who had the full force of the world’s strongest government on his side? Who had a small-town police force staffed with backward hicks? In the real story, overdogs… Read more »

Mark Allen Sells
Guest
Mark Allen Sells

Just to be clear.

All y’all believe that YOUR Christian Church can behave just like Crossroads GPS and Americans for Prosperity, to affect legislation, and never pay taxes.

….and the major reason that you can not do this is “sodomites”.

Well, yea sodomites.