Creflo Dollar, a leading proponent of the false prosperity gospel, pastors a church in GA. Apparently this is now OK in churches.
"I just want to say this because I want to see how it sounds. Governor Stacey Abrams just walked in. So you already know what to do, right? How many of you have already done it? Wow. It's big time. Make it happen. Do what you git to do."
On a related note, Stacey Abrams as magically seen her net worth grow from $109,000 to $3.17 million, despite not actually having any sort of job that would have allowed her to earn that much money.
Maybe Creflo is right, and God can make you rich.
24 comments:
Any source for this?
I found this video...
https://youtu.be/rsK1vYoxD6g
Which is vague, edited and may or may not be real, representing an actual event. Looks more like the sort of fake propaganda that's being put out there by right-wing and Russian sources these days.
With that caveat, I don't like prosperity preachers like Money.
I don't approve of churches giving endorsements in churches.
This, like what happens at many conservative churches, plays that vague quasi-endorsement line where they never actually endorse the candidate. Just say, "Y'all know what to do..."
IF it's real.
Do you condemn conservative churches giving endorsements to gop candidates? Do you think that's wrong?
Perhaps we won't hear about this in the news because it's not real?
Anon,
I've seen it in a few places, but don't have time to dig for the source.
Yes, I frequently see DFL candidates making campaign stops during church services, and I've been consistent in saying that ANY church that endorses a specific candidate should immediately lose their tax exempt status. I don't care of churches choose to endorse candidates or not, I just believe that they should accept the consequences of their actions.
Then we agree on the churches not making endorsements. It happens regularly here in Kentucky on both sides, but given the conservative nature of many churches, I suspect it happens more for the GOP or more conservative candidates. But regardless, they shouldn't.
I notice that you are willing to continue to keep this particular post up, even if you can't validate it. Given the proliferation of rightwing misinformation, I'd counsel YOU to be wary of posting that which you can't prove.
False witness and all that.
No church should ever lose their tax exempt status for endorsing candidates for public office. They should lose attendance for endorsing morons like Stacey Abrams, perhaps, but not for choosing to be a part of the process which can determine the health, safety and prosperity of their congregants. The "Johnson law" which led to this perversion of Constitutional rights needs to be reversed. People of faith are citizens, too. People of faith should be free to make the connection between politics and God's Will. They should be free to do it from the pulpit, just as the Black Robed Regiment did at the birth of our nation.
Dan,
All you had to do was acknowledge the obvious. But you just can't. You have to indulge the bias of your small sample size and try to make this as if it's predominantly the GOP that does it, while ignoring the regular sight of DFL candidates making stump speeches at church services all over national news.
I'll try to be clear. Current tax law limits churches from engaging in specific political actions if they want to keep their tax exempt status. If a church has the courage to renounce their tax exempt status, because they fee strongly about endorsing a specific candidate, then I say more power to them for being willing to stand up for their convictions even when it hurts them.
I'm willing to keep this post up, because it's re[representative of other things happening in GA (also on video) and of things we regularly see covered on the national news where DFL presidential candidates turn worship services into campaign events.
Personally, I believe that every time The Church has gotten in bed with politics it has harmed The Church more than the state.
Art,
If the law prevents churches from engaging in certain political activities at the risk of losing their tax exempt status, then I fail to see how breaking the law benefits either the church or the politician. The problem is that way to much of the American Church doesn't have the courage to undergo a relatively small amount of suffering to live out their convictions. The first century Church was getting killed for even meeting, but in 21st century America we're afraid of losing our tax exempt status to follow our convictions.
If you want to argue that the law is problematic and should be reversed, then go for it. If you want to encourage churches to engage in action by defying the law, and suffering the consequences, in order to protest that's awesome. But to expect churches to break the law with impunity, seems problematic on many levels.
I'm pretty sure my first sentence unambiguously presented my position on the subject. My third presents my proposal for correcting the grievous 1st Amendment infringement imposed by politicians who sought to cancel speech which conflicts with their ideology...as they're still doing today to more than just pastors from the pulpit.
Art,
Your position was clear. I'm simply pointing out that there are currently options for churches, and that one option should result in the consequences under the current law. I think it's spinless to expect to break the law to make a point, and to expect to avoid the consequences.
Art,
You seem to be following Dan's example, and conflating your opinions about things, with facts. I understand that you have strong feelings about these topics. What I don't understand is how you can assert your opinions as if they were undisputed fact, and simply assume that anyone who doesn't agree with every facet of your opinion must be beaten (figuratively) into submission.
Historically, humility has been something that Christians have aspired to, I'm not seeing much of it from either you or Dan.
Wait a freakin' minute! My position is simply there should be no laws denying pastors their 1st Amendment right to speak out on political issues, including endorsing candidates, or threatening their tax exempt status for doing so. There's no Constitutional basis for doing so. Society isn't at all served by the law. It's a clear and obvious infringement. These are not "opinions" to conflate about anything. They are indeed facts. The law needs to be abolished because it's an infringement of 1st Amendment rights.
Maybe you don't believe it's an infringement. Maybe you believe there's some benefit to society and its culture because of this denial. I'd love to hear what that might be, because I don't see it...especially if the same pastor can promote the same sentiments to the same people in a different venue.
With all that obvious reality in mind, I'm absolutely NOT suggesting no consequences for breaking laws, even bad ones. One is expected to comply or get the law abolished or changed through legal means.
I'm also absolutely not suggesting pastors should let the law determine whether or not they do what's right and necessary, though that assumes a given congregation can weather such repercussions. That's not always the practical avenue for every pastor to take regardless of any opinion of ours. They're no more obliged to abide our opinions on the matter in any case, especially with no true understanding of the details of a pastor's situation.
I hope this provides more clarity to my position on the issue.
Craig...
I'm not seeing much of it from either you or Dan.
...he said, while Dan humbly and rationally acknowledge his opinions on morality as subjective while Craig continued to harp on Dan for doing so AND implying that he (Craig) had some OBJECTIVE proven moral system.
But DAN is the one lacking in humility.
Do you even read what you're writing?
Step up. Make yourself clear: DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE MORAL SYSTEM (law, code, whatever)?
If so, WHAT IS IT?
Good Lord, have mercy.
Art,
Yes, you've been clear about your opinion. You've also been clear that you hold the opinion that churches should not suffer the consequences of their actions. I'm not being critical of your opinions, or that you hold them. I'm merely pointing out that (here and elsewhere) you treat your opinions as if they were facts.
"The law needs to be abolished because it's an infringement of 1st Amendment rights."
If it is, then it's certainly not the only one. Are you really saying that there should be zero infringements on the 1st amendment? Further, are you insisting that a "church" actually has a 1st amendment right to speech? As far as I know there is nothing to stop the pastor, individually, from endorsing any candidate. The issue is when it's done from the pulpit as an official act of the church. It's a fine line, and one most of my left wing pastor friends cross regularly, but it's there. When in history has The Church EVER benefited from being entangled with the state?
"Maybe you don't believe it's an infringement. Maybe you believe there's some benefit to society and its culture because of this denial. I'd love to hear what that might be, because I don't see it...especially if the same pastor can promote the same sentiments to the same people in a different venue."
Even if it is, it seems like a fairly reasonable one. For me, it comes down to one simple fact, throughout history I don't recall a single instance of The Church involving it's self in politics in a way that benefited The Church, or advanced the primary mission of The Church. The thing that most disappointing the Jews about Jesus was His refusal to come as a political leader. History tells us that whenever The Church as an institution gets entangled in politics,
that The Church comes out in worse shape than before.
"But DAN is the one lacking in humility."
That's correct. You are both acting as if your opinions are to be treated as if they were facts.
"Do you even read what you're writing?"
Yes.
"Step up. Make yourself clear: DO YOU HAVE AN OBJECTIVELY PROVABLE MORAL SYSTEM (law, code, whatever)?"
Wrong thread, and it's already been answered. Of course, you'll do anything to avoid proving your claims, won't you? (That's a rhetorical question, you can safely ignore it with all the others.)
"If so, WHAT IS IT?"
Asked and answered in the thread where it's not off topic. Why won't you prove your claims about "minor", "trivial", "greater", "lesser" and the "categories" of sin YHWH acknowledges?
"Good Lord, have mercy."
He is, and He does.
Dan,
All you had to do was drop in and say something like, "I agree that churches should not allow worship services to be used for campaign events.", and be done. You could have added something like, "If churches do choose to use worship services as campaign events, then they should at least be bi partisan in doing so.". But, you just couldn't do that, you had to pretend that when the GOP does it that it's horrible behavior. But when the DFL does it, it's a minor peccadillo hardly worthy of mention. Why is it so hard for you to just make s simple statement, without making it a partisan issue?
I just realized something. When a local congregation gathers for a worship service, they are (theoretically) gathering to ascribe worth to YHWH the creator of all that exists. The one describes as Holy, Holy, Holy. The point of worship is to focus on YHWH. What kind of pastor would degrade the worship of their congregation by turning a time set aside for worship of YHWH into a time of worship for a political candidate? What kind of pastor is going to tell their congregation how they have to vote? The more I think about this the more convinced I become that pastors who allow their worship to be desecrated like this, are more interested in the power that comes from being on the "right" side of a politician, and less interested in the power of the Almighty. Scripture seems clear that those in positions to teach, and lead others will be held to a higher standard when they are judged, I don't think I'd want to be standing in front of the Judgement Seat and have to try to explain why I took time set aside for worship of YHWH, and gave it to a political candidate.
I'm starting to change my mind a bit and come around to thinking that the violation of US tax law isn't as serious as the turning over of a worship service to a politician.
This isn't aimed at either side. Pastors are supposed to shepherd their flock, not expose them to wolves.
Pastors shepherd their flock when they oppose sinful behaviors promoted or enabled by politicians or political parties. To make the connection for the benefit of "the flock" is called "preaching"...not "worshiping" either a better candidate or party.
Sometime ago, there was a bishop or cardinal who intended to refuse communion to a politician who supported abortion (I think it was). This isn't at all a political move. It's a minister acting on his faith, just as some claim to have acted on their faith by rejecting Trump and leaving us with all this suffering we now endure. For any minister to preach against supporting those who murder children is also a matter of faith and not politics. But I acknowledge that politics and faith can often be in conflict or alignment.
A "church" is people. The congregants and those who minister to them. They are all also citizens of this country and as such have the right to speak on any issue compels them. If you don't like your pastor speaking on current events and how Christians should best respond to them, find another church. But the 1st Amendment protection of speech was specifically to protect political speech and unless you believe sermons should be discontinued in Christian services in order to focus on nothing but worship and praise (not a bad subject for debate), then sermons are for guiding the flock and making a connection between the teachings of Scripture and real world applications is essential for true guidance.
I don't know of too many examples (none, actually) of pastors or denominations seeking to "entangle" themselves with government since early in our nations history. But the Constitution was intended to regulate government behavior with regard to religion, not deny participation in government by churches. Again, churches are citizens of the United States of America.
I will say that I would prefer not giving over the pulpit to a candidate. Holding a separate event for that purpose is better. But I don't think I'd want to be standing in front of the Judgement Seat and have to try to explain why I had a candidate sitting in the pews before me, one who promotes pro-abortion, pro-LGBT and other sinful policies and chose not to speak on those topics during my sermon.
Finally, I absolutely never suggested anywhere that a pastor or church should break the law without consequence. I could not have been more clear that I was protesting the law which puts their tax exempt status at risk should they engage in political talk from the pulpit. And no, I don't believe a good pastor should let that consequence prevent him from speaking out on a topic of great concern. But I also don't think any good pastor is a good pastor who puts their congregation at risk in order to posture as courageous in such situations. Some congregations are incredibly tiny and lifting that exemption might be enough to cripple them for good. Having a place for communal worship and preaching the Word is the primary concern.
Keep in mind, that the law went into effect while LBJ was still a senator and is referred to as the Johnson Amendment, which wasn't any more than because a couple non-profits supported an opponent of his.
https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_johnson_amendment_fact_checking_the_narrative
https://thefederalist.com/2017/12/01/time-repeal-johnson-amendment-let-pastors-talk-politics/
"No church should ever lose their tax exempt status for endorsing candidates for public office."
Sounds like no consequences to me.
Again, we agree on this more than we disagree. I'm simply stating that if churches violate the law, they should face the consequences, and that worship services intended to focus of YHWH, should not be turned into political events.
If a church wants to do a political event, within the current law, they certainly can. If a church wants to have a politician speak about their faith, their testimony, or other non political topics, that seems fine to me.
"Sounds like no consequences to me. "
Only because the unjust law imposes a consequence. Prior to that law enacted in '54, there was no consequence for a pastor enjoying the Constitutionally protected "privilege" of speaking politically in any context or scenario.
But you keep bringing up consequences as if I'm suggesting they should be free to act without consequences the law will impose upon them for being in breach. I haven't even so much as hinted as such a thing. My position has consistently been they should not be denied their Constitutional right in the first place. The 1954 law is unConstitutional. There is a reason churches are exempted from taxation. That should not be forced into silence in order to protect that worthwhile exemption just because LBJ hated preachers supporting his political opponent. Of course, that shit would fit in perfectly with today's Democratic Party and is just as vile and unAmerican as today's stifling of speech by the very same party.
The concept of turning a Sunday service into a political event is entirely a separate issue and I don't at all disagree with that position. Yet still, I don't at all favor assaulting a church's tax exemption over it. That's a government penalty and the government is Constitutionally restricted from doing such a thing.
Craig,
I don't think Art is saying "no consequences," rather I take him to be saying the law should be revoked-- should never been passed to begin with.
Glenn,
I quoted him earlier, which seems to indicate his insistence that there be no consequences. In any case, I've addressed this multiple times in this thread, and don't necessarily disagree with his larger point. I'm simply pointing out that if churches violate current law, they should expect the consequences.
Just one final point of clarification. You did indeed quote me:
"No church should ever lose their tax exempt status for endorsing candidates for public office."
That's a premise, not an encouragement to withhold consequences. If the law is removed, then churches are not unjustly punished for enjoying their Constitutional right to speak freely regarding political issues. Until then, any pastor must accept the risk of losing tax exemptions in order to freely express his political opinions so long as this unjust law remains on the books.
No church should ever lose their tax exempt status for endorsing candidates for public office. That's a fact, simply not a reality at this time.
If I misunderstood, I apologize. It certainly appears as if it's a declaration that churches should not be held responsible for their actions.
Your last sentences doesn't appear to make sense then. The legal reality is that if a church endorses a candidate, they should reap the consequences. Asserting that something "should" be a certain way is kind of meaningless. The point of the post is that there is actual evidence of churches violating the current law regarding electioneering, and those churches should be investigated for the apparent violations. The reality is that they won't be because the Biden administration will ignore anything that they believe helps their side.
The reality is that while I agree with your premise, there is no movement that is currently focused on changing the law, and it seems like a waste of time to get this worked up over current, settled law.
There is no "current, settled law" which is indeed "settled". Prohibition wasn't settled, and amending the Constitution is as "settled" as it gets. Bad laws, or laws which might no longer make sense, may have been settled at one time for a time, but that doesn't mean we must just accept them when they suck for whatever reason.
This law sucked from the jump. It was promoted and enacted for unethical purposes and it's beyond me that the Supreme Court didn't shove it back up LBJ's backside when he pulled it. Thus, it's unfortunate to know there is little being done to correct this injustice. The concern, it seems to me, regards money. It assumes a pastor sees nothing but cash in encouraging his flock to reject a candidate whose policy proposals advocate for unChristian, antiChristian or counterChristian ideologies. Such a pastor could very possibly stand to lose both money and congregants preaching against real world issues. A good pastor would take that risk to serve the Lord.
Post a Comment