Will Pastors Risk Tax-Free Status to Help Save America?
No US Church Has Ever Lost Non-Profit Status Over Political Preaching
Kelly OConnell
Long
before America’s current absolute separation of church and state,
colonial pastors regularly preached on politics. According to
historians, 18th century sermons decisively encouraged future
revolutionaries to resist King George. Moreover, in Western history,
important and far-reaching political doctrines were typically deduced
first by pastors, Christian professors, and believing philosophers, etc.
In fact, without these eminent and brave men, there would be no modern
free and prosperous West.But today, American Believers languish in a ghetto assembled for anyone suggesting religion should influence public policy. Yet, as our currency reveals, previously such influences were assumed. If our forebears were under the same secularist strictures seen today, the early West would have never escaped mediocrity.
The apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin (Jewish Council) for questioning by the high priest. “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.” Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings!”
I. Black Robe Regiment
A. Who Were the Black Robe Regiment?
This regiment was simply colonial American clergy using God-given freedoms of speech to describe biblical norms on proper, non-tyrannical government rule. These men were instrumental in the education and preparation of American revolutionaries in decades before the War of Independence. Writes Rev. Wayne C. Sedlak,During the War of Independence were a group of heroic men referred to as the “Black Regiment”. The very name enraged the British armies. As war heroes, their courage & leadership were lauded from Massachusetts to Georgia. As a “regiment”, they never once drilled together, yet the strategic impact of their highly disciplined attacks was overwhelming. As a unit, they never fought together on a particular field of battle, yet without question, their leadership provided the spark which ignited victory after victory.
This “Black Regiment” was responsible for providing the conviction and wisdom necessary for winning a war against the cruelty of an unjust government. What was the “Black Regiment”? Actually, it wasn’t a regiment at all. It referred to the American Presbyterian, Congregationalist, and Baptist clergy.
British sympathizers (Loyalists), so named them because of the black robes worn by the ministers when they ascended their pulpits each Lord’s Day. The name “stuck”. Colonial enemies knew that the seeds of what the British called “sedition’’ or “revolution” were being sown in the pulpits of America. Without the outspoken, tenacious and courageous leadership exhibited by the pastors of the “Black Regiment”, it is doubtful whether American independence could ever have been achieved.
II. Government Rules Against Politics in the Pulpit
A. IRS & Freedom of Pulpit
There are federal sanctions for American pastors preaching on political issues. The Alliance Defense Fund describes IRS rule against political preaching:In 1954, U.S. Congress amended (without debate or analysis) Internal Revenue Code §501(c)(3), restricting speech of non-profit tax exempt entities, including churches. Before passage, no restrictions existed regarding how churches used speech regarding government and voting, excepting a 1934 law preventing non-profits using a substantial part of their resources to lobby for legislation.
The amendment, from then-Senator Lyndon Johnson, stated non-profit tax exempt entities couldn’t “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.” Since the amendment passed, the IRS steadfastly maintains any speech by churches about candidates for government office, including sermons, can result in loss of tax exemption.
B. Pulpit Freedom Sunday: October 7, 2012
The Alliance Defense Fund is calling for a Pulpit Freedom Sunday where pastors talk specifically about political issues, in rejection of IRS rules. Writes the Christian Science Monitor,On Oct. 7, hundreds of Christian pastors will engage in a mass act of civil disobedience across the USA. From Sunday pulpits, they will purposely violate federal law by openly opposing or endorsing political candidates.Ironically, ADF reports no church has ever lost its tax exempt status over the rule, and yet hundreds of thousands of pastors are cowed into silence every week by such fears.
Why break the law on purpose?
These mostly evangelical pastors will attempt to lure the Internal Revenue Service into fining a church or taking away its tax-exempt status. If the IRS takes the bait, this case will be challenged all the way to the Supreme Court to overturn the law.
The group pushing this legal test, Alliance Defense Fund, has gathered increasingly more pastors since 2008. The yearly autumn protest—Pulpit Freedom Sunday, occurs just before elections. Many participating pastors are eager to turn the US into “a Christian nation” by playing a direct role in politics.
III. Preaching on Proper Government: Original Black Robe Regiment
A. Great Historic Moments in Christian Statecraft
Breakthroughs in political achieved by Christian thinkers are too numerous to list, but consider the following five achievements:1. Alfred the Great set the Ten Commandments as the center of English law, using biblical legal analysis for his laws, laying the foundation for subsequent development of Common Law.
2. Christian scholar William of Ockham’s analysis of mankind’s place after expulsion from Paradise, helped develop the ideas of Natural Law, Consent of the Governed, & Natural Rights.
3. Magna Carta, the greatest legal document in British and American history, was articulated and composed by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury.
4. Lex Rex, famed call for a Rule of Law above king, composed by famed Scots Presbyterian pastor Samuel Rutherford divinity professor at University of St. Andrews.
5. Constitutionalism is applied Rule of Law, championed by Puritan-trained John Locke, advocating separation of powers and limitations of government to minimize threats of tyranny.
B. Quotes From US Colonial Black Robe Regiment Pulpits
1. Call for Moral Government: Civil Magistrates Must be Just, Ruling in the Fear of GodCharles Chauncy (Harvard) 1747 Boston
Text: The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spake to me; he that ruleth over Men must be just, ruling in the Fear of God. (II Sam. 23:3)2. Natural Rights: Essential Rights & Liberties of Protestants
Judged by the manner in which these words are introduced, there are none in all the bible, applicable to civil rulers, in their public capacity, of more solemn importance:
I. There is a certain order among mankind, according to which some are entrusted with power to rule over others.
II. Those who rule over others must be just, ruling in the fear of God.
Elisha Williams (Yale) 1744 Boston
These Rights & Liberties include:
a. Property: Every man having a property in his own person, the labour of his body and the work of his hands are properly his own, to which no one has right but himself.3. Right to Truly Representational Congress: The Snare Broken
b. Civil Law: Obedience due government is limited. Salus populi est lex suprema, ie the end of all humane authority is the good of the public.
c. Positive Law: Every law not contrary to a superior law is to be obeyed.
d. End of Law is Protection of Life, Liberty & Property: Whenever government power is applied to any other end than preservation persons and properties, (according to the great Mr. Lock) it becomes tyranny.
e. General Call to Christian Freedom. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is Liberty. Gal. 4. 31.
f. Natural Law: Natural freedom is not liberty to do whatever one pleases, ignoring written law; but consists in freedom from any superiour power on earth, and having only the law of nature (ie of God) for his rule.
Jonathan Mayhew (Harvard) 1766 Boston
Affirmation of British Rights in Colonial America:
As free-born men, never enslaved by right of conquest in war, nor sold as slaves, so we have natural rights, till we have freely consented to part with them, either in person, or by those whom we have appointed to represent, and to act for us. This natural right is declared, affirmed and secured to us, as British subjects, by Magna Charta; all acts contrary to which, are said to be ipso facto null and void.4. Righteousness of Resisting Tyranny: Divine Judgments Upon Tyrants
Having been initiated, in youth, in the doctrines of civil liberty, taught by Plato, Demosthenes, Cicero and other renowned ancients; and such as Sidney, Milton & Locke, among moderns; I liked them; they seemed rational. Having earlier learnt from holy scripture, that wise, brave and vertuous men were always friends to liberty; that the Son of God came down from heaven, to make us “free indeed”; and “where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty”; this made me conclude freedom was a great blessing. Yet, she seems about to take her final departure from America, leaving that ugly hag slavery, deformed child of Satan, in her room.
Jacob Cushing (Harvard) 1778 Boston
Text: Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people, for he wilt avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries; and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. (Deuteronomy, 32:43)
On Christian Warfare: Cultivate, my friends, a martial spirit, strive to excel in the art of war, to qualify to act the part of soldiers well; and, under providence, be helpful in vanquishing and subduing the enemies of God; and be numbered among those who shall be worthy to wear the laurels of victory and triumph. True Christians, good soldiers of Jesus Christ, fight manfully under his banner, as high priests of your profession, and great captain of your salvation.5. Saluting the Constitution: Sermon on Day of Commencement of the Constitution
Samuel Cooper (Harvard) 1780 Boston
Text: Their Congregation shall be established before me: and their Nobles shall be of themselves, and their Governor shall proceed from the midst of them. (Jeremiah, 30: 20-21)
The form of government originally established in the Hebrew nation by a charter from heaven, was a free republic, with God himself presiding. It consisted of three parts; a chief magistrate who was called judge or leader, such as Joshua, a council of seventy chosen men, and the general assemblies of the people. Of these the two last were the most essential and permanent, and the first more occasional, according to the particular circumstances of the nation. The assemblies of the people were frequently held by divine appointment, considered the fountain of civil power. Even the law of Moses, though framed by God himself, was not imposed upon Hebrews against their will; it was laid open before the whole congregation of Israel; they freely adopted it. It became their law, not only by divine appointment, but by voluntary and express consent. Upon this account it is called in the sacred writings a covenant, compact, or mutual stipulation. A solemn renewal of this covenant was the very last public act of Joshua their renowned leader.
Conclusion
In USA, 75% claim Christianity. About 40% of 300 million Americans attend church weekly. So approximately 120 million are regularly listening to 300,000 pulpits. If even 25% of pastors explained Biblical standards, 30 million Americans would have weekly teaching on making USA more Christlike, including voting for more godly leaders. If half, or 15 million, decided to vote per biblical norms, it could spark a massive return to America’s lost biblical society, as when the Founding Fathers decided to throw a Revolution.Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations | |
|
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
USC › Title 26 › Subtitle A › Chapter 1 › Subchapter F › Part I › § 501(c)(3)
(c) List of exempt organizations
(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501
Louisiana GOP calls for all officials to resign after Ron Paul win yesterday!
The Greater New Orleans Republicans call
for the resignation of the leadership of the Republican Party of
Louisiana in response to the debacle of today’s caucus.
“We
congratulate Ron Paul supporters for apparently capturing their first
state delegation in this Presidential election cycle through an
excellent get out the vote effort today,” stated GNOR Chairman Sarah
Roy. “However, the result of this ill-conceived and confusing caucus
clearly does not represent the will of the vast majority of Louisiana
Republican voters as Ron Paul recently received only six percent of the
vote in the Louisiana Presidential Primary.”
This
odd and undemocratic result unfortunately will embarrass and distract
Governor Jindal, as he labors to pass his Legislative agenda, and
presumed Presidential nominee Mitt Romney, as he clinches the nomination
and turns his attention to defeating President Barack Obama.
Several
members of GNOR ran in the caucus, and GNOR, along with the Romney
Campaign, attempted to motivate Republican voters to turn out. However,
sparse and obscure voting locations, morning voting hours, scheduling
during the Zurich Classic, Jazz Fest and Legislative Session, combined
with setting the caucus so late in the Primary season that all major
challengers to Mitt Romney had dropped out, made it all but impossible
to offer voters a rationale to caucus.
Further,
after Rick Santorum, who garnered the most votes in the Louisiana
Primary, left the race, members of GNOR proposed a unity ticket,
comprised of supporters of Santorum, Gingrich and Romney, allowing those
who would support the eventual nominee to run as one. However, state
party leaders, unwilling to share delegates with the Romney campaign,
vetoed the approach.
Today’s
debacle clearly lies at the feet of State Party leaders, who with
combined arrogance and incompetence, ignored warnings that the Byzantine
system they had conjured could be manipulated, ignored calls for unity
and common sense, and instead caused the State of Louisiana, Governor
Jindal and likely Republican nominee Mitt Romney embarrassment. They
should own up to their misdeeds and resign.
Mitt Romney - Convert or Chameleon
A recently released book on Mitt Romney clearly supports the importance of your National Pro-Life Alliance's Election Year Pro-Life Candidate Survey Program. And how especially important it will be to elect real pro-life heroes in the U.S House and Senate.
Unfortunately, the case of Mitt Romney is typical of too many politicians.
It shows that you and I must never stop putting heat on all the politicians to support sweeping pro-life protections, because all too often their positions seem to change when, either as a candidate, or as an office holder, he or she believes that the prevailing wind has shifted.
Now I believe wholeheartedly in St. Paul's "Road to Damascus" conversion, but I am not so sure we can really put much stock into "Road to the Presidency" conversions.
Just how many times should a candidate be allowed to change his position -- and which conversion is real?
Especially on something so black and white as abortion.
Now, true pro-lifers like you and me can understand the conversion from pro-abortion to pro-life, but how do we explain the reverse? Yet that recent Mitt Romney book claims he decided to do just that during his '94 bid to win the Massachusetts Senate.
After one pollster opined that a pro-life position would be a political liability for a statewide race in Massachusetts, Mitt decided to cast off his Church's "burdensome pro-life position" and embrace wholeheartedly the Roe v. Wade position that legalized abortion-on-demand for the full nine months of pregnancy.
To seal the deal with the abortion lobby of Massachusetts he even sent Planned Parenthood a donation!
Then, during a debate with Ted Kennedy for Senate, Mitt Romney actually looked right into the camera and said, with full conviction, "I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice."
Well . . . apparently Mitt had a pro-life change for the better 10 years later.
He credits a November 2004 meeting with a Harvard stem-cell researcher, while he was still Governor, as the moment that the scales fell from his eyes and he "realized" that the unborn needed his protection.
Yet, just how deep the change he had is still questionable.
Just months after his 2004 change of heart, he appointed a lifetime pro-abortion advocate to the Massachusetts bench.
Then, in 2005, after flopping around for a while on the issue of the so called "abortion pill" he flipped again, and finally came down on the wrong side -- not only legalizing but expanding state subsidies to pay for even more abortions pills.
But I suppose the most worrisome insight into his true pro-life convictions occurred in 2006.
Mitt Romney, following his success in forcing RomneyCare on all Bay Staters, expanded abortion services in his bill, and required that the MassHealth Payment Policy Board always have one member appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.
He shrugs off that part when questioned about the plan he set in motion.
God bless him if he really has converted. Every pro-lifer will have to decide that for themselves.
But it seems that for many politicians the timing always coincides with their run for political office.
That's why it's so vital we keep the pressure on Mr. Romney to support a full pro-life agenda, including the Life at Conception Act, all the way until November 6 and beyond.
Since so many candidates blow back and forth with the wind -- right now -- while the candidates are looking for votes -- is the best time to make sure that the wind is blowing in our direction.
And given Mr. Romney's tendency to sway with the political winds, it’s even more important that you, and other National Pro-Life Alliance members, insist that candidates you support for the U.S. House and Senate pledge to support and cosponsor the Life at Conception Act.
By supporting the Life at Conception Act as a candidate litmus test, we can improve the positions and the pro-life resolve of all the candidates.
Sincerely,
Martin E. Fox, President
National Pro-Life Alliance.
P.S. If you can, please consider chipping in with a donation to help the National Pro-Life Alliance to expand our ongoing programs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)