And the rest of the story… Wiley S. Drake, a Buena Park pastor and a former national leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, called on his followers to pray for the deaths of two leaders of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The request was in response to the liberal group’s urging the IRS on Tuesday to investigate Drake’s church’s nonprofit status because Drake endorsed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for president on church letterhead and during a church-affiliated Internet radio show.
Drake said Wednesday he was “simply doing what God told me to do” by targeting Americans United officials Joe Conn and Jeremy Leaming, whom he calls the “enemies of God.”
“God says to pray imprecatory prayer against people who attack God’s church,” he said. “The Bible says that if anybody attacks God’s people, David said this is what will happen to them. . . . Children will become orphans and wives will become widows.”
Imprecatory prayers are alternately defined as praying for someone’s misfortune, or an appeal to God for justice.
“Let his days be few; and let another take his office,” the prayer reads. “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”
The endorsement is outrageous! That would be like a leader from the TEC… let’s say, a prominent bishop from a northeast state… endorsing Barack Obama! I’m sure that would result in an IRS investigation as well. Drake’s reaction to the AUSCS is troubling, though.
Seriously, despite my attempt at irony, it’s pretty clear to me that both are cases of personal, not institutional, endorsements.
I imagine that, legally speaking, they have a right to complain; the law is pretty clear about what is permitted and what is not, and the pastor in question did not speak as an individual, but used church stationary and his title of office.
On the other hand, it is a tradition for Democratic candidates to speak at historically Black congregations — and Americans United for Separation of Church and State should bring action against such congregations as well. The Law should not be enforced selectively.
[i]The endorsement is outrageous! That would be like a leader from the TEC… let’s say, a prominent bishop from a northeast state… endorsing Barack Obama! I’m sure that would result in an IRS investigation as well. [/i]
I have no problem with any clergy making a personal endorsement. I don’t think it is right to do it in the name of the church, on church letterhead, with threats of excommunication, by handing out voter guides at services. +Robinson can endorse Obama if he wants but don’t send me a letter or email asking me to do the same. Not that he would…just an example.
And maybe its just me, but I’m pretty sure that Jesus doesn’t want people praying to make children orphans and wives widows.
A Church should be able to have a political discussion among its membership ie mailer to its adherents or speaking in the pulpit. This is different from buying air time. Religious entities have moral positions and they should be able to tell their members which candidate violates Church teachings or exemplifies them.
Where were the Americans United when Bishop Gene Robinson recently endorsed Barack Obama? While I am a supporter of Bishop Robinson’s, I think his endorsement of any candidate is ill-advised. Even tho’ the bishop said he was making this endorsement as a private individual, Bishop Robison is naive to think he can do anything without his celebrity being involved. What was he thinking???? He has muddied the waters at a time when the eyes of the IRS are focused on churches, especially same liberal ones. He did no one any good. Not Obama. Not himself. Especially not the church.
The Internal Revenue Service has published a not-so-gentle reminder that non-profits, churches, and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations should avoid political campaign activities during the upcoming election year. According to the IRS, “Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one ‘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.'”
So what can churches and other tax-exempt organizations do, and what can they not do? Basically, tax-exempt organizations can participate in non-partisan activities, such as voter registration drives. Also, they “can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena,” according to the IRS. The IRS has published guidance outlining to what extent tax-exempt organizations can participate in election activities in Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations (FS-2006-17).
[url=http://taxes.about.com/b/a/257340.htm]More info here.[/url]
Since I have been ordained, I have gone so far as to not allow campaing yard signs in my yard and I do not discuss candidates. I will discuss positions, but not candidates with people.
The law should be repealed. An organization’s tax exempt status should not be used to stop what is otherwise protected under the first amandment. This is a bad law, period. It uses the tax code to silence public opinion. Churches should not be tax exempt, but rather tax immune.
It may not be wise for a preacher to use the pulpit to pursue a political agenda, but the tax code should not be the enforcement mechanism.
I agree with you in principle, but how would you keep political groups from posing as religious (or educational) organizations to promote their agendas, hiding from taxes as they do it?
[i]Since I have been ordained, I have gone so far as to not allow campaing yard signs in my yard and I do not discuss candidates.[/i]
Probably the wise, safe and ethical thing to do. Kudos.
I would either not worry about it or impose an alternative consumption tax. The problem is inherent in the income tax concept and the fact that it is not only used to generate revenue, but to change behavior. A tax should only be used to raise revenue, period.
This pastor violated the law, no question. He used church stationery and referenced his title with the SBC.
As to imprecatory prayer, Revamundo, I agree with you. Jesus set new standards, contra the imprecations of the Psalms.
It’s one thing for Bishop Robinson to make a personal campaign contribution to Obama, but another to issue a “personal” endorsement which references his office, even while saying it’s “personal.” He shouldn’t have done it. Whether it’s illegal is unclear.
Regardless of what secular law is, Christian leaders should NOT act like secular politicians. Phil Snyder [#9] has it right: talk about the issues but don’t endorse candidates. VGR should not have endored Obama and Wiley Drake should not have endorsed Huckabee.
Even as a lay person, I would not want my secular political views to crowd out or otherwise take precedence over my loyalty to Jesus. That is one of several reasons why I personally (as someone more easily tempted by power than by money) have not sought election to high political office. Other people can legitimately make a different decision, become political candidates, and hold elective office. But they should still remember that they must answer to Jesus for everything they do and say.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Br. Michael: You assert that churches should be “tax immune” [#11] and that taxes should be used only to generate revenue, not to change behavior [#14].
These two assertions, although consistent in principle, become inconsistent in practice once people disagree about what constitutes a “church.” Someone—initially the IRS, ultimately a court—must decide whether the self-proclaimed church is actually a church.
What if a religious movement acquired a profitable corporation (e.g., an electric utility, pharmaceutical manufacturer, or chain of for-profit hospitals), declared the corporation part of the church, and asserted immunity from income, property, and other taxation? In some cases this would be a clear sham. Other cases would require line-drawing, which brings us back to enforcing policies that go beyond mere revenue-raising.
Unless churches and other nonprofit corporations are taxed the same as other corporations, you have to draw a line between “church” and business corporation. And you don’t get rid of the problem by abolishing corporate income taxation and attributing corporate income to corporate shareholders as individuals. Unless you mean to make every self-proclaimed “church” tax exempt, you have to distinguish qualifying churches from sham wannabes—and then somehow attribute the wannabes income to their members.
I agree with Irenaeus, #16. In addition, Words Matter #12 asks a good question: “how would you keep political groups from posing as religious (or educational) organizations to promote their agendas, hiding from taxes as they do it?” The Democratic party has been using black churches as extensions of their campaign machine for decades. It’s objectionable and, I believe, disrespectful to those institutions to use them as political tools. Efforts of conservative/Republican leaders to do the same with evangelicals are equally objectionable (the Christian Coalition, and this Baptist pastor). And the conversion of TEC’s national office into a political lobbying organization is highly objectionable, something I hope the new Anglican body will not replicate. Preaching about political issues is in principle all right but in practice way over-used on all sides.
While I would respect people’s personal preferences on whether clergy members should refrain from expressing [i] personal [/i] political views publicly, nevertheless, it is not unlawful to do so (nor will it violate Internal Revenue Codes) if certain requirements are met.
While the public can debate the appropriateness of the alleged actions by Pastor Wiley Drake, ultimately, the only thing that will matter is compliance with the laws (at least until they are changed). As a ministerial service in my role as a practicing tax attorney and allied attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (www.alliancedefensefund.org), I would be happy to offer free legal/tax advice to interested clergy on how to be involved in the political process without violating their church’s tax exempt status. Please feel free to call or e-mail me if I can be of help to members of the clergy in this matter. Please visit my blogspot for the contact information: http://2gen.blogspot.com/
16 and 17, what you say is true if you are wedded to the concept of an income tax or any tax system, for that matter, that makes such distinctions critical for determining the amount of tax someone pays. More likely all the difficulties you mention would be eliminated with a different tax structure. Thats why I think the income tax concept is fundamentally flawed because it creates the very problems you mention. An income tax, with its exemptions and built in pressure to lower or avoid one’s taxes, leads to the difficulties in line drawing that you are describing. If you tax consumption, for example, with no exemptions then all non-natural persons (corporations) could be treated equally for tax purposes. Then there is no need to distinguish between profit and non profit corporations.
I agree that churches run a risk if they become political, but that is none of the government’s business and I think it is an improper use of a governments taxing powers to use taxes to regulate what a Church can or can’t do. If your paster or priest endorses Bill Clinton, or whomever, you can take you tilth and go elsewhere. It may be a really dumb thing for the paster to do and may cause the church to fail, but that is not a proper matter of government concern
Irenaeus,
Churches are taxed when they run for profit businesses like a bookstore. A question for LTN – can a church set up a political pac for political advocacy under which parishoners dedicated donations would not be deductible without the IRS taking away its larger tax exempt status – if so that would be the way for a religious body to proceed if it decided to get involved in political discourse.
Chip…A political action committee is any organization of two or more people whose major purpose is to engage in active electioneering by contributing to candidates or by expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates for political office. Churches may not organize PACs and contributions to PACs from church funds is forbidden.
Individuals, including pastors/priests may set up PACs and personally contribute into them so long as it does not represent or done through or in the name of the church.
[i]The Democratic party has been using black churches as extensions of their campaign machine for decades. [/i] To be fair, you have to admit the Repubs have used the Robertson, Falwell, Moral Majority, Southern Baptist, Non-denominational, Fundamentalists as well.
I don’t recall a politician ever speaking from the pulpit of a Southern Baptist Church, unless Jimmy Carter did so when he visited First Baptist,Dallas in 1976. Every election cycle, you see news footage of politicians in the pulpits of black churches.
In the case of Republicans, the connections are much more subtle, as a rule, which is why this particular case is vexing. The fellow just went over the line, just as that preacher at All Saints, Pasedena, probably did awhile back.
On March 29 Sen. Sam Brownback, Republican presidential candidate spoke at Victory Baptist Church of James Island. Just a little Googling will find more examples for you. Mike Huckabee is an ordained SBC pastor. John McCain spoke at the Liberty Univ. graduation. And on, and on. Subtle? I don’t think so.
What you haven’t seen is a Dem religious/clerical supporter ask people to pray for the death of the opposition.
Well, Brownback was at Victory Baptist Church, though not at a Sunday worship service. It was a Thursday night. And the last I heard, Liberty University is not a church. I googled “Republicans speaking at churches” and didn’t really get a lot, except a complaint by the Alabama Constitution Party that Bill Frist was speaking “to church groups” and promoting judicial tyranny. Perhaps, revamundo, your googling skills far surpass mine, but that’s what I got.
And while we are checking facts, what’s the source for the claim that Drake was urging people to pray for specific people to die. He does invoke imprecatory prayers, but it seems more for their conversion. [url=http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/44143894.html]Here’s the Link.[/url]
I do believe I remember liberals say they pray an early death for Pope Benedict, and JPII before him. However, they weren’t politicians.
[b]Pastor asks followers to pray for his critics to die
His response comes after a call to the IRS about a political endorsement he issued on church letterhead.[/b]
[url=http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-drake16aug16,1,787901.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california]Here’s a link.[/url] [url=http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=42247]And here it is again on the Baptist Board.[/url]
[i]I do believe I remember liberals say they pray an early death for Pope Benedict, and JPII before him. However, they weren’t politicians. [/i] I do believe I remember conservatives riding on the backs of flying monkies. However, they weren’t Libertarians.
Just because Brownback spoke on a Thursday doesn’t mean he didn’t speak from the pulpit. Founded in 1971, LU is an independent, [b]fundamentalist Baptist[/b] university located in Lynchburg, Virginia. And Mike Huckabee is still an ordained SBC minister.
I do believe I remember conservatives riding on the backs of flying monkies. However, they weren’t Libertarians.
The express wish for Benedict to die soon was made by a reappraiser on this site. I’ll take your sarcasm as a sign that you have no rational response (or perhaps it’s just gas).
[i]The express wish for Benedict to die soon was made by a reappraiser on this site. I’ll take your sarcasm as a sign that you have no rational response [/i]
You can say anything you want without proof. Even if you could find the specific post and link right to it there is no comparing that with Wiley Drake’s behavior. You asked for a source and I gave it to you.
You said, [i]He does invoke imprecatory prayers, but it seems more for their conversion.[/i] Conversion is not the intent of imprecatory prayer. [i]Imprecation:[/i] A curse, denunciation that conveys a wish or threat of evil). [i]Imprecatory prayer:[/i] To pray for evil or misfortune (malediction, anathema, execration) Katherine wrote in #15 “Jesus set new standards, contra the imprecations of the Psalms.”
My personal favorite imprecatory prayer was when the Psalmist cried out, [b]Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth:[/b] (58:6a) Ouch!
Ok, conservative wishing death on others is bad; liberal wishing death on others is not-so-bad (but it probably didn’t happen anyway). And college graduations are the same as church services… hmmm… I’ll spot you the Thursday night at the Baptist Church (that’s one instance) and even tell you what appalled me: in 2004, the Bush campaign tried to get Catholic parish rosters for their mailing lists. That’s pretty reprehensible, in my book. And Wiley Drake’s actions have been reprehensible, as well. But his press release, as opposed to reporting about it, references conversion, as noted in the link I provided.
Liberty University is ministry of the Thomas Road Baptist Church. Wishing death on others is bad, no exceptions. Making outrageous statements and not being able to back them up is also bad. ummmmk?
Revamundo, false winess is also a bad thing, and you have repeatedly given such false witness after being corrected. There is no evidence for the specific accusation you level againts Drake. Your interpretation of the meaning of imprecatory prayer is irrelevant, as Drake’s specific interpretation in his own statement is what counts. He may be misunderstanding the meaning of imprecatory, but you are certainly willfully misrepresenting what he means by it when he is using the term.
False witness? You’ve got to be kidding me. Drake’s words are what they are. [i]“Let his days be few; and let another take his office,†the prayer reads. “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.†[/i] Pretty harsh wouldn’t you say? [url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-drake16.1aug16,1,914198.story?coll=la-news-politics-california]Check the link again[/url] I’m not making this tiff up.
[i]Your interpretation of the meaning of imprecatory prayer is irrelevant, as Drake’s specific interpretation in his own statement is what counts. He may be misunderstanding the meaning of imprecatory, but you are certainly willfully misrepresenting what he means by it when he is using the term.[/] The words are clearly defined in the dictionary. Are you saying Drake is too stupid to know what imprecatory means.
Seriously…show one place where I’ve given falkse witness (except the flying minkies part…I’ll giv you that one)
“Let his days be few; and let another take his office,” the prayer reads. “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”
It seems to me vague as to whether “the prayer” cited is the actual one Drake is calling for or an example of an imprecatory prayer the reporter thought relevant. It might be relevant that he is never quoted as saying these words.
As for the dictionary definition, there are variant meanings. One is simply a call for justice against the oppressors. “Avenge me, O Lord” would be an imprecatory prayer.
Drake said Wednesday he was “simply doing what God told me to do†by targeting Americans United officials Joe Conn and Jeremy Leaming, whom he calls the “enemies of God.â€
“God says to pray imprecatory prayer against people who attack God’s church,†he said. “The Bible says that if anybody attacks God’s people, David said this is what will happen to them. . . . Children will become orphans and wives will become widows.â€
The scripture cited is from Psalm 109, the parts of the article enclsed in quotes are direct quptes from Mr. Drake
Fred in #6 said [i]Where were the Americans United when Bishop Gene Robinson recently endorsed Barack Obama? While I am a supporter of Bishop Robinson’s, I think his endorsement of any candidate is ill-advised.[/i]
[url=http://blog.au.org/2007/08/03/the-bishop-and-obama-robinsons-personal-endorsement-doesnt-violate-irs-rules/]More on the story[/url]
Revamundo, I am skeptical of news reports that appear to clip together quotes. The “….” in the quote from Drake indicates a missing piece. Might that missing piece put a different contextual spin on what follows the dots and how it connects to what precedes them?
The Psalm is then quoted without indicating that Drake quoted it himself.
I have seen to many ways in which skillful editing has spiced up a story for me to make judgments until I see the actual words in full and in context. Prudence and Justice demand both from us.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, here’s primary text. It’s what he wrote, not what people said he wrote:
[i]
Contact: Wiley Drake, 714-865-8132
MEDIA ADVISORY, Aug. 14 /Christian Newswire/ — In light of the recent attack from the enemies of God I ask the children of God to go into action with Imprecatory Prayer. Especially against Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I made an attempt to go to them via Matt 18:15 but they refused to talk to me. Specifically target Joe Conn or Jeremy Learing. They are those who lead the attack. (You can see their press release attack at http://www.au.org )
Imprecatory prayer, is now our duty
Now that all efforts have been exhausted, we must begin our Imprecatory Prayer, at the key points of the parliamentary role in the earth where we live.
John Calvin gave the church its marching orders from Scripture. The righteous have dominion, but only through imprecatory prayer against the ungodly.
David as our Old Testament shepherd gives us many Imprecatory prayers, and can be found to be in best focus in Psalm 109. Also chapters 55, 58, 68, 69, and 83
Pray these back to God and He will answer.
Jesus in Matthew 23: 13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 27, and 29 gave us our New Testament marching orders as well.
Let us join Paul and declare anathema upon anyone” who loves not the Lord Jesus.” I Cor 16:22
Church father Martin Luther, led us by saying…”If any of the enemies of God’s people belong to God’s election, the church’s prayer against them giveth way to their conversion, and seeketh no more than that the judgment should follow them, only until they acknowledge their sin, turn, and seek God.”
How to pray
Please join us, with Bible in hand, and let us do battle against the enemies of God.
Everyday telephonic prayer meeting (for those who want to pray)
Every Day 5:00 to 6:00 a.m. Pacific time zone
Call- 1-605-772-3900
Put in access code # 399430
(Come on the telephone line for a few minutes or all of the time, but let us all pray.
Discussion on this event can be heard daily Monday through Thursday at 9:00 am PST “The Wiley Drake Show” on http://www.crusaderadio.com Let us pray and see what our God will do.[/i]
Thanks for posting Drake’s exact words. It appears all he is doing is asking people to pray that God will make his enemies stop their attacks. And he concludes with Luther’s caution: such prayer should end if and when they convert (change course) and stop the oppression.
Wiley Drake has been a gadfly and tree shaker for decades at a smallish Baptist church near the edge of Disneyland, is not taken seriously much of the time by most Southern Baptists (his one-year term at the SBC was a fluke), and he’s getting along in years. So, you exercised revisionists: why not cut him as much slack as you did for, say, John Spong and HIS abnormal utterances?
Christopher Hathaway “….” is an ellipsis and it is “…”
Huckabee said, “He also addressed a subject that has been rebounding around the blogosphere in recent days: The Rev. Wiley S. Drake of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, Calif., who used his church stationery and an Internet radio program to endorse Huckabee, asked his followers to pray for the “serious punishment” of leaders of Americans United for Separation of Church and State who filed a complaint against him with the IRS.
Huckabee said while he’s “not in a position to disavow anyone’s support,” he does disavow Drake’s approach. Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister, said he’s far more interested in “the saving of souls, rather than the damning of souls.”
Quote: “Imprecatory prayer is not a call for conversion.”
Nobody said it was. Drake cited Luther’s position: Stop the imprecatory prayers if the bad guys see the light, get converted, and stop their attacks. A generous gesture, right? 😀
And the rest of the story… Wiley S. Drake, a Buena Park pastor and a former national leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, called on his followers to pray for the deaths of two leaders of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The request was in response to the liberal group’s urging the IRS on Tuesday to investigate Drake’s church’s nonprofit status because Drake endorsed former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee for president on church letterhead and during a church-affiliated Internet radio show.
Drake said Wednesday he was “simply doing what God told me to do” by targeting Americans United officials Joe Conn and Jeremy Leaming, whom he calls the “enemies of God.”
“God says to pray imprecatory prayer against people who attack God’s church,” he said. “The Bible says that if anybody attacks God’s people, David said this is what will happen to them. . . . Children will become orphans and wives will become widows.”
Imprecatory prayers are alternately defined as praying for someone’s misfortune, or an appeal to God for justice.
“Let his days be few; and let another take his office,” the prayer reads. “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”
The endorsement is outrageous! That would be like a leader from the TEC… let’s say, a prominent bishop from a northeast state… endorsing Barack Obama! I’m sure that would result in an IRS investigation as well. Drake’s reaction to the AUSCS is troubling, though.
Seriously, despite my attempt at irony, it’s pretty clear to me that both are cases of personal, not institutional, endorsements.
I imagine that, legally speaking, they have a right to complain; the law is pretty clear about what is permitted and what is not, and the pastor in question did not speak as an individual, but used church stationary and his title of office.
On the other hand, it is a tradition for Democratic candidates to speak at historically Black congregations — and Americans United for Separation of Church and State should bring action against such congregations as well. The Law should not be enforced selectively.
[i]The endorsement is outrageous! That would be like a leader from the TEC… let’s say, a prominent bishop from a northeast state… endorsing Barack Obama! I’m sure that would result in an IRS investigation as well. [/i]
I have no problem with any clergy making a personal endorsement. I don’t think it is right to do it in the name of the church, on church letterhead, with threats of excommunication, by handing out voter guides at services. +Robinson can endorse Obama if he wants but don’t send me a letter or email asking me to do the same. Not that he would…just an example.
And maybe its just me, but I’m pretty sure that Jesus doesn’t want people praying to make children orphans and wives widows.
A Church should be able to have a political discussion among its membership ie mailer to its adherents or speaking in the pulpit. This is different from buying air time. Religious entities have moral positions and they should be able to tell their members which candidate violates Church teachings or exemplifies them.
Where were the Americans United when Bishop Gene Robinson recently endorsed Barack Obama? While I am a supporter of Bishop Robinson’s, I think his endorsement of any candidate is ill-advised. Even tho’ the bishop said he was making this endorsement as a private individual, Bishop Robison is naive to think he can do anything without his celebrity being involved. What was he thinking???? He has muddied the waters at a time when the eyes of the IRS are focused on churches, especially same liberal ones. He did no one any good. Not Obama. Not himself. Especially not the church.
The Internal Revenue Service has published a not-so-gentle reminder that non-profits, churches, and other 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations should avoid political campaign activities during the upcoming election year. According to the IRS, “Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one ‘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.'”
So what can churches and other tax-exempt organizations do, and what can they not do? Basically, tax-exempt organizations can participate in non-partisan activities, such as voter registration drives. Also, they “can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena,” according to the IRS. The IRS has published guidance outlining to what extent tax-exempt organizations can participate in election activities in Election Year Activities and the Prohibition on Political Campaign Intervention for Section 501(c)(3) Organizations (FS-2006-17).
[url=http://taxes.about.com/b/a/257340.htm]More info here.[/url]
I am pleased to be able to state categorically, that I agree with Fred, fully, with no hesitation.
It is impossible to separate a public figure’s personal comments, from their official position in the public eye.
Since I have been ordained, I have gone so far as to not allow campaing yard signs in my yard and I do not discuss candidates. I will discuss positions, but not candidates with people.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Wow. He has an internet radio show.
The law should be repealed. An organization’s tax exempt status should not be used to stop what is otherwise protected under the first amandment. This is a bad law, period. It uses the tax code to silence public opinion. Churches should not be tax exempt, but rather tax immune.
It may not be wise for a preacher to use the pulpit to pursue a political agenda, but the tax code should not be the enforcement mechanism.
Br. Michael –
I agree with you in principle, but how would you keep political groups from posing as religious (or educational) organizations to promote their agendas, hiding from taxes as they do it?
[i]Since I have been ordained, I have gone so far as to not allow campaing yard signs in my yard and I do not discuss candidates.[/i]
Probably the wise, safe and ethical thing to do. Kudos.
I would either not worry about it or impose an alternative consumption tax. The problem is inherent in the income tax concept and the fact that it is not only used to generate revenue, but to change behavior. A tax should only be used to raise revenue, period.
This pastor violated the law, no question. He used church stationery and referenced his title with the SBC.
As to imprecatory prayer, Revamundo, I agree with you. Jesus set new standards, contra the imprecations of the Psalms.
It’s one thing for Bishop Robinson to make a personal campaign contribution to Obama, but another to issue a “personal” endorsement which references his office, even while saying it’s “personal.” He shouldn’t have done it. Whether it’s illegal is unclear.
Regardless of what secular law is, Christian leaders should NOT act like secular politicians. Phil Snyder [#9] has it right: talk about the issues but don’t endorse candidates. VGR should not have endored Obama and Wiley Drake should not have endorsed Huckabee.
Even as a lay person, I would not want my secular political views to crowd out or otherwise take precedence over my loyalty to Jesus. That is one of several reasons why I personally (as someone more easily tempted by power than by money) have not sought election to high political office. Other people can legitimately make a different decision, become political candidates, and hold elective office. But they should still remember that they must answer to Jesus for everything they do and say.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Br. Michael: You assert that churches should be “tax immune” [#11] and that taxes should be used only to generate revenue, not to change behavior [#14].
These two assertions, although consistent in principle, become inconsistent in practice once people disagree about what constitutes a “church.” Someone—initially the IRS, ultimately a court—must decide whether the self-proclaimed church is actually a church.
What if a religious movement acquired a profitable corporation (e.g., an electric utility, pharmaceutical manufacturer, or chain of for-profit hospitals), declared the corporation part of the church, and asserted immunity from income, property, and other taxation? In some cases this would be a clear sham. Other cases would require line-drawing, which brings us back to enforcing policies that go beyond mere revenue-raising.
Unless churches and other nonprofit corporations are taxed the same as other corporations, you have to draw a line between “church” and business corporation. And you don’t get rid of the problem by abolishing corporate income taxation and attributing corporate income to corporate shareholders as individuals. Unless you mean to make every self-proclaimed “church” tax exempt, you have to distinguish qualifying churches from sham wannabes—and then somehow attribute the wannabes income to their members.
I agree with Irenaeus, #16. In addition, Words Matter #12 asks a good question: “how would you keep political groups from posing as religious (or educational) organizations to promote their agendas, hiding from taxes as they do it?” The Democratic party has been using black churches as extensions of their campaign machine for decades. It’s objectionable and, I believe, disrespectful to those institutions to use them as political tools. Efforts of conservative/Republican leaders to do the same with evangelicals are equally objectionable (the Christian Coalition, and this Baptist pastor). And the conversion of TEC’s national office into a political lobbying organization is highly objectionable, something I hope the new Anglican body will not replicate. Preaching about political issues is in principle all right but in practice way over-used on all sides.
While I would respect people’s personal preferences on whether clergy members should refrain from expressing [i] personal [/i] political views publicly, nevertheless, it is not unlawful to do so (nor will it violate Internal Revenue Codes) if certain requirements are met.
While the public can debate the appropriateness of the alleged actions by Pastor Wiley Drake, ultimately, the only thing that will matter is compliance with the laws (at least until they are changed). As a ministerial service in my role as a practicing tax attorney and allied attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (www.alliancedefensefund.org), I would be happy to offer free legal/tax advice to interested clergy on how to be involved in the political process without violating their church’s tax exempt status. Please feel free to call or e-mail me if I can be of help to members of the clergy in this matter. Please visit my blogspot for the contact information: http://2gen.blogspot.com/
16 and 17, what you say is true if you are wedded to the concept of an income tax or any tax system, for that matter, that makes such distinctions critical for determining the amount of tax someone pays. More likely all the difficulties you mention would be eliminated with a different tax structure. Thats why I think the income tax concept is fundamentally flawed because it creates the very problems you mention. An income tax, with its exemptions and built in pressure to lower or avoid one’s taxes, leads to the difficulties in line drawing that you are describing. If you tax consumption, for example, with no exemptions then all non-natural persons (corporations) could be treated equally for tax purposes. Then there is no need to distinguish between profit and non profit corporations.
I agree that churches run a risk if they become political, but that is none of the government’s business and I think it is an improper use of a governments taxing powers to use taxes to regulate what a Church can or can’t do. If your paster or priest endorses Bill Clinton, or whomever, you can take you tilth and go elsewhere. It may be a really dumb thing for the paster to do and may cause the church to fail, but that is not a proper matter of government concern
Yes, I am arguing that the income tax should be abolished and the 16 amendment to the US Constitution be repealed.
Irenaeus,
Churches are taxed when they run for profit businesses like a bookstore. A question for LTN – can a church set up a political pac for political advocacy under which parishoners dedicated donations would not be deductible without the IRS taking away its larger tax exempt status – if so that would be the way for a religious body to proceed if it decided to get involved in political discourse.
Chip…A political action committee is any organization of two or more people whose major purpose is to engage in active electioneering by contributing to candidates or by expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates for political office. Churches may not organize PACs and contributions to PACs from church funds is forbidden.
Individuals, including pastors/priests may set up PACs and personally contribute into them so long as it does not represent or done through or in the name of the church.
[i]The Democratic party has been using black churches as extensions of their campaign machine for decades. [/i] To be fair, you have to admit the Repubs have used the Robertson, Falwell, Moral Majority, Southern Baptist, Non-denominational, Fundamentalists as well.
I don’t recall a politician ever speaking from the pulpit of a Southern Baptist Church, unless Jimmy Carter did so when he visited First Baptist,Dallas in 1976. Every election cycle, you see news footage of politicians in the pulpits of black churches.
In the case of Republicans, the connections are much more subtle, as a rule, which is why this particular case is vexing. The fellow just went over the line, just as that preacher at All Saints, Pasedena, probably did awhile back.
On March 29 Sen. Sam Brownback, Republican presidential candidate spoke at Victory Baptist Church of James Island. Just a little Googling will find more examples for you. Mike Huckabee is an ordained SBC pastor. John McCain spoke at the Liberty Univ. graduation. And on, and on. Subtle? I don’t think so.
What you haven’t seen is a Dem religious/clerical supporter ask people to pray for the death of the opposition.
Well, Brownback was at Victory Baptist Church, though not at a Sunday worship service. It was a Thursday night. And the last I heard, Liberty University is not a church. I googled “Republicans speaking at churches” and didn’t really get a lot, except a complaint by the Alabama Constitution Party that Bill Frist was speaking “to church groups” and promoting judicial tyranny. Perhaps, revamundo, your googling skills far surpass mine, but that’s what I got.
And while we are checking facts, what’s the source for the claim that Drake was urging people to pray for specific people to die. He does invoke imprecatory prayers, but it seems more for their conversion. [url=http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/44143894.html]Here’s the Link.[/url]
I do believe I remember liberals say they pray an early death for Pope Benedict, and JPII before him. However, they weren’t politicians.
[b]Pastor asks followers to pray for his critics to die
His response comes after a call to the IRS about a political endorsement he issued on church letterhead.[/b]
[url=http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-drake16aug16,1,787901.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california]Here’s a link.[/url] [url=http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=42247]And here it is again on the Baptist Board.[/url]
[i]I do believe I remember liberals say they pray an early death for Pope Benedict, and JPII before him. However, they weren’t politicians. [/i] I do believe I remember conservatives riding on the backs of flying monkies. However, they weren’t Libertarians.
Just because Brownback spoke on a Thursday doesn’t mean he didn’t speak from the pulpit. Founded in 1971, LU is an independent, [b]fundamentalist Baptist[/b] university located in Lynchburg, Virginia. And Mike Huckabee is still an ordained SBC minister.
I do believe I remember conservatives riding on the backs of flying monkies. However, they weren’t Libertarians.
The express wish for Benedict to die soon was made by a reappraiser on this site. I’ll take your sarcasm as a sign that you have no rational response (or perhaps it’s just gas).
[i]The express wish for Benedict to die soon was made by a reappraiser on this site. I’ll take your sarcasm as a sign that you have no rational response [/i]
You can say anything you want without proof. Even if you could find the specific post and link right to it there is no comparing that with Wiley Drake’s behavior. You asked for a source and I gave it to you.
You said, [i]He does invoke imprecatory prayers, but it seems more for their conversion.[/i] Conversion is not the intent of imprecatory prayer. [i]Imprecation:[/i] A curse, denunciation that conveys a wish or threat of evil). [i]Imprecatory prayer:[/i] To pray for evil or misfortune (malediction, anathema, execration) Katherine wrote in #15 “Jesus set new standards, contra the imprecations of the Psalms.”
My personal favorite imprecatory prayer was when the Psalmist cried out, [b]Break their teeth, O God, in their mouth:[/b] (58:6a) Ouch!
29, Is that why Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple? Really it’s the same God. Nowhere does Jesus condone rebellion against God.
Ok, conservative wishing death on others is bad; liberal wishing death on others is not-so-bad (but it probably didn’t happen anyway). And college graduations are the same as church services… hmmm… I’ll spot you the Thursday night at the Baptist Church (that’s one instance) and even tell you what appalled me: in 2004, the Bush campaign tried to get Catholic parish rosters for their mailing lists. That’s pretty reprehensible, in my book. And Wiley Drake’s actions have been reprehensible, as well. But his press release, as opposed to reporting about it, references conversion, as noted in the link I provided.
Liberty University is ministry of the Thomas Road Baptist Church. Wishing death on others is bad, no exceptions. Making outrageous statements and not being able to back them up is also bad. ummmmk?
Revamundo, false winess is also a bad thing, and you have repeatedly given such false witness after being corrected. There is no evidence for the specific accusation you level againts Drake. Your interpretation of the meaning of imprecatory prayer is irrelevant, as Drake’s specific interpretation in his own statement is what counts. He may be misunderstanding the meaning of imprecatory, but you are certainly willfully misrepresenting what he means by it when he is using the term.
False witness? You’ve got to be kidding me. Drake’s words are what they are. [i]“Let his days be few; and let another take his office,†the prayer reads. “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.†[/i] Pretty harsh wouldn’t you say? [url=http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-me-drake16.1aug16,1,914198.story?coll=la-news-politics-california]Check the link again[/url] I’m not making this tiff up.
[i]Your interpretation of the meaning of imprecatory prayer is irrelevant, as Drake’s specific interpretation in his own statement is what counts. He may be misunderstanding the meaning of imprecatory, but you are certainly willfully misrepresenting what he means by it when he is using the term.[/] The words are clearly defined in the dictionary. Are you saying Drake is too stupid to know what imprecatory means.
Seriously…show one place where I’ve given falkse witness (except the flying minkies part…I’ll giv you that one)
Katherine,
At last, someone who knows how to spell stationery! 🙂
w.w.
This is the money quote in the story:
It seems to me vague as to whether “the prayer” cited is the actual one Drake is calling for or an example of an imprecatory prayer the reporter thought relevant. It might be relevant that he is never quoted as saying these words.
As for the dictionary definition, there are variant meanings. One is simply a call for justice against the oppressors. “Avenge me, O Lord” would be an imprecatory prayer.
I’ll try to make this simple.
Drake said Wednesday he was “simply doing what God told me to do†by targeting Americans United officials Joe Conn and Jeremy Leaming, whom he calls the “enemies of God.â€
“God says to pray imprecatory prayer against people who attack God’s church,†he said. “The Bible says that if anybody attacks God’s people, David said this is what will happen to them. . . . Children will become orphans and wives will become widows.â€
The scripture cited is from Psalm 109, the parts of the article enclsed in quotes are direct quptes from Mr. Drake
Fred in #6 said [i]Where were the Americans United when Bishop Gene Robinson recently endorsed Barack Obama? While I am a supporter of Bishop Robinson’s, I think his endorsement of any candidate is ill-advised.[/i]
[url=http://blog.au.org/2007/08/03/the-bishop-and-obama-robinsons-personal-endorsement-doesnt-violate-irs-rules/]More on the story[/url]
Revamundo, I am skeptical of news reports that appear to clip together quotes. The “….” in the quote from Drake indicates a missing piece. Might that missing piece put a different contextual spin on what follows the dots and how it connects to what precedes them?
The Psalm is then quoted without indicating that Drake quoted it himself.
I have seen to many ways in which skillful editing has spiced up a story for me to make judgments until I see the actual words in full and in context. Prudence and Justice demand both from us.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, here’s primary text. It’s what he wrote, not what people said he wrote:
[i]
Contact: Wiley Drake, 714-865-8132
MEDIA ADVISORY, Aug. 14 /Christian Newswire/ — In light of the recent attack from the enemies of God I ask the children of God to go into action with Imprecatory Prayer. Especially against Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I made an attempt to go to them via Matt 18:15 but they refused to talk to me. Specifically target Joe Conn or Jeremy Learing. They are those who lead the attack. (You can see their press release attack at http://www.au.org )
Imprecatory prayer, is now our duty
Now that all efforts have been exhausted, we must begin our Imprecatory Prayer, at the key points of the parliamentary role in the earth where we live.
John Calvin gave the church its marching orders from Scripture. The righteous have dominion, but only through imprecatory prayer against the ungodly.
David as our Old Testament shepherd gives us many Imprecatory prayers, and can be found to be in best focus in Psalm 109. Also chapters 55, 58, 68, 69, and 83
Pray these back to God and He will answer.
Jesus in Matthew 23: 13, 15, 16, 23, 24, 27, and 29 gave us our New Testament marching orders as well.
Let us join Paul and declare anathema upon anyone” who loves not the Lord Jesus.” I Cor 16:22
Church father Martin Luther, led us by saying…”If any of the enemies of God’s people belong to God’s election, the church’s prayer against them giveth way to their conversion, and seeketh no more than that the judgment should follow them, only until they acknowledge their sin, turn, and seek God.”
How to pray
Please join us, with Bible in hand, and let us do battle against the enemies of God.
Everyday telephonic prayer meeting (for those who want to pray)
Every Day 5:00 to 6:00 a.m. Pacific time zone
Call- 1-605-772-3900
Put in access code # 399430
(Come on the telephone line for a few minutes or all of the time, but let us all pray.
Discussion on this event can be heard daily Monday through Thursday at 9:00 am PST “The Wiley Drake Show” on http://www.crusaderadio.com Let us pray and see what our God will do.[/i]
Good grief, all of this for THAT???
#40 Words etc.
Thanks for posting Drake’s exact words. It appears all he is doing is asking people to pray that God will make his enemies stop their attacks. And he concludes with Luther’s caution: such prayer should end if and when they convert (change course) and stop the oppression.
Wiley Drake has been a gadfly and tree shaker for decades at a smallish Baptist church near the edge of Disneyland, is not taken seriously much of the time by most Southern Baptists (his one-year term at the SBC was a fluke), and he’s getting along in years. So, you exercised revisionists: why not cut him as much slack as you did for, say, John Spong and HIS abnormal utterances?
w.w.
Christopher Hathaway “….” is an ellipsis and it is “…”
Huckabee said, “He also addressed a subject that has been rebounding around the blogosphere in recent days: The Rev. Wiley S. Drake of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, Calif., who used his church stationery and an Internet radio program to endorse Huckabee, asked his followers to pray for the “serious punishment” of leaders of Americans United for Separation of Church and State who filed a complaint against him with the IRS.
Huckabee said while he’s “not in a position to disavow anyone’s support,” he does disavow Drake’s approach. Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister, said he’s far more interested in “the saving of souls, rather than the damning of souls.”
Words, did you read the scripture Drake invokes?
Imprecatory prayer is not a call for conversion.
#42
Quote: “Imprecatory prayer is not a call for conversion.”
Nobody said it was. Drake cited Luther’s position: Stop the imprecatory prayers if the bad guys see the light, get converted, and stop their attacks. A generous gesture, right? 😀
w.w.