Details of the North American Union & Southern Baptist Traitors
I dismissed this as possibly an overreaching conspiracy theory when I first heard it, but Daniel Sheehy has put together a good piece at VDARE discussing the facts behind a possible North American Union supported by Bush, Rice, Guitterez and other globalist members of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Interestingly, both Rick Warren and Richard Land are members of the CFR, which explicitly supports the political extinction of the United States. We know about Warren, but Land is lesser known, and works for some sort of lobbying bureaucracy funded with Southern Baptist tithe money called the Ethics and Religous Liberties Commission. Land has explicitly endorsed a guest worker program as an imperative for Christians, playing religion for politics.
So if you’re a Southern Baptist, how do you feel about your tithe money and offerings being used to lobby in support of Ted Kennedy’s immigration bill? From now on, I’ll be earmarking all of my offerings for specific purposes, not simply into the general pot for abuse by these liberal bureaucrats.
The Left, of course, is ecstatic over his betrayal:
Kudos to Dick Land. First he teams up with Kennedy, the “liberal” National Council of Churches, and the same-sex endorsing Religious Action Center for Reform Judaism. Now, just a few weeks later Land is getting his picture taken with Ted Kennedy AGAIN!
Merely a decade or two ago, Roger Moran and other Southern Baptist fundamentalists were giving moderate ethics and religious liberty leaders hell for participating in coalitions with groups such as Americans United and People for the American Way. Let’s not forget that these same leaders regularly were involved in coalitions with VERY conservative organizations as well.
Heck, just a few months ago 2nd Vice President of the Southern Baptist Convention, Wiley Drake, was moaning and groaning because Rick Warren invited Barack Obama to speak at his AIDS Conference. I believe good ole Wiley dubbed Obama, “THE ENEMY.”
I’m curious - are the Roger Morans of the Southern Baptist Convention slightly bothered that Richard Land is regularly partnering with that Massachusetts liberal Ted Kennedy?
This Southern Baptist is very bothered by it.
April 17th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
This is the problem I have with ANY of our church’s money going to an outside organization. It’s one thing for our church to specifically decide to send special offerings to specific organizations for specific needs, but to send a set amount of our money to an organization that has no accountability to its ‘members’ doesn’t sit well with me. I think it messes with the authority of the church.
To me, each church is and should be a local, corporate body, accountable only to itself. This was the main problem my husband had when we joined the church we are at now. We had never before belonged to a Southern Baptist church. In practice and only a day-to-day operation, however, out church functions independently, so we felt that we could in good conscience support this church body. This is a part that still disturbs me, however. How do I know where my $$ is going? I guess, I don’t, unless I earmark it specifically as you have suggested.
April 17th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Personally I think that tithing itself is a recently evolved scam and scandal. It took over 300 years from 1649 until 1963 for merely the texts to show up in the SBC Faith and Message. The word still does not appear. However the Position Paper requires all SBC employees to teach and endorse tithing in their literature and evangelism. My web site opposes this scandal: http://www.home.earthlink.net/~russkellysbc
April 17th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
I’d be careful about calling it a scam (I think those who teach it genuinely believe it to be a command), but I’m sure there’s room for dissent on the issue.
Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, very few are going to give more than 10% to make up for those who give less. So if you deconstruct the tithe, even if you’re right, you should also agree that churches generally have too much money. Now, I think some churches have too much money- a local church has a pastor who brags about having $10 million in the bank for pet projects- I think he should give a tithe rebate myself
Most churches, however, struggle with finances, especially the smaller ones that must survive and thrive to resist megachurch assimilation.
Depending on the level of blessing God has given a person, I think 10% may be a lowball figure. And I also think it’s a more complicated equation than just a certain percentage times income- income is only meaningful relative to the total amount of liquid capital one has at his or her disposal. Someone who is deeply in debt should arguably pay that off before engaging in wholesale charity beyond some minimum.
Caveat: Giving 10% or more back to God does not necessarily mean handing 100% of those funds to the local church. Hands-on direct charity is best for the soul, and even things like politics (which the church is prohibited from engaging in by the unconstitutional actions of the IRS) might qualify if the motivation and end is right. Basically any disinterested spending of money whose primary purpose is to benefit others. Of course, only God knows the heart.
I find it interesting that “seeker friendly” types are willing to compromise just about every doctrine except this one- kinda like politicians who give themselves raises but cut back funding for treating wounded veterans.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Hear, hear, Tom… we recently decided that we were the only ones who we could trust to spend our tithe in a way that we could morally live with from a stewardship point-of-view. We’ve stopped giving our money to the local house of worship and started giving it — anonymously — to people we know need it.
Of course, we won’t get a tax break that way, but I think I can live with that, since I know exactly who benefits from it. (And I wasn’t tithing for a tax rebate, anyway)
Besides, if memory serves, all the OT exhortations were to give to “the local storehouse,” not to the priests, for the express purpose of ensuring that food, etc., would be available in times of need; this in contrast to the multitude of modern churches similar (tho’ not in scale, necessarily) to your example with cash for different projects.
Makes one wonder: how many single moms at that church are working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet? And how many still aren’t making it? That would be the kind of “pet project” James called “true religion.”
April 17th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Thank you for the facts and this post. I am appalled by the number of “false prophets” who endorse World Unity, Globalism, Multicultarism, and every type of ism. The current reigning theology is that Jesus equals friend/buddy. This is taught from the pulpit, and in Christian literature. The part about Christ being a Savior, Master, Lord, and Ruler of the Entire Universe is sidestepped. One day we will all meet him and everyone will be completely shocked by his Majesty, Glory, Holiness, and Sovereignty. Those that lead the members astray will suffer greater consequences. The modern church by all indications appears to be the Church of Laodicea.
The abuse of God’s money will be dealt with in the end. Every nickel spent is recorded in the Lord’s + or – column. In my own opinion, tithing should focus on the following results:
Matthew:
34. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35. For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36. Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38. When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39. Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40. And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
As a Republican it is apparent that the party is completely devoid of conservative leadership at this time. The current prospects of leadership are very bleak, except for Tancreado. I urge all Christian Americans to give to his campaign.
I know of some that are almost overcome by grief from the current Republican leadership. In the past, the choices have been between a fake conservative and a far left Mass. nut. Unfortunately, the policial future of our country looks even bleaker, with only one exception.
Prayer: May God have mercy upon us a people. May we repent from evil and “Only Trust Him.”
April 18th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Brian,
If you want to give anonymous gifts, there are many churches who will work with you as a conduit to get you a tax deduction. Just a tip- I hate to see the Beast get any more money than the absolute legal minimum.
Tom
April 20th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Give where the spirit leads you to give. If people feel that God is calling them to give to some mission. that’s great. but the demand and enforcement of the Giving the tithe can be legalistic.
April 26th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
I actually believe that tithing is biblically, but, as Tom said, a bare minimum of what God wants us to give.
The problem I have with everyone giving “on their own” is that the church should be a place where we trust - a body, where we are all working together as one. Therefore, if that isn’t happening, things should be done that fix that, instead of everybody going their separate ways.
This is, of course, the ideal. I just feel like God set up the local church body for a reason, and I personally believe that our money is better used when it goes through the body than when we just use it how we see fit. There’s also an accountability issue that is sidestepped when we avoid tithing to a local body.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
I couldn’t disagree with you more on this, Lindsay. There is absoluely no NT Biblical mandate to give to any organization. Luke wrote about believers [constantly] selling what they had and giving to the support of other believers, not to the apostles (unless as payment for their ministering and teaching); the exception being as gifts to be taken to other believers elsewhere.
I don’t remember (and please correct me if I’m wrong) any discussion in any epistle, Romans to Jude, of a required donation to the Church. If we are free from the Law, then we are free from the whole Law, not just parts of it. I guess that I misspoke in my earlier comment: I should’ve used “gift” instead of “tithe.” Tithe = Law = works.
I’m not suggesting that if you feel led to give 10%, you’re a Pharisee; a gift is a gift, and it must by definition be freely given, and 10% is as good as any other amount. But if anyone feels obligated to give specifically 10% or else, and feels like God won’t be happy with them if they don’t, please allow me to clarify: whether you give 20%, 10%, or 0% will not effect how God feels about you.
And accountability? I’m surprised to see you talking about accountability in gift-giving. The idea of accuntability, to me, is antithetical to freely given gifts. The only people I’ve ever heard argue strongly otherwise have been those who stood to directly benefit from such “mandatory” gifts.
Now, there are benefits to giving. Studies have shown (apologies, but I don’t have any specific references handy) that people who give time, money, and/or talents are generally happier and less stressed.
All that having been said, while I don’t have a biblical mandate for giving, I do have a biblical mandate for stewardship. In the SBC (since that’s where the bulk of my personal experience has been — and I doubt it changes much elsewhere), any time anyone starts talking about stewardship, you can bet that they’re looking for more money. But what I mean is proper use of my assets. As I indicated before, I trust no one, or at least don’t trust anyone more than myself, to handle those assets for God’s glory. And whether through the church or not, I am ultimately responsible for where my money goes.
We do give, and give a minimum of 10%. But I look forward to the day when I can live off the 10% (or less) and give the balance away. And as long as this situation in the SBC is going on, and they are de facto and de juris supporting such malarkey, I guarantee none of my money will be going there.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
I’m happy with vagueness on this issue- I don’t see where many churches (except for a few megachurches) have overly large budgets. Which means that the problem is undergiving, however you want to doctrinally classify it.
Our civilization has been rich and advanced enough for several hundred years to support full-time ministers. I don’t think that’s been a bad thing. Ministers should be able to pursue a full-time vocation and be compensated fairly- nor should we muzzle the ox- pastoring ought to be a competitive field that attracts the best people, and one function of that is money.
I fear what would happen to many churches if there weren’t some minimum expectation- fundraisers of all sorts are having difficulty these days with the selfishness of Baby Boomers and Gen X’ers and their not being willing to give charitably. If we say 10%, we’ll get like 2%- and IMO 2% of gross income is about right for the local church, but we have to SAY 10% to GET 2%. If we say “whatever you feel like giving”, what will the outcome be? That’s why I’m ok with one thing being taught even if others believe something else privately.
Almost exactly analogous to the drinking issue in the Baptist church- it’s probably good for those weak in this area to have a teetotaling position taught. But for those who are not weak, let them discretely have wine every now and then- for health reasons of course.
I have no strong theological belief here, just thinking about the practical effects- any valid theological explanation must also work realistically in the real world.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:46 pm
I truly believe that there is a New Testament example, if not a New Testament mandate, for giving to a local church. No, people were not REQUIRED to give, and when I speak of accountability, I do not intend to support any church conducting audits to see which of its members are giving and which are not in order to enforce an edict.
When I speak of accountability, I speak of it in the context of a loving family. True, God will not “feel differently” about you if you give 0% of your income. However, if you are consistently giving 0% of what you make, there is SOMETHING in your heart that is not in line with Him. He gave everything, holding nothing back. So, if we can’t give anything, then we are not demonstrating love like He did. Therefore there is an issue that needs to be dealt with - a heart issue, not a balance sheet or spreadsheet issue.
I’m not advocating enforcement of some type of legislation. But accountability to a group of people you trust is not a bad thing - in fact, it’s necessary and a part of the very reason for the church. It saddens me to hear you say that you would not “trust anyone” to use your money in a way that would honor God. If we are willing to commit ourselves to a body of believers, should there not be an element of like-mindedness and trust? If I can’t trust them with my money, can I trust them with my children’s teaching (even part of it), or, for that matter, my own?
Do you see my conundrum?
June 3rd, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Yes, it is true. The attraction of power is strong, and some Souther Baptist “leaders” have fallen for that. But most Southern Baptists look to their local church. We are independent minded.