| Editor: David E Marlett Th.D. | |
| Feb 15, 2001 | Vol II #12 |
Tues. Feb. 13, 2001 at a little after 8 AM, federal officers cut the lock on a side door to Indianapolis Baptist Temple and made their way to the auditorium where Pastor Greg Dixon was praying with several other supporters of the ministry. The federal officer in charge, U.S. Marshal Frank J. Anderson made his way to Pastor Dixon's side, knelt beside him and spoke two words that should never have been said, "It's time." Thus ended a seventeen year assault on the ministries of IBT and it pastors, Greg J. Dixon and his son Greg A. Dixon.
The IRS and the state media have said all along that it is a matter of failure to pay taxes. This is a lie. All taxes on all payroll and offerings to employees and volunteer workers were paid. The IRS audited an unbelievable number of IBT staff members and none were found to owe taxes. The IRS returned the taxes that these people paid on their income in order to attack IBT for not collecting them in the form of payroll deduction. There never were any unpaid taxes. The IRS simply insisted that IBT be their collection agent, or publican if you will.
It is important to note that this injustice was ongoing through several federal administrations. It was the Clinton administration that clamped down and a Clinton appointed judge, Sarah Barker, that ordered the seizure. In her hearing of the case, Judge Barker made a statement that revealed the true nature of the government's problem with IBT. She said that it was ridiculous to think that a church should operate outside of the control of government. While it is true that the Christian should "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's", not everything that Caesar claims is rightly his (in this case, authority over the local church) is his to claim.
It is also important to note that the actual seizure of the property was done under the watch of G.W. Bush. Pastor Dixon made a trip to Washington last month and met with several congressmen and Bush administration officials. He left Washington with a promise that no seizure would take place without a review of the case. Even if the decision was made by the new administration to seize the property, Pastor Dixon was promised a call to inform him of that decision. It was a lie. The call never came, but officers under the control of President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft did. It is politics as usual in Washington.
Les Riley makes the following observations:
"In light of Bush's recently announced plan to "help" Christian charities with government money, we are precipitously close to China's policies of "religious freedom". China officially supports religious freedom -- for registered, licensed churches that don't preach any "radical", unacceptable doctrines (like the idea that there is an authority higher than the government). However, severe persecution is faced by anyone associated with the underground, "house church" movement -- that seeks to proclaim the pure, unadulterated Gospel. If you think we are not extremely close to the day where "churches" that do charity work & preach "love" and "tolerance" exclusively are smiled upon by the god-state, and those that don't tow the line are facing increasing discomfort -- or outright attack -- you are deceiving yourself ."
The federal courts have consistently held that any organization that receives federal funds submits to control by the federal government. GW Bush promises that there will be no intrusive federal actions accompanying his faith-based initiatives. With IBT though, he has proven one of two things to be true. He has proven that he cannot be trusted, or he doesn't have the control over the federal bureaucracy to back up such a statement. In either case, churches should not be dropping their guard. This administration is even more dangerous than the previous one. We knew what to expect from Bill Clinton.
[ TCCN ]
Pres. Bush has established a new Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives. We don't question the sincere intentions of this and other "compassionate conservatism" actions, but are concerned that "Washington runs what it funds." The new office is headed by a Democrat who "favors recasting the welfare state in accordance with a principle of Catholic social teaching." (George Will, 2/4 HT) Apart from the church-state question and our belief that this should be done at the local level, early indications are that these grants would be available mostly to Catholics, liberals, and some New Evangelicals. Already we have seen articles that disqualify "right-wingers" such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robinson, Bob Jones University, etc., so it would mainly be a windfall for the left. Catholic Charities USA already receives 65 percent of its $2.3 billion budget from government. Pro-abortion Planned Parenthood received in 1999 $176 million-27 percent of its revenues -in government grants. For Christian groups to qualify for such grants would subject them to incessant pressure to dilute their message and liberalize their policies.
[ Calvary Contender ]
"This may be instructively answered by describing what it is not. We do not regard it to be soul-winning to steal members out of churches already established, and train them to utter our peculiar Shibboleth: we aim rather at bringing souls to Christ than at making converts to our synagogue. There are sheep-stealers abroad, concerning whom I will say nothing except that they are not "brethren", or, at least, they do not act in a brotherly fashion. To their own Master they must stand or fall. We count it utter meanness to build up our own house with the ruins of our neighbours' mansions; we infinitely prefer to quarry for ourselves. I hope we all sympathize in the large-hearted spirit of Dr. Chalmers, who, when it was said that such and such an effort would not be beneficial to the special interests of the Free Church of Scotland, although it might promote the general religion of the land, said, "What is the Free Church compared with the Christian good of the people of Scotland?" What, indeed, is any church, or what are all the churches put together, as mere organizations, if they stand in conflict with the moral and spiritual advantage of the nation, or if they impede the kingdom of Christ? It is because God blesses men through the churches that we desire to see them prosper, and not merely for the sake of the churches themselves. There is such a thing as selfishness in our eagerness for the aggrandizement of our own party; and from this evil spirit may grace deliver us! The increase of the kingdom is more to be desired than the growth of a clan. We would do a great deal to make a Paedo-baptist brother into a Baptist, for we value our Lord's ordinances; we would labour earnestly to raise a believer in salvation by free-will into a believer in salvation by grace, for we long to see all religious teaching built upon the solid rock of truth, and not upon the sand of imagination; but, at the same time, our grand object is not the revision of opinions, but the regeneration of natures. We would bring men to Christ, and not to our own peculiar views of Christianity. Our first care must be that the sheep should be gathered to the great Shepherd; there will be time enough afterward to secure them for our various folds. To make proselytes, is a suitable labour for Pharisees: to beget men unto God, is the honourable aim of ministers of Christ."
[ from The Soulwinner by CH Spurgeon. Available on-line Dave's Bible Study Page http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_study/courses/souls/index.html ]
The following was excerpted from two papers sent to us by Baptist World Mission missionary (on deputation) Rocco Piserchia: "Contemporary Fundamentalism is defined by the doctrine and practice of Biblical separation. To a large degree the difference between Conservative Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism is a matter of separation. Contemporary Fundamentalism maintains stricter views of moral and ecclesiastical (or doctrinal) separation than Evangelicalism. While many spiritual leaders in conservative evangelical circles would practice separation from apostates and Roman Catholics, virtually none would practice separation from fellow believers who persist in sinful doctrine or sinful practice. In many cases while certain conservative evangelical leaders would oppose false doctrine by actively teaching against it, few would actively separate from fellow believers who persist in false doctrine. History has vindicated the Fundamentalist view of separation; that is, no doctrinal position can be maintained over time apart from the practice of separation….Neo-Evangelicalism, which began around 1950, was a theological movement that attempted to combine the social conscience and social actions of Theological Liberalism with the conservative theology of Fundamentalism. Neo-Evangelicalism was critically flawed in that its intellectual architects failed to realize that the social actions of Liberalism were the direct result of its liberal theology. The phrase "the social gospel" revealed that this gospel was different from the Gospel of the New Testament. Neo-Evangelicalism strongly rejected separation from Protestant Apostates. Contemporary Evangelicals by and large reject the doctrine and practice of ecclesiastical separation because their movement was shaped by Neo-Evangelicalism. The rejection of Biblical separation, both for the first generation Neo-Evangelical as well as the contemporary Evangelical, is based on pragmatism, not Scripture. …"
[ Calvary Contender ]
To be removed from this mailing list you can unsubscribe
through the homepage
or send your request to
Unsub-tccn@wilderness-cry.net
If this newsletter was forwarded to you and you would like a free subscription simply send an e-mail to subscribe-tccn@wilderness-cry.net