Was the Rich young ruler a pastor in a 501 (c) (3) church?
What is a 501 (c) (3) church?
If the church is a 501(c)(3) corporation it must abide by the laws of the state in order to maintain its tax exempt status. Therefore if the state legalizes homosexual marriages the church must abide by that law. If the state says transexuals can use whatever bathroom they wish, the church must abide by that law. If the state says you cannot discriminate between men and women then you must abide by that and allow a Lesbian Pastor, or a homosexual pastor.
Once again, obeying a law is part of worship. Jesus said "why do you say you love me and do not do the things that I say".
Now get this, suppose a church has grown, perhaps they have two or three buildings, an a very hefty investment of well over a million dollars in their buildings but then they decide they will not comply with the laws of the state. They can vote to dissolve the corporation, but they can only give the assets to another tax exempt organization in that state. In other words, those buildings they belong to the state.
Therefore, what I would suggest a church do is to first sell the buildings and all assets, give the money to the poor, a homeless shelter, or a soup kitchen, or some other organization and then go and follow the Lord just like He said to the rich young ruler.
The rich young ruler in Luke 18
Luke 18:18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
A "certain" ruler? Hmmm, is he a Roman ruler? Doubt he would say "good" master to Jesus. Is he a Pharisee? Again, doubt he would say "good master" to Jesus. Nicodemus called Him rabbi, teacher.
19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God.
Jesus is giving us a clue here, this "certain master" calling Jesus good is calling Him God. This is a believer that Jesus is God. This word is not a rebuke otherwise we would hear him repent as we did the father with the paralytic boy.
20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
Jesus connects worshipping Him as God with keeping the commandments. He says "thou knowest the commandments" so the ruler obviously knows the Bible.
21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.
Clearly this "certain ruler" is referring to the pastor of a church. He treats Jesus as God and he keeps all the commandments from his youth up. That cannot possibly be referring to either Romans or Pharisees.
22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. 23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.
Wait, a pastor who is very rich? When I was a stock broker in NYC I learned that one of the biggest trust funds in the city was held by the Episcopalian church in NYC, it was worth billions of dollars at the time. I would walk by one of their churches on the way to work and there were always a few homeless people sitting on their steps.
24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
We need to wake up, this word is talking about Christianity, it is talking about these giant denominations. They call Jesus "good master", they believe He is God, they keep the commandments, and yet they bow the knee to the government because they are afraid to give up all those riches they have accumulated.
What is "permitted" and what is not "permitted"
https://www.churchlawcenter.com/chu...hurches-whats-permitted-and-whats-prohibited/
For federal income tax purposes most churches qualify for exemption from tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Political speech by 501(c)(3) organizations can be divided into two categories:
Not Permitted: Partisan Speech
Churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations have been prohibited from supporting specific political candidates since the passage of the Johnson Amendment in 1954. The Internal Revenue Code provides that, by definition, 501(c)(3) organizations do 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.” In other words, taking an active role in a political campaign can negate a church’s tax-exempt status. If a church is determined to have violated this rule it may be required to pay income tax for every year it has failed to qualify for the exemption due to its political activities.
Activities that could risk violating the Johnson Amendment include most forms of material support for a specific political campaign. For example, organizing volunteers to prepare a mailing for a candidate or soliciting donations on behalf of a campaign may expose churches that engage in these activities to risk if they are found in violation of the Johnson Amendment.
IRS guidelines indicate that a church can still engage in nonpartisan political activity without violating these rules. For example, a church can distribute nonpartisan voter information (such as a collection of statements by different candidates). A church can also host debates among candidates. A key focus in these examples will be whether a particular candidate is shown favor, or if the activity is truly neutral.
The only partisan speech that is allowed to be made by church employees are comments not made in any church facility or in church publications. The comments must include a statement that the opinions being expressed belong only to the individual and are not intended to represent the church.
Not Permitted: “Substantial” Lobbying
A “substantial part” of a 501(c)(3) organization’s activities may not be directed at influencing legislation (including regulatory rulemaking). A church is allowed to take positions on issues that are important to it and its congregation. Such “issue advocacy” can even touch on topics that are central to a political campaign without running afoul of the rules. But the line between issue advocacy and candidate endorsement is often blurry, and churches need to think carefully about how their specific context may affect the appropriateness of devoting significant resources or time to an issue that may be construed as partisan.
The IRS gives a number of parameters that can factor into the partisan character of issue advocacy. The parameters include the proximity to an election, any specific mention of a candidate’s position on the issue, and whether the issue is a key topic of the campaign. Given the stakes involved and the complicated factual analysis required to reach a reliable decision, churches that want to express themselves about issues that are central to ongoing political campaigns should consult with an attorney before taking action.
I was stunned when I heard Obama's pastor preach, it was extremely political. There is no doubt that a conservative Christian preacher speaking equally politically about the issues of the day would lose their tax exempt status. This demonstrates how these rules are very ambiguous with terms like "substantial" and the lines are "blurry" as to what is "partisan". No one was more partisan than Obama's pastor.
Non partisan political activities are fine, so DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion, that is "non partisan" even though we have seen it is a fig leaf for very racist policies. Likewise the LGBTQ community sells their issue as a matter of love and inclusion, again a "non partisan" issue.
Luke 6:42 Either how canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye.
This gives whole new meaning to this. Many churches introduce these topics as though they are pulling the mote out of your eye so that you could be more loving. But in reality the beam that is in their eye is that they are subjects of the state afraid to lose their tax exempt status.
1
1
