ATLANTA BISHOP Writes Scathing Letter agianst Senator & Investigation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SDG]

If you're going to play the game ... play by the rules. It's not unreasonable to expect these ministries, like any non-for profit ... to be accountable ....

Just the other day ... AB was railing on/mocking prosperity preachers ...

Those that teach it, our giving the Church a black eye ....

It's time we get passionate about getting the Church back.

[Thad]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

If you're going to play the game ... play by the rules. It's not unreasonablto expect these ministries, like any non-for profit ... to be accountable ....

Just the other day ... AB was railing on prosperity preachers ...

Those that teach it our giving the Church a black eye ....

It's time we get passionate about getting the Church back.

Atanta Bishop????




,



I challenge you to come out of hiding and respond to this !

[bishopnl]

1. Where do you get that Grassley and Congress are violation the First Amendment? That's a joke! No where and in no way is Grassley or Congress telling these people what they can or can't preach . . . this is about complaints of abuse of these ministers' non-profit, tax-exempt status.

The First amendment is designed to protect religion from the tentacles of government...either from the promotion of it, or the prohibition of it. Dragging ministers before Congressional subcommittees to explain the use of monies in their ministries, EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR USAGE OF IT, is still a violation of the Constitution. Congress is not supposed to be the regulator of finances within the church. Period. Giving them that power (which essentially means giving them the power of the purse over the church) is clearly a violation of the First Amendment.

2. I understand the irony of Congress and misappropriation of funds or mismanagement of funds . . . however, it is Congress' place to look into these accusations and determine if there needs to be a tightening of the non-profit, tax-exempt laws.

Well, I don't think it's Congress' place to be "tightening" tax exempt laws on churches...I also think, that concerning tax exemption laws, other avenues are to be used for investigations...such as the IRS.

What blows me away is the amount of people who, out of personal dislike for these ministers, are rejoicing because Congress is dragging them before subcommittees. It's the same people who gripe when Congress regulates other areas of the First Amendment, such as the Fairness Doctrine and similar legislation which "regulates" freedom of speech.

Having the government involved in just about anything in the private sector usually doesn't work too well...but involving them in sketchy issues concerning the First Amendment is a horrid idea.

In my opinion, who cares if the lines been blurred on whether Creflo Dollar uses his personal jet for private or minsisterial use? People who give to his ministry should have enough common sense to investigate it before giving. If they don't, it's not the job of Big Daddy government or Joe Q. Taxpayer to fund a witchhunt to weed out all the bad apples who exploit people in the name of God. I've never given a dime to Dollar, Hinn, or any other TV evangelist, and it chaps me that my tax dollars are going to investigate these guys b/c some poor sucker bought into the line they were feeding.

[bishopnl]

Originally Posted by RevDWW

Yes they have a right to free speech and freedom of religion, but they don't have the right to fraudulently raise and spend money from the public. They are not being called into question for preaching The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Can Congress levee any penalty against these charlatans? Doesn't Congress have a responsibility to investigate those that are victimizing the public so they might pass a law that will protect them?

No. Congress doesn't have that right. Regulating finances in the church and deciding whether a pastor or boards decision concerning monies in the church is right or just is not the right of Congress. If people are afraid that Creflo Dollar is exploiting them, they have several options. They could not give money. They could sue him in claims court. Or, if he belongs to an organization of some sort and answers to a board or anyone in authority, they could launch an internal investigation.

[chaotic_resolve]

Originally Posted by bishopnl

The First amendment is designed to protect religion from the tentacles of government...either from the promotion of it, or the prohibition of it. Dragging ministers before Congressional subcommittees to explain the use of monies in their ministries, EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THEIR USAGE OF IT, is still a violation of the Constitution. Congress is not supposed to be the regulator of finances within the church. Period. Giving them that power (which essentially means giving them the power of the purse over the church) is clearly a violation of the First Amendment.

Let's visit the First Amendment before it gets taken out of context quicker than some scriptures . . .

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

1. No law respecting the establishment of religion
2. No law prohibiting the free exercise thereof
3. No law abridging the freedom of speech or press
4. No law abridging the right of people to peaceably assemble or petition the government for a redress of grievances

Grassley and Congress' investigation is doing NONE of the above. There's nothing going on that's against the First Amendment. Congress isn't telling them they cannot exercise their freedom of religion; they're not keeping them from actively participating in ministry.

What they are doing . . . and what they have every right to do - BY LAW - is to govern the misuse or abuse of laws or statues that have been passed BY CONGRESS.

You say Congress isn't supposed to be a regulator of church finances, okay, I can agree with that . . . up until the church willfully requests the government to grant them certain protected status regarding those funds. At that point, the church is required to abide by the laws that the government (Congress) has passed.

The investigation not a violation of the Constitution. LoL

Originally Posted by bishopnl

Well, I don't think it's Congress' place to be "tightening" tax exempt laws on churches...I also think, that concerning tax exemption laws, other avenues are to be used for investigations...such as the IRS.

Again, how are you not understanding this? Congress passed the laws and created the status in the first place and now you're saying they have no right to address the misuse and abuse or possibly revisit these codes to tighten up the loopholes.

We'll agree to disagree, though I'm pretty sure the Constitution gives the Congress (who wrote the laws) the ability to revisit and address the loopholes the law (the one Congress wrote, voted on and passed into law) provides and add amendments to tighten it up if need be.

So you don't "think" it's Congress' place . . . respectfully, it doesn't matter. The churches have requested the government give them protected non-profit, tax-exempt status - with that comes rules and regulations they must follow. If they break these rules, or do everything to tip-toe to the line . . . the ones who made the law in the first place have every right to question their misuse and abuse.

Originally Posted by bishopnl

In my opinion, who cares if the lines been blurred on whether Creflo Dollar uses his personal jet for private or minsisterial use? People who give to his ministry should have enough common sense to investigate it before giving. If they don't, it's not the job of Big Daddy government or Joe Q. Taxpayer to fund a witchhunt to weed out all the bad apples who exploit people in the name of God. I've never given a dime to Dollar, Hinn, or any other TV evangelist, and it chaps me that my tax dollars are going to investigate these guys b/c some poor sucker bought into the line they were feeding.

That's pretty much like saying, "who cares if someone steals, etc." There are laws, rules, statutes, etc that have been created for non-profit, tax-exempt status.

[bishopnl]

Let's visit the First Amendment before it gets taken out of context quicker than some scriptures . . .

Let's do that.

First, you correctly cite the First Amendment as stating: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Then, you go on to state:

Congress isn't telling them they cannot exercise their freedom of religion; they're not keeping them from actively participating in ministry.

What they are doing . . . and what they have every right to do - BY LAW - is to govern the misuse or abuse of laws or statues that have been passed BY CONGRESS.

How can you not see the irony here? First you point out that Congress can pass no law regarding an establishment of religion...then say that they have the right, by law, to govern the abuse of laws or statutes concerning religion which they have passed.

So just to be clear, what you are stating is that Congress:
A. Has no power to pass laws respecting, regarding, or concerning an establishment of religion.
B. Does have the power to govern the abuse of laws which they have passed concerning an establishment (any establishment) of religion.

Can you not see how contradictory this is? And then I'm accused of taking the Constitution out of context.

By passing laws concerning taxation (or in this case, non-taxation) of churches, Congress has passed a law respecting an establishment of religion. Like a courthouse is an "establishment of law", a church or ministry is an "establishment of religion", and therefore, should not be subject to laws passed by Congress. If the church is to be regulated, it can be regulated by state laws, local laws, or by its own self governance. But Congress is not to interfere, either through taxation or any other law they might think to pass, with any establishment of religion, whether it's Creflo Dollar's church or your church. That they do and have done so for years doesn't make it right. And I do agree that churches are partially to blame for this as well...through incorporation and other areas they've sold themselves to the government. But the fact is that Congress and the federal government is supposed to be neither pro nor con towards religion in any aspect. They shouldn't tax it or declare it to be tax exempt. They shouldn't promote it or prohibit it. In the area of religion, Congress should be completely, 100% neutral.

Again, how are you not understanding this? Congress passed the laws and created the status in the first place and now you're saying they have no right to address the misuse and abuse or possibly revisit these codes to tighten up the loopholes.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand contradictory arguments. You can't say on one hand that Congress can't pass laws regarding an establishment of religion, and then slap them on the back for "addressing" the abuse of laws that they shouldn't have passed in the first place.

So you don't "think" it's Congress' place . . . respectfully, it doesn't matter. The churches have requested the government give them protected non-profit, tax-exempt status - with that comes rules and regulations they must follow. If they break these rules, or do everything to tip-toe to the line . . . the ones who made the law in the first place have every right to question their misuse and abuse.

Well, you're right in that what I think doesn't matter. I also think that Social Security is unconstitutional, that 90% of constitutional spending is unconstitutional, that abortion isn't a "constitutionally protected" right, that eminent domain doesn't mean the government can take your land and give it to another private citizen, and a lot of other things. So far, it doesn't seem to have made a dent, since the average citizen is woefully ignorant of most of what the Constitution actually says.

But as for them having "every right"...well, I think you're wrong. And I also think the only reason you're in favor of it is solely based on your dislike for these ministries and the fact that you see them as exploitative. But I'm even more suspicious and distrustful of the government than I am these ministers. At least Benny Hinn doesn't take a quarter of my paycheck every week. I have to be stupid enough to give it to him. On the other hand, Grassley and his Senator friends take my money and blow it on all kinds of things that I don't agree with. And I'm supposed to applaud b/c they're investigating someone else who's practicing a milder version of what they themselves do on a daily basis??? Forgive me for being skeptical...Grassley needs to shut up and fix his own house before trying to set Benny Hinn's in order. If he wants to start investigating corruption and mismanagement of funds, let them start doing some REAL oversight on government agencies not church ministries.

That's pretty much like saying, "who cares if someone steals, etc."

So your definition of stealing is when I give you money for you to use, with some vague promise of it being used to do something I agree with, and then you take the money and do what you want with it? THAT'S stealing? Even when I didn't take the time to investigate your credentials, your lifestyle, etc.? Even when I gave the money to you with nothing more than a good faith promise that you would do something good with it? That's not stealing. That's naivete.

Stealing is when the government takes money from my paycheck all life, gives it to someone else (or keeps it), and then when I die, takes the money I left and siphons off some more.

[Thad]

**MAJOR NEWS BULLETIN**


THIS JUST IN FROM ATLANTA BISHOP!!!!!!!!!!


Pick up your phone and call Senator Grassleys office and tell them you want HIM to know that you are totally against his unlawful inquiry into the Church and Christian Ministers. DO IT NOW or you might be the next on HIS HIT LIST!


202-224-3744 - You can make multiple calls every day
I would like Senator Grassley to know that I do NOT agree with him harassing the Christian ministers and I am asking him to withdraw his letters and apologize to the Christians and to the ministers about his unlawful and Unchristian letters to them.
If he can do this to six, he can do it to 60 then 600 then 6000.
As a Christian - I take this as a personal insult and want Senator Grassley to know he has offended the Christians of this nation and the members of these churches.

Sen. Chuck Grassley
135 Hart Senate Bldg.
Washington, DC
20510-1501
202-224-3744 - You can make multiple calls every day.

[stmatthew]

The smartest and best thing any non-profit ministry could do is get involved with a reputable group like the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability. This would stop many from looking at non profit ministries as scams.

[Monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Pianoman

Does anyone in their right mind think that if Jesus himself was raising money to spread the gospel around the word, he would be driving around in a Rolls Royce, have a $5,000 pen in his pocket, fly around in his private Lear jet, and live in a multi-million dollar mansion?

Or.......would he live modest, and put the money given into the further spread of the gospel?

You know, I have no problem with some man or woman who has invented new software, head giant corporations, or do well on Wall Street doing any of those things....but a preacher???? Or for that matter any saint of God, if they are doing these things they had better be putting MORE into the work of God.

[Stephanas]

Today's column by J. Lee Grady

In Defense of the Good Senator

Some Christians fear that the Senate’s probe of six charismatic ministries is a devilish conspiracy. Yet the man behind the investigation is a Bible-believing Christian.

Unless you’ve been on vacation in the South Pacific for the last two weeks, you probably know that Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa caused a commotion on Nov. 6 when he announced that the Senate Finance Committee, which he chairs, is investigating the financial operations of six charismatic mega-ministries.

Judging by the reaction from some sectors of the Christian public, you’d think Grassley had donned a black hood and launched another Spanish Inquisition. Some Christian leaders have openly suggested that Grassley is about to send IRS henchmen armed with clubs, hatchets and instruments of torture to every church in America.

“We must keep the government out of the church, or everything our founding fathers fought for is lost!” wrote Paul Crouch Jr. of the Trinity Broadcasting Network, in an open rebuttal of my Nov. 9 column about the investigation. Crouch also implied that Grassley’s probe is similar to Hitler’s persecution of Christians in 1930s Germany.

“Before we demonize Grassley, it might be worth looking at his own religious background.”



Huh? Why are we so paranoid? Just because a senator has asked for some documents to prove that these ministries are in compliance with the law? Before we demonize Grassley, it might be worth looking at his own religious background—and the reasons for his investigation. In an interview with him this week I learned some interesting facts:

1. Grassley is an outspoken evangelical Christian. “My faith is based on the promise of salvation in Jesus Christ found in John 3:16,” he told me. It’s refreshing to hear those words from anyone on Capitol Hill. Grassley was saved at age 11—“in January 1945,” he said—and he and his wife have attended the same Baptist church in Cedar Falls, Iowa, since 1954. The congregation is now called Prairie Lakes Church.

2. Grassley doesn’t believe in government intrusion of religion. The 74-year-old senator told me that his inquiry is strictly about compliance with the law, not about doctrine. On Prairie Lakes’ Web site, its leaders explain their view of the role of government: “We believe that every human being has direct relations with God, and is responsible to God alone in all matters of faith; that each church is independent and must be free from interference by any ecclesiastical or political authority; that therefore Church and State must be kept separate as having different functions, each fulfilling its duties free from dictation or patronage of the other.” That doesn’t sound like the spirit of Antichrist to me.

3. Grassley has a reputation for integrity. He recently conducted an investigation of several secular nonprofit organizations including the Smithsonian Institution and the American Red Cross. Those entities were not shut down because of his inquiry, but they did make internal changes in order to correct financial abuses and to comply with IRS rules. All Grassley wants is assurance that the six ministries are following the law. Is that evil?

4. Grassley is not basing his investigation on one person’s agenda. Some of Grassley’s critics believe that self-appointed ministry watchdog Ole Anthony (who has a dubious reputation in many Christian circles) is manipulating this inquiry from behind the scenes. But Grassley assured me that the complaints against Benny Hinn; Kenneth and Gloria Copeland; Creflo and Taffi Dollar; David and Joyce Meyer; Randy and Paula White; and Eddie Long are based on numerous public complaints, media reports and, in some cases, statements from whistle-blowers who were at one time associated with the ministries.

5. Grassley has some sound advice for evangelical churches. When I asked the senator what steps churches should take to strengthen their integrity, he immediately recommended that they join the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability—a Christian organization that provides a “seal of approval” for groups that follow normal accounting procedures. Grassley believes those handling public funds should subject themselves to added scrutiny because, he says, “you are a trustee of the people’s money.”

6. Grassley has some refreshingly old-fashioned views on ministry. He made this statement to reporters last week: “Jesus came into the city on a simple donkey. To what extent do you need a Rolls-Royce to expand the ministry of Jesus Christ?”

That’s an honest question from an honest man, and it deserves an honest answer.