We have a retired priest covering for a priest on vacation and I found one part of today's sermon thought provoking. He was talking about all the propaganda being produced today and how it was difficult to obtain the truth. He then said that when the Church at large goes along with the censorship of opinions, it is tantamount to the silencing of the prophets. Prophets were often critical of the kings, and the kings did everything they could to silence them, even to the point of death or burying them in the mud of a cistern. Although few critical of the government are being killed, the churches that do not stand up to the lies are complicit in the deception.
Boy, that's refreshing. The betrayal of the church is even greater when this happens in systems of relative safety. But I guess that all institutions have their own survival instincts...and that is where we all diverge from our ideals. I've been reading comments on other forums regarding today's church and people [reportedly] leaving in droves. Some blame "the church," others judge the motives of those who leave. As always, there's plenty of accountability to go around. I'd imagine there will be a renaissance of sorts if things get half as bad as many are predicting. There are no atheists in foxholes, so to speak. I hope not too many people get betrayed. Regarding that specific analogy...I'd have to think about it. The prophets carried a divine message that undermined the authority of all men, including (but not limited to) the rulers. Certainly the church should not be complicit in promoting the lies of Caesar, but I'm not so sure I 100% agree with the parallel. But this does make me think about exactly when and where (and in what realm) the church has a duty to Truth. They are bound by that pesky 501(c)(3) thing that legally ties them to an earthly authority. It's quite the spot to be in.
The IRS status certainly plays a role in how the government controls the churches, but, again, it tends to be party-specific. Dems campaign in churches all the times, especially Black churches, but Republicans and the churches they support come under IRS scrutiny if they there are political speeches given in churches. I don't think it is a good idea to mix politics and religion from either side, i.e., it compromises both the Church and the politicians who do it. My ideal church would be what I call a "Lighthouse Church". That is, one who shows the way to avoid personal and societal problems and dangers, but does not just or try to control those who are not guided by the light. I don't deal well with those who judge the religious beliefs of others, unless, of course, those beliefs advocate harm to others. George Washington wrote a letter to the Quaker Church during his first term (I believe) informing them that they were not exempt from military service, but since they were responsible for so much good in Pennsylvania society, he would not compel them to serve.
Yeh, I avoided pointing out the obvious discrepancy in the rules being applied. And of course the two should be separate. I agree that there's a need for a "Pauline" type of church as a way to help us navigate through life. There is no practical "Here is how and why to live a Christian life" advice given in any service that I have attended, and it's actually kind of the point, huh?
I agree that church leaders are limited by the IRS ruling, but don't think it restricts individuals within small church groups from discussing poltical/cultural issues of the day. And while many advocate keeping politics out of church or even out of Christian lives, I beg to differ. If we're to exhort Biblical truth and values to the world, it necessitates us discussing and engaging with it. That would also entail exposing false religions. I understand that's an unpopular thing to do in today's relative morality, diversity acceptance culture, but I think a Christian's obligation to share Biblical truth outweighs the pleasantness of being non-controversial. As for obtaining advice on how and why to live a Christian life, I've found a large number of my live church sermons and online sermons covering the topic well with a variety of Biblical/cultural issues. I'm surprised your experience isn't the same John.
Much of the church activity that I have seen going through the rescue missions is responsible for a lot of confusion especially with the “new borns”. A pastor / preacher and his entourage will have a service and after the alter call, they leave and the newly born again folks are left to figure things out on their own. I’ve been highly critical of such practices because it leaves a new born easy prey for the more secular humanist “feel good” values than those teachings that would allow a new born to grow with sound Biblical teachings. Paul taught extensively about how the babes in Christ were to be taught and how our walks as Christians should look like but unfortunately, that’s not the way a major portion of churches work. I’m reminded of what the serpent at the Garden of Eden actually taught. It didn’t teach the duo how to steal, lie or cheat but rather the serpent taught them to question God’s word. God’s Word or the World’s. Guess who is winning in the church today?