Christians everywhere are driven by the same passion—to share God's love with the world. But not all agree on how that's best accomplished. Some insist that civil authorities should be involved—making it harder to run afoul of the Bible's timeless principles. Others feel compelled to witness on their own. Perhaps it's time to ask the age-old question: What would Jesus do? Good news. He answered that question two thousand years ago
Churches like nothing more than to have a wonderful and exciting conversion story to proclaim to the world. What happens if proclaiming such a story puts lives in danger? What happens when a person is put in danger against his will? These questions have been at the center of a fascinating legal case, Doe v. First Presbyterian Church U.S.A. of Tulsa, (OK Sup. Ct., Dec. 19, 2017), involving a church that announced on the internet how one converted from Islam to Christianity.
On Monday, January 8, 2018, the United States Supreme Court declined to review both Barber v. Bryant and Campaign for Southern Equality v. Bryant, two suits filed against Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant contesting the state's law (HB 1523) which allows public officials and businesses to deny services to LGBT people for religious reasons.
Last summer, Hurricane Harvey created a wake of destruction across southeast Texas, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stepped in to provide disaster-relief grants to some organizations. Under FEMA’s policy at the time, churches could receive funding to repair only those portions of their facilities where less than 50 percent of the space was used for religious purposes. As a result, schools or church-run hospitals and community centers could receive aid, but not church sanctuaries.
As part of the final push to enact tax reform before the end of the year, a proposed tax code change that would permit churches and other non-profit organizations to engage in partisan political campaigning has been dropped from the House and Senate reconciliation version of 2017 tax bill. Although the House version of the bill had included a repeal of the controversial Johnson Amendment, the Senate version kept it intact. Proponents of the repeal have argued for the right of pastors to speak freely about candidates from the pulpit, and opponents claim it would provide a "dark money" tax-exempt way to launder otherwise non-tax deductible campaign donations.
Whatever position one takes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the issue is personal and not mandated by any Scripture except in that we are admonished to be peacemakers.
Early Saturday morning, the U.S. Senate passed its version of a major tax bill. Although there are a number of indirect ramifications for religious institutions, the Senate bill keeps the Johnson Amendment intact.
Next Tuesday, December 5, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a difficult case that pits the free exercise of religion and free speech rights of a wedding cake maker against the anti-discrimination rights of a same-sex couple. The couple demands the cake; the baker refuses because he thinks he will be sinning. The question is – can the state of Colorado make him bake the cake?
In its third case on the issue of state-required speech this term, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a California case involving whether the state can compel pro-life pregnancy counseling centers to post notices about the existence of publicly-funded abortion and contraceptive services, and requires disclosures if the centers or personnel are unlicensed.
It is wonderful how much time good people spend fighting the devil. If they would only expend the same amount of energy loving their fellow men, the devil would die in his own tracks of ennui.
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
