Guthrie of SBC Today Defends Caner by Going on the Attack

Tim Guthrie of the SBC Today Blog has posted a defense of Ergun Caner in response to the new allegations that came to light yesterday on this blog: namely that Caner claimed in front of FBC Jax in November 2001 that he was in the "Islamic Youth Jihad" before coming to America, and that he was "trained to do that which was done on 11 September". Sorry, Tim, those aren't old allegations, those are brand new. This blog site yesterday provided hard evidence that Caner came to the states as a 4-year old and never left the country.

Guthrie's blog post really isn't a defense, but an ad-hominem attack, that is worse than any of the things said about Caner.

Guthrie doesn't deal with ONE SINGLE legitimate issue that is raised about Caner's fibs about his past, just says they are old and "nothing new".

Guthrie resorts to the old ad-hominem attacks that we are used to. Instead of addressing these documented, legitimate issues, he instead calles myself, James White, and Mohammad "minions" over and over. He lashes out at James White, attacking his degrees and his "false doctrine". He condemns Mohammad to hell dismissing anything he says because he is not a Christian.

Unbelievably, Guthrie complains about bloggers' vitriol during this holy week of Easter, yet he outdoes Caner's critics by dishing out a bigger dose of vitriol and venom himself, without addressing the underlying issues.

Guthrie says that in time Jesus will come and reveal our deeds and bring shame to us, and that our day is coming for blogging about Caner's misdeeds.

No, Tim, perhaps before Jesus comes, I think you will be embarrassed for your attacks, and for your lack of integrity in defending that which is defenseless by going on the attack. I am one who believes the trustees at Liberty University are watching the traffic on the Internet, and know that their seminary's reputation is on the line until they deal with Caner's past.

I am hopeful they will deal with it. And I hold out hope that Emir will soon chime in. As best I can tell, Emir has never engaged in the exaggerations of his brother when sharing his testimony.

Then, Tim, you can blog about THEM, and attack them for doing what YOU should have done as a peer of Caner's: hold him accountable for his exaggerations and misrepresentations that reflect poorly on YOU and your fellow SBC preachers.

Happy Easter, Tim, from the "minion" Watchdog.

Ergun Caner, 2001 FBC Jax Sermon: "I Was in Islamic Youth Jihad"

******* Update ********

Below is a site up that has documentation as to the timeline of Caner's arrival in the states. Indeed, according to this documentation, Caner did come here at age 4, not at age 15 as he told us...making it impossible to be "raised in Europe" as he told us, and very improbable that he was in the "Islamic Youth Jihad" or that he was "trained to do that which was done on 11 September". See for yourself:

Secret Bio of Ergun Caner

Ergun, those of us at FBC Jax trusted you and believed you. Can you please clarify why it seems you lied to us on November 20, 2001?

One of the most disturbing events as a member at FBC Jax under Mac Brunson was when on a Sunday night in the summer of 2008 Brunson misrepresented the testimony of Sheri Klouda concerning her lawsuit against SWBTS and Paige Patterson. Never before had I heard a preacher in a pulpit in his sermon say something hurtful and untrue about a person - made all the worse in that Klouda was one of his sheep when he was pastor at FBC Dallas.

I blogged about Brunson's Klouda comments that month in 2008, in an attempt to hold him accountable and posted a response from Sheri Klouda herself, just a few days later. It was my hope that Mac Brunson would apologize to his congregation and to Klouda for saying what he did, misrepresenting her testimony about the scriptural validity of her lawsuit.

Unfortunately, this is something that we as Christians need to be on guard for in this day of celebrity preachers. That is preachers who might use the "sacred desk" to harm someone they don't like, to speak half-truths to defend their own actions, or to offer up a personal favor to a friend, to intimidate their critics, or to exaggerate claims about themselves to aid in the creation of their celebrity status - or maybe even to convince people to give money to a certain project. Mega church pastors have quite a bit at stake, and their word is golden amongst their followers, so the temptation is always there. We know that mega church pastors use marketers to help create their "brand", so its not beyond belief that a pastor will be tempted to exaggerate or even outright lie to exert their will. Sad, but true.

For example, I was present at FBC Jax when Darrel Gilyard was unveiled in the late 1980s as the new, great, young black preacher who grew up homeless under a bridge and that God miraculously called into ministry. It was a lie, he never was homeless and never lived under a bridge. But early on, why would Gilyard tell a lie like this to Christians he is preaching to?

The Brunson slap at Klouda, and the Gilyard lie about his background, caused me to be a bit concerned when earlier this year I learned that there was some controversy on the Internet brewing over some of Ergun Caner's stories about his background as a "former devout Muslim". A Muslim named "Mohammad" has a website and a series of YouTube videos where he presents evidence of Caner's contradictions - which include his place of birth, debates he has had, and even supposed "jibberish" Caner has uttered during sermons. Also, James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries has written about Caner's inconsistencies (including Caner's claims of debating Shabir Ally), as has Debbie Kaufman at her blog.

This had me intrigued. Being an FBC Jax member in 2001 when Caner first came to FBC Jax to preach, recently I decided to go back and listen again to the sermon delivered to FBC Jax by Ergun Caner on November 20, 2001. I was there for that service, with my family. This was the introduction of Caner to the SBC "big time" - it was after 9/11, and Jerry Vines brought Caner in as an expert of sorts, the former Muslim who could speak to us about Islam as we were still shell-shocked from the events of 9/11.

Sad to say, after listening to Caner's sermon, there are more contradictions. Caner has some explaining to do to the good people of FBC Jax.

Caner made this claim in the sermon that day:

"May I submit to you, until I was 15 years old, I was in the Islamic Youth Jihad. And so until I came to America, until I found Jesus Christ as Lord, I was trained to do that which was done on 11 September."

Wow. So Caner was "trained" to be a terrorist? He was in the youth jihadist movement? This is strange. Earlier in the sermon he said he was born in Stockholm, Sweden, and "raised in Europe". That, together with the above, would lead listeners to think the first fifteen years of his life he was training to be a terrorist overseas, in some sort of militant Islamic youth camp, until he came to America at age 15.

But there's a problem with that.

In Caner's book, "Unveiling Islam", co-authored with his brother Emir, they write, speaking of their parents:

"After falling in love, getting married, and having their first two sons, Ergun and Erdem, in Stockholm, Father and Mother moved to America, the land of opportunity. Emir was born after we arrived in Ohio."

Did you catch that? They moved to America, THEN Emir was born. But Emir was born in August 1970, so some time prior to that, was when Caner emigrated from Sweden.

As best I can tell, Ergun was born in 1966. That would mean Ergun was 4 years old when he came to America. But Ergun told FBC Jax members he was "raised in Europe" (while rolling his r's and sounding as though he has some middle eastern dialect).

If he was 4 years old when he moved to Columbus, Ohio, how was he in the "Islamic Youth Jihad"? Where was he receiving this "training" to do a 9/11 style attack? Is he claiming that the mosque his father took him to was training young boys to be terrorists? I don't get it. But I can tell you, I was there with my family that day, and hearing this sermon again reminded me that indeed - when Caner came, I thought we had just heard a former Islamic terrorist based on his story. That was the intended portrait that Caner painted of himself that day to a packed house at FBC Jacksonville.

Its interesting that even his bio at the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary Website says: "Ergun was born in Stockholm, Sweden to Turkish parents and in 1979 immigrated to the United States with his parents, grandmother, and two brothers."

So when did he come? I tend to believe the book that he coauthored with his brother would be the more reliable, truthful source. So why does his bio say he didn't arrive until 1979, but his book implies he came at age 4?

Another issue to be explained: in the FBC Jax sermon, he makes the following claim, speaking of the friend that led him to Christ:

"...He didn't care that I spoke a different language and that my English was poor. He didn't care the fact that I looked differently or sounded differently or ate different foods than him...they didn't look at me because I was different....they didn't call me 'towel head' or 'sand nigger'. That's what I got outside the church."

That's strange. Assuming his book is true and he came to the states when he was 4, how would his English be "poor", some 12 years after he came to the states? He says he spoke a "different language"? What different language did he speak, if he grew up in Ohio since the age of 4? I grew up in Indiana, just a few hours away from Columbus, and I'm pretty sure the primary language we spoke in the Midwest was English. And why would he be called a "sand nigger"? By his own admission he was born in Sweden and moved to Ohio. What sand did he come from?

Look, I like Ergun Caner. He is a gifted speaker and Christian apologist. I like to listen to his sermons. He no doubt has a great ministry at Liberty with youth, and I mean him no harm with this post. But he really needs to explain these contradictions, and stop with the exaggerations about his past. Those in authority over him need to hold him accountable in this regard. What a great example he would be to other preachers if he would be totally honest and transparent about these exaggerations.


James White says about Caner: "I believe Ergun Caner has a very bad habit of "padding the truth" as he speaks. He gets into the moment and, to add weight, or gravitas, to his presentation, makes claims that are simply untrue."

Let me close with a similar, secular example from my days in Gainesville, Florida:

This whole matter reminds me of a very talented police chief in Gainesville, Florida in the 1980's and 1990's. His name was Waylon Clifton, and he was very much loved my most of Gainesville. He was tough on crime in a very liberal-minded community and most people liked the job he did in protecting us. He was handsome, and had the "Sylvester Stallone" look about him. He was our police chief during the Gainesville murders in 1990, one of the most frightening periods in my life. Clifton was destined for greater things politically, perhaps as the sheriff of Alachua County, and he even toyed with the thought of running for an elected political office.

But Clifton had a serious character flaw that did him in. Most every time he spoke to groups, he talked about his days playing football at the University of Alabama under Bear Bryant. But when someone bothered to do a little bit of research, they found he never, ever played football for Bear Bryant. It was all made up. He spoke of it often, in great detail, but it was all a figment of his imagination - a story made up to embellish his past, to make him seem even more wonderful than he was.

When Clifton learned this was going to present a problem for him, instead of apologizing and coming clean, he doctored an old news article in an attempt to make up proof that he did play at Alabama. He resigned soon after, and I never heard what happened to him after he left Gainesville.


So I hope that Caner does explain these apparent contradictions about his past. They are not insurmountable. He just needs to explain them, apologize if he stretched the truth, and move on. He apologized recently for some hurtful words spoken about Jerry Rankin, so we know he has it in him.


And I hope his supporters don't come here to attack me like they have done to Mohammad and Debbie Kaufman. But I am expecting the worst in that regard.

"The Crystal Campus" - How Does One Know If It's God's Will?

As we begin our look at the proposed FBC Dallas $140 million dollar campus overhaul, which I affectionately call the "Crystal Campus" - after Robert Schuller's "Crystal Cathedral" - we will first consider the question:

How does a Christian know that building such a grand, glorious structure is the will of God for FBC Dallas? Is it possible that God in heaven is actually leading them to do this, and this is what God intends for their congregation to spend their time and treasure on? If so, how would one know that it is? How would one know that it is NOT?

For those of us not members, it might not be a question we have to concern ourselves with. Some have said this blogger should mind his own business. There is an element of truth to that - after all, it's not our money that will build it, and it's not our city. However, it is instructive to consider what the FBC Dallas members are BEING TOLD as to why this IS God's will. What is their pastor telling THEM, and does it square with the Bible, and with what other SBC churches have done in the past?

So, just what is Robert Jeffress telling his church? How would his church know that this is the will of God? It might be the will of God, and it might not be. So how can they tell? Below is an excerpt from a sermon on criticism that Jeffress preached in February:

Jeffress uses the following logical argument:

"Let's say for sake of argument, there really is a God, OK? Just for sake of argument...and let's suppose that God has a plan for First Baptist Church Dallas. Do you believe God has a plan for this church? I mean if there really is a God who creates, it means there's a God who has a plan....and let's just imagine 4 or 5 years ago part of His plan for this church included the building of that Criswell Center that we enjoy today. Now how would God go about making that building a reality?"

Jeffress then discusses several options, including God just making the building appear. But now he gives the church the template for how God does these sort of projects. I'm not sure this is found in scripture, however:

"Doesn't it make sense that if God wanted to do that [build the $40 million Criswell Center] God would first of all speak to the shepherd of the church, Dr. Brunson, and put it in his heart, give him a vision for what God wanted to do here. And then he would work with Doug and his committee to plan and design this building, and then he would work in your hearts to give and support that vision. That's how God does his work."

"That's how God does his work", so says Jeffress. Jeffress puts forth the plan God has: 1. God tells the Pastor about the huge building project; 2. The pastor works with the architects and planners; 3. God then tells the people to give the money. Jeffress uses Brunson's Criswell Center as an example of how this has worked in the past. Fine, but this plan didn't work. Because apparently God did NOT work in the hearts of the people to support that vision, because the church still owes $10 million dollars on that project.

Jeffress continues:

"And let's continue, and suppose God continues to have a plan for this church. Do you think God has a plan, continued for First Baptist Church Dallas? I think He does. I don't think it's God's plan for this church to fall into decay and obscurity and irrelevancy in the city of Dallas. I think God's plan for this church to continue to be a lighthouse for His truth, to lift up the name of Christ in this city and in this world. And let's say that that really is God's plan, and part of that plan means creating this new campus, so that future generations can enjoy what we've enjoyed in these present generations."

Sounds good, but I am not sold that creating a $140 million campus is what is needed to keep a church from being "obscure" and "irrelevant", and certainly its not needed to "lift up the name of Christ." I remember when Mac Brunson was selling FBC Jax on the idea of a school, he kept telling us that it absolutely was necessary to build a school for the church to reach the lost of Jacksonville. He even said that "knocking on doors" doesn't work anymore, because no one is home anymore, and thus a school was necessary. A school might be a good idea, it might not be. But don't sell it on a false premise. And by the way, I see that Mac has changed his mind on the "knocking on doors", as their church is having a city-wide door-knocking blitz to invite people to church this week.

Same with this "Crystal Campus"...it MIGHT be a good idea, might even be God's will. But is it really NECESSARY to accomplish God's will in the church? If they do not build it, will the church "fall ito decay and obscurity and irrelevancy?"

Now Jeffress wraps it up:

"Doesn't it make sense that if per chance, that were God's plan, He would speak to the shepherd of the church [Jeffress] and give him that vision for what to do in His church. That He would move in the hearts of the people to rise up and support that work?"

So the answer is: God spoke to me, the shepherd, and I worked with Doug (whoever Doug is) and the planners, and now its time for you all to allow God to work in your hearts and "support" (meaning give money) to make the new campus a reality.

Let's suppose, per chance, God didn't want a church to do something, but the pastor got it wrong, and led them into a project that was not His will. That is possible, for sure. How would the people know?

Let's look no further than their Criswell building. This was a $40 million dollar project, and the people were told the vision by Brunson. There was some opposition to it, as it included the demolition of a building that some considered historical. Some opposed it because they were worried about incurring debt to build it. These objections were overcome, and they built it based on pledges and cost proposals, and people were told it would be built debt free.

Did the three step plan work?

1. God spoke to Brunson and gave him the vision;

2. Brunson worked with Doug (whoever Doug is) and the planners;

3. God worked in the hearts of the people to support the vision.

Steps 1 and 2 worked, but I submit step 3 didn't work. The project was sold to the church as a project that would be paid for by pledges made.

But today, FBC Dallas still owes $8.7 million on the Criswell Building. God apparently didn't tell the people at Dallas that this was God's will, else they would have given the money, right? I mean, if this is how God does His work, as Jeffress said, why didn't God complete step 3?

I can tell you how First Baptist Church Jacksonville did it. They did steps 1 through 3. But there was a 4th step, that most pastors today don't like to consider:

Step 4: When God works in the hearts of people to support the vision, and when the money is given, then we are pretty sure its God's will and that God DID speak to the shepherd and we'll build it.

When the money was in hand, they built it. I'm not saying that this is the only way to build, or that no debt should ever be incurred. I'm just saying that is how Homer Lindsay, Jr. did it. And let me tell you something: he could have told us to build it BEFORE we had the money in hand, and everyone would have said "Amen". But he didn't do it. We knew God was in it when we had the money in hand, and they did not go into debt to build the Ruth Lindsay in the 1970s, or the new auditorium in the 1990's, or the Children's Building and Pastor's Suite in the 2000's. Cash money. Our Pastor's never said: "Give a million in two weeks", and they never made light of our of our debt-free status we maintained for decades. Our pastors knew that debt would siphon off money that could be used for ministry and put it in the hands of the bankers.

I think its a pretty good sign that God is in something, when the people of God have given the money for a project. That confirms that it is NOT just a pipe-dream of a pastor, but that perhaps the Holy Spirit worked in people's hearts to cause them to open their wallets.

FBC Jax knew that it's cash that builds buildings, not pledges. Pledges are good, but show the pastor the money if you want to build it.

FBCD right now not only doesn't have the money, they are in the hole to start with. FBC Dallas has not only $8.7 million in debt from the Criswell Center - now almost 4 years since they've moved in - but on top of that they have another $6.8 million from a land acquisition in the last few years downtown needed for the expansion, and add to that another $4.1 million in debt from the engineering and planning for the current proposed project, and they are in the hole almost $20 million dollars right now. And about half-way through their fiscal year their giving is about 10% below the budgeted amount.

But they're being told to avoid falling into irrelevancy and obscurity, they need to build a $140 million dollar campus.

And they have to do it NOW, while the construction prices are low, in this "narrow window of opportunity."

So that is, in general terms, what the people are begin told about why the "Crystal Campus" is God's will for their church.

Next, we'll look more closely at the particulars of this project, and how it was that God told the shepherd, Jeffress, that this project was indeed the direction for FBC Dallas.

Hypocrisy in the SBC Over Female Pastors

"A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. (1 Ti 1:11-12)

"The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church." (1 Cor 14:34-35)

The Georgia Baptist Convention very soon will disfellowship another church for the terrible "sin" of calling a woman pastor. This time it's Druid Hills Baptist Church (DHBC) in Atlanta, as they recently voted to appoint the pastor's wife, Mimi Walker, to the position of co-pastor along side her husband, Graham Walker (both at left). The ABP reports that a GBC meeting will occur in Albany, Georgia this fall to vote to give GBC the right boot of (dis)fellowship.

Last year the GBC disfellowshipped the First Baptist Church of Decatur for hiring Julie Pennington-Russell as their pastor.

Most of the banter on the Internet over the Decator and Druid Hills matters has been about church autonomy - that is, whether a state baptist organization should be involved in disfellowshipping a church for exercising their right to hire a female pastor. Certainly some believe hiring a female pastor to be contrary to scripture, but it is not a primary doctrinal matter. Neither Pennington nor Walker are in "sin", they are exercising their God-given gifts to minister as appointed by their church congregations. If their churches want to call women pastors, so be it. Plenty of SBC churches ordain women deacons, while many conservative churches would never do that. And the scripture quoted above could be used for this justification - its pretty clear - women should be quiet in church, not speak, and should ask their husbands if they have a question...or do I need to understand the Greek to interpret that?

It is clear: neither Druid Hills Baptist Church, or the most conservative SBC church abides by the very clear scripture that women should keep their mouths shut and direct all questions to their hubbies. Women speak in church. They hold leadership positions. They teach Sunday School classes. They are "directors" on staff. How can this be, given that very clear scripture? Because, obviously, they all interpret that scripture to mean something different than how it actually reads.

I'm not arguing either side on women pastors. I'm saying that there is no uniform agreement amongst SBC churches as to what scripture means on the role of women in the church. Some ordain women deacons, some do not. Some allow women to teach co-ed Sunday School classes, some do not. Some churches hire full time staffers that give them supervisory responsibility over paid male staffers and lay persons, while some churches do not.

And Druid Hills Baptist Church believes they are within the bounds of their interpretation of scripture to hire a female co-pastor. Before the typical cast of (male) characters comes here and blasts this as an "antimoniam" blog, I would ask them if in their churches they are abiding by 1 Tim 1:11-12 and 1 Cor 14:34-35. No, they are not, and their wives wouldn't stand for it, nor would any women in their churches, and they have interpreted those scriptures to mean something other than what the scripture says. I'm ok with that, until they start calling for the disfellowshipping of a church that inteprets that scripture different from THEIR interpretation.

But what sickens me even more than that this intolerance over tertiary doctrinal matters, is the hypocrisy in disfellowshipping a church whose congregation calls a co pastor, while other churches who have defacto female "co pastors" go untouched. I maintain that Druid Hills has done what many baptist churches have already done, in hiring and paying the pastor's wife as a "co pastor".

Two examples: Mac and Debbie Brunson at First Baptist of Jacksonville, and Ed and Lisa Young at Fellowship Church in Fort Worth.

First, Debbie Brunson: It can be argued that Debbie Brunson is a co-pastor of FBC Jacksonville with her husband, Mac Brunson. Sure, she is not called a "co pastor", but she occupies office space in the pastor's lavish pastor suite. She is not a secretary, as the Brunson's have a pastoral secretary in the pastor's suite with them. If she is NOT the co-pastor, whatever position she DOES hold is not clear as her position has not been posted anywhere on the website. This is not meant as a criticism of Mac and Debbie - I'm merely pointing out that they minister together, she was hired by Mac, and it can be argued that she serves as a de facto female co pastor. Also: Debbie Brunson has recorded several TV commercials - one with Mac and one with the women's ministry director at FBC Jax - so both she and Mac are the face of FBC Jax in the community, further evidence of her role as co-pastor. I'm told she participates in staff meetings, and is very involved as a leader at the church in staffing decisions. I'm also told her salary is very generous, more than the average SBC pastor even. Mac himself admits that women are "more sensitive to the Holy Spirit" than men, and to his credit Mac understands the value of his wife assisting him in ministry.

In my opinion, Debbie Brunson is a de facto co-pastor with her husband.

But the difference is Druid Hills dared to make their co-pastor official. They dared to vote on it OFFICIALLY and announce that they have a female co-pastor. They dared to allow the church to VOTE on hiring her. For some reason, FBC Jax doesn't officially tell anyone what Deb Brunson's position is in the church.

Next, Lisa Young: while she is not called a "co pastor" at Fellowship Church, a visit to the church website will reveal she, like Deb Brunson has a prominent role at her church. Go to their main website page, http://www.fellowshipchurch.com/ and click on "About", and you will see the first two hyperlinks are "Ed Young" and then "Lisa Young" (if you want to learn "About" Fellowship Church, you first should read about Ed and Lisa!) Click here to read about Lisa Young. I argue, she is a de facto co-pastor with her husband. She is described: "Lisa communicates God’s Word with warmth and grace, inspiring others to pursue a more intimate relationship with Him. Her passion is to see herself and others embrace the joys of walking with Christ in every day experiences."

I believe Lisa Young is the de facto co-pastor at Fellowship Church with her husband.

The arguments against this will be that neither Debbie Brunson nor Lisa Young preach in the church services, while Mimi Walker does. True. However, again, the scripture I've quoted above seems to be pretty clear - women should not speak, and its obvious they should not have leadership over men. If you don't think the male staffers at FBC Jax and Fellowship Church answer to Debbie Brunson's and Lisa Young's de facto leadership, you're crazy. They are there, they are visible, and their presence is felt.

Also, I know of churches that allow women to teach men in co-ed Sunday School classes - yet these churches are not disfellowshipped.

So what's my point? My point is that why not let these churches decide for themselves who to call as pastor or co-pastor, who to ordain as deacons, and who to teach Sunday School? Its called church autonomy. How many times have critics of this blog told me to butt out of their business? Those at Dallas will likely say the same when we discuss their proposed "Crystal Campus" starting next week. And spare me the argument that female pastors are a slippery slope to ordaining homosexual pastors. Homosexuality is a sin, and last time I checked being a female is not a sin, so these two issues are not related except in the minds of men who really don't want to see women teaching in a pulpit because, well, they don't like it.

Those in SBC leadership today should hope that a group more conservative than they doesn't gain control some day, and disfellowship them for allowing women to walk around church with their heads uncovered, speaking and daring to look men in the eye and ask them questions.

I hope the Walkers at DHBC stand strong, and present a strong defense in the meeting this fall prior to the vote, and that other churches and pastors in Georgia will come to their defense.

Time for Megas to Pay Their Way?

As a citizen of Jacksonville, Florida, its the same old story in the news:

City government doesn't have enough money to provide needed services. They need to either raise our property taxes or our garbage fees, or both.

Here's a thought: maybe local governments need to look at a brand new source of revenue right under their noses - in fact in Jacksonville's case, RIGHT NEXT DOOR...that would be property taxes on CHURCHES, especially large mega churches. Why are mega churches who rake in millions each year and provide relatively few services in their local community as compared to their revenue and property tax exemption, still in this day, getting a free pass from having to pay for needed government services?

Follow my logic:

The government has a budget deficit, and guess where the solution is? Not in budget cuts, but in the pockets and portfolios of the citizens. Yep, as Obama and the dems have their sights on higher income taxes, as our health insurance premiums rise and energy prices start climbing again, guess who needs to fork over more money to the local government?

You and I. The solution is in our pockets. Fork it over. To the government.

At the same time, Christians go to church and they hear their pastors complain that we aren't giving enough there, that their pastor can't do the ministry God has called them to do. Even recently Southern Baptist pastors got their marching orders from Ronnie Floyd, the head of our SBC Great Commission Task Force - telling pastors that the money necessary to get the gospel out is in the "pockets and portfolios" of selfish church members who on average only give 2.65% of their income to charity.

Floyd's answer? He tells pastors to get back to preaching a 10% tithe. So for the Southern Baptists, 2.65% isn't good enough, they need that quadrupled, else they can't do what God called them to do.

You and I. The solution is in our pockets. Fork it over. To the churches.

And here in Jacksonville we're also told that people aren't buying enough of the NFL Jacksonville Jaquars tickets, and we'll lose the franchise and all the benefits of it unless we buy more tickets.

So here we are...both the government and the church - and the NFL - looking for ways to get their hands into our pockets.

But I submit to you, that some of the money that the government needs is NOT in our pockets and portfolios...it is in the bank account and property portfolio of our mega churches. Churches pay ZERO property taxes. In days gone by this made sense. Churches provided needed services by helping the poor and ministering to those in need. A sizable amount of their revenue helped the community at large. Pastors made a meager income, and they ministered in their local community.

But this is a different day, with the advent of the mega church and CEO pastor. Most of the large churches in this day and time are now entertainment centers, with high priced pastors (some of them actually millionaires) and a stable of well-paid professional "reverends" with master's degrees from seminary. Just a few stingy percents of their budget goes to anything remotely considered to be helping the community, while they spend large portions of their budgets on buying local and national TV time, hiring marketing consultants to steal sheep, and making sure their ministers have a very comfortable lifestyle. Their salary and bennies for the professional ministers is between 40% and 50% of TOTAL REVENUE, for crying out loud. To use a Ronnie Floydism - I'm amazed at the selfishness of mega churches who rake in millions and only give 2.65% of their income to help people.

And we can't avoid the storehouse tithe doctrine being taught by Mac Brunson at FBC Jax and others that tells Christains ALL of their FIRST 10 percent of charitable giving must be given to the church, undesignated. And these pastors call US selfish - this doctrine calls Christians to stiff their local charitable organizations unless they FIRST fork over 10% of their income to the church.

So why should not the government require these stingy mega churches to begin to pay at least A LITTLE BIT of property tax out of their millions? Sure, give an exemption for much smaller churches, but above a certain level of property value, larger churches should have to start paying for their needed government services! Certainly they can find the money in their pastors' salary and benefits and retirement line items, or they can trim their bloated professional staffs...or God forbid maybe they would start smaller churches when they reached a certain size.

But in all likelihood the mega church pastors would use their charisma and their church marketing gurus to preach the tithe harder and more convincingly to get the money from our pockets to make up the difference.

But the church can't pass a law raising our "tithe"....

....so I say let the mega churches start to pay their fair share, and stop mooching off of the tax payers.