A couple of articles I saw recently suggested a couple of methods.
First, Tim Pool states the following:
“Where we are in my generation? I blame Christian conservatives.
“And it’s because they’re too good of people, and they were very tolerant and accepting of so many really bad people that they kept acting in good faith and allowed these far leftists and communists to infiltrate institutions…
“And being good people, they’re like, ‘Well, you know, we should give these people a fair chance,’ and now you’ve got communists running over everything,” he added.
Another method of facilitating the Marxist takeover is exemplified by certain advice offered to pastors. According to one article, this is what pastors are encouraged to do:
The curriculum they promote is a deathtrap for biblical truth, luring people into a maze of postmodernist tripe. Instead of leading believers toward seeking God’s position on political issues through Scripture, they abandon the Scriptures’ clear teaching on such issues, opting instead for a blend of confusion and compromise that dilutes the gospel they profess to uphold.
But it’s worse than that. One of the leaders of the curriculum, Curtis Change, openly admits that his curriculum is designed in such a way that pastors can avoid controversial issues in the pulpit altogether, giving them what he calls “plausible deniability.” This way, pastors can lead their congregations without taking a stance on any political or social issue, and can instead send their sheep to be disciples by these wolves.
The article goes on to suggest that the modus operandi is for pastors to avoid being targeted by shifting the responsibility to small groups for teaching on political or cultural issues based on biblical worldview. Russell Moore– the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission– is one of the partners and developers of this curriculum.
That approach, of course, reduces the power of the pulpit to milquetoast at best. And it leaves large numbers of people poorly instructed. It is directly contrary to the tradition of the Black Robe Regiment.
It appears that Tim Pool has a point.
TC: It appears that you have a systemic problem in the SBC. It needs fixing.
Hear this :
The Johnson Amendment to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal
Revenue Code is at odds with the history of tax exemption for churches.
Its enactment was an effort to insulate politicians from scrutiny and to
ensure reelection by silencing opposing voices. Thus, it is also at odds
with the foundational commitment that our country has made to robust
and open dialogue in the electoral context. It has been enforced in a way
that fosters fear and self-censorship and has a chilling effect on speech.
The vagueness of the statute has been exacerbated many times over by
accompanying vague regulations, guidance, and pronouncements from
the IRS.
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Citizens United, Winn, and
Hosanna-Tabor pave the way for a finding by the Court that the Johnson
Amendment is unconstitutional. These cases demonstrate that the
Johnson Amendment has no constitutional validity. Whether the
challenge arises through churches participating in the Alliance Defense
Fund’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday or from some other front remains to be
seen. But when a court soon addresses the issue, the advocates for
declaring the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional now have more
powerful ammunition from the Supreme Court to argue for the law’s
invalidation. Put bluntly, after Citizens United, Winn, and HosannaTabor, the Johnson Amendment’s days are numbered.
That would be great, Fred, if the Johnson amendment were to be invalidated by the courts. That would make pastors feel more free to speak out on important matters.
On the other hand, if the natural inclination of the church or pastors is toward timidity or compromise or accommodation, then invalidation of the amendment would make little difference.