Two Sundays ago, Alliance Defense Fund worked with a group of about 30 pastors to deliberately break the Johnson amendment that the IRS has been following since the 50s which requires tax exempt organizations such as churches to avoid participating in partisan activities by preaching politics in their Sunday services. Does this seem like a good idea or not? Is this a justified example of civil disobedience? Would you prefer your pastor to give his view on political matters from the pulpit? Is this a violation of the separation of church and state? Did Jesus give us this example to follow? What about other prophets in the Bible? Are politics worth dividing over? Links:
Pulpit Initiative by Alliance Defense Fund
Ending church silence by Townhall.com
Tempted by politics by Mark Galli
Pastors do politics from pulpit by Washington Times
When government owns our churches by Alan Sears
Constitution on pulpit preaching by FindLaw
2 comments:
Preaching Politics... In a word: No. The apostles lived in times not unlike our own in many ways. Moral decay and societal perversions were rampant in royal courts (cf. the death of John the Baptist), and in the marketplace. Divorce, slavery, adultery, incest, extortion, abuse of power, abandonment of children, abuse of women,... to name a few, were not uncommon. Yet when Paul writes to his young ministerial companion, Timothy, what is the centralmost admonition that he writes? "I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word". Just three words, Preach The Word. With God's word in his hands and on his lips, the preacher is to give himself to the task of accurately, boldly and courageously applying the word of God to the hearts and consciences of men. Anything less is the abandonment of the office and a clear demonstration that he is no true shepherd of the sheep, but instead just a hireling.
Politics and political outcomes are important, but they pale in comparison to the genuine work of the pulpit. Political issues are not the pastor's calling, the proclamation of the infallible word of the King of kings is his calling. Better to stand firm like Nehemiah: "I am doing a great work and I cannot come down."
Posted by permission, anonymous,
Andrew,
I was able to listen to most of your show from 6pm to 7 today on the way home from a hike.
I have so many comments regarding the compelling conversation that I don't know where to start.
First, your guest from Christianity Today almost lost me when he brought up the Hitler years and German clergy's somewhat pacifist stand against the regime. He added comments at the conclusion directed at the evil within the person-Hitler, the leader of that regime.
I have to say that in that case speaking out against Hitler directly would have been totally appropriate. There are simply circumstances that warrant not simply presenting theological and Biblical perspective, although, as I'm writing this, I realize the German clergy during WWII must have been very frightened of the consequences of speaking out against Hitler.
Should clergy endorse a political candidate????
My answer: not sure...need to chew on this...as you allowed your caller to do when he felt intuitively that something was wrong.
I believe that Christians have a duty to defend the Biblical model of morality in addition to serving others and defending the weak and defenseless.
That being said, as the discussion turned toward abortion, is it possible to disagree with abortion but admit as a politician you will not attempt to overturn R v W? I believe that there is a "root cause" of ALL problems, abortion not being the exception.
For instance, getting to the core of the overwhelming amount of abortions in the U.S., principally elective, deserves close scrutiny. I'm very traditional regarding the family, and cannot help but compare today's world and culture to that of the 50's and early 60's.
There were abortions, however, not necessarily due to the fact R v W wasn't in place during those years. Simply stated, there was a common and accepted, albeit infrequently discussed, morality and tolerance that is very different from today.
I'm not condoning reverting back to those years, but....you have to admit one big positive was that the traditional family was the "norm," and although there were economic and other problems including those of a racial nature in this country, there was a definition of "family" that defined behavior, therefore leading to certain positive behaviors and acknowledgement that behaviors of a sexual nature (outside of marriage) had consquences, and one of them was not abortion? Therefore, people tended not to engage in those sexual behaviors (outside of marriage) which in those days, which were reinforced by the "normal" family prevalent in society in those days? Maybe it's late and I'm thinking too much...however...the conversation on your show today inspired me.
Post a Comment