Very insightful questions. I appreciate your honest grappling.

List them, please, because this is an example of historical reconstruction.

They "shouldn't?" Well, that's one assertion. But that's all it is. I'd like to see how what you consider to be the litany of evidence compares with the evidences I've presented that our idea of sep. of church and state is very different from our founding fathers. So far, I've only heard bare assertions.

Although I agree that a pastor isn't called to endorse candidates, I agree for a different reason. I don't think voting is a spiritual act of conscience so that you are necessarily identified with the candidate you choose. It's perfectly legitimate to be "agenda-oriented" when you vote, so that, although you may not prefer the candidate, you have other objectives in mind as you vote. However, I certainly believe it to be a pastor's right (and duty!) to understand the times and to be informed of the political scene and to inform his flock, because he has their best interests in mind. And if, for example, a candidate has a pro-homosexual agenda and makes his intentions to pursue such a family-compromising agenda while in office, a pastor ought (not can, ought) to tell his congregation that such a man is a threat to them and their families. I didn't say the movie was my source for the information I shared. I said that some of the things that happened in it are historically accurate, namely - 1) presbyterian ministers gathered and led their congregants to the fight, 2) the British specifically targeted presbyterian churches because of this and gathered protectionless citizens who remained into their churches and burned them. Read up about it. Mel Gibson obviously did.

As far as the first distinction, I'd say a church is most definitely political, as it has been throughout the Christian world from its inception. Jesus was crucified as a political subversive. And He was just that - He claimed to be a King superior to Caesar. Augustus Caesar had issued coins upon which was written, "Augustus Caesar: there is no other name given among men by which you must be saved." Sound familiar? That's because Peter quoted it when he said, "Jesus Christ: there is no other name given among men by which you must be saved." If this is not political (and subversively so) I don't know what is. I don't think Jesus was much concerned about tax exempt status when He set forth the agenda for His church, i.e., "All authority on heaven and earth has been given to me; therefore, go, make the nations my disciples." As to the second point: No man's example is infallible. But our nation was founded by particular men with particular principles. Their ideas and examples by definition shaped what we are. Therefore, though they made mistakes, their examples are a legitimate precedence for anyone who wants to be co-exist with them within the same tradition they founded.

Tax-exempt status has nothing to do with it. Churches are non-profit organizations. That is why they don't pay taxes. However, all of their members pay taxes. To make a non-profit pay taxes is to make its members pay twice. The reason the church is not "permitted" (!) to promote a particular candidate is simply because the church is such a powerful cultural force and the historically novel view of "separation of church and state" got perverted into "no church in the state." There is no Biblical principle that one can "extrapolate" that requires pastors to remain silent on political issues or any issue, or regarding any particular man in politics. I disagree that the actions of the pastors in the War for Independence can't be a precedent for today's pastors. Those were the very pastors who founded our country. There was only one minister who signed the Declaration of Independence - John Witherspoon. He was the president of Princeton. Many of the other signers of the Declaration were under his tutelage at Princeton. In fact, it was through his urgings that they "conspire together" that a group of men began a new nation. Those early pastors shaped the minds that wrote our nation's constitution. If their ideas are exemplary, then so is their behavior. Government is not "of the people, by the people and for the people," despite what Mr. Lincoln said. It is "of God, by God and for God," as reads the quote from which he took his own. No government of man gets to hold the church of God to a standard other than the Scriptures themselves. The way the church and the state relate to one another Biblically is much more sophisticated than the atrophied version the hyper-democritization of our republic has produced.

Sorry to offend. But I'm not sure why you hold me to a different standard than you hold yourself. After all, you are the one who brought up the disagreement from last evening over the blog picture. To re-initiate something you find provoking when it was quieted is not peaceable. That sickens everyone.

We both agree that the civil magistrate ought to be respected by all citizens. Christians are (supposedly) taught this (Jude 1.8 teaches it's wrong to speak evil of dignitaries). But speaking evil is very different from satirizing the ridiculous, even in dignitaries of the land "where no man has to bow."

Sometimes love hurts, while the tender-mercies of the wicked are cruel. And Jesus loved satire.

What line? And who drew it?

Sure, sometimes circumstances legitimately call for a dad to stay at home with the kids. But I think we overlook something very fundamental in the way God made women - they have the created "supplies" to nourish a child's life from the get-go. Don't you think there's a lesson here for who God wants to be the primary caregiver for children?

Hmmm. I'd have a hard time making such a distinction. Perhaps there are some good examples on this thread - like asserting a congregation's responsibility to support a particular candidate(?) But as far as breadth goes, I'm not sure what area is not to be changed so that it is brought under Christ's dominion. After all, He said "Make the nations my disciples," right? Even if "nations" means "peoples," I think it means distinct peoples, i.e., peoples who are part of one another, and therefore comprise nations. Help me understand how our political obligations are not informed by extrapolations from the Word?

I have to admit that I'm not all clear on this. But I agree, that is definitely the question. I think the best response is another question, "Is it right for ANYone to attempt to affect societal change?" If anyone should attempt it, why not pastors? The gospel message is, in essence, the proclamation of the kingship of Christ. It is saying, "Christ is Lord." And the response to the message is repentance and faith. If Christ is Lord, then He is Lord of everyone. That's why Paul couldn't wait to go straight to Caesar with that proclamation, so that even Caesar would bow his knee to the King of kings. This is why, in our country's beginning, a man had to be a Christian to hold political office (so much for separation of church and state!) Pastors preach, like Paul, from their pulpits on whatever is apropo to their congregation's needs, applying the gospel of Christ's Lordship over every area - none excluded. Pastors are also men and citizens of earthly kingdoms, and if the times call for men to take up arms against tyranny, then I'm not sure what's wrong with them leading the way with their own example. The churches of the colonies were the centers of their communities. Their whole lives were shaped by it. Often (if not always), being a member of God's trans-national kingdom requires one to engage in his nation's politics. This doesn't mean he spreads Christ's kingdom with a sword, because Christ's kingdom doesn't spread that way. But sometimes our Christian duty requires men to use one for other just reasons. I think the War for Independence is an example of this. I'm all for our military chaplains carrying guns in combat. If I had a pastor (chaplain) as a husband, and he were stuck in fox hole being assaulted by enemies, I'd expect him to do his darndest.

I agree that pastor's are fallible, being mere men. That is why they must take great care to stick close to the Word of God in their exposition/preaching. I'd have to say, though, that insofar as the Bible and its principles speak to politics (or anything other area), they must preach those principles courageously, even if it's "unpatriotic" or "illegal." Not many pastors have enough wisdom to understand all that goes into a magistrate's decision. Not many pastors know enough about political candidates to offer voting advice. But insofar as character and Biblical morality apply, a pastor must have the "liberty" to speak out. E.g., if a candidate's voting record is consistently anti-life, a pastor can say "that's offensive to God." However, I don't think they can necessarily say "don't vote for that man" as if voting were somehow a spiritual act of conscience. Sometimes the best vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils." I'm not into strictly conscience voting. Unless a third party candidate I agreed with wholeheartedly could make a genuine bid, I'd have to go with the "lesser of evil" idea. On the other hand, who says the polls are our infallible authority?

Secondly, Matthew 18 teaches that if someone has a problem with someone or thinks they are in sin, they must first confront them about it and give them the opportunity to repent of their misdeed. Thirdly, Paul in 1 Corinthians teaches that it is shameful for a Christians to seek to have their disagreements adjudicated by pagans in the civil sphere, though admittedly, like the church in Corinth, they fail at intra-body reconciliation regularly. I assume going to the IRS first falls into this category.

If preachers had not preached politics, our country would not even exist! It was the presbyterian preachers of the American War for Independence who preached against the tyranny of the British crown. They gathered their congregations and actually led their congregants to the fight. Ever see the minister in "The Patriot?" (Mel Gibson). That's historically accurate. In fact, the reason there aren't very many presbyterians around today is because the British specifically targeted their churches and their parsonages. They gathered their women and children (the men were off to fight) into the churches and burned them (another historically accurate part of the movie). In Britain, the War for Independence was called "the Presbyterian Revolt." And even Horace Walpole, the British Prime Minister during the conflict, remarked "American has run off with a Presbyterian Parson." Thank God for preachers who preach politics! It's the mark of a true Patriot.

mis-take

How did somebody who likes black leather and a whip get so many rep points? I guess it's by salting your speech to make it palatable. I, on the other hand, having been on this forum for just over a day, seem to be getting 'whipped' by troll-sniffers using rep points like teachers use red ink. I didn't realize when I signed up for this thing that the bell curve rang with such derision for variety!

This black man agrees with you, girl. Enjoy! P.S., this link is only for those who are not easily inflamed by a different point of view.

Assuming someone has the ability to govern in the civil sphere because they can organize a campaign is akin to assuming a landscape painter knows how to garden. The government is not a business though many assume the same principles unilaterally apply, and some people run their business like it's a regiment of the army - but this generally makes for much complaining among the employees.

! :blush: Yes, that's a riot.

Didn't see it. Directions?

GUFFAW!!! :lol:

I'm sorry you think a viewpoint opposite from yours is hateful. Women generally want to be understood, even if men don't want to comprehend their viewpoint,... like this "hateful" woman - http://generationcedar.blogspot.com/2008/08/more-thoughts-on-palinfrom-v-baucham.html Please don't be mean to her! ;)

This quote is hilarious! "To deal with the obvious first, she is a pippin. She is a beautiful woman who wears her hair up and has those schoolmarm eyeglasses. So there's the hot for teacher vote, neglected so many times and so callously throughout our nation's troubled history. I am joking, and this is fun to joke about, but anybody who thinks it an insignificant vote-getter is blissfully unaware of the hidden twelve-year-old boy in half the electorate." from http://www.dougwils.com/