Does your pastor preach politics? (CC, obviously)

[Spy Car]

Yea, it's a private/commercial blog, but this kind of stuff is typical:

 

"This is an election that by all accounts ought to have been a walk-over for the Democrats, but instead they nominated someone from a political region I call So Far Left That. If Obama was seated in the left field bleachers, he has scooted so far left that he has a great view of first base. I mean, first base is right there. Feel free to leave your own so far left that entries in the comments."

 

And then, the invited comments flow in, and these I can't bear to reproduce :blink:

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Does Obama's pastor sicken you?

 

Pretty much, yes.

 

Honest answer.

 

Bill

 

ETA, that should read "former" pastor, but the answer is the same.

[Beth in SW WA]

Pretty much, yes.

 

Honest answer.

 

Bill

 

Bill, We agree on something!

Its a start :)

 

I didn't want to bring Jeremiah Wright into any of our discussions. We'll just leave it there.

 

Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

 

Actually its lights out for this tired mama. Sweet dreams, gang...

[WTMindy]

You were the one who linked to it, I want to know if the "hive" thinks it is kosher for a pastor to put such stuff on a blog, or to refer to Barack Obama as the Dali Bama.

 

You might think it's hilarious, I don't think it reflects well on a minister.

 

Well, he certainly has the right to put whatever he wants on his own blog. However, I would prefer that a pastor not choose something that is certain to inflame people like this. I think a pastor will offend people if he is preaching God's words, but to purposefully do it over something like that seems counterproductive to me. He is certainly not going to win anyone to Christ with that tactic, and he only going to ignite anger and disdain from those who find it offensive.

[Spy Car]

Bill, We agree on something!

Its a start :)

 

I didn't want to bring Jeremiah Wright into any of our discussions. We'll just leave it there.

 

Now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

 

Actually its lights out for this tired mama. Sweet dreams, gang...

 

Common ground :D

 

Sleep well

 

Bill

[*anj*]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

Well, he certainly has the right to put whatever he wants on his own blog. However, I would prefer that a pastor not choose something that is certain to inflame people like this. I think a pastor will offend people if he is preaching God's words, but to purposefully do it over something like that seems counterproductive to me. He is certainly not going to win anyone to Christ with that tactic, and he only going to ignite anger and disdain from those who find it offensive.

[Anne Rittenhouse]

Like many who have commented here, the practice of mixing politics and the pulpit drove us from the Catholic church, then the Lutheran Church, so we tried the Episcopal Church left that within the month, and went to Unitarians ackkk... didn't last a week there. We no longer have any interest in attending any religious organization on a regular basis. My dH claims he's now a agnostic pagan...what is that?

[Spy Car]

And sometimes they need to untwist the knickers and get a sense of humor..Go watch Top Ten Bushisms on Youtube. It always makes me laugh. He is a good man' date=' but gracious he talks funny!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRlbX9AJPyg&feature=related[/quote']

 

That did lighten my mood :D

 

Bill

[Colleen]

1) No, I've never had a pastor who was even the remotest bit political from the pulpit. I can't abide the mere notion of such a thing. I want good, expositional preaching. Period. No politics. No social agendas. No flags. Just the Word, thankyouverymuch.

 

2) My pastor would never get political. I've visited churches where allusions to politics are made from the pulpit. Once it starts, I'm outta there.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

First, let me say a Pastor/Minister/Priest must (IMHO) always be mindful of the influence he (or she) has over their congregation. That influence may not even be obvious.

 

Second-growing up I lived in the state capital (city, that is) and while I don't remember our minister preaching politics as I was likely in Sunday school, I do remember him letting various protest groups use church facilities, allowing politically based meetings etc. He never sought the advice of the Elders on these issues and was ultimately fired for this and one other serious issue. Needless to say, I am fairly certain that his politics was not in line with that of the majority of the congregation. A shame since he was one of the finest scholars I have ever heard in a pulpit.

 

I guess I prefer not to hear politics during a sermon. For example, if you preach on the war in Iraq-no matter on which side of the issue-you, as a minister, would ultimately loose the ability to comfort some in your congregation who have friends or family there due to your opinions. I do place a high value on what service a pastor can offer those in their congregation.

[Mrs Mungo]

Answering a bunch of stuff here.

 

to rowan-tree: What happened during the American revolution has little to do with today's politics. Of course, if pastors were to decide to form a revolution against the government then I would fully expect them to lose their tax-exempt status. :tongue_smilie:

 

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.

 

Are you suggesting to vote one way or another would be sinful?

 

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.

 

I've been in political disagreement with a church before. In fact, I've been the one walking out on a sermon and a church.

 

To tell people how to vote from the pulpit is a misuse of tax-free status and the church is wrong from a civil law standpoint.

 

Jugglin'5-as far as your post, I specifically stated that discussing political issues is fine. I don't have a problem (and the IRS doesn't have a problem) with pastors saying abortion is wrong or what-not.

 

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.

 

But this is against regulation too. That's why they have a chaplain's assistant.

 

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?

 

Pastors can work within political campaigns but they cannot say "vote this way" or "vote that way" from the pulpit as long as the church is claiming tax-exempt status. If they are then they are cheating the government out of fair taxes. That is a direct violation of Christ's directive that we should render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. The church is therefore legally, morally and Biblically in the wrong.

 

Jugglin' 5-My husband is also a private citizen and he can vote but he's not allowed by law to publically declare a candidate or advertise a candidate.

 

SpyCar-As far as a pastor using satire on a personal blog, I wouldn't have a problem with that. Pastors are people too and do have their own humor and issues and beliefs. If it was sold in the church bookstore or it was conencted to the church website I would feel differently.

[rowan-tree]

Answering a bunch of stuff here.

 

Pastors can work within political campaigns but they cannot say "vote this way" or "vote that way" from the pulpit as long as the church is claiming tax-exempt status. If they are then they are cheating the government out of fair taxes. That is a direct violation of Christ's directive that we should render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's. The church is therefore legally, morally and Biblically in the wrong. .

 

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.

[Mrs Mungo]

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.

 

They are non-profit and *not political*. Political organizations are structured differently than non-profits. You can't be both a political organization *and* a non-profit organization. I don't get "taxed twice" when I donate to a political cause just because the organization gets taxed.

 

Those early pastors shaped the minds that wrote our nation's constitution. If their ideas are exemplary, then so is their behavior.

 

Except there is no logical follow-through on that. Many of our nation's finest minds were also flawed and their behavior was *not* necessarily what *I* would consider exemplary.

[nakitty]

My Grandmother, Aunt and Mom...all left their little church because the preacher kept preaching his politics...which they neither agreed with nor wanted to listen to when they went to worship.

 

Also, living in St. Louis I often heard news about the political climate within the Catholic church...it was very charged and divisive.

[Slartibartfast]

Yesterday (Sat.) my dh told me that his sermon was going to be about the war in Iraq and what the Bible says. He told me the gist of his sermon and I rebutted, advising him that he could not maintain a neutral political stance by what he wanted to say.

 

Without getting into the details of which party or what views a pastor preaches about from the pulpit, do you mind sharing whether or not:

 

1. You've had a pastor that shared (any) political view from the pulpit, or attempt (directly or indirectly) to sway others towards one particular line of political thinking.

 

2. If you pastor did, would it upset you? Is there any harm in a pastor openly sharing his political views?

 

I ask because a few members of the church asked him afterwards if he was leading up to a certain conclusion that he neglected to share- of course he was...and then upon their request he shared it with them, citing me as the reason he didn't do it from the pulpit.

 

Now I'm curious whether I was wrong in advising him not to.

 

I am not gonna read whole thread because it is huge so I will just respond to OP.

 

IMO it is not appropriate for a pastor to preach politics and a pastor could endanger a church's tax-exempt status should they do so.

[Tammyla]

No.

[Plaid Dad]

Are you suggesting to vote one way or another would be sinful?

 

Jumping into the fray here and not, obviously not speaking for the person you were responding to, but just as an FYI...

 

For Catholics, there are certain issues that are non-negotiable from a moral standpoint. By voting for a candidate who is likely to enable intrinsically evil actions, we are participating in that evil. So, yes, there are situations in which voting for a particular candidate would be sinful. (Candidates who promote such policies and who claim to be Catholic are also considered to be guilty of grave sin - which is why a bishop recently suggested that certain politicians not present themselves for Communion.)

 

This page deals with some of the issues at stake (see especially #14). The booklet I mentioned in my previous post is available here as a free download and deals more extensively with how Catholics can approach voting when there is all the major candidates hold unacceptable positions on one or more of the non-negotiable issues (as is currently the case). Fwiw, the booklet has been specifically approved by the IRS as within their guidelines.

[Kelli in TN]

 

This page deals with some of the issues at stake (see especially #14). .

 

 

Ah,#14. What is the new boardism? I'm trackin' your vibe?

 

If there were an actual pro-life candidate vs a pro-choice candidate, I would have no real decision to make. Everyone keeps saying that one of the candidates is pro-life, but I am not seeing it.

[Spy Car]

For Catholics, there are certain issues that are non-negotiable from a moral standpoint.

 

Drew, what is the Church's stand on voting for a candidate who has forsaken his disabled wife to take up with a younger, pettier, wealthier woman?

 

Does the Church recognize his divorce, or would he be living in a state of moral turpitude in this new relationship?

 

Is this a morally acceptable person to vote for from a Roman Catholic position?

 

 

Bill

[*anj*]

Ah,#14. What is the new boardism? I'm trackin' your vibe?

 

If there were an actual pro-life candidate vs a pro-choice candidate, I would have no real decision to make. Everyone keeps saying that one of the candidates is pro-life, but I am not seeing it.

 

:iagree:

[Beth in SW WA]

1) No, I've never had a pastor who was even the remotest bit political from the pulpit. I can't abide the mere notion of such a thing. I want good, expositional preaching. Period. No politics. No social agendas. No flags. Just the Word, thankyouverymuch.

 

2) My pastor would never get political. I've visited churches where allusions to politics are made from the pulpit. Once it starts, I'm outta there.

 

Three things my pastor will never touch from the pulpit:

 

1. Breastfeeding

 

2. Homeschooling/public school/private school

 

3. Politics

 

Wise man :)

[Beth in SW WA]

I'm trackin' your vibe?

 

 

I'm going to start charging $1 for every time that phrase is used here! :)

 

"I'm totally tracking your vibe" is the quote in its original form, fyi.

 

Kidding!!! Enjoy!!!

[cajun.classical]

Three things my pastor will never touch from the pulpit:

 

1. Breastfeeding

 

2. Homeschooling/public school/private school

 

3. Politics

 

Wise man :)

Wow. My pastor speaks about all three and I love him for it! The Bible speaks about all areas of our lives and I would desire and expect that my pastor would preach faithfully and apply Scripture to every area of life.

 

I think the real crux here is "binding consciences". My pastor never does that. He preaches faithfully, but also understands that some issues, like breastfeeding for example, are issues for wisdom and personal conscience. He would say what he thinks the Biblical principles are, but he would never attempt to bind my conscience where God does not. It's not really a matter of what areas a pastor should or should not speak about, but rather how skillfully and wisely he does so.

 

I wouldn't say that it is the "wise man" who steers clear of controversial topics, but rather the "wise man" who can speak about them without giving offense.

 

ETA: if anyone was wondering. I'm distracting myself from this hurricane bearing down on me. The eye will be here in a few hours. In the meantime, the waiting is unbearable. I'm killing time until the electricity goes out.

[OnTheBrink]

There's a huge difference between sermons on biblical issues that have become political issues and sermons that are simply political. And by by political, I mean sermons that attempt to support a candidate. You can preach what the Bible says about homosexuality, murder, adultery, etc, without ascribing or associating those topics to what a candidate believes.

 

For a pastor to stand at the pulpit and preach "Candidate A is WRONG because he/she believes A and B!" is just wrong. Pastor's aren't called to endorse candidates; they're called to preach the Word of God.

 

I don't find a Hollywood depiction of the Revolutionary War to be a credible source for historical accuracy.

[Kelli in TN]

Three things my pastor will never touch from the pulpit:

 

1. Breastfeeding

 

 

 

Pastors preach on breastfeeding? Seriously?

 

I would have never imagined such a thing.

[Kelli in TN]

I'm going to start charging $1 for every time that phrase is used here! :)

 

"I'm totally tracking your vibe" is the quote in its original form, fyi.

 

Kidding!!! Enjoy!!!

 

You could set up a paypal account.

 

If we have to pay for boardisms Elaine is going to be rich.

[Beth in SW WA]

Pastors preach on breastfeeding? Seriously?

 

I would have never imagined such a thing.

 

That's an "utterly" amazing concept isn't it?

 

Sorry, I'm going to "milk" this one for all its worth. :)

[dragons in the flower bed]

Is there any harm in a pastor openly sharing his political views?

 

 

 

A church can lose it's tax-exempt status this way.

[Spy Car]

Wow. My pastor speaks about all three and I love him for it!

 

It's kind of off-topic, but was the pastor pro or con on breast-feeding?

 

I hope you are safe in the storm :001_smile:

 

Bill

[cajun.classical]

It's kind of off-topic, but was the pastor pro or con on breast-feeding?

 

I hope you are safe in the storm :001_smile:

 

Bill

 

Thanks for the well wishes. So far so good but the eye of the storm isn't here just yet. The waiting is awful!

 

He's pro-breastfeeding, but thinks it is a matter of personal conscience. He has never instructed the women of our church to breastfeed, nor has he even implied that it is sinful *not* to breastfeed. As I said before, I am blessed with a pastor who never tries to bind our consciences. He is a firm believer in Christian liberty.

[Spy Car]

Thanks for the well wishes. So far so good but the eye of the storm isn't here just yet. The waiting is awful!

 

He's pro-breastfeeding, but thinks it is a matter of personal conscience. He has never instructed the women of our church to breastfeed, nor has he even implied that it is sinful *not* to breastfeed. As I said before, I am blessed with a pastor who never tries to bind our consciences. He is a firm believer in Christian liberty.

 

Thank goodness your are safe. I've really been worried about this hurricane, and am relieved it hasn't been worse.

 

Bill

[rowan-tree]

They are non-profit and *not political*. Political organizations are structured differently than non-profits. You can't be both a political organization *and* a non-profit organization. I don't get "taxed twice" when I donate to a political cause just because the organization gets taxed.

 

 

 

Except there is no logical follow-through on that. Many of our nation's finest minds were also flawed and their behavior was *not* necessarily what *I* would consider exemplary.

 

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.

[rowan-tree]

For a pastor to stand at the pulpit and preach "Candidate A is WRONG because he/she believes A and B!" is just wrong. Pastor's aren't called to endorse candidates; they're called to preach the Word of God.

 

I don't find a Hollywood depiction of the Revolutionary War to be a credible source for historical accuracy.

 

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.

[Mrs Mungo]

Jumping into the fray here and not, obviously not speaking for the person you were responding to, but just as an FYI...

 

For Catholics, there are certain issues that are non-negotiable from a moral standpoint. By voting for a candidate who is likely to enable intrinsically evil actions, we are participating in that evil. So, yes, there are situations in which voting for a particular candidate would be sinful.

 

Just to tighten this up a little, I snipped part. I said before and will say again, I *agree* that pastors may preach to political issues.

 

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."

 

If Christ wasn't concerned about tax-exempt status and a particular church doesn't care about tax-exempt status that's just fine, they shouldn't claim it. Then there is no problem (other than alienating some portion of your congregants who you may or may not believe are mortal sinners as judged by their political platform).

 

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.

 

Oh, I agree. For example, there is litany of evidence that many of the founding fathers supported the idea of separation of church and state. I agree with that precendence.

[Spy Car]

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.

 

Yea, and most of the Founders were Deists, Unitarians, Agnostics, or "freethinkers".

 

Bill

[rowan-tree]

J

If Christ wasn't concerned about tax-exempt status and a particular church doesn't care about tax-exempt status that's just fine, they shouldn't claim it. Then there is no problem (other than alienating some portion of your congregants who you may or may not believe are mortal sinners as judged by their political platform).

 

Oh, I agree. For example, there is litany of evidence that many of the founding fathers supported the idea of separation of church and state. I agree with that precendence.

 

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.

[rowan-tree]

Yea, and most of the Founders were Deists, Unitarians, Agnostics, or "freethinkers".

 

Bill

 

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

[rowan-tree]

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I am really very torn.

 

The original visions (and there were more than one) of the founders of the US and the authors of the Constitution did not all survive very long once they started dealing with political realities - how reasonable is it to assume that they would still hold some of the positions we have enshrined were they here now?

 

..if we take their examples, which ones do we choose? And what about the many times when they conflict - either one founder's with another's or conflicting examples within one person's life/writings/etc?

 

How much should we feel bound to the original intents? ...and what about when it is clear that those original intents conflict with our own (individual) moral certainties? Slavery is a glaring example...

 

I've been struggling with this a great deal these last few weeks, and have reached some mutually incompatible conclusions...

 

The most compelling thought, however, is that without a national commitment to the Constitution, I do not believe our country could survive, I think it would, over time, fracture. Would that be bad? I'm not sure. Usually I would say, 'yes', absolutely, there is intrinsic value in continuing to exist as a country. There is another part of me, stronger as I see the partisan polarizations, that wonders if it might not be better - in the long run, at least. I see such strong, mutually incompatible visions and goals and priorities... and I see ways in which each strays, sometimes strongly, from the Constitution... I hate to throw out any current examples, lest I turn this into another partisan brawl - so imagine your own, please! :)

 

...I've been spending too much time on American history with one daughter, Enlightenment philosophies with another, and current politics... so I am musing a lot!

 

Very insightful questions. I appreciate your honest grappling.

[Spy Car]

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

 

Who knows for sure what's in a person's heart or head? Not me. But based on their writings and personal histories historians have surmised:

 

Ben Franklin (Deist). Thomas Jefferson (Deist), John Adams (Unitarian), George Washington (Deist/Freemason), Thomas Paine (freethinker), Ethan Allen (Deist/atheist?)

[nakitty]

Drew, what is the Church's stand on voting for a candidate who has forsaken his disabled wife to take up with a younger, pettier, wealthier woman?

 

Does the Church recognize his divorce, or would he be living in a state of moral turpitude in this new relationship?

 

Is this a morally acceptable person to vote for from a Roman Catholic position?

 

 

Bill

 

This is an excellent question and I would like to know the answer as well....

[rowan-tree]

Yea, and most of the Founders were Deists, Unitarians, Agnostics, or "freethinkers".

 

Bill

Who knows for sure what's in a person's heart or head? Not me. But based on their writings and personal histories historians have surmised:

 

Ben Franklin (Deist). Thomas Jefferson (Deist), John Adams (Unitarian), George Washington (Deist/Freemason), Thomas Paine (freethinker), Ethan Allen (Deist/atheist?)

 

Six people? That hardly constitutes "most!" You must know that there were fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence. You've listed only four of the signers here. The unitarians were John Adams and Robert Treat Paine (whom you did not list), and the "Deists," Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. The other fifty-two out of fifty-six were Christians. Shall I list their church affiliations?

 

I don’t know about Ethan Allen being a “founder,” but it’s amazing that an “atheist” (as you suggest) would have said what he said to Delaplace at Fort Ticonderoga: When insisting that Delaplace surrender the fort, Delaplace said, “By what authority?” Allen lifted his sword(!) and said, “In the name of the great Jehovah and the Continental Congress!” I’d say we could use more atheists like him.

 

I have nothing nice to say about Thomas Paine, though I appreciate his reasoned arguments. And so did George Washington, but Washington (and others) would have nothing to do with Paine when he got involved with the French. That is why we should insist on calling America's war the "War for Independence" and not the "American Revolution." It was not a "revolution," properly speaking, and had nothing in common with the abominable French Revolution.

 

Furthermore, Washington, long called the "father of our country," was absolutely not a deist. He was a faithful Episcopal in good standing. His Christian faith is evidenced throughout all his writings and his practice. How does one know what's in someone's heart or head, you ask? Jesus says we can tell by, among other things, what comes out of a person's mouth (Lk 6.45). Washington wrote, "It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the Providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor" (Thanksgiving Proclamation, Oct 3, 1789). [Hardly the words of someone who believes in our version of separation of church and state]. He set two religious precedences at his inauguration - swearing upon the Bible and the addition of the words "so help me God" to the presidential oath of office. He then bent down and kissed the Bible(!) and then immediately led the congressmen and the other attendees from Federal Hall to St. Paul's Chapel for a two hour worship service to commit the new nation to God, where he took the sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

 

Two of the other deists you listed, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, were hardly the version of deist many seem to imagine. I quote Franklin, who rose during a controversial session of congress to say something most of our "Christian" congressman today wouldn't dare: "I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it.' ... I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service." And even TJ wrote, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are a gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

 

"God governs in the affairs of men" (BJ) / "[God's] justice cannot sleep forever" (TJ) - These are hardly the words of deists. One of the tenets of Deism is that the god who created the universe is not personally involved in its workings.

 

TJ also said, "Almighty God hath created the mind free ... the plan of the holy Author of our religion." Maybe he was a deist, but even he was much further over the "line" than would be accepted in today's political environment. (And who, pray tell, did he mean when he said, "Author of our religion")?

 

If you think that Franklin's and Jefferson's words are striking, then you should read some of what the Christian signers wrote. I've already mentioned the influence of the presbyterian minister, president of Princeton and only minister to sign the Declaration - John Witherspoon. Among his students were nine signers of the Declaration, one president, nine cabinet officers, twenty-one senators, thirty-nine congressmen, three justices of the Supreme Court, and twelve governors.

 

Another signer, Samuel Adams actually said, "The rights of the colonists may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament." Referring to the Declaration, he said, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." I.e., Messiah the Prince, Jesus Christ - who has the crown rights of heaven and earth.

 

Come on, man. Most of our founding fathers.... heck, not even most - the vast, overwhelming majority of them - were Christian men. :patriot:

 

There were 204 "Founding Fathers" of the United States who either signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution or served as senators or reps in the First Continental Congress. The vast majority were Christian (maybe five weren't?). Such uniformed and wildly incorrect claims to the contrary are not helpful to anyone.

[Plaid Dad]

Drew, what is the Church's stand on voting for a candidate who has forsaken his disabled wife to take up with a younger, pettier, wealthier woman?

 

Does the Church recognize his divorce, or would he be living in a state of moral turpitude in this new relationship?

 

Is this a morally acceptable person to vote for from a Roman Catholic position?

 

 

Bill

 

I need to say here, early and often, that I am not the Pope, a priest, or a canon lawyer. ;)

 

McCain is not Catholic, so the pastoral concerns that would apply to his situation are not in play as they would be with a Catholic politician (e.g., Rudy Giuliani). For a Catholic politician, the public problem would be giving scandal by living in a way that contradicts the Church's clear teaching and therefore either confuses the public about the Faith or brings the Church into disrepute. The private side would be a matter for confession, pastoral care, and the ecclesiastical marriage courts.

 

But an individual's marriage is not in the same category as the non-negotiable policy issues I mentioned and that are outlined in the materials I linked to. McCain's marriage is a personal issue for which he as an individual is culpable. I, as a citizen and a Catholic, am not actively participating in McCain's marriage, and he would not have the power to impose his choices on others.

 

That is not the case with policy issues. The problem with McCain is that he does not present a consistent pro-life ethic. He supports ESCR, which is one of the five "non-negotiables" on the list. He is also supporting a war that does not fit the criteria spelled out by Just War theory, as the previous Pope made very clear. Because the President does have significant power on those issues and is likely to exercise that power on behalf of the citizenry, I would share in any culpability attached to his actions should I vote for him. That's why he will not be getting my vote in November.

 

There are Catholics who will undoubtedly vote for him because, in their judgment, he is likely to do "the least harm" with regard to the major moral issues at stake, specifically on the pro-life front. I can't follow them there, but we are, each of us, asked to vote our consciences, informed by Church teaching. When it comes to exercising our civic duties, the Church presents principles, but it is up to us to apply them. And unless a Catholic brings up his or her vote privately to a priest as a matter for pastoral counseling or in confession, that vote will remain between the individual and God.

[OnTheBrink]

Church affiliation hardly makes one a Christian. As the trite saying goes, "Sitting in church makes you as much of a Christian as sitting in a garage makes you a car." I know two men who I'd call historical scholars. One is working on his Ph.D in history; the other is my pastor, who, while not degreed in history, is a very studious and learned man. Both have the opinion that the only founding father one could say with certainty was a Christian was Samuel Adams. The rest? As Bill said.

 

As far as Mel Gibson goes, he's hardly an expert on historical accuracy. I don't trust his interpretation of much. Let's just say, I'm not a fan.

[rowan-tree]

Church affiliation hardly makes one a Christian. As the trite saying goes, "Sitting in church makes you as much of a Christian as sitting in a garage makes you a car." I know two men who I'd call historical scholars. One is working on his Ph.D in history; the other is my pastor, who, while not degreed in history, is a very studious and learned man. Both have the opinion that the only founding father one could say with certainty was a Christian was Samuel Adams. The rest? As Bill said.

 

As far as Mel Gibson goes, he's hardly an expert on historical accuracy. I don't trust his interpretation of much. Let's just say, I'm not a fan.

 

 

Sitting in church may not make you a Christian, but your argument is an argument from silence, while mine is a argument based on evidence. Besides the quotes from the so-called "deists" (as per Bill) TJ and BF, and the clear proofs of GW's piety, they were all members of churches. The benefit of doubt should be given to the ostensible proof, not to the skeptic's piddling. I've offered proof. Those who want to claim our founding fathers were "mostly" non-Christian need to offer proof to the contrary. Anybody can be a skeptic. It doesn't take brains or effort.

 

As far as suggesting the only "certain[ly]" Christian founding father was Samuel Adams... all I can say is if the men you rely upon are authoritative sources for your historical knowledge and have such a narrow view of "Christian," I can see why it might be difficult to swallow what I'm saying. Ask them about John Witherspoon. Maybe they'll let you add just one more to your list.

 

Again, a little effort may be necessary to get my point. I've tried to be careful in presenting my case. I and the other readers would appreciate some care in responding. Please see if you can discern that I suggested that Mel Gibson was an historical expert or recommended his movie as a source for historical knowledge. Would you have the same problem if I said, "Did you see the movie 'Elizabeth?' Did you know she was really the queen of England?" :001_unsure:

 

Skepticism never gives answers. It only asks questions. And then it wants you do live according to its preferences and pretend it's the wisest way. Ah, but to ask the question and search out the answer - that is the refreshment of kings.

 

Were our founding fathers overwhelmingly Christian? You say prove it. I say prove otherwise.

[chaik76]

Thanks for the well wishes. So far so good but the eye of the storm isn't here just yet. The waiting is awful!

 

He's pro-breastfeeding, but thinks it is a matter of personal conscience. He has never instructed the women of our church to breastfeed, nor has he even implied that it is sinful *not* to breastfeed. As I said before, I am blessed with a pastor who never tries to bind our consciences. He is a firm believer in Christian liberty.

Why would it need to be mentioned then, and why would I care if a preacher was pro-breastfeeding???Serious here...not trying to be snarky.

[Mrs Mungo]

They "shouldn't?" Well, that's one assertion. But that's all it is.

 

Shouldn't from a moral POV but perhaps my moral feeling that a church should not knowingly partake in illegal activities is different than your own.

 

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.

 

Which founding fathers? Thomas Jefferson certainly had a lot of writings on this but I'm not interested in re-enacting the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, never mind all of the other writings that go with them. If you're familiar enough then you know there is plenty of evidence on either side of the argument you're having with Bill.

 

That said, should we eliminate all laws that our founding fathers did not institute? Because that would certainly cause some problems, starting with the probable collapse of our economic system. Legal precedence over the last 200+ years is part of our system of governance and laws. You can't ignore it.

[rowan-tree]

Shouldn't from a moral POV but perhaps my moral feeling that a church should not knowingly partake in illegal activities is different than your own.

 

 

The principles of civil disobedience and active resistance are two of the Christian principles that make up the fabric of our country. And the reason they are legitimate principles is precisely because a nation's "legal" system is not a people's source of moral authority. A Christian's moral feeling ought be to eskew any civil legislation that either is not a legislation of Christ's morality or is contrary to it.

 

 

 

Which founding fathers? Thomas Jefferson certainly had a lot of writings on this but I'm not interested in re-enacting the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers, never mind all of the other writings that go with them. If you're familiar enough then you know there is plenty of evidence on either side of the argument you're having with Bill.

 

 

Are you asking for source material? :confused: If not, then I'm assuming you've read all the posts of this thread pertaining to this particular question.

 

That said, should we eliminate all laws that our founding fathers did not institute? Because that would certainly cause some problems, starting with the probable collapse of our economic system. Legal precedence over the last 200+ years is part of our system of governance and laws. You can't ignore it.

 

If we want to be true sons and daughters of our fathers, we should eliminate all laws that are contrary to their allegiances.

 

I'm not the one trying to ignore precedence here. But in the end, even precedence must surrender to a higher standard.

[Jennifer3141]

Our pastor preaches about politics quite often. But we're UUers. We're expected to be involved in politics to help better the world through tolerance and justice.

 

Jen

[Mrs Mungo]

The principles of civil disobedience and active resistance are two of the Christian principles that make up the fabric of our country. And the reason they are legitimate principles is precisely because a nation's "legal" system is not a people's source of moral authority. A Christian's moral feeling ought be to eskew any civil legislation that either is not a legislation of Christ's morality or is contrary to it.

 

You are seriously stretching the boundaries of rational discourse. In what way is paying taxes according to the law eschewing the morality of Christ? If a church wants to use the pulpit as a political platform, fine then it should pay taxes as structured for political organizations. If a church wants to claim tax exemption then they should not use the pulpit as a political platform. As I have repeatedly said, this doesn't preclude the church from discussing moral issues (as Drew pointed out, churches can and do print pamphlets on *issues* which is not the same as endorsing a candidate). You have two choices that are proper under the law and are not contrary to Biblical principle. What would be the reason for civil disobedience in this case?

 

Are you asking for source material? :confused: If not, then I'm assuming you've read all the posts of this thread pertaining to this particular question.

 

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that you know as well as Bill and I do that there's plenty of evidence on both sides of the issue you are debating with him (which is different than the case I am making).

 

If we want to be true sons and daughters of our fathers, we should eliminate all laws that are contrary to their allegiances.

 

Contrary to whose allegiances? Even the founding fathers were hardly of one mind.

 

I'm not the one trying to ignore precedence here. But in the end, even precedence must surrender to a higher standard.

 

Not in any legal sense.

 

Your posts smack of nothing more than attempts to form an argument for theocracy. Even most Christians would fight against that. I don't want other people forced to bend to my beliefs any more than I think people in other parts of the world should have to live under sharia as law. God gives us free will, who are you to take it away from people?

[Carol in Cal.]

And even if true, the points Rowan are making are irrelevent to the original question, in my view.

 

The original question was whether a pastor should talk about politics and/or advocate for a candidate or political position from the pulpit.

 

I don't think anyone here would argue that a pastor or priest should not provide guidance in advocating for the Christian teachings and principles that should govern our participation as citizens. Nor would anyone argue that a pastor or priest should not have or express political opinions about candidates or issues.

 

Instead, what many of us are saying is that pastors should not take their political opinions and argue for them as if they are directly reported in God's Word. And we are saying that if a pastor is speaking for the church, in a sermon or in some other public settings where he is representing the church's views, he should not take such a position. Doing that binds the consciences of some people more than God would have him do, and can provide a stumbling block for others, actually preventing them from coming to faith. That is not right, and frankly, it is not the way that Jesus even operated when he was here on earth. And surely Christ had more authority than any pastor does today.