Does your pastor preach politics? (CC, obviously)

[rowan-tree]

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?

 

We all need to be stretched sometimes. But I'm generally thought of as a very rational person.

 

Paying taxes to caesar is an individual's duty before God. It is a form of honoring the governing authority and it is a sign of allegiance - quite appropriate for any citizen. But this is also the very reason Jesus was asked whether a citizen of the Jewish nation should pay taxes to caesar - they feared they were giving their allegiance to caesar in the payment. Jesus responds, in essence, that to honor the ruler of the land is not to dishonor God. This priniciple applies to individual Christians, but not to the church as a corporate body. The church, as a corporate humanity, owes no allegiance to caesar and owes all allegiance to God in Christ. That is why the church does not pay taxes, and never has. In fact, historically, where Christianity was culturally dominant, it was the state who paid tithe to the church, not the other way around.

 

The church is its own organization. It is not political. It is not a business. It is not anything else. It is the church. It has its own rules and its allegiance - as a church - belongs to Christ alone, not to any government anywhere. For a civil body politic to require taxes of the corporate church of God is a legitimate occasion for the church to be civilly disobedient.

 

When it comes to politics, everything is a moral issue. If a candidate is immoral, the church gets to point that out and apply its moral influence in whatever nation it resides, even if the "laws" of the nation dictate otherwise. This has always been the way the church has operated in whatever land it has been.

 

... 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).

 

I'm not sure what you think is the essence of Bill's and my debate. He asserted that our founding fathers were mostly non-Christian. I demonstrated that this is an absurdity. I've asked for the evidence you are referring to. Thomas Paine's writings and Jefferson's writings are the only two examples I've been (implicitly) given. I consent to Paine fitting that category, but also alluded to the other founders' insistent distinction between their agenda and Paine's (as he exemplified in France). My quotes of Jefferson disqualify him for the label "deist," which was Bill's category for him. I, on the other hand, pointed out that all of the 200+ other Founding Fathers (who could be identified very specifically as such) besides a very few were Christians. Do you know of any of them that were not members in good standing of their churches? If you or Bill cannot provide such evidence, then to call the validity of their faith into question verges on slander - something Bill, I'm told, would find very disrespectful to a political leader.

 

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

 

 

They were more uniformly identified with their Christian faith and heritage than the historically re-constructed assertions that you suggest or than Bill make them out to be. "What were they not of one mind about?" is the question.

 

 

Not in any legal sense.

 

 

Of course it must. Even in the "legal sense," justices have liberty to buck precedence if they perceive it to be unconstitutional (which much is!)

 

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?

 

"God gives" being the operative phrase. Therefore our "free will" must be exercised in submission to His revealed will.

 

I'm not sure what your definition of theocracy is. The only example I know of is when God ruled the nation of Israel directly. I'm not sure what's so bad about that situation or why any Christian should reject His rule should He decide to bless a people with such a direct rule again. However, God will never again rule without mediation. Now He mediates all rule through His Son, who is King of Kings and ruler of the nations. All Christians want (or should want) Jesus to be honored by every nation and every civil magistrate. They want Jesus' morality to be the standard of morality legislated in any civil sphere. What's wrong with that? To compare Jesus' legislated morality (which "most" of our laws early on were a manifestation of) to sharia law is merely comparing the real deal to the pretender. Of course you don't want other nations to be under sharia. Good for you.

[Alice]

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 didn't read all the posts but I could tell that this thread got long and somewhat off the OP's question. So this is solely in answer to the OP.

 

1) I did have a pastor who would share political views from the pulpit. He made it very clear that he thought that one party (Republican) was his own party. I thought that he implied that we should be voting Republican if we were trying to be faithful to God's will.

 

2) Yes, it really bothered me. My own political views were mostly the same as his, although not completely. But I felt this was way over the line. I went and talked with him about it and told him that I felt that neither political party was endorsed by God and that his sermons would make any Democrats uncomfortable in the church. I was especially bothered because my Dad is a life-long Democrat (and a Christian, imagine that ;)) and I knew that if he had been present during any of those sermons he would have been angry, turned off, uncomfortable and felt unwelcome.

 

I should say that in my case my pastor was very gracous. He apologized and I did think he toned down his sermons. It wasn't a huge secret which way his political views were but he did do a much better job at keeping it out of the pulpit. He's no longer our pastor (he retired to work at another ministry). Our current pastor never talks about politics. He does pray for the election and our leaders but not in a way that implies he is praying for a certain outcome.

[iluvmy4blessings]

Our pastor has on occasion made reference to politics (albeit short and vague comments) but he always does it by first prefacing the comment by saying he is not supposed to use the pulpit to preach on politics. He has said this every single time he has made any reference to political issues. This makes me think there is some rule in our church or denomination that preachers are not supposed to preach on politics. He makes a lot more comments on local/state issues. For example we just had a major vote here in Texas on creationism being allowed in the science texas books as a theory. He has spoken on that several times and encouraged people to write a letter about it to the textbook committee. That is actually the most political he has ever gotten. He steers far away from that sort of thing. I do happen to have someone right down the road from me though who preaches a lot on Israel, the war and politics. You may have heard of him. His name is John Hagee :)

[redheadeddaughter]

I think that includes a whole bunch of us here actually. Political Sermons of the Founding Era is a surprisingly informative and challenging read. ( I have the 2 book edition... but I think it comes in one now.) I still haven't made it through all of them. But it does give you a good idea what was going on in the church early on in this country. How the clergy viewed their role. It required bravery. And eloquence. And explained how they viewed their involvement in political and war-time affairs as absolutely biblical and lawful and in fact a DUTY (they made far better arguments than I ever could). The basic premise is that common law (behind Magna Carta and nearly every document of liberty in Western Civ. our own included) governs before and over any man made law. That the laws of God (or common sense if you have not faith in God) need to guide us in our actions as Christians and citizens. Of course, this was in the context of the Revolutionary War. British soldiers were bedding down in American homes and taxes were used to control and instill fear. I doubt we are there yet. And it had nothing to do with 501 c 3 tax status. Which is I'm sure a concern for this pastor. (completely understandable) That may have been what was on his mind even before the OP mentioned appearing unbiased. Discussing politics for a pastor is dangerous business these days.

 

I haven't even begun to wade through all of the responses... just wanted to mention a book I like. But the original poster has provided our home school with a really great science plan for first grade!

[justamouse]

I believe that God isn't a Democrat OR a Republican and if my Pastor implies that one side of the coin was wrong or going to hell I would leave. I do NOT believe that the US should be a theocracy, and I think the pulpit is already too political.

[justamouse]

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?)

 

 

Word.

[Lizzie in Ma]

Our Pastor teaches only from the Word directly.

It is one of the reasons we get so much out of attending our church.

I grew up with what I called "soap box" sermons. They may be good, they may be great but they sure did not help us grow as Christians.

[Mary in VA]

Jessica isn't homeschooling anymore and was last on here in July. So while it's an interesting topic for discussion, thought you might want to know the op probably isn't reading your answers. :001_smile:

 

Mary

[Orthodox6]

AAACK ! OLD THREAD !

 

(oh well, I already typed all that below, so you all can pitch it into your FYI basket, or into your "circular file" !)

 

 

We are spared all that, essentially, because Orthodox priests base the sermon/homily upon the day's Gospel reading.

 

I do believe that a priest/minister/pastor has the right to voice personal views during personal conversations, and during non-liturgical (outside of services) church meetings.

 

If the priest's views coincide with the teachings of the Church, then he is obligated to speak openly of them, and nobody would have the grounds to take offense. Accordingly, speaking from the pulpit regarding abortion, for example, remains appropriate.

 

General political diatribes, economic rants, etc., would rankle everybody and quickly would be stopped.

 

I cannot speculate whether OP "did right" or "did not" because I do not know what Christian group she belongs to, nor what that group's policies are regarding minister activity.