mentioning politics from the pulpit

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I remember one time when I was a member of a Baptist church in Virginia that the pastor enjoyed making comments about President Clinton and his behavior. It seemed to almost always get a reaction from the congregation. I've seen other pastors such as Charles Stanley who I have never heard make a political comment from the pulpit. So, do you think it is ever appropriate, given that some laws and decisions also have moral or ethical implications that the pastor mention politics from the pulpit?
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I remember one time when I was a member of a Baptist church in Virginia that the pastor enjoyed making comments about President Clinton and his behavior. It seemed to almost always get a reaction from the congregation. I've seen other pastors such as Charles Stanley who I have never heard make a political comment from the pulpit. So, do you think it is ever appropriate, given that some laws and decisions also have moral or ethical implications that the pastor mention politics from the pulpit?

Unless there is a very obvious theological issue relating to it, definitely not.

As you say there is the potential for decisions made by politicians to have all sorts of implications but to a large extent we can carry on regardless. Jesus told us to love our neighbor, and that isn't a function of what government is doing. If the government passes laws that require people to violate their consciences then each individual has to decide whether to comply with the law or follow their conscience and face the consequences. Today it seems very much the thing to expect to follow our consciences without facing any consequences.

The only time I have ever walked out of church during a sermon was when it was clear that the speaker had no reservations at all about openly criticising the President of the time. As it happened I agreed with her political stance but didn't want to hear a political rant from the pulpit and literally walked out in disgust. It wasn't as if she was making a theological point that highlighted what she saw as a weakness of the president, she was just taking endless cheap shots at him because she voted for the other guy.

Had she been at least attempting to make a theological point I'd have been inclined to stay and listen to what she had to say but I'm not interested in being a captive audience for a political rant.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I remember one time when I was a member of a Baptist church in Virginia that the pastor enjoyed making comments about President Clinton and his behavior. It seemed to almost always get a reaction from the congregation. I've seen other pastors such as Charles Stanley who I have never heard make a political comment from the pulpit. So, do you think it is ever appropriate, given that some laws and decisions also have moral or ethical implications that the pastor mention politics from the pulpit?

I would say that commenting on moral issues can be justified but not turning that into partisan political campaigning.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,568
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Prayers for the President is one thing but I don't want political opinion from the pulpit when I'm there to hear about the Savior and His forgiveness of sins. Isn't that the ultimate goal...to receive what God wants to give us in His service?
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,647
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
IMO, it's okay for an application in the sermon to mention current issues and ethics.... And that may well mean a certain law/policy or the behavior of a known person (political or otherwise). I think this is certainly appropriate. Indeed, I LIKE it when pastors have the guts to talk about abortion, same-gender marriage, etc.

On the other hand, I don't think it's appropriate to endorse a particular candidate... But of course, one could preach that it's good to vote ISSUES and to vote as a Christian, upholding Christian values.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
IMO, it's okay for an application in the sermon to mention current issues and ethics.... And that may well mean a certain law/policy or the behavior of a known person (political or otherwise). I think this is certainly appropriate. Indeed, I LIKE it when pastors have the guts to talk about abortion, same-gender marriage, etc.

On the other hand, I don't think it's appropriate to endorse a particular candidate... But of course, one could preach that it's good to vote ISSUES and to vote as a Christian, upholding Christian values.

As far as discussion of topical issues goes I'd be inclined to agree with you. As far as the behavior of a known person is concerned I'd have to wonder whether it adds anything to the point being made or whether it strays sufficiently close to a political dig without being so overt about it. It seems almost like the church gossip who isn't sharing the latest "hot gossip", they are sharing "prayer concerns" because, you know, since Mildred is cheating on George they're going to need a lot of prayer.

If we're talking about marital fidelity does it really do anything to enhance the point to bring Bill Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky into it, or the current discussion of Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels? Since the former risks the appearance of a Republican rant and the latter risks the appearance of a Democrat rant, why not leave it out completely? We can use generic comments about high profile figures without specifically mentioning political figures in a way that risks the sermon looking like a party political broadcast.

Where topics like gay marriage, abortion etc are concerned I don't see a reason why these things shouldn't be discussed in church but it can be done in a way that appeals to Scripture and doesn't necessarily need to even mention the major parties' stances on the topic.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
IMO, it's okay for an application in the sermon to mention current issues and ethics.... And that may well mean a certain law/policy or the behavior of a known person (political or otherwise). I think this is certainly appropriate. Indeed, I LIKE it when pastors have the guts to talk about abortion, same-gender marriage, etc.

On the other hand, I don't think it's appropriate to endorse a particular candidate... But of course, one could preach that it's good to vote ISSUES and to vote as a Christian, upholding Christian values.

The pulpit and sermon time isn't for endorsing candidates but is meant spending time focused on God and who he is. It is suppose to be christ centered not man centered. I've seen this abused many times with pastors who don't prepare well and think it is easy to take a shot at an unpopular President.
 

TurtleHare

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 29, 2015
Messages
1,057
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
The pulpit and sermon time isn't for endorsing candidates but is meant spending time focused on God and who he is. It is suppose to be christ centered not man centered. I've seen this abused many times with pastors who don't prepare well and think it is easy to take a shot at an unpopular President.

Lucky for me my church didn't do that kind of thing and I wouldn't stick around at a church that tolerated pushing a political candidate when he should be pushing Jesus from the pulpit.
 

Pedrito

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
1,032
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
==============================================================================================

I would like to present a related thought from a different angle.

The thought is:

Should politicians who are known to unfairly demean (lie about) others, who misrepresent the policies of their opponents, and maybe even dishonestly state (on the eve of an election) that their opponents are planning to introduce a bill that will disadvantage voters in a particular area – should politicians like that be welcome in the churches that they normally attend (those that do)?

What should the priority of the priests/pastors/ministers/etc. be?

Should the priests/pastors/ministers/etc. tell the offenders to shape up or ship out (as it were)?

Or should the churches’ elevated status by association with the important person, override Christian principles?

I have limited knowledge of Australian politicians’ private lives. However, in one high-profile situation I am aware of, reflected glory was the overriding consideration by far. (And I suspect it normally is.)

==============================================================================================

Had I been a member of that particular congregation, what should I have done?
- Stayed and said nothing?
- Left?
- Spoken to the priest/pastor/minister/etc.?
- Gossiped?
- Tried to get through the politician’s retinue and speak to him? Would that have done any good?



Unfortunately, in the stadium where Christian ethics are played out, the goal posts seem to be highly movable.

==============================================================================================
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
==============================================================================================

I would like to present a related thought from a different angle.

The thought is:

Should politicians who are known to unfairly demean (lie about) others, who misrepresent the policies of their opponents, and maybe even dishonestly state (on the eve of an election) that their opponents are planning to introduce a bill that will disadvantage voters in a particular area – should politicians like that be welcome in the churches that they normally attend (those that do)?

What should the priority of the priests/pastors/ministers/etc. be?

Should the priests/pastors/ministers/etc. tell the offenders to shape up or ship out (as it were)?

Or should the churches’ elevated status by association with the important person, override Christian principles?

I have limited knowledge of Australian politicians’ private lives. However, in one high-profile situation I am aware of, reflected glory was the overriding consideration by far. (And I suspect it normally is.)

==============================================================================================

Had I been a member of that particular congregation, what should I have done?
- Stayed and said nothing?
- Left?
- Spoken to the priest/pastor/minister/etc.?
- Gossiped?
- Tried to get through the politician’s retinue and speak to him? Would that have done any good?



Unfortunately, in the stadium where Christian ethics are played out, the goal posts seem to be highly movable.

==============================================================================================

I believe the biblical direction for correcting a person should be followed, which means first going to that person privately and then taking others if the person doesn't repent and then finally taking it to the church. Only after those three steps are followed then kicking the person out of the church should even be considered. The emphasis is on giving the person opportunities to repent and acknowledge their wrongdoing
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I believe the biblical direction for correcting a person should be followed, which means first going to that person privately and then taking others if the person doesn't repent and then finally taking it to the church. Only after those three steps are followed then kicking the person out of the church should even be considered. The emphasis is on giving the person opportunities to repent and acknowledge their wrongdoing

Ordinarily I would agree with this but the principles in Matthew 18 refer to "if your brother sins against you". If their sin is a private matter the correct approach is to handle it privately if possible and only later involve more people. If the sin is more public it seems potentially appropriate for the most private stages of the correction process to be skipped.

To take an example, if a prominent Christian writer is promoting heretical teachings in a book made widely available for sale it's not inappropriate to write a blog post pointing out the errors in the teachings. It would be excessive to demand that a blogger leave the teachings to stand as they are while trying to set up an appointment with a writer, who may live in another country and who is unlikely to consider it a high priority to meet a blogger who wants to discuss their teachings.

On the other hand, if you come and visit me and after you leave I notice some of my silverware is missing it is entirely appropriate to talk to you first before talking about the matter in front of the church.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I remember one time when I was a member of a Baptist church in Virginia that the pastor enjoyed making comments about President Clinton and his behavior. It seemed to almost always get a reaction from the congregation. I've seen other pastors such as Charles Stanley who I have never heard make a political comment from the pulpit. So, do you think it is ever appropriate, given that some laws and decisions also have moral or ethical implications that the pastor mention politics from the pulpit?

Saint John mentions the politics and leaders of his day and so does saint Paul; their example appears to imply that godly teaching ought to address such matters but with care and with truth.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Saint John mentions the politics and leaders of his day and so does saint Paul; their example appears to imply that godly teaching ought to address such matters but with care and with truth.

Yes, that's true. I think there is a time and a place for it. But, I think whomever a pastor or preacher is thinking to correct they should first examine themselves. Jesus told us very clearly in Matthew 7:1-5 that we are not to neglect the log in our own eyes before we address the speck in a brother's eye.
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
4,914
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Ordinarily I would agree with this but the principles in Matthew 18 refer to "if your brother sins against you". If their sin is a private matter the correct approach is to handle it privately if possible and only later involve more people. If the sin is more public it seems potentially appropriate for the most private stages of the correction process to be skipped.

To take an example, if a prominent Christian writer is promoting heretical teachings in a book made widely available for sale it's not inappropriate to write a blog post pointing out the errors in the teachings. It would be excessive to demand that a blogger leave the teachings to stand as they are while trying to set up an appointment with a writer, who may live in another country and who is unlikely to consider it a high priority to meet a blogger who wants to discuss their teachings.

On the other hand, if you come and visit me and after you leave I notice some of my silverware is missing it is entirely appropriate to talk to you first before talking about the matter in front of the church.

Yes, in that case the writer would be a perfect stranger to me and probably not my place to be the one to correct him or her. Someone who is closer to that person should be the one to say something.
 

MoreCoffee

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
19,115
Location
Western Australia
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yes, that's true. I think there is a time and a place for it. But, I think whomever a pastor or preacher is thinking to correct they should first examine themselves. Jesus told us very clearly in Matthew 7:1-5 that we are not to neglect the log in our own eyes before we address the speck in a brother's eye.

I agree that self examination ought to be applied before launching a message to correct somebody else who is only doing what we do ourselves.

If we are silenced by our own sins then maybe we will never speak at all ...
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Yes, in that case the writer would be a perfect stranger to me and probably not my place to be the one to correct him or her. Someone who is closer to that person should be the one to say something.

If their teaching is public it's perfectly appropriate to write about it in a comparably public way. If Pastor Joe Blow writes a book that says the way to heaven is to eat lots of bananas it's perfectly appropriate to write a blog post or similar saying that his book is theological garbage and the way to heaven has nothing to do with eating bananas. You might not reach him personally but there's nothing wrong with writing such a post. To argue that you shouldn't post it publicly until you have approached him in private does little other than leave his teaching unchallenged.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Saint John mentions the politics and leaders of his day and so does saint Paul; their example appears to imply that godly teaching ought to address such matters but with care and with truth.

It is hard to see how Godly teaching can avoid addressing some of the things that Jesus taught us.

To take an example, we should care for the weak and the poor. I don't see a problem with a sermon addressing the issues of Christ's teachings regarding looking after those unable to look after themselves. Whether this is achieved by a left-wing approach of a more generous public welfare state or a right-wing approach of encouraging private charity is a matter of opinion, and political opinion at that, so I'd regard that aspect as being inappropriate if it came from the pulpit.

I wouldn't have a problem with a Bible study group discussing whether public welfare or private charity was the best solution to a problem, specifically because in a setting like that everybody gets a fair chance to talk. If someone is in the pulpit preaching the expectation is that the congregation be quiet and listen.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,492
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is hard to see how Godly teaching can avoid addressing some of the things that Jesus taught us.

To take an example, we should care for the weak and the poor. I don't see a problem with a sermon addressing the issues of Christ's teachings regarding looking after those unable to look after themselves. Whether this is achieved by a left-wing approach of a more generous public welfare state or a right-wing approach of encouraging private charity is a matter of opinion....
That may be, but only one of them is in accord with the New Testament, and it is the other one that wants everybody to think that Christ, the Apostles, and the early church were primitive Socialists.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,205
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
That may be, but only one of them is in accord with the New Testament, and it is the other one that wants everybody to think that Christ, the Apostles, and the early church were primitive Socialists.
Here is the thing, private donations dont work, first of all most dont live by those principles, second to many second guess why someone is like that instead of showing the love of Christ to them, third many issues such as aging and not having enough are ongoing issues and bigger than most churchs or individuals can take care of. You address those issuesa and solve them and then I can accept that approach but till then we need things like Social Security and welfare. I agree that they could be better managed and that some do take advantage but the solution is to weed out those problems, not scrap the whole system.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,084
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Here is the thing, private donations dont work, first of all most dont live by those principles, second to many second guess why someone is like that instead of showing the love of Christ to them, third many issues such as aging and not having enough are ongoing issues and bigger than most churchs or individuals can take care of. You address those issuesa and solve them and then I can accept that approach but till then we need things like Social Security and welfare. I agree that they could be better managed and that some do take advantage but the solution is to weed out those problems, not scrap the whole system.

... and immediately we're back into political opinion. Which is perfectly valid, but what you're essentially saying here is that one system doesn't work and should be abandoned, while another system doesn't work and should be modified. And all the while people with differing political views are saying the same thing but the other way around.
 
Top Bottom