Filed under "I didn't know this." Apparently, last year, the IRS reinterpreted the decades-old tax code that prohibits churches from direct political engagement. Can you imagine? In response to a lawsuit from a Christian media group and a couple of churches, the IRS has challenged the provision under the Johnson Amendment, arguing that it infringed upon the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Now ... churches are legally free to "speak their minds" on political matters inside their doors, so to speak. I mean, a pastor can tell his congregation from the pulpit, "You should vote for this candidate" freely. What churches can't do is make a public campaign of it. They can't spend money on it, form a political group under the church's auspices, start an advertising campaign ... that sort of thing. This is a major event, freeing pastors to follow God's leading in their preaching.
Having said that ... I'm not sure how much of that I think is relevant. Yes, when a government entity enforces sin on a society or a church, it can and should be addressed. Endorsing a political candidate? That seems less ... biblical than political. I think Christians are already more immersed in politics than Scripture and this might aggravate that condition. On the other hand, the government has had its hand on the church's mouth over this, holding the purse strings as it were ... very much like blackmail. In fact, I wrote about it here.It's interesting, though, because the ruling came and went so quietly. You see, because it was judicial and not legislative, it flew under the radar for the most part ... as if they didn't want us to know about it. No ... that can't be.
11 comments:
And of course those opposed to removing the amendment are afraid of the Right doing what the Left has been doing through non-profits for decades.
You can probably guess that I haven’t really considered the issue you raised today. My only feedback would be regarding your statement, “ … a pastor can tell his congregation from the pulpit, ‘You should vote for this candidate’ freely.” I was under the impression that political endorsements by church leaders was not permitted. Regardless, I would consider it improper for a pastor to say--or even hint at--“you should vote for this candidate” or “you should vote within this political party” or even “you should vote.” Frankly, I thought everyone considered it inappropriate for such partisan influence to be yielded from the pulpit under the guise of teaching God’s Word.
You're a product of your own personal history. This ban of political commentary from the pulpit is a product of the late '50's and early 60's. In the Colonial Era, ministers were central to political life and preached "election sermons" regularly. The American Revolution was largely fueled by clergy. (The British called them "the Black Robe Regiment.") In the 19th century, it was slavery and temperance and women's suffrage. In the early 20th century it was labor rights and prohibition. But ... beyond that ... setting aside "partisan politics," if a preacher considered "Candidate X" to be a sinful choice, wouldn't he be somewhat obligated to pass that on to his congregation?
Only if he considers his congregation unable to think for themselves, to be blunt. Otherwise, he should fulfill his duties as shepherd--teaching the flock God’s Word and the principles for living to be drawn from it--and then trust them to follow their own personal convictions, as they are led by the Holy Spirit to apply those principles. Hopefully the preacher is making disciples, who can then identify “sinful choices” for themselves. Anything beyond that is improper, in my opinion.
I think that pastors should be able to address issues and principles from the pulpit, I'm less comfortable with them endorsing candidates or parties.
Back when Minnesota was voting to legalize "gay mirage" (my term, not theirs) in 2012, I remember John Piper was "in trouble" because he refused to comment on it from the pulpit. He didn't believe a pastor should to that. He had written and spoken enough on marriage that his congregation should have no question as to his opposition to it, but he wouldn't tell them how they should vote. I have mixed feelings on that.
Stan, this aligns with my point stated above. Not only should Piper’s congregation have been aware that he would oppose gay marriage [or X, Y, or Z] but--more importantly--they had learned for themselves that God opposes it and therefore they also did. There are/will be countless issues arising that Christians must sort out as “right or wrong” and then act and live accordingly. I would never expect--or permit--someone else to dictate those convictions to me, as one who must stand before God and defend my choices.
I'm curious what you think pastors are for then. Since ideally we should all know what the pastor knows because we're studying our Bibles daily. According to you, we should just think for ourselves without any input from a pastor, what is his job then?
David, it is not clear (to me at least) to whom your comment is directed. If it was to me, I would request clarification. If I am mistaken, please disregard.
Both you and Craig seem to agree, but mainly you. You say the pastor should think their congregation is "smart enough to think for themselves". And I have to wonder where that line of thinking ends. With that thought, should the pastor be teaching anything, since all believers should think for themselves? Dr. Al Mohler has a daily podcast called The Briefing where he breaks down the news from a Christian worldview. Should a pastor refrain from talking about local topics outside of religion in the pulpit? If our pastors are silent, they are simply leading their church to be silent. Politics isn't the be all, end all, but it is important, even to the church. And there are questions to be answered about politics. Now, I agree the pastor shouldn't say, "Vote for X," without commentary, but to leave politics out of church has not proven to be a boon for this country.
First I’ll point out that I did not use the exact wording you put in quotations (intelligence wasn’t my point). The thought that I expressed was that if church attendees are well taught (including by [but not limited to] their pastors), they can then “think for themselves” regarding how God’s Word would lead them to live; they would not need their pastor telling them for whom they should vote (Stan’s original point) or how to feel about a political hot topic but would be capable of formulating those opinions on their own.
To your question above: The pastor’s primary role, as I see it presented in scripture, is to teach the Word of God to the congregation. He would presumably be devoting the time and effort to study the Bible (including the original languages for better understanding) with the purpose of exposing and interpreting its meaning and message to the flock. Since the average church member does not typically study to the same degree he would, they would not know everything he knows (although some might indeed know more, depending on their education, interest, etc.); therefore, they look to the pastor (and other teaching elders) for needful instruction regarding “God’s Word and the principles for living to be drawn from it,” as I said above--whether that be through sermons, Bible studies, Sunday School classes, special presentations, etc. (There are other aspects to the pastor’s role, of course, but preaching and teaching God’s Word is first and foremost in my mind and makes for a well-fed flock.)
When conscientious Christians consider how to address the social and spiritual ills that they see all around them, they might very well determine that organized political action or involvement as individuals is beneficial or needful. However, I don’t see that being the proper emphasis or course of action to have in mind whenever the saints assemble for edification and worship. I think that many believers fail to see the very worldly nature of politics--especially in our nation right now; they see politics as the best means to an end--as if the Church can’t accomplish things for the Lord outside of the political system. I’m sure that you know the meaning behind the charge that some Christians are “too heavenly minded to be of earthly good.” Personally, I worry moreso that many believers are guilty of the reverse--much too caught up in worldly “ways and means.”
Post a Comment