I was wondering how people on here felt about clergymen using their pulpit to sway congregants to support or not support a political issue, candidate etc.?

Personally, I don't like it. I understand that (hopefully) most of the time the clergy is just trying to do what they think is best for the congregation, but I don't go to synagogue to hear why I should vote for this person or that person or for a certain policy, etc. Fortunately my Rabbi is pretty good about leaving politics outside of the synagogue.

What are your thoughts? Do you like it, not like it, don't really care either way?

Personally I don't like it either. Especially when they have the candidate come in and campaign from the pulpit.

Being "sway"ed is on the listener more than the speaker in my opinion.

Nonetheless, not only is it possible to deliver theological messages void of contemporary politics but it is done every week all over our country. I prefer it that way.

Depends on your church's differentiation between politics and church doctrine.

1. If its a Biblical issue that we sometimes have as a political issue like abortion, homosexuality, etc, then I'm fine with it. As long as it sticks to the Biblical aspects of it.

2. If its a "support candidate XYZ" then no, it shouldn't be in the church. And a church has to be careful if they use their pulpit for political reasons their tax exemption status can be challenged.

As a member of an evangelical church and former minister, I don't have a big problem occasionally hearing theological evaluation of current political issues as long as he can back up what he is saying with scripture. I don't want to hear the preacher's opinion on any candidate unless I ask him for it or it comes up in personal conversation...never from the pulpit.

I do have a big problem when all a church or preacher wants to do is talk politics. If that is the most pressing thing that needs to be addressed on Sunday morning, then they are the greatest congregation ever. But the reality is that a church's top priority, after praising God, should be seeking and saving the lost. Quite simply, Jesus Christ's message of the Great Commission should always take precedence over political activity in the church.

BCBulldog wrote: As a member of an evangelical church and former minister, I don't have a big problem occasionally hearing theological evaluation of current political issues as long as he can back up what he is saying with scripture. I don't want to hear the preacher's opinion on any candidate unless I ask him for it or it comes up in personal conversation...never from the pulpit.

I do have a big problem when all a church or preacher wants to do is talk politics. If that is the most pressing thing that needs to be addressed on Sunday morning, then they are the greatest congregation ever. But the reality is that a church's top priority, after praising God, should be seeking and saving the lost. Quite simply, Jesus Christ's message of the Great Commission should always take precedence over political activity in the church.

My sentiments exactly.

jmog wrote: 1. If its a Biblical issue that we sometimes have as a political issue like abortion, homosexuality, etc, then I'm fine with it. As long as it sticks to the Biblical aspects of it.

2. If its a "support candidate XYZ" then no, it shouldn't be in the church. And a church has to be careful if they use their pulpit for political reasons their tax exemption status can be challenged.

As someone trained as a minister, this topic itself is a BIG pet peeve of mine.

America is not a Christian nation (meaning two things: it is not set up to be a theocracy, and all the people herein are not Christians). It ought not be treated as such.

I have no problem discussing the rightness or wrongness of an action, itself. I DO have a problem ... a BIG one ... when a preacher suggests that preventing OTHERS from engaging in such acts by the use of the political system is any part of the "oughtness" of living a Christian life.

As an example, I consider homosexual actions to be morally wrong. Having said that, I think homosexual relationships/actions/marriages/etc. ought to be legal in the United States.

Why? Because this country is not, and should not be, governed by any person's moral compass. Instead, it should be governed by the documents and individual rights set forth by those who founded it. Does my political support mean I am any less resolved in my belief that homosexual acts are wrong? Of course not. It simply means that I am trying to ONLY take into consideration that which was intended for government when evaluating how I may shape the government.

I will not take the outlines set forth by my God for his people and attempt to subject ALL people to them.

Ultimately, and I know this is particularly focused toward Christians, if you might somehow get the government to govern this nation using the Bible as its primary source for what is legal and what is not, what have you gained? No more souls are going to be saved by you forcing them to live a certain way. So what eternal good have you served?

If anything, I hope those who never come to any semblance of saving faith have as much fun here on earth as humanly possible. It is my belief (against my will) that it is the only fun they will have in existence. So as much as possible, let them do as they please while they are here.

A church should be more eternally-minded than to meddle in the politics of its country. I would say that this is the extent of how far a church should go into politics from the pulpit:

"Be a good citizen."

Period.

Well said, O-Trap.

BCBulldog wrote: As a member of an evangelical church and former minister, I don't have a big problem occasionally hearing theological evaluation of current political issues as long as he can back up what he is saying with scripture. I don't want to hear the preacher's opinion on any candidate unless I ask him for it or it comes up in personal conversation...never from the pulpit.

I do have a big problem when all a church or preacher wants to do is talk politics. If that is the most pressing thing that needs to be addressed on Sunday morning, then they are the greatest congregation ever. But the reality is that a church's top priority, after praising God, should be seeking and saving the lost. Quite simply, Jesus Christ's message of the Great Commission should always take precedence over political activity in the church.

This

BCBulldog wrote: As a member of an evangelical church and former minister, I don't have a big problem occasionally hearing theological evaluation of current political issues as long as he can back up what he is saying with scripture. I don't want to hear the preacher's opinion on any candidate unless I ask him for it or it comes up in personal conversation...never from the pulpit.

I do have a big problem when all a church or preacher wants to do is talk politics. If that is the most pressing thing that needs to be addressed on Sunday morning, then they are the greatest congregation ever. But the reality is that a church's top priority, after praising God, should be seeking and saving the lost. Quite simply, Jesus Christ's message of the Great Commission should always take precedence over political activity in the church.

I don't want to be saved, so leave me alone!

I'm old enough to remember back in 1960 when Kennedy was running for president. Our asshole preacher stood at the pulpit and told us not to vote for him because he was Catholic. What a maroon!

Not a fan. I largely think they should stay out of it. If it is an issue that is directly related, then alright I'll listen. But, if not, not a fan.

O-Trap said it all.

O-Trap wrote:

jmog wrote: 1. If its a Biblical issue that we sometimes have as a political issue like abortion, homosexuality, etc, then I'm fine with it. As long as it sticks to the Biblical aspects of it.

2. If its a "support candidate XYZ" then no, it shouldn't be in the church. And a church has to be careful if they use their pulpit for political reasons their tax exemption status can be challenged.

As someone trained as a minister, this topic itself is a BIG pet peeve of mine.

America is not a Christian nation (meaning two things: it is not set up to be a theocracy, and all the people herein are not Christians). It ought not be treated as such.

I have no problem discussing the rightness or wrongness of an action, itself. I DO have a problem ... a BIG one ... when a preacher suggests that preventing OTHERS from engaging in such acts by the use of the political system is any part of the "oughtness" of living a Christian life.

As an example, I consider homosexual actions to be morally wrong. Having said that, I think homosexual relationships/actions/marriages/etc. ought to be legal in the United States.

Why? Because this country is not, and should not be, governed by any person's moral compass. Instead, it should be governed by the documents and individual rights set forth by those who founded it. Does my political support mean I am any less resolved in my belief that homosexual acts are wrong? Of course not. It simply means that I am trying to ONLY take into consideration that which was intended for government when evaluating how I may shape the government.

I will not take the outlines set forth by my God for his people and attempt to subject ALL people to them.

Ultimately, and I know this is particularly focused toward Christians, if you might somehow get the government to govern this nation using the Bible as its primary source for what is legal and what is not, what have you gained? No more souls are going to be saved by you forcing them to live a certain way. So what eternal good have you served?

If anything, I hope those who never come to any semblance of saving faith have as much fun here on earth as humanly possible. It is my belief (against my will) that it is the only fun they will have in existence. So as much as possible, let them do as they please while they are here.

A church should be more eternally-minded than to meddle in the politics of its country. I would say that this is the extent of how far a church should go into politics from the pulpit:

"Be a good citizen."

Period.

Winner.

"...Ultimately, and I know this is particularly focused toward Christians, if you might somehow get the government to govern this nation using the Bible as its primary source for what is legal and what is not, what have you gained? No more souls are going to be saved by you forcing them to live a certain way. So what eternal good have you served? ...."


If we know we can't bring everyone to Christ we shouldn't even try. Correct?

It's not about getting the government to govern using the Bible. It is about both living out and expressing your political ideologies based on your core convictions. There's a difference and it would be wrong to choose another path.

I also don't think these examples are governing by a person's moral compass. I do think it's an example of offering just one person's view of governing and it existing because of the moral compass that they comprise.

Con_Alma wrote: "...Ultimately, and I know this is particularly focused toward Christians, if you might somehow get the government to govern this nation using the Bible as its primary source for what is legal and what is not, what have you gained? No more souls are going to be saved by you forcing them to live a certain way. So what eternal good have you served? ...."


If we know we can't bring everyone to Christ we shouldn't even try. Correct?

If that was what you got from what I said, then I apologize with all sincerity.

Attempt to lead EVERYONE to salvation. Absolutely.

That road, however, is not through committing our actions toward what the Bible says.

What I am saying is this: If we force someone, through political means, to obey a law or rule that was formed as a result of an adherence to the Bible, and yet their soul is just as lost as if they weren't following that law or rule, then what has the kingdom gained? The lost soul is still a lost soul. The only difference is that it is likely more resentful toward Christianity. This is certainly not the road to salvation.

Con_Alma wrote:It's not about getting the government to govern using the Bible. It is about both living out and expressing your political ideologies based on your core convictions. There's a difference and it would be wrong to choose another path.

You would suggest that, supposing your vote meant the difference, allowing people to live against your own personal core convictions would be wrong? I express my political ideologies, and I distinguish them from my ideal worldview and personal conviction.

If this was a theocracy, then my core values ... those formed largely by my devotion to God's Word ... would be things I would take into consideration when voting and campaigning.

However, as this nation was meant to be governed by laws, principles, and documents ... and not ONLY by the whims of a group of people at any one time ... we must, if we are to truly oblige our civic responsibilities, lay our whims, moral convictions, and personal preferences (the three of which are sometimes difficult to distinguish) aside and judge laws and leaders by how well they align with the documents in place and all rights as they currently exist.

Again, I think same-sex relations stand in contrast to how we as humans are SUPPOSED to act. Having said that, forming of our governing body is not about preventing humans from acting in contrast to how we think/have decided/know/etc. they should. If that was the case, then why do we stop before we reach things like marital infidelity, lying to one's parents, gossiping, masturbation, etc? Those are just as wrong, in the minds of many, and yet such people tolerate them politically.

Con_Alma wrote:I also don't think these examples are governing by a person's moral compass. I do think it's an example of offering just one person's view of governing and it existing because of the moral compass that they comprise.

This seems to be a splitting of hairs, unless I am misunderstanding. Are you saying that it is not governing BY a moral compass, but instead that it is governing BASED ON a moral compass?

Honestly, I think the moral compass of the collective of our nation should not be used to govern. It is not up to even a 99% majority to change the morality-based actions of 1% through political means, so long as said actions do not interfere with the rights of anyone else.

I do not believe it's splitting hairs.

I am not suggesting that The House legislate from scripture.

I am suggesting that your theological understanding molds and crafts your moral compass and core convictions. From that you draw upon to legislate....hardly actions based on "whims"

I would argue your position based on same sex marriage stems from this process. Your compassion and understanding is a result of your core convictions and moral compass. Your willingness to "preach the Gospel at all times and when necessary use words" is evident. You legislate not your choices but rather provide and avenue of personal action for all to determine their own personal path and self discovery which is the best and truest form of spiritual development.

O-Trap wrote:

jmog wrote: 1. If its a Biblical issue that we sometimes have as a political issue like abortion, homosexuality, etc, then I'm fine with it. As long as it sticks to the Biblical aspects of it.

2. If its a "support candidate XYZ" then no, it shouldn't be in the church. And a church has to be careful if they use their pulpit for political reasons their tax exemption status can be challenged.

As someone trained as a minister, this topic itself is a BIG pet peeve of mine.

America is not a Christian nation (meaning two things: it is not set up to be a theocracy, and all the people herein are not Christians). It ought not be treated as such.

I have no problem discussing the rightness or wrongness of an action, itself. I DO have a problem ... a BIG one ... when a preacher suggests that preventing OTHERS from engaging in such acts by the use of the political system is any part of the "oughtness" of living a Christian life.

As an example, I consider homosexual actions to be morally wrong. Having said that, I think homosexual relationships/actions/marriages/etc. ought to be legal in the United States.

Why? Because this country is not, and should not be, governed by any person's moral compass. Instead, it should be governed by the documents and individual rights set forth by those who founded it. Does my political support mean I am any less resolved in my belief that homosexual acts are wrong? Of course not. It simply means that I am trying to ONLY take into consideration that which was intended for government when evaluating how I may shape the government.

I will not take the outlines set forth by my God for his people and attempt to subject ALL people to them.

Ultimately, and I know this is particularly focused toward Christians, if you might somehow get the government to govern this nation using the Bible as its primary source for what is legal and what is not, what have you gained? No more souls are going to be saved by you forcing them to live a certain way. So what eternal good have you served?

If anything, I hope those who never come to any semblance of saving faith have as much fun here on earth as humanly possible. It is my belief (against my will) that it is the only fun they will have in existence. So as much as possible, let them do as they please while they are here.

A church should be more eternally-minded than to meddle in the politics of its country. I would say that this is the extent of how far a church should go into politics from the pulpit:

"Be a good citizen."

Period.

That's legit one of the best posts I have ever read on this site full of smut and filth.

Now excuse me, I have to go and rent some pornographic movies and tell the gay people I pass that Jesus doesn't love them.

Really though, especially from a Catholic viewpoint and having priests CONSTANTLY shove it down my throat (insert joke here), its nice to know someone gets 'it'.

I appreciate it, Cinci. I think way too many Christians are so caught up in trying to force others to change their actions, they don't show any care for those same people's change of HEART.

Horse before the cart, I think.

O-Trap wrote:

jmog wrote: 1. If its a Biblical issue that we sometimes have as a political issue like abortion, homosexuality, etc, then I'm fine with it. As long as it sticks to the Biblical aspects of it.

2. If its a "support candidate XYZ" then no, it shouldn't be in the church. And a church has to be careful if they use their pulpit for political reasons their tax exemption status can be challenged.

As someone trained as a minister, this topic itself is a BIG pet peeve of mine.

America is not a Christian nation (meaning two things: it is not set up to be a theocracy, and all the people herein are not Christians). It ought not be treated as such.

I have no problem discussing the rightness or wrongness of an action, itself. I DO have a problem ... a BIG one ... when a preacher suggests that preventing OTHERS from engaging in such acts by the use of the political system is any part of the "oughtness" of living a Christian life.

As an example, I consider homosexual actions to be morally wrong. Having said that, I think homosexual relationships/actions/marriages/etc. ought to be legal in the United States.

Why? Because this country is not, and should not be, governed by any person's moral compass. Instead, it should be governed by the documents and individual rights set forth by those who founded it. Does my political support mean I am any less resolved in my belief that homosexual acts are wrong? Of course not. It simply means that I am trying to ONLY take into consideration that which was intended for government when evaluating how I may shape the government.

I will not take the outlines set forth by my God for his people and attempt to subject ALL people to them.

Ultimately, and I know this is particularly focused toward Christians, if you might somehow get the government to govern this nation using the Bible as its primary source for what is legal and what is not, what have you gained? No more souls are going to be saved by you forcing them to live a certain way. So what eternal good have you served?

If anything, I hope those who never come to any semblance of saving faith have as much fun here on earth as humanly possible. It is my belief (against my will) that it is the only fun they will have in existence. So as much as possible, let them do as they please while they are here.

A church should be more eternally-minded than to meddle in the politics of its country. I would say that this is the extent of how far a church should go into politics from the pulpit:

"Be a good citizen."

Period.

I couldn't agree more. I have said several times that, even as someone who believes homosexuality is morally wrong, homosexuals should be aloud to have civil unions/marry, whetever (assuming the governmenr wouldn't be able to force churches who are against it to perform the ceremonies).

When I was talking about abortion/homosexuality in my first post I was talking about the Biblical morality of it, not the political laws.

Can a minister mention laws? Sure, but he should stick to what the Bible says about the subject.

The Christian artist Casting Crowns said it best in one of their songs.

"God's got to change their heart before he changes their shirt."

jmog wrote: I couldn't agree more. I have said several times that, even as someone who believes homosexuality is morally wrong, homosexuals should be aloud to have civil unions/marry, whetever (assuming the governmenr wouldn't be able to force churches who are against it to perform the ceremonies).

When I was talking about abortion/homosexuality in my first post I was talking about the Biblical morality of it, not the political laws.

Can a minister mention laws? Sure, but he should stick to what the Bible says about the subject.

Dis.