The Secret Ballot

It'll be interesting to see how the replies come in.

I'll elaborate on why I made the comment later.

 

AGREE 10% with Salty. People who won't put their money where their mouth is are generally not worth listening to. People who want a secret ballot are those who want someone else to do their fighting for them. There is a word for them . . . .

 

The word is....private. They are private individuals with a right to choose to keep their votes private. They do their fighting at the ballot box and, if they are like me, through regular contact with their representatives. Calling them anything else is judgmental and serves no purpose.

The secret ballot is an important guard against fraud and intimidation.


I would say that a pastoral candidate, in that limited situation, is one of the few instances when we should expect that right to privacy is set aside. It is part of the larger discussion of values and character. It has been my experience that people who are politically and socially liberal are also liberal in religious matters. That would indicate that there could be some serious conflicts between the church and the pastor with these differences as their basis.

 

>I would say that a pastoral candidate, in that limited situation, is one of the few instances when we should expect that right to privacy is set aside

This is a joke, right? What say you about the many jobs that require lie dectector tests and peeing (good Bible word - see Strongs) in a bottle? That practice should be stopped?

 

I would absolutely, but kindly and politely, step out of a meeting where a pastoral committee asked me how I voted. That is not one of the qualifications for a pastor as set out in the word of God.

 

I am not aware of any churches that advertise where they stand in politics.

 

The secret ballot serves as a protection against intimidation. For example, if my boss told me to vote for Gary Johnson for President or be fired, I could pretend to vote for him and really vote for who I want to.

The difference between regular votes and congressional votes being open is that members of Congress voluntarily put themselves in that position and it is the only way to hold them accountable.

 

No, I am not joking. I have had more than one job that required a pre-employment drug test as well as random tests during employment. I have also had several background checks done for employment purposes.

Bill, you are pretty liberal thinking man. If I were to candidate to pastor a church and found that it was politically and religiously liberal it would be irresponsible for me to continue the process without having a serious discussion. The time when a new pastor comes in is always a stressful time of transition for all involved. There is no reason to add to it unnecessarily.

 

You are correct. Political leanings are not listed in the qualifications for an elder. However, his character is the issue. If I were to candidate for a church that was full of people like Obama, Kerry, Clinton, Michael Moore, etc I would be irresponsible and my character should be questioned. Why? Because I would be rightly seen as being contentious.

 

No, they do not advertise political leanings. However, you can get a pretty good idea of how a church leans when you start talking doctrine. If a group is liberal theologically is a more than likely liberal politically.

The conversation needs to happen for the sake of unity. That's my point. As a pastoral candidate your life is already expected to be an open book for any church considering calling you. This has to include political issues as well.

 

You've nailed it. :thumbs:

I wrote - It is no one's business how I vote, whether it's for candidates for public office or to accept/reject becoming a union shop. for that very reason.

Secret ballot removes the opportunity for anyone, for any reason, to apply pressure to the one marking the ballot, in any voting situation.

Doesn't matter if it's employers, supervisors, union enforcers, community organizers, right or left wing extremist groups, etc. & etc. Think about the Black Panthers standing outside polling places. Especially when they can be told how each person voted. (Just an example, folks!)

Even in church, for highly political/sensitive/controversial situations, membership votes should be by secret ballot. It's between me and the Lord, and not whole congregation as to which deacon candidates get my vote(s).

On the other hand, I am not opposed to telling people, the people I choose to tell, how I voted, in any election. For now, that's one of the freedoms that we still have, for the most part. Choosing when and where we talk and when we don't.

As I've said before, I should know how those who are representing me have voted. Whether it's a county commissioner or a Representative from NC. He or she is working for my interests. If not, then, I need to know, so I can help try to vote them out of office.

 

OT..... hadn't thought about that. Yep! Spend as much time as I can in service to our Lord, which often includes OT. :wavey:

Now for your:
Extra Points - should a pastoral candidate be asked his political leanings?

IMO, there's no need to directly ask a candidate about his political party. However, he should be asked about his stance on abortion, homosexuality, evolution, etc. An extensive list should be drawn up of controversial issues, if the selection committee doesn't have his track record. Or he hasn't really established one yet. This list should be modified for each candidate interviewed, so as not to put a well known pastor through questions that already have clear answers.

Answers to those questions will, for the most part, also tell the committee where he stands politically.

IMO, it's also the responsibility of a candidate to know where an assembly stands on such matters, as well. In your illustration, the fault lies with both you and the church. Each should have known the other's viewpoint before you preached that sermon.

Now an extra point's question for you? :smilewinkgrin:

Since you've accepted the call to a church, you or the assembly has changed position on an important matter. Is it your responsbility to make sure there's a resolution to the conflict before you preach a sermon on it? ie you resign, if necessary. Or, the church leaders stand behind you, as you try to bring the church back to sound biblical principles.

 

you asked:
Since you've accepted the call to a church, you or the assembly has changed position on an important matter. Is it your responsbility to make sure there's a resolution to the conflict before you preach a sermon on it? ie you resign, if necessary. Or, the church leaders stand behind you, as you try to bring the church back to sound biblical principles.



My answer:
That is a good question. I doubt that we will have an epiphany concerning most issues. That means most of the changes in our theology/doctrinal stances will be coming gradually as we continue to study the Word. That means as we preach how we address the issue will be gradually changing. That being the case, the people may be gradually changing with us. We can probably look back on a change and see how it developed, however, I don't know that we would notice it while it's happening.

That doesn't mean we don't have "aha!" kind of moments. I just think they are rare. As to how we should respond I think it depends on the issue. In any case we should be men of integrity and be honest about the change in understanding concerning any issue. I remember one time standing in the pulpit and saying, "Through more study God has revealed to me that I was wrong concerning ABC, which I am sure you remember me preaching on a couple of weeks ago. This is what I have learned.....".

Now, that was not concerning a major doctrinal issue, like eternal security. I don't think we need to resign at the start. A discussion needs to occur with other church leaders as you pray and seek wisdom from God on how to proceed. I do think we should preach it as God reveals it to us. I don't think there is a man among us who preaches to satisfy men, but God. That means we allow Him to lead us as He has placed us over specific flocks.

As we grow we, as shepherds, should be bringing the sheep along with us. This can, IMO, be the best way God uses us to inform the church He has given us to love and to lead. This can be how a church is led away from a major doctrinal error, or God can use it to lead us to another church.

Integrity demands that the discussion occurs. Integrity demands that we faithfully follow God. If that costs us a pastorate, so be it.

 

Given that in union elections voters are intimidated a secret ballot is essential, no check off like Obama and the unions want. A secret ballot is essential in some neighborhoods. I can remember growing up in the coal fields of Eastern Kentucky, especially in Burdine, Kentucky. Being a Republican was not looked on with favor. Can't ever remember getting in a fight over it but that was long ago and we fought a lot. Also when I came to South Carolina in 1960 Republican poll watchers were kicked out in some mill town precincts [Of course that all changed in 1964 when Goldwater ran.] just as they were in some Philly and Chicago precincts in the last election.

 

Any church which declares itself to be either liberal or conservative politically is not a Biblically based church and should be avoided at all costs. Christ came to establish a heavenly kingdom not an earthly one. When politics and religion get mixed together the church is preaching a false gospel, the gospel of man not God.