Clergy and Politics

I don't understand why some Christians do not support/did not support Moore (as in Judge Roy, not Michael ). Perhaps they have a good reason that I don't know about? I thought he was a good guy, sticking to his guns for a good cause.

 

Hmmm...thanks for the links to the threads on Roy Moore. However, I still have to believe that he is a sincere Christian. Christians are to be salt and light to the world. I don't think he's in it just for political gain.

 

Folks seem to have a difficult time getting by the "he disobeyed a higher court's order". That's just the point...if he had simply "followed orders", he'd still be comfortably seated and drawing a nice salary.

Should Rosa Parks "just followed orders"?

Why was half the New Testament written from prison? Were Paul and Timothy bad Christians because they didn't "follow orders"?

Did Jesus "follow orders"?

I'm not suggesting anarchy, which would be very unChristian, but AM saying that when man's judgements run into a conflict with God's, we need to follow God. Not always a comfortable thought.

 

As long as man recognises the right of the God ordained government to carry out its penalties then I agree.

This is what happened to Moore, he took a stand he flet he had to take and suffered the legtimate consquences.

 

They have it as much as any other citizen. But a preacher is not a church and shouldn't be confused with one. The restriction is on the church (if it is a 501c3 organization), not on the preacher.

 

It's wrong when Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton endorse political candidates from the pulpit. It's equally wrong when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson endorse political candidates from the pulpit.

Daisy is correct, though, in saying that the restriction is on the church and not on the preacher.

 

But there are two different questions:

1) is it right?

2) is it legal?


Just because something is wrong does not mean it should be illegal.

 

Neither Roy Moore or Rosa Parks were following God's mandate in their civil disobedience and thus, there is no valid comparison between them and the apostles. If Paul was in jail for insisting that women have equal rights in that society, than he was wrong. But he was in jail for preaching the gospel.

We must always make those distinctions. Civil disobedience is only permissable fro the believer when he is called to violate God's law. Roy Moore was not called upon to do any such thing. He did not take a stand on the basis of God's word.

As for being muzzled, as the pastor of a church, I can assure you that the government muzzles me in no way whatsoever. We are fully tax exempt and the only muzzle I have is the word of God. I say what it says.

 

Bro. Scott, I defy you to find the term "separation of church and state" anywhere in the U.S. Constitution, The Bill Of Rights or The Declaration Of Independence. It does not exist. The First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

"Separation of church & state" is a phrase coined by a communist organization that has been far more detrimental to the moral and spiritual welfare of this nation than any other group. That group is known as the ACLU. The original intent of our founding fathers in adding the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," to our Constitution was to insure that there would be no state supported church. At the time that they drafted the Constitution, and still today, every nation had a state church supported by the taxes of it's citizens. In Italy you can be a Baptist but a portion of your taxes goes to the RCC. Today, in literally hundreds of cases, the SCOTUS is making law by judicial decree, rather than the elected bodies representative of the people. It's called case law.

Our courts have all but deleted the 2nd phrase of that sentence, "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". To me that means that anyone has the right to pray, the right to witness and share their faith, to preach on a street corner wherever appropriate. a student doesn't have a right to stand up in the middle of class and start praying aloud. Nor does a preacher have the right to enter a theatre and start preaching during a movie.

Today, in many of our nations public schools, the Muslim religion is being taught in the class rooms as "cultural diversity". Rooms are set aside for muslim students to pray three times a day. Yet Chritianity cannot be taught. Student led Bible studies can only be held on campus before or after class time. A football team cannot gather together on the field and lead the fans in prayer for safety and good sportsmanship during the game. Last month a christian 5th grade history teacher in a Cupertino, California public school was fired by his principal for teaching The Declaration of Independence because it mentions God. He has filed a law suit which I pray he wins. Many companies do not allow employees to wish each other or customers "Merry Christmas". Instead they must use "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings".

As for endorsing a political candidate, a pastor should have the right to proclaim the the pros & cons of each candidate from the pulpit or in the church bulletin or news letter. I don't know or care how you feel about President Bush. That's up to you and your consience. But I would prefer a man in the White House (where staff member can often be seen walking the halls with a Bible in their hands) that holds daily Bible studies and prayer meetings and has prayer partners all over the nation, than a Bill Clinto who defiled himself and the office of the presidency by committing adultry, whose wife calls him profane names and throws lamps at him in the public areas of the White House and who doesn't have time for a national security briefing because he has a golf date. At least W is trying to seek God's will in his daily decisions and has brought dignity back to the office of the presidency.

If christians do not take a stand in the running of this nation it won't be long before we see an end to religious broadcasting and churches padlocked or the Gospel so watered down in the pulpits that the church will be nothing more than a social gathering spot. It's already that in some denominations.

Ok sermon mode off,

Pastor Lynn

 

That's a complete falsehood. You might want to check out our own Baptist Distinctives.

 

Johnv, it is not a "complete falsehood". Separation of church and state, as we define it as Baptists is indeed part of our distintives.
"Freedom of religion, freedom for religion, and freedom from religion. Baptists rejected the state-religion union that was common in Europe during the reformation period and advocated for religious freedom. Baptist pastors, especially John Leland and Isaac Backus were strong advocates for the the disestablishment of religion in the second half of the 18th century. John Leland was a close friend with James Madison and Thomas Jefferson and helped establish the language of the First Amendment, guaranteeing freedom of religion in the fledgling United States. We believe each person must have the freedom to choose for herself or himself whether to live with faith and by which faith to live."

However, as usurped (a word that I should have selected rather than "coined") by the ACLU it means no public affirmation of faith in any manner on any government propety.

The ACLU was founded by Roger Baldwin in 1920. Several crucial leaders of the ACLU were members of the Communist Party. Earl Browder, then General Secretary of the Communist Party, said the ACLU functioned as "a transmission belt" for the party. The ACLU made a public showing of removing all Communist Party members from it's board of directors in the 1950s. However they are still communists by their actions. "A rose by any other name smells the same. If it walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck, it must be a duck."

Perhaps you have seen the photo of several Marines praying that's going around the net and the fact that the ACLU is trying to stop prayer by our military becasue they say it's the govt. establishing religion. When I entered the Air Force 42 years ago Sunday chapel attendance was strongly suggested during boot camp. Jewish airmen went to chapel on Friday evening. If you didn't go to services you would be given some sort of work detail. It doesn't make any difference to the ACLU that those Marines were not forced to bow their heads or to pray.

 

Only if they say it from the pulpit. I'm not allowed to campaign for politicians at my workplace either, but both I and the preacher can say what we like off the job.

 

Yes it is. You said "Separation of church & state" is a phrase coined by a communist organization. It is not a phrase coined by a communist organisation. While I likewise have no love for the ACLU, this does not negate the fact that your opening statement was false.

 

Johnv, you are correct brother, as written it is a falshood. I did not intend it as such and I apologize for my poor choice of wording.

"However, as usurped (a word that I should have selected rather than "coined") by the ACLU it means no public affirmation of faith in any manner on any government propety."

The fact is that they did usurp, borrow or steal the term and are using it in a derogatory manner for which it was not intended.

 

Not meaning to interupt your discussion I found this link about Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association that includes Jefferson's "unedited text" not shown in the final draft.

Library Of Congress

 

Sounds like Pastor Lynn may have confused Thomas Jefferson and Roger Baldwin. I'm not sure how that happened.

One of the best resources I've found for a history of the term is Philip Hamburger's recent Separation of Church and State. PL, you are indeed correct that "separation of church and state" has come to mean stripping religion from the public square. Part of the extent to which it has become Baptist doctrine is its being embraced by the Baptist Joint Conference Committee on Public Relations, much of which motivation was anti-Catholic, especially at the time of Hugo Black's Everson v. Board opinion. John Leland, much of the early influence against an established church, certainly understood what an established church was, and I believe he would be appalled at the secularization which "separation" has come to mean.

[ December 29, 2004, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

It does not matter how you folks want to candy coat it, deny it, reject it, rationalize it or ignore it but, the US Supreme Court HAS RULED the "not for profit" gift is a benefit.
III John v.7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentile's.
You are accepting a blessing from one who will want to be your master. It has been that way from the beginning and will continue in history to be so. Do you not learn from the past. Remember this "Come Sheckles....Come shackles!"

gb, for an answer to your Question about one political sermon Jesus ever preached.....let me show you this sermon.
Lk 13:31-35
1) Pharasee's who threatened him politically with Herod.....threatened for His life.
2) I like the fact that the Lord Jesus didn't call him by his correct political title....he didn't bow...like so many of our present day preachers....the Lord Jesus called him by a respectful and illustrious title (ha!)..."that fox".
3) Then the Lord dealt with him (Herod) personally...saying that HE would continue His work and on the third day He would rise. It was a confirmation that He would carry on His work for His Father until the appointed time regardless of what Herod thought or did.
This is my kind of sermon for politicians and bureaucrats, the Lord Jesus in Herod's face saying He would continue.
Thanks ----Bart