Clergy and Politics

Well, remember that the feds are not restricting what can be said. They are only possibly restricting what can be said by a church with tax exempt status. The pastor can say anything he likes.

 

Larry, I don't follow your comment.

If you are pointing out that a church can choose not to have exempt status, and therfore the pastor does not come under any restrictions, I agree. And, I would hope that any pastor who feels restricted would give up the exempt status before he would give up saying what he believes needs to be said.

But I think that the point that many are making here is that the rules seem to be applied differently based on things like the skin color of the congregation and the political party involved. And those things just further point out why the government should not be in the position of making such rulings.

 

I agree that there appears to be unequal enforcement. That is a long standing tradition. It is common here in Detroit for politicians to be in certain city churches on the Sundays prior to elections making speeches for votes, or at least getting recognized. That is simply wrong.

It is a testimony to weak churches primarily, and to the inconsistent appplication of the law, secondarily.

 

I don't know all that much about the 'early' Baptists in England, but it seems they would have "preached" about personal responsibility and against being required to support a state church, particularly with a head-of-state being automatically the 'head' of the church; and therefore they would have preferred the Whigs to the Tories. Would they have preached, per se, about this, or just let the doubletalk of debasing a state church stand on its own to show their political preferences?

 

Larry, do you have no answer for the above question?

 

What question? About Whigs and tories in 17th century England? How in the world could I answer a hypothetical question about different culture and country some 4 centuries removed?

If the question is about being required to support a state church, the Bible most certainly does speak to that issue and therefore, it is a legitimate area to preach about, just as homosexuality or abortion is. The Bible does declare who the head of hte church is, both in terms of Christ, and in terms of hte human leadership on this earth.

As for political affiliation, the point is not that Christians shouldn't have any political identification. The point is about what should be preached from the pulpit in the name of God. Be a Republican, be a Democrat, be a Whig or a Tory for all I care. But when you stand in the pulpit to preach, preach what the Bible actually says.

 

Read on with your own answer and you will see one way.

Exactly where does the Bible speak as to a state church? Book, chapter, and verse.

Thanks for your admission that political preaching can be the right thing to preach.

Again, where is the book, chapter, and verse about a state church?

 

Mar 12:17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.

 

Alcott,

The Bible is clear that churches are independent and autonomous, ruled only by themselves as they are led by a pastor. Not sure why I have to answer that on a Baptist Board. That should be common knowledge.

But you misread if you think I said that ]political preaching can be the right thing to preach. I said no such thing. I have constantly maintained that biblical preaching (preaching from the Bible what the Bible actually says) is the only legitimate preaching material. That leaves no room for political preaching. Where the two may cross, the preaching is still biblical; it is not political.

 

Book, chapter, and verse?

Assuming something as "common knowledge" is usually not strict biblical adherance, and is often the opposite thereof. Book, chapter, and verse.

Someone concerned about "what the Bible actually says" would cite where it says it, not say "That should be common knowledge..."

Ah, there's the escape clause! Biblical and political can cross, and where they do it's biblical, not political; or that should perhaps be 'common knowledge,' anyway. Okay.