Should a church have a political conference on church grounds?

I agree that the ultimate decision is a private one. But like all our private decisions (parenting, use of time, use of money, etc), politics is an area of our life that we should be discussing in the context of our faith with our brothers and sisters in Christ, especially when it matters most around voting time.

While most folks can find out the information about individual candidates themselves, I think it is even more useful to have discussions as a church community involving the candidates or their spokespeople so that people of faith can play a more informed and active role in our secular communities. The difficulty is getting people to disagree in a civilized manner since politics, like religion, is often a very emotional and divisive topic.

Regarding who stands behind a pulpit, I guess I'm not so concerned about guest speakers coming in to speak about a topic of their expertise or for informational purposes. Nobody suggested that they preach a sermon or speak on behalf of the church.

 

wow...I'm not sure what statement scares me more...

or

wow, that's all I can say. We are sanctifying places and saying you can't have lost people who need to hear the Gospel in, of all places, a church?

I guess this really is a HUGE philosophical/theological difference here.

I believe that a church is a building, sometimes a renovated office space, or even (in a wonderful few cases) a renovated bar, or even a building of sheetrock and two by fours, where different parts of the the Church meet. I believe you can have church in the middle of a park, in a home, in a coffee shop...it's not the building that is sanctified. I also believe that one of the great opportunities to reach unchurched and dechurchd people to bring them into these places with followers of Christ outside of and during service times. They might see and hear and taste the wonderful Gospel of Christ.

Well, I'll return and address direct questions next. Just makes me scratch my head...or bang it on the wall :BangHead:

 

I agree, it's quite disturbing :tear:

 

I am in favor of having political conferences on church grounds. I don't think we should host political rallies or endorsements, but a neutral political conference, especially one based on values, could be a great opportunity.

I do not think we should allow politicians to address the church within church services, with a few exceptions (like Mike Huckabee, who is a minister), and the exceptions should not be politically based. If a politician is speaking in a church, he should be preaching from the Word, not from politics.

I make a very clear distinction between church buildings and church services. A building is just a building. A church service is a sacred time of worship. I don't even think we should display American flags in church services.

 

Let Them In the Church...

Let the sinners in the church. Granted, the church is the body of christ, and I don't disagree. I do remind you though, that it is the responsibility of the pastor to protect the flock they have been entrusted with, and bringing unholy folks into the sanctuary is something that mandates prayer in order to cover and protect God's people. I would never allow an unholy person/alliance to stand behind the pulpit and speak to the body I have been asked to care for. These two men can be appropriately accomodated at the local union hall. For one of them to stand behind the pulpit and accidently share their unholy views, let's say, about abortion, would be wrong. But, that is my opinion.


Pastor Paul:type:

 

I vote yes, absolutely the churches should be involved in politics, and Christians should run for political office! God forbid that the day ever come that Christians withdraw from the public/political arena and leave it to atheists or those of other religious backgrounds to make our laws, impose our taxes, rule our courts, and decide matters of war and peace, life and death.

It is the socio/political influence of the Judaeo/Christian faith that has elevated western democracies to be the most moral, free, just and peaceful societies in history . . . not perfect, there will never in this present fallen, sinful world, be a perfect nation any more than a perfect person, and yet, a society based on the Judaeo/Christian faith has proven to be both the salt and the light that this old sin-weary world hungers for, and that we are called to be.

And yes, Jesus most definitely did wade into the important political issues of his day, including taxes . . . obedience to governing authorities . . . military service . . . capital punishment . . . etc.

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

And a resounding AMEN, Pilgrimer! :thumbs: :applause:

 

I think most here would agree with your post, but the question is, should unbelievers be behind the PULPIT justifying their lifestyles? And even if they don't encourage others to live as they do, the fact that they get behind a pulpit to deliver their message gives validity and justification to their lifestyles.

 

I just want to know if anyone has ever been proud to come from a church where there s no zeal for God, where no one wants to live the christian life, where the thought of Holiness is virtually nonexistent, where the majority of people in it need to get saved???

all I am saying is that if you FILL any church with unregenerate people that WILL be the result. at NO point did I say they should never come at all. The problem comes when you bring them into the church tell them "say this prayer and get saved" then they "repeat after me" and then someone pronounces them saved and the whole time they are as regenerate as a doorknob. That is why I would avoid having large groups of, at best, secular humanist in a church for ALMOST any reason (there are some but not politics or anything to the sort)

I just can't for the life of me figure out why anyone would want a church full of anti-God members (that WILL be the result) of course these people need the gospel, they need it more than they need anything, but that isn't happening at a political conference, If you want to bring people to a Gospel Conference that is wonderful, But the fact remains that the PRIMARY reason for a church is edification of the SAINTS. so GO BEYOND THE CHURCH WALLS AND PREACH THE GOSPEL. if we would spend as much time on the Great Commission as we do worrying about politics, then we could get something done. The fact is the outcome of a political election is not going to save a soul

 

AMEN!

:thumbs:

We bring the unsaved into the church to hear the word of God and be saved. We do not bring the unsaved into the church to offer a platform for their agendas or to have a platform period.

 

Thank you and AMEN to you :applause:

I think some people don't seem to get
GUILT BY ASSOATION!!!

 

I don't think the issue was about some unbeliever taking to the pulpit trying to justify some aberrant lifestye. The issue was about candidates running for public office speaking to a congregation and outlining their views and positions on the often very important political issues we all struggle with and that affect each and every one of us . . . in many cases affecting the freedom we enjoy to practice our faith and even our ability to freely preach the Gospel. I would hope that if a political candidate stood behind a pulpit and tried to justify some aberrant lifestyle or proposed some immoral political agenda, it would be a very good indication to the congregation who not to vote for.


In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

This thread was an offshoot of another thread.
Here is a quote:

These are the people that will be given a platform inside a church. It is not just about the 2 presidential candidates, as if that is not bad enough.

 

These are the people that will be given a platform inside a church. It is not just about the 2 presidential candidates, as if that is not bad enough.[/quote]

My apologies, I misunderstood the nature of the question in the poll. I do believe the church is a proper forum for political candidates to acquaint the public (of which the Christian church is a substantial voting block) with their views and positions on the various issues. And that not only applies to the Presidential race, but to every level of politics, national, state, and local. Christians need to be informed of the political/social issues that affect our nation and to be active in supporting and voting for those candidates who most closely represent the views we hold dear and sacred.

However, if the question is . . . should the church host conferences for non-believers or those of other faiths to espouse views on religious and moral issues that are contrary to the Christian faith, the answer is a resounding No. The Universalists, Muslims, and Rabbis have their own pulpits from which they are free to preach whatever message they care to espouse, and I'm sure those interested in hearing their views advocated would be welcome to visit their places of worship/meeting and hear what they have to say.

I would like to add that if my pastor invited individuals or groups such as those referenced above to speak at my church for the purpose of espousing such views, I would, in very short order, be voting on a new pastor!

In Christ,
Pilgrimer

 

Amy, those groups are not "given a platform" inside the church at all. They are merely sponsors of the event.

 

Why? They are not sponsoring the groups with those views. If my church gives money to a local food shelter, and a gay group does the same...how are we partaking or participating in the gay group's beliefs?

They are not discussing faith...or theology for that matter. See my food shelter analogy...

I don't know why he would preach at the conference, since that is not the point of the conference. You keep saying "interfaith" as if this is a theology conference. It is not. Differenet faiths and beliefs are supporting a common good (AIDS, homelessness, hunger, poveryt, etc.).

 

Why does it make a difference where the meeting is? Would it be OK if the meeting took place in a public building? I don't see the big deal about the building the meeting is taking place in. No theology will be discussed, so it is moot, IMO. I think we are straining at a gnat...