I agree Christ was not political but why did He get into political trouble anyway with the Jewish/Church leaders of the day and the Roman authorities? Could it be that though His greatest mission was to be the one-time sacrifice for sins so that mankind could return to God, that His compassion for His creation put Him in a place to talk about life, about the laws that make men right before God and all of these laws eventually affect governments? In other words could it be that His mere life talks such as the Sermon on the Mount and every moment he spent preparing the disciples for their mission, talking and healing those created in His/God’s image along the way pointed to the very things that not only make men right individually but also make them right societally?

If you hear me saying we have to impose all of these laws (and yet we do make laws against murder and stealing so some morality must be legislated for the good of mankind), I’m not, but we do have to teach them so that all men have true choices, and should they make mistakes/sin, teach the way back to doing the right thing. If we don’t teach these laws, ideas, philosophies in our homes first, then encourage them in schools and speak from the pulpit about them, how then are we getting the truth?

All men should be free to speak their consciences, particularly those whose minds are fed on the Scriptures and a love of history, which helps us recognize the current versions of past mistakes that we may avoid them. In church all preachers/pastors have a duty to the chosen local eldership, so they are not necessarily speaking for themselves. Yet, to give one man such power over our thoughts is idolatry. May I suggest that we let the preachers speak and then go out and test the spirits ourselves first in Scripture and then with sound thinking of which our minds are trained over time to recognize; it won’t happen like an episode on television but with steadfast studying.

All the best to each of you!
Denise

Thanks Paul.

Wayne- All I needed to see is who the leadership of ADF was to be able to determine whether I would agree or not. Once I saw that Mr. Dobson was on there they lost any chance of me respecting what they are doing. To me he represents everything about religious right politics and therefore I think you can throw ADF in there with them. That is great that they wanted to get people from “both sides” but in all practicality this was still a religious right move.

“Contrary to what some are saying or reporting, the Alliance Defense Fund is not attempting through its Pulpit Initiative to convert churches into political action committees. Neither is it an effort to force the politics of the “religious right” into churches, as Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State contends. Indeed, the Pulpit Initiative is not concerned with whether a pastor decides to speak about candidates or decides not to. And if a pastor does, it does not matter to our legal efforts if he is talking about “right wing” or “left wing” candidates. In fact, ADF invited churches from a wide variety of denominations to be a part of Sept. 28’s Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

No, the Pulpit Initiative is simply about letting churches of all types decide for themselves, instead of having the decision made for them by the Internal Revenue Service. The purpose is to restore the right of pastors to speak freely from the pulpit without fear of punishment by the government for doing what churches do: speak on any number of cultural and societal issues from a biblical perspective.”

That said, I do think we should have the absolute freedom to say what we want in church…..fear of the government should not enter into our mindset and is one of the things I am most thankful for as an American.

I guess these guys will have to decide if what they want to say is more important than tax exempt status.

My pastor will not be endorsing any candidates either, the odds that they do what they promise is not so good. But the question remains – should big government have their nose in what pastors say. The law was created when PAC used Churches to get tax free status … today they no longer have the desire to do so because McCain Feingold gave them special 527 tax status.

There is a big difference between respecting the laws of the US and being scared of the IRS. My pastor has not endorsed a candidate and as far as I know, he won’t. And for that, I am very happy. Of course, his reason for not doing so has nothing to do with the IRS. Even if there weren’t tax laws forbidding churches for playing partisan politics I would still say that endorsing politicians is a nasty game that churches and pastors should be above.

I’ve linked to this post from Pulpit Endorsements: The Sky Will Not Fall

That is a great point about how it makes it look like Christians think they are “better” than everyone else. I hadn’t thought of that, but it is very true.

I just hate this line of thinking: “If you want to be a true Christian you will vote for ____________”