Lots of people out there will eagerly tell you that one of the banes of public life today is the convergence of religion and politics. Upon further thought, however, I'm convinced that the opposite is true.
Now what I'm getting at here is not that pastors need to endorse candidates--or James Dobson, for that matter. Rather, I'd suggest that churches need to instruct members on holy obligations towards government, especially when they're blessed to live in a republic like ours.
Some applications? Well, for starters, perhaps it would be a good idea to remind congregants that theology matters in politics. It is not as if the Scriptures have nothing to say about the death penalty, criminal justice, the sanctity of human life, and more, right? Certainly the Scriptures define the central role of government, right?
And in the same way, churches certainly have an obligation to discipline wayward members, even those in the halls of power. Imagine, for example, a church disciplining Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich for adultery, or a church disciplining John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi for supporting abortion and such.
Certainly doing this might cause an uproar in the short run, but in the long run, I think it's better that politicians get seriously rebuked for abuse of power.
Hot Gear Friday: The Swiss Army Guitar
-
The word “iconic” is overused these days. I try to avoid it. It’ll be hard
in this next bit. If you are not a guitar player, and someone says
“electric gui...
6 hours ago
4 comments:
Unfortunately, churches are embracing these members despite of their "stance" against abortion and so forth. I find it even more absurd that these leaders like John Edwards said in an interview when asked about gay marriages and abortion, replied that his view is personal and will not carry it into the public office.
Dunno if Edwards' church could rebuke him; he's a United Methodist, and that body more or less endorses those things. On the other hand, his stand is more or less predictable from his membership. These things are meaningful, contrary to much popular opinion.
On a related note, I believe scripture also says to respect authority, all the more difficult if it's not "your guy" in office or if they stand for things that are morally repugnant to you.
As for Edwards, I don't have evidence that he is not a believer, but it makes me cringe when he uses the name "Jesus" in a sentence.
It's probably because I think he will do or say anything he thinks is politically expedient for him at any given moment, not unlike his former running mate.
As for churches, I would submit that those that take a stand and have the strongest, even polarizing messages have the fastest growing congregations.
Ironically, the churches whose messages have fallen back to politically correctness so as not to offend and turn away their members are left begging for members.
That 501 (c)(3) status is always a bit fuzzy by allowing orgs to lobby, but not to have political activity.
But beyond technical difficulties, there are social issues to be aware of...where the marriage of politics and religion can do harm to the reputation of religion.
I live in Italy and Berkeley, both of which are notoriously non-religious. Evangelicals mobilized and voted for GWB in 2004 based on a number of wedge issues. Many people in Europe and the Bay Area, who have minimal Biblical background, associate Evangelical Christianity with this Administration due to the efforts in 2004 to link these two.
This turns them off to Christianity before I even have a chance to witness to them.
Is it more important to unite Christians on a political front...or is it more important to unite people on a Christian front.
I think the latter, and then once people know the Gospel, their politics will follow.
Post a Comment