If predictions held true, somewhere around 1500 pastors in America endorsed either a political party or a particular presidential candidate in the pulpit yesterday – a clear violation of IRS guidelines. Wayne Grudem, in the Christian Post, spelled out his reasons for participating, and I think he made an excellent case.
According to Grudem:
- The IRS’ guidelines restricting political speech from the pulpit is an encroachment on freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I tend to agree.
- He says that the only way to challenge such IRS guidelines is for someone to violate them and then take the case to court. So, Grudem (and others) have sent the IRS tapes of their sermons, essentially turning themselves in and begging to be prosecuted. My guess is that the IRS will ignore this. But, if the IRS does not take the bait, it will be hard for them to enforce the regulations in the future. Seems like a pretty effective strategy by the Pulpit Freedom people.
- Grudem argued that he and his church were not violating Romans 13’s admonition to be subject to our governing authorities because this is the only process available to those who wish to challenge the IRS ruling. The IRS makes rulings, usually in its favor, then either Congress or the courts have to correct them. That is the process.
I am glad that pastors are making those challenges, but, though one of the men in my church suggested that I participate, I chose not to do so. I would like to give my reasons.
1) Ultimately, I did not get the assent of the church to expose it to legal difficulty. That is my practical reason. If the IRS would come after me, it would not be I who stood in danger, but my church and its tax status. I would not do that without the consent of the church. This is a minor reason, of course, but I don’t think a pastor should make a choice like this unilaterally.
2) The key reason is simple: I do not believe in any candidate or party enough to bring them to the sacred pulpit. I believe in the importance of the pulpit. It is a place devoted to the proclamation of God’s Word. And I just do not think there is a political party or candidate worthy of mention there.
I am not, in any way, wishy-washy about my political views. I do not mind telling you what I believe. I am a Republican by conviction. The platform of the Republican party most closely conforms to that which I believe is biblical and moral.
- I find abortion to be a stain on the American soul and for me, it is a make or break issue.
- I am committed to traditional marriage.
- I do not believe in the redistribution of wealth or socialist-based ideas that the Democrats are increasingly committed to.
- At the risk of being guilty of pushing platitudes, I think smaller government, rather than bigger government is better. My hope is that Obamacare will be dismantled before it is implemented. Obama’s regal presidency is a dangerous thing – ruling by executive order rather than law.
- As I have previously said, I think that spending our grandchildren’s prosperity to fund our own comfort is immoral. We cannot continue to overspend by a trillion dollars a year.
- If Obama is allowed to place more left-wing radicals on the Supreme Court, great damage can be done to the Republic.
So, on these convictions I am a Republican. But I am not messianic about the Republican party. I watched (and voted for) the Reagan revolution and was enthused by much that the Gipper did. But Republicans in power blew it and became as corrupt as the Democrats they replaced. Then, when the Contract with America led to a second Republican revolution, we had another chance to “clean up Washington.” Again, we took power and after an initial hopeful time, the Republican majority became more interested in holding power than in changing the game.
Would I rather see a Republican in the Oval Office? Yes. Would I like to see a Republican House and Senate majority? Absolutely. But is the Republican party really committed to the elimination of abortion? Republicans are preferable to Democrats on this issue, but they have not always demonstrated a genuine passion for the elimination of the murder of babies in their mother’s wombs.
I am just not confident enough in Republicans to endorse them from the pulpit.
3) The Word of God never fails. Republicans and candidates do.
What if I endorsed my party in the pulpit and they blow it badly? What does that say to the people who listen to me? The Bible is a sure word of prophecy that speaks without any mixture of error. Why would I stand in the sacred pulpit and endorse candidates who fail and a party that disappoints?
4) The work of the church and the work of the political party should not be conflated.
Ed Dobson and Cal Thomas wrote a fantastic book that has colored my political involvement through the years, called, “Blinded by Might: Can the Religious Right Save America?” They made a key point. Political parties are about gaining and maintaining power. The church is about proclaiming truth. Sometimes, truth is unpopular and holding to the truth will make us less popular. Political parties are willing to compromise truth to gain or maintain power, but the church can never do that.
The Republican Party is closer to what I believe than the Democrats, the Libertarians or independent candidates I have seen. I hope they win. But the goals of the Republican Party are not the purposes of the Kingdom of God and to stand in the pulpit and advocate the Republican Party would be wron g according to my convictions.
5) I question how a thoughtful, conscientious Christian can vote Democrat.
I did not do this, but I believe that I could stand in the pulpit and question how a biblical Christian could even consider voting for Democrats. I wouldn’t do it and I didn’t do it, but in my mind, the choice is between the Republicans, third party or independent candidates, or simply not voting.
At their recent convention, the Democrats showed their true colors pretty clearly:
- They embraced a pro-abortion platform that was aggressive and unequivocal.
- They had to resort to parliamentary chicanery to even restore a mention of God into their platform. As I understand it, that change required a two-thirds majority and I am not sure that it got a simple majority.
- The Democrats are clearly aligned with and in support of homosexuality and the normalization of immorality and perversion.
I just cannot get past these things. The platform of the Democratic party is biblically reprehensible and I cannot see how Bible-believing Christians can support them. I disagree with their economic policies, their increasing socialism and class warfare, and their big-government solutions to our nation’s economic woes. But Christians can disagree on these things.
But the moral issues I mentioned above just seem so clear to me – the Democrats have adopted a morally reprehensible platform.
Let me be clear: you vote for whomever you think it best. It is not for me to determine who you can vote for. But it is my right to say that I simply cannot understand how a biblical Christian could even consider a vote in support of the Democratic Party.
The Democratic party is committed to things that are abhorrent and abominable. They enthusiastically and fanatically embrace abortion and homosexuality. They increased their commitment to allowing babies to be butchered in their mothers’ wombs.
In Conclusion…
That is something of a secondary issue. I wanted to make sure no one thought me a closet liberal (as if anyone who knew me would). But I just do not believe in the Republican Party enough to stand in the pulpit and promote them. I support the aims of the promoters of Pulpit Freedom Sunday, but because of the reasons I gave above, I did not participate and likely would not in the future.
Dave, I largely argee with you. I wouldn’t support a candidate from the pulpit mainly because I don’t see it as part of the pulpit ministry according to Scripture. I’m to preach the Word, not endorse specific Presidential candidates. However, I respect Grudem’s decision, and the other pastors who are taking encouraging Christians to be salt and light to the extreme of publicly endorsing a specific Presidential candidate. There’s good arguments on both sides of the aisle on this issue, and I largely respect both sides.
Good article.
As I have said elsewhere, the IRS should not be dictating pulpit speech, nor punishing it. But the pulpit should not be a political tool.
Points on both sides.
Excellent post on many different fronts, Dave. I agree and couldn’t have said it better.
Thanks.
I think you were more eloquent about this than I was, but I agree with your direction on this one.
I did, however, take to the pulpit to endorse the end of the Infield Fly Rule and the elimination of the second wild card.
Any set of rules that eliminates the Braves and the Rangers on one day can’t be all bad, Doug.
Hilarious comment, by the way.
I know we’re off topic, but up until that Atlanta-St. Louis game, the MLB Twitter account bio included the line “We don’t understand the Infield Fly Rule, either.”
They took that off.
promoting any political party itself may be a problem for the witness of the Church,
if that political party turns rogue
promoting the involvement of a Christian community in seeking after the common good of the larger community on important issues is a valid issue for ministers,
as long as no harm comes to the people in the larger community who are vulnerable should those in power determine to cause them grief in pursuit of profit
using your pastoral office to tell people who to vote for? . . .
or even to ‘recommend’ a candidate?
risky, should said candidate go rogue (as well as going against the grain of ‘render to Caesar, etc.’
Great point, L’s. Because obviously the Democrat party turned rogue years ago when they worked to make abortion legal and propigated the idea that a woman has a right to have an abortion–which she doesn’t.
I’m glad to see that you’re finally coming around to agree about that. Great comment!! 🙂
Be peaceful, dear one. (snicker)
This is true.
It is more so true when a “(R)ogue (C)hurch” is in harmony with a rogue political party or government as history and contemporary times continue to prove in many places on this planet.
Thank God for the Reformation. Thank Him more for the biblical gospel.
I did not participate in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” I and “my pulpit” was just as free this past Sunday as it has ever been. Though I do acknowledge that losing our freedom is a possibility, I don’t believe the “Johnson Amendment” rises to that level. From a legal standpoint, I think the Johnson amendment ought to be done away with. Biblically, I believe preachers shouldn’t descend into politics. Legally, the government ought not be involved in telling them whether they can or not. If we look at obeying government when it doesn’t ask us to disobey God then I think we ought to leave this alone. Since we have neither biblical injunction nor command from God to enter into the endorsement of politicians, we can “obey” the Johnson Amendment and still obey God, in my opinion. If we are told not to “preach the word”, we ought to preach it anyway. We ought to obey God rather than men.
[If some think they must it is their biblical duty to endorse political candidates, then let them do so and not worry about whether or not they lose their tax exemption.]
Essentially, here is my position. I think I should have the freedom to say whatever I am convicted to say from the pulpit and I do not like the principle of the IRS dictating pulpit speech.
On the other hand, I have no desire to endorse a candidate or a party from the pulpit, even whether I have that freedom or not.
I think this is a good post. I agree with you almost completely, Dave. The one caveat I have is that saying whatever I want to say or whatever I am convicted to say to some degree is about the American sense of liberty, freedom, and freedom of speech rather than about the biblical injunction to “preach the Word.” I do not say there is anything particularly wrong with that sense, just that we need to make that distinction. Being free to preach the Word or whatever else we want to say is an American freedom issue; preaching the Word anyway, regardless of whether or not we are free to is a biblical issue.
I don’t think it’s a legal issue .. it’s about the money. But, nonetheless, if we don’t want government endorsing a religion, how can we endorse a politician? Would’t that be hypocritical?
And if it’s a really big sticky point with some, why would loss of IRS exemption hinder them?
IRS exemption is helpful, of course, but not a biblical mandate. But the issue for me is twofold.
1) I don’t want the IRS telling me what I can say or cannot say on the pulpit.
2) I have no desire to endorse candidates or parties from the pulpit, even if I have that freedom.
Dave,
Quite frankly, I have trouble getting the people in my church to acknowledge what I said, much less the IRS.
They had a way around that. Wayne Grudem (and I assume the others) took a recording of their services and sent them to the IRS. Sort of like turning themselves in.
If the IRS acts, they will get nailed – public outcry will be huge. If they do not act, it will eviscerate future enforcement of the rules. Pretty ingenious.
the most pressing concern for me, this:
Should a political party think that by pandering to certain values of people of faith, the pandering will get them the support of ‘friendly Churches’, then this encourages such pandering.
Later, when the pandering has been successful, and the political party is in office, and no change is seen,
people of faith feel that their trust has been betrayed.
We have seen this happen once.
That we see it happening again is an event which redirects the blame for the manipulation of people of faith on themselves, when hoping against hope, they once more fall for the pandering of a political group.
sort of ‘fool me once, shame on you’, ‘fool me twice, shame on me’
You are right. The Democrats have often pandered to churches on the left, but they are not the only ones who have done that. Political parties pander and that is what they do.
yes, DAVID, both political parties have people in them who are not honorable . . .
voters have to decide on the issues involved,
and Christian voters do have the benefit of their consciences to guide them on issues that involve the common good
And Christian voters recognize that any candidate that is pro-abortion does not support the common good.
God’s men don’t “endorse” candidates. They call ALL candidates to repent. Though principally I’m in agreement with the points made by “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” I fear we miss the much larger, and much more important point when we participate. We may not always be free. Certainly the Christian pulpit for the past 2000 years has not always been free, but we should always be faithful. Good move Dave.
Dave,
I had a post on Friday at From Law to Grace about why I would not be participating in the so-called “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” With all due respect to Wayne Grudem, perhaps he needs to stick to theology and not law/politics. There is another avenue other than the courts to challenge and ultimately change the “Johnson Amendment.” It’s called Congress. We have become so accustomed to liberals resorting to the courts to get duly enacted laws overturned that we just go ahead and follow suit. Notwithstanding that the Johnson Amendment is not being enforced, why not ask a sympathetic member of Congress to sponsor a bill to repeal and/or revise the Johnson Amendment? Of course, whether or not the Johnson Amendment is the law of the land, I would not endorse a political candidate for office, particularly not one who is a member of a non-Christian cult.
To elevate this issue (endorsing candidates) to the same level as preaching the Gospel and try to use this as a valid excuse (loophole) for civil disobedience is, IMO, misguided (that’s the most charitable word that I can use). If someone can point me to a place in Scripture which mandates that I endorse candidates or else am somehow sinning, then I would be more than happy to revise my opinion on the matter. Until then, I think that Bob Cleveland has come close to hitting on the real reason why “Alliance Defending Freedom” started this movement. I’m not talking about the pastors that participated, but the group. Follow the money. According to this group’s own website, “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” was started: “In response to more than 50 years of threats and intimidation by activist groups wielding the Johnson Amendment as a sword against the Church.” The first one was in the Fall of 2008. Even us political science majors can figure out the math on that one and what prompted this group to suddenly form 45 years into the “threats and intimidation.” I’m not buying what they are selling. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
I am no fan of “Pulpit Freedom” style politics. I do, however, challenge your idea that a legislative path will get to the same place.
First, I can’t see anybody taking up that cause, but there could be someone I suppose willing. Second, it has to make it through the process of the committees. I don’t see that as very likely. Third, it lacks the “moral outrage” which I think lies behind the Pulpit Freedom Movement.
I don’t know about “law,” but in regard to politics, Grudem has written what I think is a masterpiece on the subject. I don’t recall the title of the top of my head, but it is quite a thick volume.
Frank,
I was being somewhat facetious when I suggested a legislative route to repeal the “Johnson Amendment.” I acquiesce to your challenge :-). I do not think that a legislative remedy is viable, but I likewise do not believe that the “Johnson Amendment” — particularly as it relates to prohibiting a church from endorsing a candidate, opposing a candidate, or contributing to a political campaign (of course, pastors, in their individual capacity, can do all three) — rises to the same level of being prevented from preaching the Gospel. Therefore, I simply disagree with the argument that some (like Grudem) seem to be making that the “Johnson Amendment” is so egregious that it would give them a loophole to violate the law. I do love Grudem’s Theology, but his take on this I cannot agree with. Thanks and God bless,
Howell
Howell,
I agree with your assessment. But, perhaps this is a “shot across the bow” by Grudem, et. al. Perhaps this is a preemptive strike against a growing infringement of the government on religion, via Obama care and increasing hostility toward religion by government.
I’ve already got my IRS notice to check on my healthcare status and that of the employees at the church. It seems odd (and a bit scary) that my first official contact with ObamaCare is from the IRS.
Even if you don’t agree with Grudem, et. al., I think you can (and do) appreciate the necessity to be vigilant in these days when government seems to be growing like the Blob.
Frank,
No question about the government’s intrusion and over-reach. This could be a “shot across the bow” and a pushback against what is a growing hostility (at least from the Obama Administration) to religious groups. I still think that we can exercise our First Amendment rights without resorting to endorsing candidates from the pulpit. I think we may need to save our shots for the threats which will definitely pose a clear and present danger to our religious liberties, much more so than the “Johnson Amendment.” Thanks for the dialogue. God bless,
Howell
Howell. Can’t disagree.
If any group has the right to participate in the political process, it is the church/churches/religious organizations, whatever their form. Why? Elijah Craig was chairman of the committee in Va. which met with the colonial legislators and made an agreement that in exchange for their freedom, the Baptists ministers would encourage the young men in their communities to enlist in the Patriots’ Cause (read: enlist in a civil war against a duly constituted government, the British Monarchy, the King and Parliament which had some guarantees of rights of British Citizens. The Baptists did what they said (I even found a whole regiment of Craigs in the Colonial Militia of Va.), and their right to practice their faith was recognized. Now the IRS and LBJ’s wicked law are both in defiance of the constitutional protected freedoms mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, God given rights according to the latter document, rights protected by the former document according to what was written therein. Go back in the history of the nation and you will find, for example, Candidate Wilson speaking in the pulpit of the FBC Dallas during his campaign for the Presidency. This happened with other candidates for the Presidency through out the history of the USA. Since LBJ and his law adopted out his pique over the opposition of some religious folks in Texas, certain groups now think they have the leverage to deprive Christians of their freedom and they are bent on doing so. The problem is that the Bible is the source of the documents of our government and of our understanding of what is right and wrong. The Supreme Court has already violated the spirit of the founding documents in many ways. That institution has put us, for all practical purposes, at the whim of the unbelievers, as if unbelief had special privileges. Civilization will not survive without a moral compass, and the Christian Faith as history will demonstrate, despite the failures, is the only ethical system that can sustain and transform culture and society. Consider the moral transformation that has been going on for the pastor 300 years, all of which can be traced primarily to the biblical faith and practice of Christians. There is more, but from every pulpit there ought to sound out a challenge that we are not going to take the deprivation of our rights quietly and without resistance. Some think they… Read more »
correcto “past three hundred years” not pastor
Dave,
A Democrat and a Republican was upon a roof working. The Democrat accidentally sawed the Republicans ear off, The ear fell to the ground into a pile of lumber. The Democrat said i’ll get it, as he was looking through the lumber, he finds an ear, holds it up and shouts “is this it”. The Republican shouts back, “No you idiot, mine had a pencil behind it”.
Dave,
I think this may be one of the best posts you have ever written. Well done, my friend and thank you for having the grit to write and post it on the internet.
Thanks, professor.
Most people by now have chosen their candidates for the coming election or have opted out, which is their right.
There are three remaining debates . . . one being among the vice-presidential candidates this week.
I trust our American people to weigh the candidates and the issues and, if all of our citizens are given the opportunity to vote fairly, I think our people will choose for the best for this time in our country, if the ‘collective wisdom’ of our people is permitted to be freely expressed at the polls. We should have some faith in who we are as a nation, and start pulling together.
Except the ‘collective wisdom’ of America is highly questionable.
For real. The collective wisdom of America voted to elect Obama when he didn’t have the right to be in the White House.
Sad to say, but (even though I support Romney) Romney’s post-debate bump in the polls illustrates this. It people are so fickle and uninformed that debate performance sways them, then there ought to be a higher bar for voting rights in this country.
Bill Mac,
I hear what you are saying but I’m a little less cynical in that regard.
I think the debate bumb is more complicated than people gaining information that swayed their perspectives.
I think there is a big difference in hearing what the media says a candidate is about, and hearing said candidate state his views directly.
A debate is even different from a staged political ad, even when the candidate says the same thing in the debate (which we would expect).
Also, I think a wider audience actually watched the debates. The public can become desensitized by campaign noise. The debate is like a live fight or live NASCAR race. People tune in to see blood and a good crash or two.
So, I’ve still got a little faith in the voting public.
Doug,
You state it so subtly and eloquently.
Subtly ain’t my strong suit.
Christiane has given us the most cogent perspective here. We are a pluralistic and diverse society here in the US. In a healthy political system many divergent views must be freely expressed…and tolerated.
If a church community condones political opinion from the pulpit that’s fine in my book, so long as it doesn’t descend into hatred and religious intolerance. Our constitutional right to free speech applies to both Richard Land AND Jeremiah Wright.
For all the appreciation I have for Wayne Grudem, I think he is dead wrong on this one. The pulpit is a place to speak for God about His Word. I do not see any example from the NT especially where Jesus, Paul or anyone else addressed politics per se. No political party can fix what is wrong in our country and voting *for* a Mormon is an odd recommendation from a Biblical Christian. Here in MN we have a marriage amendment before the electorate. If it fails to pass, nothing ultimately will change. Sin can be a addressed in a way that people should be able to determine what is right and wrong in particular candidates. But why use God’s pulpit to stump for any political issue or candidate? Once we start, where will it end?
…voting *for* a Mormon is an odd recommendation from a Biblical Christian..
Voting for that mormon is the only chance we have to get that….thing out of the White House. He didn’t deserve to be in there in the first place. He’s not good enough.
Here in MN we have a marriage amendment before the electorate. If it fails to pass, nothing ultimately will change.
But if it does pass, gay people who have stars in their eyes imagining their “wedding day” will be hurt and saddened. I’m pretty much ok with that.
From my own blog post on this issue:
Ministry Axiom #3 is that the mind can only absorb as much as the other end can endure. If you have limited time in a sermon, what is most important? Preaching the truth of God’s Word. That includes addressing issues that last: abortion is one of those—it remains, no matter who the candidates are. Taxation. Freedom. War. Police state tactics. Nanny state tactics. Poverty. Economics. These issues remain.
If I am going to preach on a text that addresses a political theme, is it not that I should address what God has said about the issues? These remain, even if BO/MR both sail off to Tahiti this weekend and we have to pick from two others. Discipleship teaches people to think through the Biblical issues. It does not make out a checklist to follow blindly.
This is where I preach on politics: I will gladly spend however much effort is necessary to address those issues. After all, if China cashes in and buys half the country, then abortion will be an issue but Democrats/Republicans will not. Poverty will be an issue, free speech, free religion all remain, even when the two-party system gives way to tyranny.
So if we are making disciples, we are concerned for principles that last: first, being citizens of heaven and second being residents of earth. The outcome of a four-year election? Only as the issues drive it.
IMO, the issues drive this one way: do we want to keep heading to the cliff at full-throttle, or would we like to change and head there a little slower? Maybe slow down enough to last until we can be led by those who don’t want to go over the cliff?
I’ve got a bit of a different angle on all this. I think it has to do with our ecclesiology. What is it, for example, that makes a blog an appropriate place for a pastor to give political opinions, and the pulpit not an appropriate place? And, for that matter, what is it that makes it appropriate for Christian “lay people” to give public political opinions, and not “clergy”? Or, how about this one? What if all churches were house churches, and church life was basically family life, in which you lived everyday life together, and talked together about everyday things (sounds kind of New Testament, doesn’t it?). Why would it be wrong for me, as a Christian, for example, to discuss my political views with my brother in Christ during the snack time conversation at a home Bible study, or a house church meeting? In other words, from the perspective of biblical ecclesiology, what is it that makes a pastor saying something from a pulpit different from an average church member discussing it over snacks at a home Bible study? Up to this point, it may sound like I am defending “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” as the right thing to do. But, in the end, I am really not. But the difference, as I see it, is not whether you voice your opinions from the pulpit, from a blog, or from a casual conversation during snack time at a home Bible study. The difference is that, as members of the body of Christ, we all have the responsibility, in every circumstance of life, to do what leads to “maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Does this mean we should sweep all controversial opinions under the carpet, so to speak? No. What it means, with regard to the topic at hand, as I understand it, is communicating in every context in such a way that appropriately divides between biblical imperatives and personal opinions. Whenever we are voicing personal opinions, we must be clear that we are doing just that. Our personal opinions do not carry the same weight as biblical imperatives. The problem with political endorsements “from the pulpit” is that they may easily communicate the idea that the one giving them is not just sharing a personal opinion, but is transmitting a biblical imperative, and is thus coercing the conscience of someone in… Read more »
Every topic (political or otherwise) has a moral component (and thus is then open to a biblical prescription). God has an opinion, I dare say, and His opinion is True. It is up to us to seek the Mind of Christ to find His answers for our moral dilemma. It seems David that you just want to regulate the whole mass to “personal opinion” and thus should be underneath our notice. What are some major “political” discussions you think are worthy for the church to notice – and what are some hot bed “political” discussions that we should ignore for they are just “personal opinion”?
Rob
Rob,
I am not saying that, as Christians, we should not talk about personal opinions. That would be overly artificial and an avoidance of the realities of everyday life. For instance, I am not saying that Dave Miller should not talk about his love for the Yankees here at SBC Voices. That is fine, and we all understand what is going on when he does so. But the minute Dave’s love for the Yankees begins to be seriously and truly interpreted as a biblical imperative, we have serious problems. We can joke about it being an “imperative,” but in the end we are able to laugh about it because we all realize, in the most literal sense, it is not.
The tricky thing about a lot of political issues is they are not as clear cut as abortion (which almost all of us would agree is a biblical imperative) or sports team loyalty (which almost all of us would agree is a matter of personal opinion).
Back over at SBC Impact the last post I wrote (if I remember correctly) was one about the Bible and Macroeconomics (http://sbcimpact.org/2011/10/12/macroeconomics-and-the-bible/). Macroeconomics is one of the main issues of politics, and many people, perhaps the majority, consider it to be the main issue of politics. However, as I look carefully at the Bible, I think it is difficult to define clear biblical imperatives with regard to macroeconomics. There are various principles that come into play. But good, biblically committed Christians have different personal opinions on various matters related to macroeconomics. It is hard for me to judge some other brother in Christ with regard to the biblical legitimacy of his faith because he may have come to different conclusions regarding what he feels is the best route for our country to take with regard to matters of macroeconomics. Thus, when I, as a Christian, speak on matters of macroeconomics, I must be careful to say I am doing so as a personal opinion, and avoid using any sort of bully pulpit (whether a literal pulpit, or any other sort of platform, literal or otherwise) to infer, directly or indirectly, that those who don’t see eye to eye with me are biblically or doctrinally inferior to me because of it.
Macroeconomics is just one example of a number of other similar issues.
David,
The example of Dave’s love for the Yankees is a fairly easy strawman to push down. I would go as far as to say that my hope and prayer is that the Yankees lose every game until those good folks in the Bronx force the owners to move the franchise to Omaha while converting Yankee stadium to a place to walk a dog. Just my opinion :-).
On the post thread you reference you discuss your views with a Jeff which puts your discussion about macroeconomics into view. I agree with him that while Scripture has few direct examples for modern disciples to contemplate, it is chock full of principles – more than enough to allow the modern disciple to evaluate any moral discussion, including the economic principles proposed by Marx and Keynes, or Smith and Hazlitt.
Rob
I was not familiar with Hazlitt, so I just looked him up on Wikipedia. It says he was an agnostic. I would say that it would probably be appropriate to mention from the pulpit the ungodly worldview underpinning the economic theories of someone like Hazlitt, as it would also, someone like Ayn Rand. And, for that matter, the worldview of Marx, Keynes, and Smith as well. None of them are really good role models for us to follow as Christians.
That doesn’t mean, however, there may not be interesting things to learn, and to benefit from, in the economic theories or any or all of them. As Christians, or as biblicists, though, I don’t find warrant for being either a Marxist, Keynesian, Smithian capitalist, or Hazlittian libertarian.
We are first and foremost, Christians, not Republicans, Democrats, etc., and we should not divide the Body of Christ over secondary concerns, allegiances, or personal opinions.
I agree with you, as usual. But I am working thru this question. Is a negative endorsement necessary when a political party adopts a platform that is manifestly immoral and contrary to scripture?
Dave,
I would say that is not an endorsement of any kind but a “prophetic responsibility.”
I very clearly the week before last told everybody that voting for Obama would be immoral in my point of view. I also told them I believed I was speaking prophetically, not politically.
Taking a prophetic moral stand, either for or against, does not amount to any kind of endorsement in my view of Scripture.
I would add to that that failing to vote for the only candidate that will evict him from the White House would be equally immoral. Not that I’m even remotely excited about a Romney presidency.
That’s a pretty hardline statement there, Joe. Do you really think, in the light of Rom. 14, that is the perspective we should take?
That statement goes well beyond what I would be comfortable stating, and I’ve been pretty politically dogmatic on this board.
Honestly, no. Not really. I have to confess feeling that way, but I know that’s not correct.
That’s almost like hearing the Fonz say that he was “wr…..wrrrr…..wrrr….wrrooong….”
🙂
That was intended for Joe’s comment above at 79…..
That’s almost like hearing the Fonz say that he was “wr…..wrrrr…..wrrr….wrrooong….”
Oh, trust me, it wasn’t an apology. What I said was not correct, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t feel that way and that doesn’t mean that I’m not glad to go to a church where if you were going to vote for Obama you wouldn’t admit that out loud.
But David…
Can a rose grow from a sow’s ear? The point of discussion here is not the spiritual condition of those who propose economic theories (though that is a secondary discussion) – but the principles of scripture versus the economic principles those worthies propose. “All truth is God’s truth” so that any thing they say is truthful is the truth despite their spiritual condition or orientation. Marx proposed redistribution to counter unequal outcomes (and in a sense so did Keynes) = is that principle scriptural? Smith (with Rand (forgot about her) and Hazlitt) proposed that distribution was best left to market forces = allowing large waves will float everybody’s boat. Is that principle scriptural? I think we can evaluate both positions based upon Scripture and what it teaches without having to reject it in total because of the spiritual beliefs of the holder (certainly Rand’s life was, shall we say, eccentric to say it diplomatically – how even Christian conservatives can revel in her works religiously befuddles my mind – yet she is considered the Russian anti-thesis of a Marx or a Lenin with the atheism attached).
Rob
Rob,
I have not actually read Rand, so I may be talking out of turn here. But from what I understand, she advocated the view that personal human selfishness is actually good for society as a whole and the healthy functioning of the economy. If that is the case, that is a terrible–reprehensible, even–worldview upon which to build an economic theory. Perhaps there are other routes to arrive at the same destination, but it seems to me the philosophical foundation itself is rotten to the core.
My suspicion is that any human economic theory that is not built purely on the Word of God will prove an unstable basis upon which to build a society. But God’s perfect plan of economy will not be put in place, in my understanding of eschatology, until the eschaton (call it millennium, or call it something else). Also, in general, human efforts at trying to establish the Kingdom of God ahead of time have proven counterproductive to God’s ultimate purposes.
In the meantime, it is not bad to study economic science, and to form opinions about what may be the best route to take toward human flourishing on a temporal basis. It falls in line, as I understand it, with the admonition in Jeremiah to pray for the city in which God has sent us, as His people, as captives, and to work for its welfare. But we must not pin our hopes there.
And there is something of more eternal value in maintaining the unity of the Body of Christ based on the essentials of the gospel than in working to forge a political coalition with the purpose of advancing a human economic theory.
The basis of a capitalist society (per Smith) is the recognition that all are looking out for their own self-interest. The example that Smith used was a local butcher. Would a butcher treat customers with disdain in a competitive market place? No, not if the butcher wanted to eat himself (self-interest) – his business could ill afford anyone to go away unsatisfied, otherwise his customers may go to the shop down the street. Both Smith (and Marx) recognized a Scriptural principle – that humans are born trying to meet their own self (selfish, sinful) interest. Smith suggested that in order to meet their own interest, those with means (capital) will invent and invest to meet those ends, taking with them those whose labor is required to make the their vision complete. Smith in analysis encouraged the Scriptural end found in 2 Thessalonians 3:10, “…if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.” Further the Christian entrepreneur understands that his work and the results of his labor are not his own, for we are just stewards of His resources (Matthew 25:14-29), and that we are to give glory to God by our work, which we do fairly with integrity in fear of the return of the Lord. If we have given much, we will be responsible for much (see Matthew 25:29). Marx on the other hand believed that human greed was the only sin (Scripture agrees that it is a sin – not the only one) and therefore needed to be eliminated to reach utopia. It was not fair that those who invest and invent should receive most of the proceeds of others (workers) labor ( a concept he referred to as “alienation”). Outcomes should be equal – the worker should receive the same as the one who invented it and invested in it. In real life what that means is that no matter how hard (or if I work not so hard) I should receive the same outcome. Marx believed in a radical egalitarianism to deal with income distribution – those who scan at the checkout at Walmart should get the same pay as Sam Walton, the one who invented Walmart. The Bible not only talks about the concept of working and eating, it also promises a greater reward to those who reap and sow (See Mark 4). What Marx and his more modern disciples… Read more »
Rob,
Thanks for the lesson in economic theory. I am truly interested, and do hope, as time allows me, to learn more about this, especially with regard to how it relates to biblical ethics.
Just curious: Did you major in economics? Or, is it just a personal interest?
David,
Having various degrees, writing tons of papers, and teaching undergraduates Philosophy for over 12 years now I could read the “Wealth of Nations” and “The Communist Manifesto” in my sleep. I refuse to read, and just merely skimmed “Atlas Shrugged” – though I find the connections between Rand’s thesis and current events interesting. I have read a few articles from the others to form a connection between the two distinct economic theories that form their foundation.
Rob
Abortion is not a matter of personal opinion. God is anti-abortion without any question whatsoever.
In contrast, immigration policies are a matter of personal opinion. God is not opposed to our policies and we are free as a country to make them as strict or as open as we would like.
Joe,
That is an important distinction.
Thanks. And let me further say I’m not insensitive to the plight of folks in Mexico. Ok, well, I am insensitive to it, but…. 🙂
I undestand that the people who live in Mexico don’t really have much of a chance to get out of poverty and want to come here. I’ve got no problem if the country votes to ease immigration laws to let more folks come here to work. But what I won’t tolerate is people saying that we HAVE to do that because of how God told the nation of Israel to treat forigners who lived in their land. Two TOTALLY different things.
Joe,
I think those are two totally different issues. I think if we can keep them separate we can formulate a working model.
If we conflate the two, the end ultimately leans toward anarchy.
Joe Blackmon, Doug Hibbard
I am a registered Republican, How does President Obama not have the right to be in the White House. Could you clue me in?
How is the collective wisdom of America questionable? Who questions it?
Could someone explain this to me so I will not be out of touch.
Anyone who votes to deny the rights to medical care of a child who survived an abortion doesn’t deserve to be in the White House. He has no character.
The collective wisdome of America is questionable when America elects something like Obama into the White House.
I did not say President Obama does not have the right to be in the White House.
I did, and do, question the “collective wisdom” of any large group of people. Whether you want to sample it in a poll and watch the vacillation based on minor issues or look at the greater sweep of history, we tend not to act “wisely” as a nation. Was it wise to build the dot-com bubble? The housing bubble? Is the collective ineffectiveness of our national education system reflective of a group with “collective wisdom”?
How about our collective abandonment of marriage? Our historical collective racism? The collective wisdom that denied women the vote for the first 150 years? The collective wisdom of demanding our government spend and spend until we’re $16 trillion in debt? That’s gone on thanks to every party and a few independents.
Large groups of people are just as capable of “collective stupidity” as they are of “collective wisdom.” Given that last election allowed a Saturday Night Live quote to define a candidate, and this time we’re seeing too much effort to make everything twitter-length, I just don’t see much wisdom coming in.
As to who questions the collective wisdom, the Founding Fathers of this country questioned it. That’s why the people, in the original adopted Constitution, only elected the House of Representatives. The Senate was to be elected by the state government, and the President by the Electoral College. The people voted, but the Electors were put in as a brake in case the people voted for a complete ninny.
So, who questions it? Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams–people like that did. Modern conservatives do when liberals lead the polls and modern liberals do when conservatives lead the polls. Pro-lifers praise the wisdom that many Americans oppose abortion, but many of the same ones question that some polls indicate a majority approve of same-sex marriage.
And if we see Scripture as accurate, shouldn’t we? Do we not believe that Proverbs is accurate that “The fear of Yahweh is the beginning of wisdom?” Do we think that, collectively, America has a worshipful fear of the One True God? If we do, then maybe our collective wisdom is better than I think it is.
But I have my doubts that we have the beginning of wisdom as a collective group.
Or the short answer:
The collective wisdom of America made Justin Bieber a star, “Call Me Maybe” a hit, kept Jersey Shore on the air, and the nation almost comes to halt if Twitter or Facebook go down.
Is that not enough to raise a doubt?
Jesus was in dutch with the ruling classes not for preaching against Rome, but for teaching about the Kingdom of Heaven. He did, however, physically (physically) wreck the corruption in the temple and call some of the ruling class a “brood of vipers”. Prophets were called throughout the history of the Hebrews to proclaim God’s judgment on corruption.
There is a place for being bold in such a way that calls people to be faithful to God. I have the sense that involving one candidate over another in our current climate isn’t the way to do it. Rather, some issues ought to be preached like biblical marriage and the sanctity of the lives of unborn babies being created in the image of God.
This week I’m preaching on The rich young man in Mark 10. Because of the issue of the economy, the desire of some people to seek their fortunes in the policies of the government over the provision of Christ, I’ll mention these things as desires for peace through provisions that we too often functionally consider to be greater than God who provides all things. He “went away sad because his possessions were great.” Greater than God? So I must evaluate each thing I preach whether it inclines people to God and hold my tongue if it leads people to some other issue that would be for them greater than God. God must be preeminent.
anyone,
I must say, I’m a bit ignorant, when it comes to politics. How does Obama not have the right to be in the White House? How is the collective wisdon of America highly questionable. Could someone clue me in.
From above.
Anyone who votes to deny the rights to medical care of a child who survived an abortion doesn’t deserve to be in the White House. He has no character.
The collective wisdome of America is questionable when America elects something like Obama into the White House.
Dave, I appreciate your post and I did not participate in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” either. I could be glib and say my pulpit is free every Sunday but that’s beside the point. 😉
However, I don’t even think you should publish your politics so freely. Whether from the pulpit or not you are still a minister of the gospel even while blogging. Do your people not read your blogs? Some do I would think. And you just endorsed a party in a ‘off-hand’ sort of way.
Here’s what I would say:
I am pro-life and think that Christ-followers should be pro-life.
I am anti-gay rights because I believe their lifestyle is sinful, detrimental to society and that their choice to “behave” that way does not warrant special rights.
I am pro-freedom in economics, conscience, and politics. (And I believe the smaller the government the more freedom we tend to have.)
I believe that Christians should support these issues in the public square. Voting for president is only one avenue of the public square.
How many ant-abortion candidates have we voted for and its still legal and practiced? One could argue that voting this way hasn’t helped.
The practice has shown a decrease over the years so maybe the campaign against it has done more than the electoral process.
Either way, I’m not telling people who to vote for from the pulpit or in private.
But I will preach the word. All of it.
thanks, Clark D
In this instance, I chose to make my views known for three reasons:
1. My views are not secret.
2. In other such discussions, people have leveled the charge that things like I said came from a heart of secret liberalism. I wanted to make that clear.
3. I do not feel that it is wrong to state my political opinions outside the pulpit.
Anyone,
I would like your thoughts on an issue, and it has to do with what God calls illicit sexual intercourse. This sin is so popular in America today
that many think of it as casual. As a result of this sin, abortion numbers
rise. Since this sin is going to be commited, and has been commited since early days in biblical history, don’t you think contraception, is the answer to many abortions? Would you support contraception? Would you support sex education? I know in the past Christian circles were against sex education in schools. Maybe we may need to rethink this
Is it good for a Pastor to state his political opinions to a church member outside the church?
Frank L.
How is “a little faith in the voting public”, to be interpreted? No chance of a win or a little chance of a win.
Dave asked: “But is the Republican party really committed to the elimination of abortion?”
And here’s an answer:
“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.” – Mitt Romney, October 9, 2012
That was an incredibly disappointing statement.
Dave,
Would Executive Orders count in his statement? Because for all the christians that vote left wing and their constant “Repubs don’t do anything about abortion”, it’s always the Republican presidents that ban abortions on overseas military bases.
“The former Massachusetts governor said he would instead use an executive order to reinstate the so-called Mexico City policy that bans American aid from funding abortions. ”
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57529528/romney-promises-no-abortion-legislation/
It’s not enough. But maybe we might get a few good Supreme Court picks out of him instead of a wise latina.
“No legislation that I’m familiar with” reflects that there is nothing pending in Congress or suggested. Not that he would not support anything.
Now, honestly, he probably wouldn’t. And unless you see some hard-core pro-life effort in Congress, it’s not going to get to the White House anyway.
Romney’s problem is that he had previously stated his support for the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act last year. Now, he’s changed course.
Also, there’s almost always legislation on abortion introduced in Congress. In general, that’s how our elected officials try to prove to their constituents that they are doing something! Most never come close to getting out of committee.
As to the Mexico City Policy, it is and has always been a political football. Pro-life commentators have regularly pointed out that the policy itself is problematic because it has significant loopholes that allow NGOs to continue to receive federal funds as long as abortion is not considered “as a method of family planning.”
Joe Blackmon
I was watching the news a little earlier, and Al Sharpton said that Romney was engaged in risky business with China. What do you think?
What “risky business”? Is he going to slide across his foyer in his socks, boxers, and a dress shirt lip syncing “Old time rock and roll”?
Joe,
To paraphrase Sally Field, “I like you. I really like you.” 🙂 That was truly a witty and funny retort to Jess’ question. Have a great day and God bless,
Howell (aka, “Russell” 😉 )
David Rogers,
I don’t know if this got through to you the first time, but here it is again.
I wanted your opinion on a study, Type in, Free Birth Control Fewer Abortions, Star Tribune.com