In the News
Last Sunday, a number of ministers in Pennsylvania used their pulpits to speak about political issues. They were participants in an event called "Pulpit Sunday," sponsored by the Pennsylvania Pastors Network (PPN).
The number of pastors who participated in Pulpit Sunday is not known, but more than 1,500 pastors across the state belong to PPN.
PPN is a nondenominational network of clergy who affirm the authority of Scripture, "want to examine public policy issues without politicizing their pulpits, using well-prepared teaching and preaching resources" and "want to engage their congregations in taking part in our political process on a non-partisan basis." (See full PPN goals here.)
According to Karyn S. Price, Public Relations manager for PPN, "Pulpit Sundays are being promoted ... to empower pastors to fulfill their biblical and constitutional duty to preach about moral and cultural issues of the day."
In some churches across America, this may not seem like news, because some pastors often discuss moral and cultural issues, but according to PPN's president, Sam Rohrer, many pastors have avoided preaching on subjects seen as "political."
Some may have avoided such topics so as not to run afoul of IRS regulations for nonprofit groups, which include churches. Under those regulations, churches cannot espouse or denounce the views of any particular candidate; they can, however, discuss issues, provided the discussion does not exhibit preferences for or against specific candidates. (See a fuller list of what churches can and cannot do while retaining their nonprofit status here.)
Some preachers have avoided political issues because they consider it their job to stick to "spiritual" topics.
"With topics like sex and politics long being considered as taboo for preachers to address from the pulpit, Bible-believing Christians -- and the society at large -- are left without firm, faith-based instruction on issues of moral or cultural relevance," Price said.
Rohrer, who served nine terms in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, told The Wired Word, "The whole purpose of PPN is not to engage in [political] campaigning, but to be principle-based and encourage, assist and provide pastors with what they need to teach the whole counsel of God."
Specifically, said Rohrer, the whole counsel of God applies to four areas of life: self, family, church and civic realm. "Pastors have the freedom and responsibility to speak on these issues, in intellectually and scripturally sound ways," Rohrer said.
PPN is a project of "Let Freedom Ring," a nonprofit conservative public policy organization. (See Let Freedom Ring's self-description here.)
More on this story can be found at this link:
Pa. Pastors Not Avoiding Politics in Pulpits Ahead of Elections. The Christian Post
The Big Questions
Last Sunday, a number of ministers in Pennsylvania used their pulpits to speak about political issues. They were participants in an event called "Pulpit Sunday," sponsored by the Pennsylvania Pastors Network (PPN).
The number of pastors who participated in Pulpit Sunday is not known, but more than 1,500 pastors across the state belong to PPN.
PPN is a nondenominational network of clergy who affirm the authority of Scripture, "want to examine public policy issues without politicizing their pulpits, using well-prepared teaching and preaching resources" and "want to engage their congregations in taking part in our political process on a non-partisan basis." (See full PPN goals here.)
According to Karyn S. Price, Public Relations manager for PPN, "Pulpit Sundays are being promoted ... to empower pastors to fulfill their biblical and constitutional duty to preach about moral and cultural issues of the day."
In some churches across America, this may not seem like news, because some pastors often discuss moral and cultural issues, but according to PPN's president, Sam Rohrer, many pastors have avoided preaching on subjects seen as "political."
Some may have avoided such topics so as not to run afoul of IRS regulations for nonprofit groups, which include churches. Under those regulations, churches cannot espouse or denounce the views of any particular candidate; they can, however, discuss issues, provided the discussion does not exhibit preferences for or against specific candidates. (See a fuller list of what churches can and cannot do while retaining their nonprofit status here.)
Some preachers have avoided political issues because they consider it their job to stick to "spiritual" topics.
"With topics like sex and politics long being considered as taboo for preachers to address from the pulpit, Bible-believing Christians -- and the society at large -- are left without firm, faith-based instruction on issues of moral or cultural relevance," Price said.
Rohrer, who served nine terms in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, told The Wired Word, "The whole purpose of PPN is not to engage in [political] campaigning, but to be principle-based and encourage, assist and provide pastors with what they need to teach the whole counsel of God."
Specifically, said Rohrer, the whole counsel of God applies to four areas of life: self, family, church and civic realm. "Pastors have the freedom and responsibility to speak on these issues, in intellectually and scripturally sound ways," Rohrer said.
PPN is a project of "Let Freedom Ring," a nonprofit conservative public policy organization. (See Let Freedom Ring's self-description here.)
More on this story can be found at this link:
Pa. Pastors Not Avoiding Politics in Pulpits Ahead of Elections. The Christian Post
The Big Questions
1. To what
degree should our politics be based on the Bible? If they are to be based on
the Bible, should it be on what the Bible literally says or on the
"spirit" of what the Bible says, adjusted for modern times? Explain
your answer.
2. Do you
want to have political issues aired from the pulpit? Why or why not? How do we
know when a pronouncement from a church spokesperson has the weight of
"Thus saith the Lord" as opposed to being the opinion of an
individual or a sectarian religious group, or the misapplication of Scripture?
3. There are
Christians on both sides of many political issues and among the supporters of
opposing candidates. What principles can help Christians to discuss these
issues and candidates without impugning the motives or judgment of those who
don't agree? What has been your emotional response when you have heard
religious leaders, your own or others, take a political stand that you sharply
disagreed with? What was your opinion of their scriptural reasoning? Do you
have the same level of emotional response when religious leaders take a
political stand that agrees with your own? Do you do the same level of
questioning?
4. Would
churches be better to give up their nonprofit status so that political issues
and candidates could be advocated for? What would be the likely impact on that
church? Jesus said one cannot serve both God and "mammon" (wealth).
Would it be a fair comparison to say that preserving one’s tax-exempt status at
the expense of prophetic witness is a choice of mammon over God? Explain your
reasoning.
5. During election campaigns,
many political ads from both parties distort facts regarding the other side and
sometimes label opponents using terms (such as racist, scofflaw, greedy, etc.)
that are meant to incite passions but aren't true. How can the church help its
members get beyond the distortions so as to make informed decisions regarding
issues and candidates?
Confronting the News with Scripture and Hope
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Nehemiah 2:17-18
"Then I said to them, 'You see the trouble we are in, how Jerusalem lies in ruins with its gates burned. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, so that we may no longer suffer disgrace.' I told them that the hand of my God had been gracious upon me, and also the words that the king had spoken to me. Then they said, 'Let us start building!' So they committed themselves to the common good." (For context, read 2:1-18.)
Nehemiah was a Jew raised in Babylonia, where many Jews had been exiled after the fall of Judah to the Babylonians and the destruction of Judah's capital, Jerusalem, by the Babylonian army. More recently, however, the Babylonians had been defeated by the Persians, and the new ruler had allowed any exiles who wished to return to Judah, which was now a province of the Persian Empire, to do so. Though many exiles had returned, the walls of Jerusalem remained in ruins, and no one could dwell securely in the city. Learning of this, Nehemiah had gotten permission from the Persian emperor to journey to Jerusalem and oversee the rebuilding of the city walls.
The verses above report Nehemiah's conversation with the returnees, in which he asked them to join the wall-building project. They immediately agreed, and thus "they committed themselves to the common good."
"The common good" is a great phrase. The "common" part implies a sense of community, of responsibility, of a willingness to look beyond one's own needs and desires. It also implies that insofar as possible, the aim is to enhance the well-being of everyone in the society. The "good" part of the phrase indicates that what is sought for all is something that God would approve. And we need both the common and good parts. It's possible for a group to work for their common enrichment through evildoing, such as a gang working together to rob a bank. It's possible for a group to work for their common advancement, such as a cadre of workers clawing their way up the corporate ladder by betraying others. But the common good means blessings for all involved, in a spirit of neighborly love.
It seems to us that the common good should be the basis of political discourse, especially for Christians. When we are talking about a choice between two or more political agendas and/or candidates, the debate is likely to be more helpful when we avoid knee-jerk partisanship and talk instead about which choice is more likely to promote the common good and benefit the most people. (Admittedly, what is meant by "the common good" is not always clear, especially when one looks at long-term effects and consequences.)
Here are some Bible verses to guide your discussion:
Nehemiah 2:17-18
"Then I said to them, 'You see the trouble we are in, how Jerusalem lies in ruins with its gates burned. Come, let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, so that we may no longer suffer disgrace.' I told them that the hand of my God had been gracious upon me, and also the words that the king had spoken to me. Then they said, 'Let us start building!' So they committed themselves to the common good." (For context, read 2:1-18.)
Nehemiah was a Jew raised in Babylonia, where many Jews had been exiled after the fall of Judah to the Babylonians and the destruction of Judah's capital, Jerusalem, by the Babylonian army. More recently, however, the Babylonians had been defeated by the Persians, and the new ruler had allowed any exiles who wished to return to Judah, which was now a province of the Persian Empire, to do so. Though many exiles had returned, the walls of Jerusalem remained in ruins, and no one could dwell securely in the city. Learning of this, Nehemiah had gotten permission from the Persian emperor to journey to Jerusalem and oversee the rebuilding of the city walls.
The verses above report Nehemiah's conversation with the returnees, in which he asked them to join the wall-building project. They immediately agreed, and thus "they committed themselves to the common good."
"The common good" is a great phrase. The "common" part implies a sense of community, of responsibility, of a willingness to look beyond one's own needs and desires. It also implies that insofar as possible, the aim is to enhance the well-being of everyone in the society. The "good" part of the phrase indicates that what is sought for all is something that God would approve. And we need both the common and good parts. It's possible for a group to work for their common enrichment through evildoing, such as a gang working together to rob a bank. It's possible for a group to work for their common advancement, such as a cadre of workers clawing their way up the corporate ladder by betraying others. But the common good means blessings for all involved, in a spirit of neighborly love.
It seems to us that the common good should be the basis of political discourse, especially for Christians. When we are talking about a choice between two or more political agendas and/or candidates, the debate is likely to be more helpful when we avoid knee-jerk partisanship and talk instead about which choice is more likely to promote the common good and benefit the most people. (Admittedly, what is meant by "the common good" is not always clear, especially when one looks at long-term effects and consequences.)
Questions:
How do you define
"the common good" in a political sense? Does it include specific
issues, like Social Security, Medicare, immigration issues, military decisions?
Why or why not? How might you measure the common-good effect of any given
policy or leader? In what legitimate ways can churches support common-good
measures within the confines of IRS regulations about nonprofit status?
Psalm 51:17-19
"The sacrifice acceptable to God is a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise. Do good to Zion in your good pleasure; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, then you will delight in right sacrifices, in burnt offerings and whole burnt offerings; then bulls will be offered on your altar." (For context, read 51:15-19.)
These verses talk about the nature of sacrifice. In ancient Israel, where the sacrifice of animals was part of the religious practice, there was always the danger that people would go through the motions of offering the animals without changing their lives. Thus, the psalmist reminds us that the real sacrifice behind the offering of the animals is "a broken and contrite heart."
The first 17 verses of Psalm 51 are a prayer of deep contrition, and are usually understood as the prayer of David following his sin with Bathsheba. Since verses 18 and 19 include reference to rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem, an event that occurred long after David's time, some Bible scholars suggest that those two verses were added by a later biblical editor to give a concrete example of "right" sacrifice that makes the offering of animals acceptable.
Interestingly, these two verses tie the common-good project of rebuilding the Jerusalem walls to the issue of sacrifice. That can remind us that working for the common good often means some sacrifice on the part of those whose individual interests or gains might be further ahead if nothing were done for the good of all. But that is part of what makes the common good so ... well ... good. Being willing to work where we wouldn't have to, give where we aren't required to, speak up when nobody is forcing us to -- those are holy expressions of loving our neighbor, and they contribute to our neighbor's well-being.
Questions: In what ways might we actually be better
off ourselves when we have sacrificed some personal benefit to help build the
common good? Name an occasion when you made a decision for the common good at
some personal expense to yourself. Do you think that choice was ultimately
justified? Should we ever force other people to involuntarily sacrifice for
what we see as "the common good" -- even when they see it
differently?
Jeremiah 29:7
"But seek the welfare of the city where I have sent you into exile, and pray to the LORD on its behalf, for in its welfare you will find your welfare." (For context, read 29:1-9.)
The sentence is from a letter that Jeremiah sent to the people of Judah who were in exile in Babylonia, telling the exiles to work for the common good of Babylon, even though they were citizens of Judah.
One way of working for the common good today is by participating in peaceful and legal ways in the public debate about the role of government and about its specific policies. This can also be done in church; IRS regulations for nonprofit groups, including churches, permit such groups to discuss political issues so long as the group does not exhibit preferences for or against specific candidates. (This regulation in no way impinges on the rights of individual church members to speak in favor of or against a candidate, even within the church building, but it cannot be represented as the church's position without running afoul of the IRS rules.)
Questions: Given that within any given congregation,
there may be people of different political persuasions, some of which are
intensely held, how can discussions aimed at seeking the welfare of your
community, state or country be conducted so that they truly help people examine
the issues within a biblical context?
Are there
times when the common good is prevented because of doctrinaire political
stances? Is it possible in the present climate for politicians and citizens to
look beyond political victories and instead work together for a common good?
Matthew 5:13-16
"You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot. You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven." (No further context necessary.)
One of PPN's stated goals is "Take seriously Jesus' command to be 'salt and light' to the culture."
Questions: What does it mean for the church to be
salt and light to the culture regarding politics? What behaviors do we
Christians sometimes engage in regarding politics that make us appear to be
something less than salt and light?
In the Civil
Rights struggle, there were some denominations and churches that spoke
prophetically, and were salt or light to the society. Can you name other times
when the witness of Christendom has been ahead of societal change and has
therefore acted as salt or light? Name an occasion or issue where the society
has been ahead of the church and has itself been salt or light.
Mark 12:17
"Jesus said to them, 'Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor's, and to God the things that are God's.'" (For context, read 12:13-17.)
Jesus said this in answer to a question about whether people should pay their taxes. In doing so, he was avoiding being pulled into a test designed to embarrass him.
Question: Jesus' response here can read as though
he were saying "Don't mix religion and politics." Do you think that's
what he meant? If not, what did he mean?
For Further Discussion
1. Read Luke
4:9-12, where the devil and Jesus both quote Scripture to prove their case.
Looking beyond the fact that most of us believe Jesus got the better of this
particular exchange, how should believers discern a proper course when
differing Christian bodies quote Scripture to prove, or proof-text, their case
regarding a political issue? Is this better done individually or in group
study? What sort of group? Should answers come from the pulpit? On which
occasions?
2. Regarding
discussing politics from the pulpit, one TWW team member said, "I have
found it to be one-sided: either a pastor/church is completely embedded with
political conversations, or they never mention it at all." What does a
healthy balance of political dialogue in a church look like?
3. Why do
people tend to get more infuriated over political issues than theological
issues?
Do political disagreements that get heated actually blind us to the arguments of those with whom we disagree?
Do political disagreements that get heated actually blind us to the arguments of those with whom we disagree?
4. If your
church or denomination is politically involved, think of a political or social
change that it supports but with which you do not agree. What would convince
you that your disagreement is mistaken?
5. How might
Ephesians 4:15 -- "But speaking the truth in love, we must grow up in
every way into him who is the head, into Christ ..." -- help our political
discussions?
6. What is
the difference between being "non-partisan" and
"non-political"?
Responding to the News
This is a good occasion to consider how your church can offer venues to its members for political discussions that are respectful of one another and faithful to your commitment to follow Jesus.
No comments:
Post a Comment