Should pulpits remain silent on politics?

[Michie]

In 1873, Charles Finney wrote to pastors challenging them to raise the moral standards of the nation through preaching.

He concluded: “If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.”

In 1980, a very similar argument was raised by Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and other leading pastors as they launched the Moral Majority. Churches had been lured into silence on moral issues that were prevalent in politics, and we were reaping unwelcome consequences from our inaction. Cal Thomas and I were both involved in leadership positions in the Moral Majority in 1980 and were—and I believe, still are—friends.

However, Cal’s recent column decries the idea that pastors exercise their right to fully preach about moral and political issues, along with giving their candid views on political candidates who have such a significant impact on these issues.

Continued below.

Should pulpits remain silent on politics?

Should churches avoid talking about political issues

www.christianpost.com

 

[RileyG]

In 1873, Charles Finney wrote to pastors challenging them to raise the moral standards of the nation through preaching.

He concluded: “If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it.”

In 1980, a very similar argument was raised by Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye, and other leading pastors as they launched the Moral Majority. Churches had been lured into silence on moral issues that were prevalent in politics, and we were reaping unwelcome consequences from our inaction. Cal Thomas and I were both involved in leadership positions in the Moral Majority in 1980 and were—and I believe, still are—friends.

However, Cal’s recent column decries the idea that pastors exercise their right to fully preach about moral and political issues, along with giving their candid views on political candidates who have such a significant impact on these issues.

Continued below.

Should pulpits remain silent on politics?

Should churches avoid talking about political issues

www.christianpost.com

Depends what someone considers “political” imo.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Depends what someone considers “political” imo.

Should pulpits remain silent about morality? Most do. Even Catholic priests seldom venture into 'morality' lest somebody become offended and zero out their meager offerings.

I think pulpits SHOULD speak about morality with some regularity. And that WILL slide into politics, because much in politics IS immoral.

What I don't think should be done is endorsing or condemning particular candidates. It should be enough to make a clear stand for or against some moral or immoral practice. And then have voter information available so people can see which candidates support or oppose particular moral issues. I don't think priests and bishops need to say "You just can't vote for a Democrat." even if there isn't a morally fit Democrat to be found.

 

[RileyG]

Should pulpits remain silent about morality? Most do. Even Catholic priests seldom venture into 'morality' lest somebody become offended and zero out their meager offerings.

I think pulpits SHOULD speak about morality with some regularity. And that WILL slide into politics, because much in politics IS immoral.

What I don't think should be done is endorsing or condemning particular candidates. It should be enough to make a clear stand for or against some moral or immoral practice. And then have voter information available so people can see which candidates support or oppose particular moral issues. I don't think priests and bishops need to say "You just can't vote for a Democrat." even if there isn't a morally fit Democrat to be found.

I agree completely. In Nebraska, we had an abortion initiative on our ballots this past year. Our priest got mail saying he should stay out of politics because he publicly told the congregation they could not vote for abortion. He publicly replied in one of his homilies that he wasn’t endorsing any candidate, but was pointing out the difference between right and wrong, and Catholic teaching on the matter.

 

[timothyu]

Preaching that human governments, be they secular or within religion, are backwards to the Will of God is one thing (because they are), but to support a political party such as the so called self-named moral majority did/does, goes against the Will of God. His is the Kingdom, the Way, not the ways of man.

 

[RDKirk]

Preaching that human governments, be they secular or within religion, are backwards to the Will of God is one thing (because they are), but to support a political party such as the so called self-named moral majority did/does, goes against the Will of God. His is the Kingdom, the Way, not the ways of man.

Yes. And the problem with endorsing a candidate is that you endorse his platform, much of which will never be the will of God because that's the nature of any human kingdom that can stand in this fallen world.

Every human kingdom commits its atrocities, and we should never imply that Jesus endorses them.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I agree completely. In Nebraska, we had an abortion initiative on our ballots this past year. Our priest got mail saying he should stay out of politics because he publicly told the congregation they could not vote for abortion. He publicly replied in one of his homilies that he wasn’t endorsing any candidate, but was pointing out the difference between right and wrong, and Catholic teaching on the matter.

The priest was absolutely right. The person who said he should not address abortion may have said so because he or she supports abortion. That person needs some remedial catechism, and if unable to properly apply that teaching, should be forbidden the Eucharist for the sake of his or her soul.

My state legislator has an abysmal position on the life issues. I could never vote for him. I lobby my friends not to vote for him. I don't want my priests telling me I can't vote for him but I do appreciate them when they bring up life issues from the pulpit, and how those are fundamental issues that need to be observed. I kinda like it when some Catholic apostolate comes up with a voters guide informing me of how my legislator stands among the other candidates, with all of their warts exposed. Then I can decide.

I was once a Democrat. A long time ago now. The party changed. It changed way more than I did. I can still best be described as a Humphrey Democrat, in honor of Hubert H. Humphrey, a most honorable politician. Anyhow, that was then, and Humphrey is pretty well forgotten. I was a Republican for a while too. An odd one, pro-labor, ahead of my time by a few decades. And now I am somewhere between being partyless and in the American Solidarity Party. I say 'partyless' because I'm still hoping the American Solidarity Party actually launches, hoping, waiting, seeing lost opportunities.

I don't think, except with the rarest of exceptions, that a Catholic can vote for a Democrat. It would have to be a pro-life Democrat, and those are rarer than hen's teeth now. Because the Democrats want to abort all of them, and I think they have. I worked briefly for a pro-life Democrat running for Congress. They made it clear she would be opposed by the Party and have no chance and would end up in debt and the party would laugh at her rather than cover a penny of her debt. When Dan Lipinski got destroyed by his own party the last pro-life Democrat in Congress was gone. The Democrats are the evil Party, all of them. The Republicans sometimes want to claim that title back, but they just aren't smart enough, even with Trump.

 

[timothyu]

Every human kingdom commits its atrocities, and we should never imply that Jesus endorses them.

Exactly. The self-serving will of man runs contrary to the Will of God simply because it is self-oriented rather than on the needs of others as God commands

 

[RileyG]

The priest was absolutely right. The person who said he should not address abortion may have said so because he or she supports abortion. That person needs some remedial catechism, and if unable to properly apply that teaching, should be forbidden the Eucharist for the sake of his or her soul.

My state legislator has an abysmal position on the life issues. I could never vote for him. I lobby my friends not to vote for him. I don't want my priests telling me I can't vote for him but I do appreciate them when they bring up life issues from the pulpit, and how those are fundamental issues that need to be observed. I kinda like it when some Catholic apostolate comes up with a voters guide informing me of how my legislator stands among the other candidates, with all of their warts exposed. Then I can decide.

I was once a Democrat. A long time ago now. The party changed. It changed way more than I did. I can still best be described as a Humphrey Democrat, in honor of Hubert H. Humphrey, a most honorable politician. Anyhow, that was then, and Humphrey is pretty well forgotten. I was a Republican for a while too. An odd one, pro-labor, ahead of my time by a few decades. And now I am somewhere between being partyless and in the American Solidarity Party. I say 'partyless' because I'm still hoping the American Solidarity Party actually launches, hoping, waiting, seeing lost opportunities.

I don't think, except with the rarest of exceptions, that a Catholic can vote for a Democrat. It would have to be a pro-life Democrat, and those are rarer than hen's teeth now. Because the Democrats want to abort all of them, and I think they have. I worked briefly for a pro-life Democrat running for Congress. They made it clear she would be opposed by the Party and have no chance and would end up in debt and the party would laugh at her rather than cover a penny of her debt. When Dan Lipinski got destroyed by his own party the last pro-life Democrat in Congress was gone. The Democrats are the evil Party, all of them. The Republicans sometimes want to claim that title back, but they just aren't smart enough, even with Trump.

I consider myself a very moderate Republican. That’s where I stand and I’m faithful to everything the Church teaches.

 

[RDKirk]

I don't think, except with the rarest of exceptions, that a Catholic can vote for a Democrat. It would have to be a pro-life Democrat, and those are rarer than hen's teeth now. Because the Democrats want to abort all of them, and I think they have. I worked briefly for a pro-life Democrat running for Congress. They made it clear she would be opposed by the Party and have no chance and would end up in debt and the party would laugh at her rather than cover a penny of her debt. When Dan Lipinski got destroyed by his own party the last pro-life Democrat in Congress was gone. The Democrats are the evil Party, all of them. The Republicans sometimes want to claim that title back, but they just aren't smart enough, even with Trump.

That's fine for you, but remember that when you endorse a specific politician, you are endorsing everything that politician does...and you're claiming that Jesus does, too.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If you advocate for the Church's complete seperation from politics then you advocate for the complete powerlessness of the Church. This question should go deeper than the Church's impact on society or a candidate's performance but to what purpose the Church is here for. Do we have no obligation to society to excercise power for the common good or do we have an obligation to affect society for the better with said influence?

As far as I can tell there has never been a time when people thought the Church should keep out of politics until modernity and the insistence of secularists that it remain out of power.

 

[timothyu]

That’s where I stand and I’m faithful to everything the Church teaches.

How about What Jesus taught. He takes precedent over churches.

 

[timothyu]

As far as I can tell there has never been a time when people thought the Church should keep out of politics until modernity and the insistence of secularists that it remain out of power.

That's because it abandoned the Kingdom to team up with the Roman Empire and the governments of man, defeating its own purpose of following a kingdom not of this world nor of the ways of mankind.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

That's because it abandoned the Kingdom to team up with the Roman Empire and the governments of man, defeating its own purpose of following a kingdom not of this world or the ways of mankind.

So Rome should have remained a Pagan empire in your view? Why did the early Christians challenge Rome then?

 

[public hermit]

Why did the early Christians challenge Rome then?

The early church didn't challenge Rome. The early church embraced Romanism and empire. It was a colossal error and ultimately anti-Christ.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The early church didn't challenge Rome. The early church embraced Romanism and empire. It was a colossal error and ultimately anti-Christ.

Are you saying that when the early Christians refused to sacrifice incense to Caesar they weren't challenging Rome and what it stood for? Would you prefer the Romans remain Pagan instead of become Christians?

 

[public hermit]

Are you saying that when the early Christians refused to sacrifice incense to Caesar they weren't challenging Rome and what it stood for? Would you prefer the Romans remain Pagan instead of become Christians?

Ever heard of Constantine? Keep up, bud. The church became Romanized and still hasn't recovered. The way of Christ and the institution that embraced power are two different things. Church visible vs. church invisible, and so on.

 

[RDKirk]

Are you saying that when the early Christians refused to sacrifice incense to Caesar they weren't challenging Rome and what it stood for? Would you prefer the Romans remain Pagan instead of become Christians?

It was not the intention of early Christians to make pagans act like Christians.

It was just that pagans could not tolerate Christians acting like Christians.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Ever heard of Constantine? Keep up, bud. The church became Romanized and still hasn't recovered. The way of Christ and the institution that embraced power are two different things. Church visible vs. church invisible, and so on.

Would you have preferred Constantine bot acknowledge the one true God and Jesus Christ?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

It was not the intention of early Christians to make pagans act like Christians.

It was just that pagans could not tolerate Christians acting like Christians.

And you would have preferred if the Pagans remained Pagans? Im honestly kind of confused at your guys reasoning.