Should pulpits remain silent on politics?

Ignatius the Kiwi · 2025-07-18T14:15:29-0500

RDKirk said:
Was it?
Or was it merely directed underground for a while?

For a while and then it died as the whole of society oriented around Christianity instead of the old Gods. Are we to believe that because some Pagans existed underground that it was a bad policy? To forbid public sacrifices? To no longer offer sacrifices to the gods in the army, senate and even by the Emperor? Unless one wants to make some kind of liberal enlightenment argument for toleration of all religious practices, from a Christian perspective the death of the old religions and the rise of Christianity was good. If it wasn't good, why wasn't it good?

Ignatius the Kiwi · 2025-07-18T14:17:39-0500

RDKirk said:
Pagans will always greatly outnumber Christians.

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it."

Well yeah, the world itself will always outnumber us. But what you're suggesting, not being political, not having influence in society, will only make them outnumber us even more. In fact they will not only outnumber us but dominate us. It's like you believe there's no difference between being ruled by Alfred the Great or Guthrum.

timothyu · 2025-07-18T14:53:55-0500

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
The ways of man being what exactly?

Simply put, the ways of God tell us to focus on the appropriate needs (not wants) of others. Man, since the Tree, became self-aware and focuses instead on self. As a result it prefers to take rather than give. Man would have had no desire to take more than needed in order to live for self, as the concept of self did not exist previously.

We are self-serving and a mixture of self-interest, self-righteousness, self-determination, selfishness, self-justification, etc., all which are behind the woes of this world. We were told this is what makes us backwards to the original will of God for us. Our ways are opposite to the ways of the Kingdom and are what we are to repent of. With understanding, comes change and a new loyalty to ways contrary to the traditional ways of mankind. We become, as the early Christians were called, 'haters of mankind', haters of the results of rebelling against the will of God.

RDKirk · 2025-07-18T15:02:02-0500

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Well yeah, the world itself will always outnumber us. But what you're suggesting, not being political, not having influence in society, will only make them outnumber us even more. In fact they will not only outnumber us but dominate us. It's like you believe there's no difference between being ruled by Alfred the Great or Guthrum.

Not being political does not mean not having influence in society.

timothyu · 2025-07-18T15:19:59-0500

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
They think because Christians weren't perfect rulers they don't have a right to rule

As Jesus said, His Kingdom was not of this world. That automatically means then neither is this world of His followers. It is run on the will of man. This of course does not mean we can't be part of it, but not operating in the ways of man but of God. Be in the world , not of it. Be the servant to each other and God, not those who wish to be served.

Ignatius the Kiwi · 2025-07-18T15:31:31-0500

RDKirk said:
Not being political does not mean not having influence in society.

To have influence on society is to be political in some sense. It is the inescapable reality of influence. How do we imagine things going in trying to avoid being political but having influence? We tell the King or the politician that what they are doing is wrong. We convince them that it is wrong and they're not supposed to act on that? I am left somewhat confused at how things were actually supposed to go, especially during the early centuries when Christians were converting elites and they were coming to Christianity. These elites were genuinely being drawn to Christianity and convinced by it, the same way elites are drawn to all sorts of ideologies. Were the Bishops supposed to spit on these elites and tell them they were not worthy of becoming Christians? That God wants them to give up their positions and then convert? Rather the Bishops and the Church made the sensible decision to tell these Emperors, Kings and Rulers that God expects them to rule justly and continue in the role God put them in. Yet this is a horror to many Christians on these forums and I suspect it isn't out of commitment to Christianity, but a commitment to a liberal worldview which seeks to radically separate Christianity particularly from power and influence.

Ignatius the Kiwi · 2025-07-18T15:32:55-0500

timothyu said:
Simply put, the ways of God tell us to focus on the appropriate needs (not wants) of others. Man, since the Tree, became self-aware and focuses instead on self. As a result it prefers to take rather than give. Man would have had no desire to take more than needed in order to live for self, as the concept of self did not exist previously.

We are self-serving and a mixture of self-interest, self-righteousness, self-determination, selfishness, self-justification, etc., all which are behind the woes of this world. We were told this is what makes us backwards to the original will of God for us. Our ways are opposite to the ways of the Kingdom and are what we are to repent of. With understanding, comes change and a new loyalty to ways contrary to the traditional ways of mankind. We become, as the early Christians were called, 'haters of mankind', haters of the results of rebelling against the will of God.

Have you abandoned all self interest? Have you remained unmarried? have you forsaken friendships? Have you preferred to help your enemies over those closest to you? Have you given up all your possessions? Have you submitted yourself completely to God and and decided to do nothing for your own benefit?

Ignatius the Kiwi · 2025-07-18T15:34:05-0500

timothyu said:
As Jesus said, His Kingdom was not of this world. That automatically means then neither is this world of His followers. It is run on the will of man. This of course does not mean we can't be part of it, but not operating in the ways of man but of God. Be in the world , not of it. Be the servant to each other and God, not those who wish to be served.

What does Jesus mean when he says his kingdom is not of this world? Does he mean that political sovereignty rests solely in the hands of non-Christians and that Christians should not govern themselves according to their own principles? Does he mean that Christians shouldn't have community?

timothyu · 2025-07-18T16:02:09-0500

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
It is the inescapable reality of influence.

Influence need not be aggressive, but passive alone.

Ignatius the Kiwi · 2025-07-18T16:03:28-0500

timothyu said:
Influence need not be aggressive, but passive alone.

Why does influence need to not be aggressively? If we aggressively banned pornography would that be wrong?

timothyu · 2025-07-18T16:04:49-0500

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
which seeks to radically separate Christianity particularly from power and influence.

Only that following the traditional ways of man

Gregory Thompson · 2025-07-18T16:06:31-0500

Michie said:
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

Politicians tend to lie as a defensive mechanism or as a job requirement . Since lying is the native tongue of the devil . The pulpit should probably say more in this regard.

timothyu · 2025-07-18T16:10:46-0500

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Does he mean that political sovereignty rests solely in the hands of non-Christians and that Christians should not govern themselves according to their own principles? Does he mean that Christians shouldn't have community?

They indeed governed themselves individually in the beginning before a new religious government of hierarchy was formed. And yes Christians in the beginning had community,. It was called the Way and did not rebel against, but did not live in the ways of the Sanhedrin or of Rome, but just under their jurisdictions WHILE DOING THERE OWN THING. . it was a movement, not a religion or kingdom of man.

timothyu · 2025-07-18T16:12:58-0500

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
If we aggressively banned pornography would that be wrong?

It wouldn't change anything, just force it underground. Change/repentance comes from a new way of thinking.

Ignatius the Kiwi · 2025-07-18T16:23:34-0500

timothyu said:
It wouldn't change anything, just force it underground. Change/repentance comes from a new way of thinking.

Did Jesus cleansing the Temple of the money changers change anything in the long term? Would you say our Lord was mistaken in the way he approached that issue? He was very aggressive.

Ignatius the Kiwi · 2025-07-18T16:25:55-0500

timothyu said:
They indeed governed themselves individually in the beginning before a new religious government of hierarchy was formed. And yes Christians in the beginning had community,. It was called the Way and did not rebel against, but did not live in the ways of the Sanhedrin or of Rome, but just under their jurisdictions WHILE DOING THERE OWN THING. . it was a movement, not a religion or kingdom of man.

Yes Christians did govern themselves and we didn't rebel in order to take over the Empire. By the growth of Christianity and it's appeal to men it convinced even Emperors and Kings to become Christian. Do you oppose elites and powerful people becoming Christian? Do you oppose the influence early Christians had on those in power as the Church grew and convinced non-Christians of it's message? What were the Christians supposed to do when they found themselves inheriting structures of power like the state? Destroy it?

timothyu · 2025-07-18T16:54:07-0500

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Did Jesus cleansing the Temple of the money changers change anything in the long term?

Of course not. But His aggression was towards the Temple priests who allowed them to occupy the courts of the Gentiles, hindering the gentile (ten tribes) from approaching God within the complex.. You could even call that a metaphor for the world today.

Man can ultimately change nothing but themselves.

Ignatius the Kiwi · 2025-07-18T16:55:31-0500

timothyu said:
Of course not. But His aggression was towards the Temple priests who allowed them to occupy the courts of the Gentiles, hindering the gentile (ten tribes) from approaching God within the complex.. You could even call that a metaphor for the world today.

Man can ultimately change nothing but themselves.

I thought you were opposed to aggression? Is aggression if it works good?

timothyu · 2025-07-18T16:56:50-0500

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
Do you oppose elites and powerful people becoming Christian?

Not if they indeed follow the will of God rather than use God as a tool of rulership.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:
What were the Christians supposed to do when they found themselves inheriting structures of power like the state?

They didn't inherit. They were absorbed back into the world of man like the sower parable.

Ignatius the Kiwi · 2025-07-18T17:03:29-0500

timothyu said:
Not if they indeed follow the will of God rather than use God as a tool of rulership.

But in your worldview no ruler has ever followed the will of God. Right? They have all failed and everything they have done is evil.

timothyu said:
They didn't inherit. They were absorbed back into the world of man like the sower parable.

No, they inherited the structures around them as the faith of the old gods died and was replaced by faith in Christ. This isn't to suggest that things didn't change or that there were weren't new temptations but that always comes when one's circumstances change. Let me ask you, would you have preferred it if Christians were merely a serf or Dhimmi class? That the responsibility of ruling and leading communities didn't fall on them?

Should pulpits remain silent on politics?

Dissident

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Dissident

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Change is inevitable, feel free to spare some.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Well-Known Member

Dissident

Similar threads