Should pulpits remain silent on politics?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

You're avoiding the question as is your want. Can we enforce our morality or not?

Click to expand...

Official answer: "It depends."
Depends on what you mean by 'force' and what you mean by 'our morality.'

Our morality might be the same - but we're talking about how to put it into practice in public policy. In that context -

Your morality seems to be "Change words on a legislative parchment! DONE!"

Mine seems to be about sensible policies that reduce the harm in question, while not increasing others.

There. Answered.

Now 2 questions for you!

1. How can Paul call the Romans "God's servants to do you good" when the Romans allowed exposure? On church discipline he is clear. On matters of Christians relating to outsiders, he seems to be saying "Don't worry about them too much - God will judge them."

So I honestly do not know what Paul would have said about how to think of various social policies and vote on them when the 'authorities' actually start to get some tiny degree of influence from the church via democracy. Paul wasn't in a democracy. But he clearly gave us principles by which we are to obey the laws of the land where possible. I can only imagine him taking the privilege of voting quite seriously.

Here's the thing.
The left wants to limit harm via climate change, via overseas aid, via proper encouragements to getting vaccinated and sensible, science respecting public health policy, via pollution controls, and via maintaining a safety net in housing, income, and health. The typical lefty welfare stuff. They also say - in scientific and theological ignorance "My body, my choice." While it is the lady's body that is pregnant - the baby is NOT their body but the start of a unique human being with their own DNA and their own rights to life, practically and theologically. Undeceptions podcast once did 10 secular reasons abortion was wrong! That was a fascinating exercise.

The right (in America at least - and somewhat here in Australia too) seems to be under complete state capture to fossil fuel political donors. It denies climate change. The Christian right in America seems to be utterly devoid of normal compassionate policies for refugees and immigrants fleeing various dangers across South America. Yet the right also panders to the church via the seductive appeal to dumbing all of politics down to 'Abortion is murder'.

Which way to vote? Vote to ban abortion- and drive it underground anyway because the causes are all still there? Or vote left, for creation care, stabilising climate change (a true existential threat!), helping the poor and vulnerable and widow and sick and hard-up and - yes - even the unborn babies - by increasing welfare and safety nets so women feel less vulnerable, and less pressure to abort.

It's messy - bit in that mess I side with the left. In fact - the American Democrats are not left enough for me because America is such a mess with their horrendous health care system!

2. Given all the various policies above - which way would you vote - and why?

eclipsenow said:

Official answer: "It depends."
Depends on what you mean by 'force' and what you mean by 'our morality.'

Our morality might be the same - but we're talking about how to put it into practice in public policy. In that context -

Your morality seems to be "Change words on a legislative parchment! DONE!"

Mine seems to be about sensible policies that reduce the harm in question, while not increasing others.

There. Answered.

Now 2 questions for you!

1. How can Paul call the Romans "God's servants to do you good" when the Romans allowed exposure? On church discipline he is clear. On matters of Christians relating to outsiders, he seems to be saying "Don't worry about them too much - God will judge them."

So I honestly do not know what Paul would have said about how to think of various social policies and vote on them when the 'authorities' actually start to get some tiny degree of influence from the church via democracy. Paul wasn't in a democracy. But he clearly gave us principles by which we are to obey the laws of the land where possible. I can only imagine him taking the privilege of voting quite seriously.

Here's the thing.
The left wants to limit harm via climate change, via overseas aid, via proper encouragements to getting vaccinated and sensible, science respecting public health policy, via pollution controls, and via maintaining a safety net in housing, income, and health. The typical lefty welfare stuff. They also say - in scientific and theological ignorance "My body, my choice." While it is the lady's body that is pregnant - the baby is NOT their body but the start of a unique human being with their own DNA and their own rights to life, practically and theologically. Undeceptions podcast once did 10 secular reasons abortion was wrong! That was a fascinating exercise.

The right (in America at least - and somewhat here in Australia too) seems to be under complete state capture to fossil fuel political donors. It denies climate change. The Christian right in America seems to be utterly devoid of normal compassionate policies for refugees and immigrants fleeing various dangers across South America. Yet the right also panders to the church via the seductive appeal to dumbing all of politics down to 'Abortion is murder'.

Which way to vote? Vote to ban abortion- and drive it underground anyway because the causes are all still there? Or vote left, for creation care, stabilising climate change (a true existential threat!), helping the poor and vulnerable and widow and sick and hard-up and - yes - even the unborn babies - by increasing welfare and safety nets so women feel less vulnerable, and less pressure to abort.

It's messy - bit in that mess I side with the left. In fact - the American Democrats are not left enough for me because America is such a mess with their horrendous health care system!

2. Given all the various policies above - which way would you vote - and why?

Click to expand...

Under your logic we should provide safe cocaine to people incase they're driven to do it illegally. It's a perverse logic which seek to justify what is evil and since you cannot say it is wrong to enforce morality I see no reason to support abortion in the way you do. I am not convinced abortion legalized and provided by the state is necessary for society. Nor do I care much for the women who seek to kill their offspring. Though evidently you support them.

As Christians we should be opposed to this institution of human sacrifice but Baal needs his blood huh?

Now you're getting it! I've worked adjacent to this area in my welfare days. Here are some notes I have on drugs.

The War on Drugs has failed.
It's been going for decades and getting the same result. Why?
When you limit supply, you drive up the price.
The high price creates an Irresistible incentive for drug cartels to grow.
They now rival huge corporations or some militaries and have their own engineers.
They build tunnels and even submarines!

COST TO America
The USA has 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s inmates.
That's 5 times the jails! How much does that cost in extra policing, legal cases, court time - let alone the penal system?
Are Americans really 5 times more criminal than the rest of the world?
No - they are suffering from a failed drug criminalisation scheme.

An estimated 65% percent of the United States prison population has an active drug habit.
2007 shows drug related crime cost $113 billion.

IF WE CANNOT BAN IT - THEN WHAT?
Convert the ‘War on Drugs’ into a mental health model. Decriminalise drug use.

The Penrose Effect shows that there is an inverse relationship between the availability of mental health treatment infrastructure and incarceration rates. Countries investing more in mental health services often experience lower incarceration rates, suggesting that addressing mental health can reduce the burden on the criminal justice system. The Penrose Effect and its acceleration by the war on drugs: a crisis of untranslated neuroscience and untreated addiction and mental illness - Translational Psychiatry

If cops catch a user - they take the user to mental health services.
Eradicate illegal supply by undermining the market!

Provide safe injecting rooms!

Clinics supply regulated,
cleaner, safer drugs that reduce overdoses. Why rob a corner store or sell yourself for prostitution when you can get drugs for free? Also on hand - free medical check-ups, free counselling, contact with social workers if they need housing, etc. Data from overseas shows that it massively reduces the burden on police, courts, jails - and actually helps give users a sense of dignity and helps many become drug free and deal with their problems and return to functional members of society with jobs and a purpose.

So - war on drugs to help the cartels grow? Or war on a silly policy that takes people with a mental health condition - and throws them in jail and gives them a REAL education in becoming a criminal?

Prisons have once again become free enterprise work houses so it will be difficult to go against that which pads the pockets of entrepreneurs and reduces their supply of cheap labour.

eclipsenow said:

Now you're getting it! I've worked adjacent to this area in my welfare days. Here are some notes I have on drugs.

The War on Drugs has failed.
It's been going for decades and getting the same result. Why?
When you limit supply, you drive up the price.
The high price creates an Irresistible incentive for drug cartels to grow.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/hidden-costs-drug-prohibition

They now rival huge corporations or some militaries and have their own engineers.
They build tunnels and even submarines!

COST TO America
The USA has 5% of the world’s population, but 25% of the world’s inmates.
That's 5 times the jails! How much does that cost in extra policing, legal cases, court time - let alone the penal system?
Are Americans really 5 times more criminal than the rest of the world?
No - they are suffering from a failed drug criminalisation scheme.

Comparison of United States incarceration rate with other countries - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

An estimated 65% percent of the United States prison population has an active drug habit.

Criminal Justice DrugFacts | National Institute on Drug Abuse

Looks at the challenges with substance use disorders (SUDs) among people in the criminal justice system, and why treatment and follow up is important for inmates.

nida.nih.gov

2007 shows drug related crime cost $113 billion.

Trends & Statistics | National Institute on Drug Abuse

NIDA uses multiple sources to monitor the prevalence and trends regarding drug use in the United States. The resources cover a variety of drug-related issues, including information on drug use, emergency room data, prevention and treatment programs, and other research findings.

nida.nih.gov

IF WE CANNOT BAN IT - THEN WHAT?
Convert the ‘War on Drugs’ into a mental health model. Decriminalise drug use.

The Penrose Effect shows that there is an inverse relationship between the availability of mental health treatment infrastructure and incarceration rates. Countries investing more in mental health services often experience lower incarceration rates, suggesting that addressing mental health can reduce the burden on the criminal justice system. The Penrose Effect and its acceleration by the war on drugs: a crisis of untranslated neuroscience and untreated addiction and mental illness - Translational Psychiatry

If cops catch a user - they take the user to mental health services.

https://www.cjcj.org/media/import/documents/a_century.pdf

Eradicate illegal supply by undermining the market!

Provide safe injecting rooms!

Clinics supply regulated,
cleaner, safer drugs that reduce overdoses. Why rob a corner store or sell yourself for prostitution when you can get drugs for free? Also on hand - free medical check-ups, free counselling, contact with social workers if they need housing, etc. Data from overseas shows that it massively reduces the burden on police, courts, jails - and actually helps give users a sense of dignity and helps many become drug free and deal with their problems and return to functional members of society with jobs and a purpose.

So - war on drugs to help the cartels grow? Or war on a silly policy that takes people with a mental health condition - and throws them in jail and gives them a REAL education in becoming a criminal?

Click to expand...

You and I have fundamentally different perspectives on how to prevent the ills of society. You think that allowing degeneracy, drugs and murder will help society. I believe in the firm hand of discipline because human nature is destructive and needs a regulating and guiding hand. You will never convince me that murder should be permissible.

Abortion must not only be illegal but socially ostracized. The doctors who perform it should be disgraced and the women who seek it should feel themselves as murderers, akin to pedophiles. You want social acceptance of these things and pity to the evildoer. This can only elevate abortion as an option.

timothyu said:

Prisons have once again become free enterprise work houses so it will be difficult to go against that which pads the pockets of entrepreneurs and reduces their supply of cheap labour.

Click to expand...

AGREED! It's similar in immigration issues. Now that there's an incentive-per-person-day of immigration detainees - people are being trapped and held (but not charged) for weeks behind bars. FRIENDS of the USA - not illegals - but people with a few paper-work glitches. Canadian business people with no intention to over-stay - they were just ducking across to do business and then go home.

Held for weeks. Eating rubbish, getting sick, and living with other more serious offenders.

For nothing in terms of justice.
For everything in terms of profit.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

You and I have fundamentally different perspectives on how to prevent the ills of society. You think that allowing degeneracy, drugs and murder will help society.

Click to expand...

STUDY: No - I want to reduce drugs and murder - and the impact of drugs and murder. I'm with you that scientifically and scripturally, abortion is murder. But unlike you - I have studied the sociology of this stuff. It was decades ago - and only an Advanced Diploma. But it was something.

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

I believe in the firm hand of discipline

Click to expand...

Gee - I couldn't tell.

HARSHNESS: Your "Christian morality" wants to reduce the evil in society. So do I. But the data from the social sciences on this are in.

There are FAR harsher societies already - societies with the same attitude you describe to abortion - that have FOUR TIMES the rates of abortion!
Because those societies tend to be backwards economically, and not as secure to raise children in. You seem to be looking to Old Testament law for how to run a modern society. But you're forgetting the scriptural warnings and cycles of decay in application of Old Testament law. That the WHOLE POINT of the law was to show how we need grace, and Jesus. It taught us about holiness and how depraved we all are, and how we are all going to require Jesus death and resurrection on our behalf. Then the great revolution in Biblical Theology / Covenant Theology occurs. The gospel goes out to all nations, living with all kinds of laws and cultures!

And we are given hints of what the Christian life is to look like - but it us under very different cultural understandings of law and order, and does not directly transpose into our modern world. We are not shown exactly how to deal with various issues in a democratic society - but given certain principles of freedom to disagree on certain non-gospel matters.

Indeed, secular historian (but raised in a minister's household) Geoffrey Blainey argues in his book "A short history of the world" that modern democracy emerged from the Protestant Revolution's understanding of the individual's responsibility to interpret scripture for themselves, and then how this led to the running of various Protestant denominations - rather than the all powerful rigid authoritarianism of the Catholic church.

In other words, history seems to be teaching me that EVEN IF the whole world were Christian - there would be differences of opinion on how to run the world, the economy, power our modern lifestyles, design cities, etc. There would probably be no abortion if the whole world were Christian!

But when did Paul or Jesus ever imply we would be the dominant force that actually ran society? We're on the narrow path - not the wide road that leads to destruction. That has numerical implications!

Even if the whole world were Christian - I would still want to live in a democracy. Because what kind of Christianity gets to dominate? Young Earth Creationism? Charismatics that feel God is talking to them in every Electricity bill, every gust of wind that blows some dust in their eye, whatever? Dispensationalism that wants to teach that Israel's illegal annexation of land in 1948 means something? Are these things going to become government policy?

Given the religious wars across Europe over these matters - for the good of society, government should be secular and have rules around religious freedom. EG: Sydney Anglican ministers helped draft scripture teaching legislation for public schools that saw RE as a time to connect the family religion in the school environment. They argued for the right of Hindus and Moslems to do the same - for the good of society.

Given we ARE on the narrow path, tolerance is important.
Given we ARE on the narrow path, drug us and abortion are things.

Understanding how people react to various attempts to manage these issues must be informed by the best social sciences, otherwise we'll just end up adjusting squiggles on a bit of paper, not actually reducing the real evil.

I know a few tried and tested tools that help do that.
Street smart.
Data driven.
Tested.
Effective.
Harm minimization models - that can be put into government policy.

Do you acknowledge the real world of fallen people exists - and that certain laws will have certain unintended consequences like driving abortion underground, or making drug prices go up and therefore increasing the incentive to the drug Cartels?

Or do you just want to change squiggles on a piece of paper?

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

because human nature is destructive and needs a regulating and guiding hand. You will never convince me that murder should be permissible.

Click to expand...

You will never convince me you know how to REDUCE IT!

eclipsenow said:

STUDY: No - I want to reduce drugs and murder - and the impact of drugs and murder. I'm with you that scientifically and scripturally, abortion is murder. But unlike you - I have studied the sociology of this stuff. It was decades ago - and only an Advanced Diploma. But it was something.



Gee - I couldn't tell.

HARSHNESS: Your "Christian morality" wants to reduce the evil in society. So do I. But the data from the social sciences on this are in.

There are FAR harsher societies already - societies with the same attitude you describe to abortion - that have FOUR TIMES the rates of abortion!
Because those societies tend to be backwards economically, and not as secure to raise children in. You seem to be looking to Old Testament law for how to run a modern society. But you're forgetting the scriptural warnings and cycles of decay in application of Old Testament law. That the WHOLE POINT of the law was to show how we need grace, and Jesus. It taught us about holiness and how depraved we all are, and how we are all going to require Jesus death and resurrection on our behalf. Then the great revolution in Biblical Theology / Covenant Theology occurs. The gospel goes out to all nations, living with all kinds of laws and cultures!

And we are given hints of what the Christian life is to look like - but it us under very different cultural understandings of law and order, and does not directly transpose into our modern world. We are not shown exactly how to deal with various issues in a democratic society - but given certain principles of freedom to disagree on certain non-gospel matters.

Indeed, secular historian (but raised in a minister's household) Geoffrey Blainey argues in his book "A short history of the world" that modern democracy emerged from the Protestant Revolution's understanding of the individual's responsibility to interpret scripture for themselves, and then how this led to the running of various Protestant denominations - rather than the all powerful rigid authoritarianism of the Catholic church.

In other words, history seems to be teaching me that EVEN IF the whole world were Christian - there would be differences of opinion on how to run the world, the economy, power our modern lifestyles, design cities, etc. There would probably be no abortion if the whole world were Christian!

But when did Paul or Jesus ever imply we would be the dominant force that actually ran society? We're on the narrow path - not the wide road that leads to destruction. That has numerical implications!

Even if the whole world were Christian - I would still want to live in a democracy. Because what kind of Christianity gets to dominate? Young Earth Creationism? Charismatics that feel God is talking to them in every Electricity bill, every gust of wind that blows some dust in their eye, whatever? Dispensationalism that wants to teach that Israel's illegal annexation of land in 1948 means something? Are these things going to become government policy?

Given the religious wars across Europe over these matters - for the good of society, government should be secular and have rules around religious freedom. EG: Sydney Anglican ministers helped draft scripture teaching legislation for public schools that saw RE as a time to connect the family religion in the school environment. They argued for the right of Hindus and Moslems to do the same - for the good of society.

Given we ARE on the narrow path, tolerance is important.
Given we ARE on the narrow path, drug us and abortion are things.

Understanding how people react to various attempts to manage these issues must be informed by the best social sciences, otherwise we'll just end up adjusting squiggles on a bit of paper, not actually reducing the real evil.

I know a few tried and tested tools that help do that.
Street smart.
Data driven.
Tested.
Effective.
Harm minimization models - that can be put into government policy.

Do you acknowledge the real world of fallen people exists - and that certain laws will have certain unintended consequences like driving abortion underground, or making drug prices go up and therefore increasing the incentive to the drug Cartels?

Or do you just want to change squiggles on a piece of paper?


You will never convince me you know how to REDUCE IT!

Click to expand...

Normalization of abortion should not occur. You desire this. I am against it. Get rid of abortion facilities and feel no pity for the women who desperately desire to murder their children. It is quite easy but you will never get rid of abortion, will only add to Christian social acceptance of it. Which is your goal.

I tend to think, at least in America, abortion would have been further reduced by pro life preaching and not overturning Roe v Wade. Illegal abortion produces more deaths and incarceration of many people who would be better counseled and hopefully unto repentance. I actually believe the Christian pro life preaching would be more trusted and effective in the long run.

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

Click to expand...

I like the teaching but sometimes pastors too can be uninformed about "all" policies etc. and advocate a position that is not God's will. Additionally, some leaders are drawn into tentacles that are not God. They assume certain things that are untrue and lead others down the wrong path with them. Trump possibly has a few of these types that may influence him. For instance, some church leaders advocated that Covid would be gone in a few weeks, a thought that Trump repeated. So that is far from true faith from the leaders that did that because it was an expectation that had no evidence. It merely came from their flesh. So if Pastors and church leaders advocate from their flesh than they are hurting their listeners. This hurt not only occurs by advocating poor policy but also that it takes precious time from the word of God. I would warn to be extra careful about church leaders who base much of their ministry on activism or policy matters especially those who have some theology that is unusual.

There some Catholics too, particularly those from Latin America that have had some views that were quite radical and suspect.
"Nicaraguan Priests (e.g., Ernesto Cardenal, Miguel d'Escoto Brockman, Edgar Parrales):
These priests held government positions in the revolutionary Sandinista government in Nicaragua, prioritizing the revolution over Vatican guidance that discouraged priests from holding office."

So what should occur concerning this topic? I think that if the pastor, or priest knows there is a wrong and it is confirmed to them and not in disagreement with those over them, then they have an obligation to share. So one can speak anything but to be fruitful it has to truly align with God's will and not some personal speculation.