Is abortion really soooo bad for a Christian pastor to be promoting? -- Warnock

[coffee4u]

I don't vote, Never have.

We have to vote here. It isn't optional.

 

[Lost Witness]

We have to vote here. It isn't optional.

Cast a vote for the LORD Jesus?

 

[coffee4u]

Cast a vote for the LORD Jesus?

Well someone could certainly write that on their ballot sheet if they wished as its completely anonymous.
I would normally vote for a Christian independent but I know our system is different.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The pulpit, where the word of God is preached and extolled, is never the place for politics. So, regardless of which side politically one comes on this subject, keep the pulpit out of it. The pulpit represents the sacred office and ministry of the Keys.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

The pulpit, where the word of God is preached and extolled, is never the place for politics. So, regardless of which side politically one comes on this subject, keep the pulpit out of it. The pulpit represents the sacred office and ministry of the Keys.

-CryptoLutheran

Was the pulpit not employed to defeat slavery in the U.S.? -- in fact it was!

The doctrine on the "value of human life"
The doctrine on "what is sin"
The Bible teaching that speaks to the sin of killing a baby -

All of these are in the realm of Christian morals and are fully expected to be addressed in the pulpit.

 

[BobRyan]

I reckon it is an interesting conundrum for GA voters. Would they rather have a Senator that is in favor of allowing legal abortions or a senator who has actually funded some to help his babies' mamas?

This point was brought up a lot in the news leading up to the mid-term.

The choice is ...

1. Support someone who is 'accused' of paying for someone else's abortion at one time in his past
2. or Support someone that will force you to daily pay for someone else's abortion every day of the week via mandated taxes you must pay.

Turns out - it is not the confusing choice that some had supposed when you take those details into account.

 

[BobRyan]

All humans are evil, and make policies that are evil. If there are backroom deals, and there will be back room deals, are you complicit in said deals?

Depends - are they flat out telling you during the election process "this is exactly the backroom deal I will support if elected - vote for me and i will most certainly do this" ..??

If so - and also if that deal is called an "abomination" in the Bible- well yes you are at some level a participant.

If someone says "I will work backroom deals to get Christianity banned in America -- so vote for me!" -- and then as a Christian you vote for them... is it really your view that you have no part in their being enabled by your vote to take that action?

Here again I don't think it is as difficult a choice as some would have it

 

[chevyontheriver]

Was the pulpit not employed to defeat slavery in the U.S.? -- in fact it was!

The doctrine on the "value of human life"
The doctrine on "what is sin"
The Bible teaching that speaks to the sin of killing a baby -

All of these are in the realm of Christian morals and are fully expected to be addressed in the pulpit.

The pulpit was also employed to support and justify slavery for many denominations, particularly those that had a ‘Southern’ in their name such as the Southern Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, and all.

 

[BobRyan]

The pulpit was also employed to support and justify slavery for many denominations, particularly those that had a ‘Southern’ in their name such as the Southern Presbyterians, Southern Baptists, and all.

True. So the problem was their view was wrong in those cases. Yet it was the churches in America that stopped the slavery practice just as was the case in Europe. And if churches do not have a moral compass that is up to the task of knowing that slavery is wrong -- than who or what was the mechanism in that culture that was supposed to have more moral clarity than Christian churches??

"You are the light of the world ... you are the salt of the Earth. If the salt loses it's savor then with what shall the salt - be salted?"

==================
Matt 5:

13 “You are the salt of the earth; but if the salt has become tasteless, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot by people.


14 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden; 15 nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all who are in the house. 16 Your light must shine before people in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.

 

[chevyontheriver]

True. So the problem was their view was wrong in those cases. Yet it was the churches in America that stopped the slavery practice just as was the case in Europe. And if churches do not have a moral compass that is up to the task of knowing that slavery is wrong -- than who or what was the mechanism in that culture that was supposed to have more moral clarity than Christian churches??

Churches are supposed to have moral clarity. They don't always. They should have had the moral clarity, all of them and not just some of them, not to support slavery.

Churches today that support abortion have damaged moral compasses. Pastor Warnock's moral compass seems to point south rather than north.

So the Southern Baptists seem to have gotten beyond slavery. Maybe the pro-abortion churches will get repaired moral compasses some day so they can repent of abortion. For now I want nothing to do with them. What good is a church with no moral clarity?

 

[BobRyan]

Churches are supposed to have moral clarity. They don't always.

Agreed. And that moral clarity should inform society which includes government and laws.

Churches today that support abortion have damaged moral compasses.

Indeed they do.

Pastor Warnock's moral compass seems to point south rather than north.

So the Southern Baptists seem to have gotten beyond slavery. Maybe the pro-abortion churches will get repaired moral compasses some day so they can repent of abortion. For now I want nothing to do with them. What good is a church with no moral clarity?

Agreed.

A church stuck in moral fog because of its conflicted political stances - needs to stick to the Bible and call the moral issues as the Bible states them rather than partnering up with politicians against Biblical moral statements.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Depends - are they flat out telling you during the election process "this is exactly the backroom deal I will support if elected - vote for me and i will most certainly do this" ..??

If so - and also if that deal is called an "abomination" in the Bible- well yes you are at some level a participant.

If someone says "I will work backroom deals to get Christianity banned in America -- so vote for me!" -- and then as a Christian you vote for them... is it really your view that you have no part in their being enabled by your vote to take that action?

Here again I don't think it is as difficult a choice as some would have it

What's being said in the above post doesn't sound consistent in application, so it just floats to the trash bin.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Was the pulpit not employed to defeat slavery in the U.S.? -- in fact it was!

The doctrine on the "value of human life"
The doctrine on "what is sin"
The Bible teaching that speaks to the sin of killing a baby -

All of these are in the realm of Christian morals and are fully expected to be addressed in the pulpit.

The purpose of the pulpit is to proclaim God's word. That includes preaching the Law as well as preaching the Gospel. And no, I'm not going to get into a debate on Law and Gospel here in this thread with you.

But I will argue, quite strongly, that the point of preaching isn't politicking, nor is the point of the pulpit moralizing.

I strongly agree with you that it was right for Christians to stand on the side of abolition. Just as I believe it is right for Christians to always stand on the side of life, on the side of justice, and proclaim and strive for justice on behalf of the oppressed, the lowly, and the outcast.

But the pulpit isn't the place for politicking. The pulpit is not the place to tell people who to vote for. The pulpit is not the place for moralizing, or preaching the gospel of democracy, or the gospel of social justice, or the gospel of morality, or any other would-be gospel. The pulpit is where only one Gospel is to be preached: The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not because democracy is bad, not because social justice is bad, and not because morality is bad; but because that's not what the pulpit is for.

Once we are out and about in the world, in the place of our vocation as followers of Jesus, having been nourished and strengthened by the word of God, by God's grace in Word and Sacrament; believing and trusting in the Lord, abiding in Christ, and praying without ceasing, and carrying our cross here, then we go about actually living what we have received, living what we believe.

In the context of a modern representative democracy such as the United States, that includes our vocation as citizens. And thus in our vocation as citizens, we take what we have received and what we believe and put it into action in the best accordance with our conscience in addressing the needs of our neighbors. I.e. engaging in the democratic process.

So to whatever end the Christian does engage in the political, it is not in the context of what happens at the pulpit, or what happens at the altar. It's about what happens out here, in our vocation as citizens and neighbors. When we come together meeting Christ in His Word and Sacraments, that's about the kingdom of God--not the temporal kingdoms and powers and politics of this world.

The pulpit of the Church is not the bully-pulpit of men, it is the pulpit of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

The purpose of the pulpit is to proclaim God's word. That includes preaching the Law as well as preaching the Gospel. And no, I'm not going to get into a debate on Law and Gospel here in this thread with you.

But I will argue, quite strongly, that the point of preaching isn't politicking, nor is the point of the pulpit moralizing.

I strongly agree with you that it was right for Christians to stand on the side of abolition. Just as I believe it is right for Christians to always stand on the side of life, on the side of justice, and proclaim and strive for justice on behalf of the oppressed, the lowly, and the outcast.

But the pulpit isn't the place for politicking. The pulpit is not the place to tell people who to vote for. The pulpit is not the place for moralizing, or preaching the gospel of democracy, or the gospel of social justice, or the gospel of morality, or any other would-be gospel. The pulpit is where only one Gospel is to be preached: The Gospel of Jesus Christ. Not because democracy is bad, not because social justice is bad, and not because morality is bad; but because that's not what the pulpit is for.

Once we are out and about in the world, in the place of our vocation as followers of Jesus, having been nourished and strengthened by the word of God, by God's grace in Word and Sacrament; believing and trusting in the Lord, abiding in Christ, and praying without ceasing, and carrying our cross here, then we go about actually living what we have received, living what we believe.

In the context of a modern representative democracy such as the United States, that includes our vocation as citizens. And thus in our vocation as citizens, we take what we have received and what we believe and put it into action in the best accordance with our conscience in addressing the needs of our neighbors. I.e. engaging in the democratic process.

So to whatever end the Christian does engage in the political, it is not in the context of what happens at the pulpit, or what happens at the altar. It's about what happens out here, in our vocation as citizens and neighbors. When we come together meeting Christ in His Word and Sacraments, that's about the kingdom of God--not the temporal kingdoms and powers and politics of this world.

The pulpit of the Church is not the bully-pulpit of men, it is the pulpit of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

I agree that politics should not be preached to the exclusion of the gospel, but I don't think it's possible to preach the gospel without touching on politics, or social justice, or secular concerns in general. The gospel is not simply a spiritual truth, but has real political impacts. The prophets of God did not shy away from politics, nor should modern prophets. So while politics should not take prrecedence over preaching the gospel, failing to explore the political implications of the gospel is a deriliction of a preacher's duty. The cost of discipleship is that every aspect of our lives belongs to Christ, and politics is a pretty major aspect of our lives.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I agree that politics should not be preached to the exclusion of the gospel, but I don't think it's possible to preach the gospel without touching on politics, or social justice, or secular concerns in general. The gospel is not simply a spiritual truth, but has real political impacts. The prophets of God did not shy away from politics, nor should modern prophets. So while politics should not take prrecedence over preaching the gospel, failing to explore the political implications of the gospel is a deriliction of a preacher's duty. The cost of discipleship is that every aspect of our lives belongs to Christ, and politics is a pretty major aspect of our lives.

A few weeks ago our interim pastor during his sermon recalled a time from the early 1970's, during the Vietnam War Era. The pastor of the church had just lost his son to the war, and from the pulpit preached a scathing sermon against the war in Vietnam. The pastor, proud of himself, was surprised when the president of the congregation came to his house the next morning and said, in not so few of words, "Pastor, we are very sorry for your loss, and many of us agree with you about the war, but you will never again use that pulpit as a bully-pulpit, you will never again sully the pulpit of Jesus Christ with your own opinions." Pastor told us this story to remind us that not only is the pastor's duty one that involves leadership through the exercising of the ministry of the Keys, as the under-shepherd of Jesus Christ to His flock; but that the pastor is to be held accountable to his ministry and the congregation needs to hold the pastor accountable to the sacred ministry.

The issue wasn't whether or not the war in Vietnam was right or wrong. The issue was that this was not the place for a pastor to give his own opinions.

I don't disagree with the sentiment of what you're saying: The Church does have a responsibility to speak truth to power. What Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. describes as the prophetic mission and zeal of the Church., when he writes that the Church is neither lord over the state nor an arm of the state, but instead the conscience and critic of the state.

But the danger in allowing the pulpit to be a place where people can simply offer their political opinions (even if those opinions are good and right), also means that the pulpit can just as easily become a place where any political opinion can be proclaimed. @chevyontheriver made the right observation that while it is absolutely true that the pulpit was used to speak against slavery in the 19th century, it was also used as an instrument for those in support of slavery.

I absolutely think slavery should have been railed against, and still should. And I believe the Church has an obligation to play a critical role in those things.

What concerns me is that when we allow the pulpit to be a platform for moralizing or a platform for politicking, we open up the pulpit to be used for anything. And that's when the pulpit stops being the instrument of preaching the word of God, and church stops being about church--about Jesus--and becomes a social club. It's not that the Church should be silent about the prevailing evils of our times. It's that the function and purpose of the pulpit of Jesus Christ has to be about the word of God.

The alternative, as we have seen time and again, is the division of congregations and churches along political lines. We just, in this day and age, take it for granted that some churches are "conservative" and some churches are "liberal". But this is a new thing. And it doesn't matter whether one's political leanings are one way or the other, there is guilt on all of us when we take the things of Christ and use them for our own ambitions. And the Church suffers for it, and the testimony of the Church suffers for it.

When what political party you vote for becomes a significant factor in one's identity as a follower of Jesus, something has become deeply, deeply, deeply wrong.

Not because there aren't major social and moral issues that need to be addressed; and we can address them in a political context. But because allegiance is moved away from Christ and toward our own political idols. Even if we might be on the right side of an issue, it can still become an idol.

This is something I am preaching to myself right now as I'm writing this post inasmuch to anyone else--if not moreso--because I'm guilty of idolatry in this regard. Because over the years I let myself become swayed by the public cult of politics. And while my political leanings haven't changed drastically recently, I've had to confess and admit that I have become the idolator. I've become guilty of turning politics into my religion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

A few weeks ago our interim pastor during his sermon recalled a time from the early 1970's, during the Vietnam War Era. The pastor of the church had just lost his son to the war, and from the pulpit preached a scathing sermon against the war in Vietnam. The pastor, proud of himself, was surprised when the president of the congregation came to his house the next morning and said, in not so few of words, "Pastor, we are very sorry for your loss, and many of us agree with you about the war, but you will never again use that pulpit as a bully-pulpit, you will never again sully the pulpit of Jesus Christ with your own opinions." Pastor told us this story to remind us that not only is the pastor's duty one that involves leadership through the exercising of the ministry of the Keys, as the under-shepherd of Jesus Christ to His flock; but that the pastor is to be held accountable to his ministry and the congregation needs to hold the pastor accountable to the sacred ministry.

The issue wasn't whether or not the war in Vietnam was right or wrong. The issue was that this was not the place for a pastor to give his own opinions.

I don't disagree with the sentiment of what you're saying: The Church does have a responsibility to speak truth to power. What Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. describes as the prophetic mission and zeal of the Church., when he writes that the Church is neither lord over the state nor an arm of the state, but instead the conscience and critic of the state.

But the danger in allowing the pulpit to be a place where people can simply offer their political opinions (even if those opinions are good and right), also means that the pulpit can just as easily become a place where any political opinion can be proclaimed. @chevyontheriver made the right observation that while it is absolutely true that the pulpit was used to speak against slavery in the 19th century, it was also used as an instrument for those in support of slavery.

I absolutely think slavery should have been railed against, and still should. And I believe the Church has an obligation to play a critical role in those things.

What concerns me is that when we allow the pulpit to be a platform for moralizing or a platform for politicking, we open up the pulpit to be used for anything. And that's when the pulpit stops being the instrument of preaching the word of God, and church stops being about church--about Jesus--and becomes a social club. It's not that the Church should be silent about the prevailing evils of our times. It's that the function and purpose of the pulpit of Jesus Christ has to be about the word of God.

The alternative, as we have seen time and again, is the division of congregations and churches along political lines. We just, in this day and age, take it for granted that some churches are "conservative" and some churches are "liberal". But this is a new thing. And it doesn't matter whether one's political leanings are one way or the other, there is guilt on all of us when we take the things of Christ and use them for our own ambitions. And the Church suffers for it, and the testimony of the Church suffers for it.

When what political party you vote for becomes a significant factor in one's identity as a follower of Jesus, something has become deeply, deeply, deeply wrong.

Not because there aren't major social and moral issues that need to be addressed; and we can address them in a political context. But because allegiance is moved away from Christ and toward our own political idols. Even if we might be on the right side of an issue, it can still become an idol.

This is something I am preaching to myself right now as I'm writing this post inasmuch to anyone else--if not moreso--because I'm guilty of idolatry in this regard. Because over the years I let myself become swayed by the public cult of politics. And while my political leanings haven't changed drastically recently, I've had to confess and admit that I have become the idolator. I've become guilty of turning politics into my religion.

-CryptoLutheran

I understand your concern, but a gospel that doesn't transform every aspect of our lives is not the true gospel. The ban on politics largely stems from a secular concern that religion is a private matter, and is a reflection of religious pluralism. While the pulpit is no place for personal opinions to be broadcast, inserting a hard line between our public lives and our religious life and denying the gospel's operation in politics is equally damaging because then the gospel ceases to matter. There's necessarily a fine line to be walked when broaching political subjects from the pulpit, but outright denying their appropriateness is tantamount to saying there are realms the gospel is not relevant to.

 

[BobRyan]

The purpose of the pulpit is to proclaim God's word. That includes preaching the Law as well as preaching the Gospel.

yes. It includes the New Covenant where the Law is written on the heart and the NT texts saying "what matters is keeping the commandments of God" 1 Cor 7:19 -- and the 1 John 2:1 statement "these things I write that you sin not" etc.

So then preaching against sin - includes preaching against enslaving others, preaching against murdering etc.

If preaching on the moral standards set by the Bible is called "moralizing" by "some" then so be it.

I think this is "the easy part" of the issue to understand.

But I will argue, quite strongly, that the point of preaching isn't politicking

I agree. Simply endorsing a political party or candidate for the sake of politics is not proper for the pulpit.

I strongly agree with you that it was right for Christians to stand on the side of abolition. Just as I believe it is right for Christians to always stand on the side of life, on the side of justice, and proclaim and strive for justice on behalf of the oppressed, the lowly, and the outcast.

Agreed. Those are Biblical moral issues that also just so happen to get pulled into politics these days.

The pulpit serves as the moral conscience of society, it gives clarity to moral issues without also jumping into political identity as if we would declare this or that location congregation to be "libertarian" or "democrat" or "republican"|

 

[BobRyan]

I understand your concern, but a gospel that doesn't transform every aspect of our lives is not the true gospel. The ban on politics largely stems from a secular concern that religion is a private matter, and is a reflection of religious pluralism.

That is one of the concerns - but another big concern has to do with the founding of the U.S. and Religious Liberty. When the church took control of the state as it did in Europe the next thing that happened was the church began to make doctrines sincerely held by individuals but out of line with sanctioned church tradition - "illegal".

Decrees to "exterminate heretics" as we see in the LATERAN IV council were passed and handed to the state to enforce. It ended up in a big mess.

 

[BobRyan]

Michael Collum said:
All humans are evil, and make policies that are evil. If there are backroom deals, and there will be back room deals, are you complicit in said deals?

Depends - are they flat out telling you during the election process "this is exactly the backroom deal I will support if elected - vote for me and i will most certainly do this" ..??

If so - and also if that deal is called an "abomination" in the Bible- well yes you are at some level a participant.

If someone says "I will work backroom deals to get Christianity banned in America -- so vote for me!" -- and then as a Christian you vote for them... is it really your view that you have no part in their being enabled by your vote to take that action?

Here again I don't think it is as difficult a choice as some would have it

That is "the easy part" of the discussion. Incredibly obvious detail there.

What's being said in the above post doesn't sound consistent in application, so it just floats to the trash bin.

You have free will - ignore all the details you wish.

 

[Clare73]

.