Politics in Lord's Day Worship

Status
Not open for further replies.
Last spring, I taught an adult Sunday school series on Proverbs and political implications and leaned head-on into the "new definition" of "equity" vs. Biblical equity.

Would that be considered "political"? Or "more than declaring to the magistrate 'kiss the Son'"? I am genuinely asking, because some of the solid "no politics in the pulpit" posts here are not accounting for how far politics has dipped into re-framing and re-defining Biblical truth, but since the "politics" that everyone is so gung-ho against having in the pulpit is vague, I don't really fully grasp where everyone is truly coming from.
I'm referring to politics in terms of elections and candidates, which is what most people mean in my sphere. Recently, people like Eric Metaxas have stated that pastors have a responsibility to insist their people vote and he certainly means for a particular candidate. No such obligation rests upon the preacher. The actual obligation that rests upon us is to call the unbelieving magistrate or candidate to repent, believe the Gospel, and order their governance according to principles of Scripture. Same for the professing magistrate/candidate that is failing to govern according to Scriptural principles.
 
I'm referring to politics in terms of elections and candidates, which is what most people mean in my sphere. Recently, people like Eric Metaxas have stated that pastors have a responsibility to insist their people vote and he certainly means for a particular candidate. No such obligation rests upon the preacher. The actual obligation that rests upon us is to call the unbelieving magistrate or candidate to repent, believe the Gospel, and order their governance according to principles of Scripture. Same for the professing magistrate/candidate that is failing to govern according to Scriptural principles.

That all makes sense, and I agree. One question though: if democratic government implies that voters share in the responsibilities of civil rule, do pastors have the obligation to instruct the people in how to share in those responsibilities according to scriptural principles? This would involve instruction on voting in some capacity.
 
That all makes sense, and I agree. One question though: if democratic government implies that voters share in the responsibilities of civil rule, do pastors have the obligation to instruct the people in how to share in those responsibilities according to scriptural principles? This would involve instruction on voting in some capacity.
1. I reject the notion that living in a constitutional republic obligates me, or anyone else, to participate by voting. Voting is a voluntary act that may be foregone for reasons of conscience and/or as an act of dissent.

2. As for "voting instruction" the instruction I am obligated to give maps into my call to the magistrate. Simply, if you do vote, vote for those that kiss the Son and will order their governance according to Scriptural principles.
 
Simply, if you do vote, vote for those that kiss the Son and will order their governance according to Scriptural principles.

Ironic then that would - by logical consequence - require your obligation to proclaim: "Don't vote for either X or Y since we have evidence they don't kiss the Son" and all under your banner of keeping politics out of the pulpit.

And someone like me who will vote would never proclaim "vote" nor would I proclaim "don't vote" from a pulpit.

But deja vu. This topic has already been dragged out before.


I just find it ironic that proclaiming "don't vote red or blue" from a pulpit still qualifies as "keeping politics out of the pulpit".
 
Ironic then that would - by logical consequence - require your obligation to proclaim: "Don't vote for either X or Y since we have evidence they don't kiss the Son" and all under your banner of keeping politics out of the pulpit.

And someone like me who will vote would never proclaim "vote" nor would I proclaim "don't vote" from a pulpit.

But deja vu. This topic has already been dragged out before.


I just find it ironic that proclaiming "don't vote red or blue" from a pulpit still qualifies as "keeping politics out of the pulpit".
It requires no such thing. Those words have never come from my mouth, nor need they. Preaching a particular principle in the ordinary course of preaching does not require me to declare who to vote for or not vote for in any election. I trust people are smart enough to apply principles without me having to hold their hand in doing so.

ETA: Please note I didn't say politics are to be kept out of the pulpit in their entirety. I said the only obligation that rests upon the preacher is to call the magistrate to kiss the Son. That is a political statement.
 
It requires no such thing. Those words have never come from my mouth, nor need they. Preaching a particular principle in the ordinary course of preaching does not require me to declare who to vote for or not vote for in any election. I trust people are smart enough to apply principles without me having to hold their hand in doing so.

I am sorry; it must be me as to why I am confused. When you said:
Simply, if you do vote, vote for those that kiss the Son and will order their governance according to Scriptural principles.

you mean that you will say this only and not name candidates and parties? Or not define "governance according to Scriptural principles" as to all-inclusive of all policies? Or you will define it as all-inclusive of all policies? And if someone comes up to you afterwards and asks "Pastor, I don't think there ever has been - or ever will be - a candidate that kisses the Son and includes Scripture in all policies", I imagine you would affirm them approvingly?
 
I am sorry; it must be me as to why I am confused. When you said:


you mean that you will say this only and not name candidates and parties? Or not define "governance according to Scriptural principles" as to all-inclusive of all policies? Or you will define it as all-inclusive of all policies? And if someone comes up to you afterwards and asks "Pastor, I don't think there ever has been - or ever will be - a candidate that kisses the Son and includes Scripture in all policies", I imagine you would affirm them approvingly?
I've never in my life preached a sermon about voting, nor do I feel any obligation to preach a sermon specifically about voting. I have preached on the qualifications for governance and said this is who we should have to rule over us. It's much like preaching on the qualifications for officers in the church and then leaving the congregation to implement those qualifications in nominating and electing officers. I don't need to preach a sermon for or against a particular nominee for office.

But again, I object to your characterization of my position as ironic precisely because I never said or implied that politics are to be kept out of the pulpit. Rather, I commented on what obligation rests upon the preacher in regard to politics (as defined as voting/candidates).
 
I've never in my life preached a sermon about voting, nor do I feel any obligation to preach a sermon specifically about voting. I have preached on the qualifications for governance and said this is who we should have to rule over us. It's much like preaching on the qualifications for officers in the church and then leaving the congregation to implement those qualifications in nominating and electing officers. I don't need to preach a sermon for or against a particular nominee for office.

But again, I object to your characterization of my position as ironic precisely because I never said or implied that politics are to be kept out of the pulpit. Rather, I commented on what obligation rests upon the preacher in regard to politics (as defined as voting/candidates).

Sorry, brother, but I really was asking and not obliging you anymore than what you yourself claimed to be obliged to do / not do.

And you really cannot blame me for casting your remarks in the light of voting and candidates since when I asked you specifically about politics:
but since the "politics" that everyone is so gung-ho against having in the pulpit is vague, I don't really fully grasp where everyone is truly coming from.

you yourself said that when you meant "politics":
I'm referring to politics in terms of elections and candidates, which is what most people mean in my sphere. Recently, people like Eric Metaxas have stated that pastors have a responsibility to insist their people vote and he certainly means for a particular candidate.

I am still willing to own the confused party here, but it seems like you are saying on the one hand, you will never preach about voting and candidates short of simply stating all candidates should kiss the Son (100% agreed)

but that
the instruction I am obligated to give maps into my call to the magistrate. Simply, if you do vote, vote for those that kiss the Son and will order their governance according to Scriptural principles.

so how does this not logically equate to the opposite of Metaxes ? Insisting people do not vote since no one ever has - and certainly not now - demonstrated evidence of kissing the Son and governing by Scriptural principles?

I am ok with you now saying that this is in fact an instance of preaching politics from the pulpit. Ok, fine.

I only hope in light of your own quotes in context, you can see that I was not being unfair or irrationally reading into your position.

And hopefully still see that my questions are genuine. I am not arguing because I really do not understand. And even when I do understand, I probably still will not argue because it would just simply go the way of previous threads closed and would violate established "peace treaties" long ago signed by us "combat vets" hahahahaha
 
Ryan's writing from a Covenanter's perspective. A helpful way to look at it from a historical perspective would be how the American Covenanters approached the highly political issue of slavery in the 18th and 19th Centuries, where voting in American elections was expressly prohibited as an excommunicable offense because the Constitution doesn't confess King Jesus. The Covenanters were incredibly politically active in terms of their advocacy, action, speech-making, publishing, and other activities, while dissenting from endorsing or voting for candidates or for taking oaths to support the Constitution - while remaining loyal subjects of the nation they were in (i.e. they weren't British)

See Robert Copeland's update on his uncle-in-law's Master's Thesis: https://crownandcovenant.com/products/a-candle-against-the-dark

An issue that's bubbling around my mind is that dissent is distinguished from apathy or "a pox on both their houses" by the fact it's highly active even while it refuses to participate in some or all of the formal functions.
 
Sorry, brother, but I really was asking and not obliging you anymore than what you yourself claimed to be obliged to do / not do.

And you really cannot blame me for casting your remarks in the light of voting and candidates since when I asked you specifically about politics:


you yourself said that when you meant "politics":


I am still willing to own the confused party here, but it seems like you are saying on the one hand, you will never preach about voting and candidates short of simply stating all candidates should kiss the Son (100% agreed)

but that


so how does this not logically equate to the opposite of Metaxes ? Insisting people do not vote since no one ever has - and certainly not now - demonstrated evidence of kissing the Son and governing by Scriptural principles?

I am ok with you now saying that this is in fact an instance of preaching politics from the pulpit. Ok, fine.

I only hope in light of your own quotes in context, you can see that I was not being unfair or irrationally reading into your position.

And hopefully still see that my questions are genuine. I am not arguing because I really do not understand. And even when I do understand, I probably still will not argue because it would just simply go the way of previous threads closed and would violate established "peace treaties" long ago signed by us "combat vets" hahahahaha
I don't mind your casting things in terms of voting and candidates since that's how I framed my definition. I minded the comment concerning the "banner of keeping politics out of the pulpit" because I never said that. That's not my "banner". Therefore, it isn't an ironic violation of my principle to instruct the people of God as to what rulers ought to look like and have that guide their voting because that's not my principle in the first place. I'm not angry or upset, but I think it is an important distinction that needs to be maintained.

I am simply saying that in that context, the obligation I have as a preacher, the thing I MUST do and am compelled to do is to call those who would rule to kiss the Son. Likewise, I have an obligation to teach the people of God what rulers ought to be. I have an obligation to teach them not to put their trust in princes. I have no obligation to insist that people vote, I have no obligation to engage in the political (election) season at all. I'm pushing back against the idea that is all too prevalent in American discourse that I as a minister somehow have an obligation to insist that people engage in the voting enterprise, or to steer them to particular candidates. I do not. That doesn't mean I'm without obligation in terms of political comment, nor am I required to be absolutely political silent.

I don't think it's accurate to say that no one ever has demonstrated that they kiss the Son and are committed to governing according to Biblical principles (don't read that as theonomy, I'm not a theonomist). There is a candidate for state rep in PA who is a Reformed Christian who absolutely openly professes his faith and is committed to Scriptural principles of government. They are rare, but they are out there.

For clarification, I'm not saying you, personally, are obliging me to anything. I'm saying what my obligations are and are not generally.
 
My church just hands out voter's guides that shows where the candidates stand on the issues and then let's us decide. There is no preaching from the pulpit who is better. The pastor and elders regularly pray for who is in office.
 
My pastor has a bachelor's degree in political science and you would expect more political messaging but he's never done that, except encouraging us to vote. Even his fantastic sermon series on Revelations when he describes the application to the nations is always in general and the fleeting aspect of them. He's postmillennial but he focuses on the evangelistic aspect of it.
 
Sure. Agree. I guess I should have worded it differently. Hope you got my point though.
Yes, although there is no strong or even logical connection between "faithful preaching" and "right political decision making," simply because of how complicated the political sphere is. To assume our congregants will decide well is to think too highly of our own preaching, their intelligence, and the translucence of local, state, federal issues, etc. So will the Bible alone, preached without reference to in-the-air events, guide us to right political decision making? No (like saying it will make us competent at science, or economics, or issues of medicine)--God will use his Word to graciously, supernaturally renew us, sanctify us, bring us to him, etc; we will become better disciples, and perhaps as better disciples, more mature disciples, we come to make more mature political decisions--and yet, there is a great variety of ways to proceed in political sphere, in matters of voting, such that 5 seemingly contrary policies might all find support by 5 mature believers. Therefore, it is erroneous to believe that merely preaching the Bible will produce the outcome the pastor would like and himself thinks is Biblical, even obviously Biblical. This is the height of arrogance, and admits of, in psychological terms, the false consensus effect, which is an egocentric bias common to us all.

I think the better reason to not announce guidance, if one is going to argue in that vein, practical guidance, about persons or policies or institutions, is simply that it presumes the one saying such things knows quite a bit. But frankly, our pastors are not experts in public policy; in constitutional law; in electioneering; et caetera.
 
Yes, although there is no strong or even logical connection between "faithful preaching" and "right political decision making," simply because of how complicated the political sphere is. To assume our congregants will decide well is to think too highly of our own preaching, their intelligence, and the translucence of local, state, federal issues, etc. So will the Bible alone, preached without reference to in-the-air events, guide us to right political decision making? No (like saying it will make us competent at science, or economics, or issues of medicine)--God will use his Word to graciously, supernaturally renew us, sanctify us, bring us to him, etc; we will become better disciples, and perhaps as better disciples, more mature disciples, we come to make more mature political decisions--and yet, there is a great variety of ways to proceed in political sphere, in matters of voting, such that 5 seemingly contrary policies might all find support by 5 mature believers. Therefore, it is erroneous to believe that merely preaching the Bible will produce the outcome the pastor would like and himself thinks is Biblical, even obviously Biblical. This is the height of arrogance, and admits of, in psychological terms, the false consensus effect, which is an egocentric bias common to us all.

I think the better reason to not announce guidance, if one is going to argue in that vein, practical guidance, about persons or policies or institutions, is simply that it presumes the one saying such things knows quite a bit. But frankly, our pastors are not experts in public policy; in constitutional law; in electioneering; et caetera.
I find what you wrote very helpful so, thank you for that, brother. Maybe, I'll be more eloquent as you, someday. Bible alone can't guide us to right political decision? Yes and no. More no. Sure, the politics are complicated but for the most part, the issues that actually concern the life of believers are not that complicated. I'm going back to the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Bible is more than enough to equip us for politics as well as in science, etc. because it is sufficient for all of life. If it wasn't, we'd be wrong to call it sufficient. One may choose to abstain from voting at all for the fear of making a wrong political decision, saying " Lord, do what Thou wilt". My point in the end is that a pastor shouldn't be talking earthly politics all the time behind the pulpit and that he should be concerned more about preaching heavenly politics.
 
Last edited:
I find what you wrote very helpful so, thank you for that, brother. Maybe, I'll be more eloquent as you, someday. Bible alone can't guide us to right political decision? Yes and no. More no. Sure, the politics are complicated but for the most part, the issues that actually concern the life of believers are not that complicated. I'm going back to the sufficiency of the Scriptures. Bible is more than enough to equip us for politics as well as in science, etc. because it is sufficient for all of life. If it wasn't, we'd be wrong to call it sufficient. One may choose to abstain from voting at all for the fear of making a wrong political decision, saying " Lord, do what Thou wilt". My point in the end is that a pastor shouldn't be talking earthly politics all the time behind the pulpit and that he should be concerned more about preaching heavenly politics.
Word. Eloquent or unclear, the line between the two is thin!

I really do agree with you in large part, I especially like when you said "that a pastor shouldn't be talking earthly politics all the time behind the pulpit and that he should be concerned more about preaching heavenly politics."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top