Is there a role for Pastors in politics?

[ALAYMAN]

You simply don't like me. I don't expect anything less from you. I don't care whether you like me or not. What I said was true. Accept or reject it. Doesn't matter to me. I'll take a baby aspirin and worry about it.

You two are total opposites. You have nothing in common. I'd dare say.... you'll sooner or later consider her a heretic. At least I'm not stupid enough to throw that charge around. She is dysfunctional in her attempts to mix her core libertarian beliefs with her theology. She'll say..... she doesn't... but its impossible to separate the two. Her theology is libertarianism.

Bro, for what it is worth, the simple and legitimate point Pappa was making was attack the argument, not the person.  Izzi is so far from not only myself theologically, but nearly every other evangelical on here that it is easy to try to silence her voice as being an outlier.  But she doesn't come on here actively trying to convert women to the ministry, or coerce folk to read NT Wright and the New Perspectives.  I have no problem with you warning others about the pitfalls of these beliefs when they are part of the natural course of conversation, but detach the personal attacks from the arguments against the issue.

Besides that, if everybody here thought the same, how boring would the conversation be?

I agree. I don't mind politics in the pulpit and everyone should be free to say whatever is on their heart from the pulpit. However, I think its near impossible to be a pastor and politician at the same time. They are two totally different worlds. One is all about compromise (or at least it should be) and the other demands the lack of compromise.

Yep, except that instead of tolerating politics in the pulpit I see that sort of thing as much of a distraction as a poorly contrived topical cherry-picking sermon.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Preach the gospel, leave politics out, for the gospel is vastly more important and will cover the issues of the heart which should lead a person to make the right voting choices.

Proclaiming the gospel is inherently political.

The nature of your claim is patently different than "Vote Republican" , of "Vote Democrat" for that matter.

 

[rsc2a]

Preach the gospel, leave politics out, for the gospel is vastly more important and will cover the issues of the heart which should lead a person to make the right voting choices.

Proclaiming the gospel is inherently political.

The nature of your claim is patently different than "Vote Republican" , of "Vote Democrat" for that matter.

Fifth post of the thread:

[quote author="rsc2a"]Is there a place for modern left/right politics coming from the pulpit? Not really.

Is there a place for politics coming from the pulpit? "Jesus is Lord" was a pretty political statement in Paul's day.[/quote]

 

[Castor Muscular]

Preach the gospel, leave politics out, for the gospel is vastly more important and will cover the issues of the heart which should lead a person to make the right voting choices.

I agree. I don't mind politics in the pulpit and everyone should be free to say whatever is on their heart from the pulpit. However, I think its near impossible to be a pastor and politician at the same time. They are two totally different worlds. One is all about compromise (or at least it should be) and the other demands the lack of compromise.

History:  As the role of the pastor moved toward the center of focus of the congregation, they adopted the styles and practices of the sophists -- (From Wikipedia) "A Sophist (Greek: σοφιστής, Latin: sophista) was a specific kind of teacher in both Ancient Greece and in the Roman Empire. Many sophists specialized in using the tools of philosophy and rhetoric". 

The sophists were "professionals" and charged money for their performances, so it stood to reason that a church should hire a "professional" pastor who could speak with the same skill as a sophist. 

Remember that the role of the sophist was to make a convincing eloquent argument.  A really good sophist could tell a pack of lies in his speech.  Truth wasn't important.  What was important was their eloquence and ability to convince people with good rhetoric.  (In other words, they were almost indistinguishable from today's politicians, except politicians get paid after they've used their rhetoric to get elected.) 

Sounds to me like a modern Pastor/preacher is basically a politician, so what's the big deal? 

Augustine recognized this pattern and urged people not to rely on eloquent speakers, because wisdom was greater than eloquence.  Augustine recognized that people could easily get seduced into going with charismatic teachers/preachers rather than people who could communicate the truth, however awkwardly. 


As an aside:

My son is on the school debate team.  They pretty much teach the same thing.  You're supposed to be able to take a side on an issue, and build a strong argument in favor of it even if you think it is 100% BS and wrong.  They have mock congressional debates, and are required to argue like a congressman in favor of something that is clearly unconstitutional, just because they're supposed to be skilled at making convincing arguments. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

What about Scripture admonitions to, for and about Pastors, Bishops, Elders.....?

What about them?

Why would there be a need for them, if as you say:

Pastors are members of the body of Christ.  That's all.  No more.  No less.  Pastors have a unique gift.  Some say it's the gift of comforting the flock especially when people are in need.  But it's one gift.  Say it's being a hand in the body of Christ.  Others have other gifts.  Everyone is co-equal in the body of Christ and everyone's function and gift has a place.  The eye has a place.  The big toe has a place.  Nobody is supposed to be the center of corporate worship except Christ.

 

[Castor Muscular]

What about Scripture admonitions to, for and about Pastors, Bishops, Elders.....?

What about them?

Why would there be a need for them, if as you say:

Pastors are members of the body of Christ.  That's all.  No more.  No less.  Pastors have a unique gift.  Some say it's the gift of comforting the flock especially when people are in need.  But it's one gift.  Say it's being a hand in the body of Christ.  Others have other gifts.  Everyone is co-equal in the body of Christ and everyone's function and gift has a place.  The eye has a place.  The big toe has a place.  Nobody is supposed to be the center of corporate worship except Christ.

There is a need for every member of the body of Christ.  There is no need for their current unbiblical role, however. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Preach the gospel, leave politics out, for the gospel is vastly more important and will cover the issues of the heart which should lead a person to make the right voting choices.

Proclaiming the gospel is inherently political.

The nature of your claim is patently different than "Vote Republican" , of "Vote Democrat" for that matter.

There is more to this issue than that, don't you think?
I go back to the issues that were Biblical, moral issues since  OT times that are today argued in the political arena>
Should they not be addressed, ever?
And, if you address them, are you not, in essence, making a political statement?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

What about Scripture admonitions to, for and about Pastors, Bishops, Elders.....?

What about them?

Why would there be a need for them, if as you say:

Pastors are members of the body of Christ.  That's all.  No more.  No less.  Pastors have a unique gift.  Some say it's the gift of comforting the flock especially when people are in need.  But it's one gift.  Say it's being a hand in the body of Christ.  Others have other gifts.  Everyone is co-equal in the body of Christ and everyone's function and gift has a place.  The eye has a place.  The big toe has a place.  Nobody is supposed to be the center of corporate worship except Christ.

There is a need for every member of the body of Christ.  There is no need for their current unbiblical role, however.

That's good...but it doesn't answer my question.

 

[ALAYMAN]

History:  As the role of the pastor moved toward the center of focus of the congregation, they adopted the styles and practices of the sophists -- (From Wikipedia) "A Sophist (Greek: σοφιστής, Latin: sophista) was a specific kind of teacher in both Ancient Greece and in the Roman Empire. Many sophists specialized in using the tools of philosophy and rhetoric". 

Potentially false dichotomy.

Truth does not have to be opposed to or by philosophy and rhetoric (or eloquence).

Fifth post of the thread:

That's what I said, that sort of politics is not the same sort as vote republican or democrat.  Imagine that, we agree on something.

 

[prophet]

In the original intent of public service, where the wisest citizens in a municipality would 'pull their shift' in elected office, just like jury duty.... I'd say pastors have an obligation, if they fit the criteria.

Anishinabe

 

[Smellin Coffee]

My son is on the school debate team.  They pretty much teach the same thing.  You're supposed to be able to take a side on an issue, and build a strong argument in favor of it even if you think it is 100% BS and wrong.  They have mock congressional debates, and are required to argue like a congressman in favor of something that is clearly unconstitutional, just because they're supposed to be skilled at making convincing arguments.

Sounds like some who fill pulpits week after week.

 

[Castor Muscular]

That's good...but it doesn't answer my question.

I don't get your question. Maybe you need to rephrase your question, or cite some scriptures about admonitions, etc. 

 

[christundivided]

You simply don't like me. I don't expect anything less from you. I don't care whether you like me or not. What I said was true. Accept or reject it. Doesn't matter to me. I'll take a baby aspirin and worry about it.

You two are total opposites. You have nothing in common. I'd dare say.... you'll sooner or later consider her a heretic. At least I'm not stupid enough to throw that charge around. She is dysfunctional in her attempts to mix her core libertarian beliefs with her theology. She'll say..... she doesn't... but its impossible to separate the two. Her theology is libertarianism.

Bro, for what it is worth, the simple and legitimate point Pappa was making was attack the argument, not the person.  Izzi is so far from not only myself theologically, but nearly every other evangelical on here that it is easy to try to silence her voice as being an outlier.  But she doesn't come on here actively trying to convert women to the ministry, or coerce folk to read NT Wright and the New Perspectives.  I have no problem with you warning others about the pitfalls of these beliefs when they are part of the natural course of conversation, but detach the personal attacks from the arguments against the issue.

Besides that, if everybody here thought the same, how boring would the conversation be?

I've tried to engage her several times on different issues. Its not like I am targeting her by calling her names. When it comes down to it.... she will not engage at any meaningful leave. Its just hit and run.

Dysfunctional may have been a poor choice of words. I really meant "dysfunctional theologically". I wasn't trying to say she's "mentally deficient". I apologize for my poor choice of words.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Preach the gospel, leave politics out, for the gospel is vastly more important and will cover the issues of the heart which should lead a person to make the right voting choices.

Proclaiming the gospel is inherently political.

The nature of your claim is patently different than "Vote Republican" , of "Vote Democrat" for that matter.

There is more to this issue than that, don't you think?
I go back to the issues that were Biblical, moral issues since  OT times that are today argued in the political arena>
Should they not be addressed, ever?
And, if you address them, are you not, in essence, making a political statement?

Yes, address them, ideally as they arise in the normal exposition of Scriptures, but always elevate and preach the gospel.  A person could preach where Herod ordered the execution of all the boy children, or the sacrifices made to Molech, and mention how it parallels the current culture of death, but the answer is not in voting (though there's nothing wrong with working within the democratic republic that we've been blessed with in order to see that government restrains evil) but rather always in the transforming, redeeming, and forgiving power of the gospel.  I know you believe that, but too many times the pulpit is cheapened and congregants are distracted by reversing the priority and importance of the gospel in light of activism.

 

[christundivided]

My son is on the school debate team.  They pretty much teach the same thing.  You're supposed to be able to take a side on an issue, and build a strong argument in favor of it even if you think it is 100% BS and wrong.  They have mock congressional debates, and are required to argue like a congressman in favor of something that is clearly unconstitutional, just because they're supposed to be skilled at making convincing arguments.

Sounds like some who fill pulpits week after week.

I agree. They do preach personal preference as the Gospel...... certainly that would show up in politics as well.

Not everyone is that way. I agree the majority fall in that category.

 

[Castor Muscular]

My son is on the school debate team.  They pretty much teach the same thing.  You're supposed to be able to take a side on an issue, and build a strong argument in favor of it even if you think it is 100% BS and wrong.  They have mock congressional debates, and are required to argue like a congressman in favor of something that is clearly unconstitutional, just because they're supposed to be skilled at making convincing arguments.

Sounds like some who fill pulpits week after week.

Yup.

 

[PappaBear]

I apologize for my poor choice of words.

Very good.  That was nice of you.  Thank you, and I mean that.  Hope that it does not irritate just because it comes from me.

 

[W.A.S. AND H.A.D.]

Haven't read the whole thread . . . so apologize if this has already been discussed.  My question(s) is/are this:  Why do churches incorporate?
Why do they sign a contract with the state?  Isn't that clearly becoming unequally yoked?  Doesn't that mean there is a list of topics that are "off limits" for pastors to talk about . . . which may be vague now, but IMHO the noose will only get tighter as we see the day approaching?  Yes?
No?

New to this . . .  so again sorry if this is not going with flow of post. 

 

[ALAYMAN]

I've tried to engage her several times on different issues. Its not like I am targeting her by calling her names. When it comes down to it.... she will not engage at any meaningful leave. Its just hit and run.

Yes, she admits that she is way past the point in her life of engaging in longterm debate and arguments.  I believe she is fully capable to do so, but finds nothing worthwhile in doing so.  Consequently I don't engage her with expectations of a protracted discussion.  You take what people give you and meet them where they are, realizing that your agenda and expectations may not be mutally agreed to by the other person.  She's not avoiding you because she has no answer, she just has nothing to prove, so it is what it is and nothing more than it is.

 

[christundivided]

I've tried to engage her several times on different issues. Its not like I am targeting her by calling her names. When it comes down to it.... she will not engage at any meaningful leave. Its just hit and run.

Yes, she admits that she is way past the point in her life of engaging in longterm debate and arguments.  I believe she is fully capable to do so, but finds nothing worthwhile in doing so.  Consequently I don't engage her with expectations of a protracted discussion.  You take what people give you and meet them where they are, realizing that your agenda and expectations may not be mutally agreed to by the other person.  She's not avoiding you because she has no answer, she just has nothing to prove, so it is what it is and nothing more than it is.

You maybe right. I think she should prove her prowess.....

Some people refuse to engage because they already know they are wrong. I'm going to throw her in with that group until she proves me wrong.