Christian leaders who step out in the world of politics—whether it’s Bono, Pat Robertson, or the Pope—have been drawing a lot of attention in recent years. If you’re like me, you’ve spent much of the last few years alternately cheering and cringing as Christianity has been linked to causes all across the political spectrum.
And so I think the general idea that Christian spokesmen need to be very careful in the way they represent the Church in politics has started to sink in. But there’s another aspect of the church/politics relationship that has always made me nervous, and which the folks over at In the Agora are discussing this week.
I’m talking about the common practice of politicians making campaign appearances in churches. The article cites just two examples; but these are by no means the only two politicians who have taken up position behind the pulpit during a tight political race:
After swaying gently to the hymn “God Will Take Care of You,” Ned Lamont went the pulpit and asked congregants at the Messiah Baptist Church to break from a three-term incumbent and support his bid for U.S. Senate.A few miles away, Sen. Joe Lieberman urged those in the Iglesia Cristiana Buen Pastor parish to vote in the Aug. 8 Democratic primary for someone they like and trust.
(The article doesn’t specificially state whether these campaign appearances occurred in the context of worship services or not, but the mention of hymn-singing suggests that they did.)
A few questions to think about:
- Has a politician running for office ever addressed your church in this manner?
- Is this a good way to directly address a local, voting Christian community, or does the thought of a politician in the pulpit set your teeth on edge? (I fall into the latter camp, but if you feel otherwise I’d like to hear your take on things.)
- If “pulpit campaigning” took place at a church but not in a worship context and accompanied by a disclaimer that the church didn’t necessarily endorse the candidate, would that change your opinion?
- Is there a place for the church as a “neutral territory” in political debate? Would you like to see churches become active in hosting open political debates, politician speeches, and town meetings, or is that venturing into dangerous territory?
Loading ...
August 1, 2006 at 18:45
I would love to see “churches become active in hosting open political debates, politician speeches, and town meetings, etc,” emphasis on debate, and not during worship services…alas, since few politicians are going to open themselves up for an actual unscripted dialogue with you & me, let alone other politicians,no need to worry about this happening anytime soon.
August 1, 2006 at 19:48
It all depends on how you view church. If you view the church as that building on the corner with the steeple, organ and choir loft where the neighborhood gathers for pot lucks, worship, social events, concerts, summer camp, neighborhood safety campaigns and the occasional car rally, then sure, why not. However, in order not to compromise the integrity of the church I would keep any politically oriented event focused on issues. Christians can partner with candidates or parties on issues of shared concerns. I think it would be a mistake to offer the podium to a candidate or political party, although Constantine thought mixing politics and Christianity was a swell idea.
However if you view the church as the called out ones who gather at various locations to worship, celebrate the sacraments, read the word of God and edify one another, then a politician really seems like an intrusion. In Paul’s comments about church meetings he seemed to regard the possibility of the unbeliever or the ungifted entering a gathering as unusual (1st Cor. 14: Even so, if unbelievers or people who don’t understand these things come into your meeting and hear everyone talking in an unknown language, they will think you are crazy. But if all of you are prophesying, and unbelievers or people who don’t understand these things come into your meeting, they will be convicted of sin, and they will be condemned by what you say.)
Churches that have emphasized what has been called “the social gospel” have long been on the circuit of cause-oriented politicians, political parties and crusaders, from Jesse jackson to union organizers to peace marchers, freedom riders, gay activists, political candidates and antiwar demonstrators. I think they get uneasy when they see evangelicals beginning to do the same. However, I don’t think the church should be a forum for any political parties, right or left. It’s an incredible compromise that crept in with Constantine and eventually corrupts the church.
August 1, 2006 at 20:26
Define church. The post indicates “church” is a place. Yet, according to Scripture, “the church” is the people. So, if Sen. Joe Schmo is talking to a believer, he is talking to the “church.” Whether he’s talking to one believer or 1,000 in a meeting place, is irrelevant.
Indeed, our history is full of examples of “politicians” sharing their views in a place where the church meets. Whether or not a group of believers decide to allow a candidate to come in is up to them. This is a matter of conscience, not something either approved or disapproved of in Scripture. We think nothing of making announcements about various events in the middle of a “worship service.”
We should be free to interact with politicians any time, anywhere, any place when it comes to moral values and any other issues impacting our freedom of speech and religion. These are the people who will be representing us in the legislature. They should hear what we have to say, as well as us hearing their views on a given subject.
I don’t suggest we should turn over our meetings every week to a politician, but we should be informed and have an opportunity to get them on our own turf. The media is not going to ask the hard questions we will ask and not let them off the hook. If we want to get the answers we need to make an informed decision concerning a candidate, we’re going to have to bring them into a forum where Christians gather.
August 2, 2006 at 02:29
I find the assumption that a politician cannot also be a Christian somewhat revealing. What if the politician was someone who went to that church? What if he or she had been going there since salvation? How many revival meetings do you suppose politicians showed up at in the 1800s? The mixing of politics and all forms of religion was a much, much more common occurance than it is now, and I really don’t see why you’d want to clamp down on it. If the church (that local body of believers) invites the guy or the girl to speak, so what?
August 2, 2006 at 08:15
In watching the ACLJ on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, there are some mega churches that have been threatened with losing their tax-exempt status because the state feels that they are endorsing politicians which is in violation of the separation of church and state. The church cannot endorse a specific candidate, but can bring issues to light that impact the moral values outlined in the Bible. Then we as Christians can vote for the candidate that embraces those views. It is my understanding that it is OK for subject matter to be discussed in the pulpit as long as the church is not telling the congregation who to vote for. I feel that we just need to look for the person that stands on biblical principles and is willing to make a stand and not fall subject to political pressures.
I feel that it is fine for the issues to be discussed in church, because as Christians we need to speak up for a change in order to make a difference. What are we teaching our children if we sit back and do nothing?
August 2, 2006 at 08:27
I don’t know about that one. The house of God is the house of God. There is a passage in Luke regarding Jesus entering into a temple as he headed for Jerusalem. I had to look it up, but it reads, “It is written,” he (Jesus) said to them , “My house will be a house of prayer; but you have made it ‘a den of robbers.” They may not be selling material goods, but politicians do sell themselves. They sell themselves to people and sometimes they make themselves look good by lying and making promises they don’t have the will or sometimes the way to keep.
If the church supports such a person who turns out to be corrupt (cares nothing for the poor and essentially disregards the needs of the people) what does that do to those sinners who were seeking God and looking for a reason to trust his will and word. Essentially, the main agenda of the church should be to represent the perfect will of God and lead sinners back to him. Not represent the will and agendas of men and confused the word and ways of God with the ways of the worldly.
The church could guide the people in how to be discerning and do research on those that seek their votes, but to support any one over another seems dangerous to what their agenda should be for God.
If you’re a man or woman who stands to represent God (the spiritual) why would you play host to the material. God does appoint leaders but not all leaders are for the spiritual ways of God. It isn’t ok to be a Christian but not regard the words of the Lord as it is written in the Bible. Church leaders should be at ground zero with the meek, weak, poor, lost and troubled preparing them for the judgement of God and building God’s kingdom on earth, “on earth as it is in Heaven,” not entertaining rich politicians seeking power. If there is a man or woman God wants to put into leadership, we know that God will do just that because what he ordained he will maintain and his word always comes to pass. Basically unless God moves the spirit of one to do so, the church doesn’t need to get involved in politics. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, but give to God what is God’s.” That’s found in His word not in our opinions.
August 13, 2006 at 04:47
Is there any difference between a polititian who attends Church speaking from the pulpit, or sitting on the front or back pew? Someone is bound to solicit a political response from him After all, he or she is a politician.
– Chaplain Winston