Should Pastors Endorse Candidates From The Pulpit?

http://leomcneil.net/2014/11/03/should-pastors-endorse-candidates-from-the-pulpit/ ^ | November 3, 2014 | Leo McNeil

[LeoMcNeil]

A group called Alliance Defending Freedom organized a group of around 1,600 pastors who endorsed candidates from the pulpit in the weeks leading up to tomorrows election. Since the 1950’s the IRS has banned 501(c)(3) tax exempt churches from engaging in political activity, including endorsing candidates. The IRS has never enforced the law. Every few years the government sends out warning letters but it’s never actually taken the law to court. They likely know it wouldn’t be upheld by the Supreme Court. The Alliance Defending Freedom appears to be a conservative group and as such their 1,600 pastors appear to be largely endorsing Republican candidates. Odds are these endorsements won’t swing the election but it is an exercise in religious freedom.

While pastors have the freedom to endorse candidates from the pulpit the question remains whether or not they should. It’s one thing to endorse someone running for office who makes no secret he is a Christian who will govern in a Biblical manner. It’s another thing to endorse someone who is only less evil than the Democrat. In the case of the 2012 Presidential election, it was absurd seeing Christians endorse a Mormon cultist claiming he was somehow better than the practical atheist. A candidate is either with Jesus Christ or he is against him. In the case of Romney vs Obama, both were opponents of Christ and it was absurd to watch pastors dance around the issue. Why should the Church lend its support to an evil man simply because he’s only slightly less evil than the other guy?

For pastors they need to ask themselves whether there aren’t more important issues to be preached on from the pulpit. One of the great progressive errors of the last century in the church has been the social gospel. In 2014 we think of the social gospel as conservative, in reality its roots are progressive. These folks believe that if only we had the right laws and the right people enforcing the law the spiritual health of the country would return. Outlawing the sale of liquor in the 1920’s did not lead to national or even individual salvation. Likewise banning abortions and homosexual marriage in 2014 won’t lead to national or individual salvation. We need to stop pretending like we can save the nation through law and political action. Law only reflects the spiritual state of our nation, which at this point in time is relatively evil. Changing the law won’t change hearts. Yet the evangelical church for the last century seems to believe that law will change hearts. Law didn’t change the hearts of the pharisees, only Christ changes hearts.

The question for pastors endorsing candidates is whether they’re ignoring more pressing spiritual needs in their congregation in order to stick it to the IRS. Are their sins in the congregation that need to be preached on? Would a continuation of a sermon series be more important and spiritually beneficial to the congregation? The problem with the Alliance Defending Freedom is that it’s encouraging pastors to focus on politics over and above other spiritual concerns that may be more important in individual congregations. It’s one thing if a pastor feels called to endorse a particular candidate, it’s another thing if the pastor is endorsing candidates for no other reason than he’s part of Alliance Defending Freedom and he feels he has to make endorsements to be part of a political movement.

Ultimately Christians need to be praying for our civil magistrates. We need to be praying for more Godly candidates. Rather than spending one Sunday endorsing candidates, the church might be better served by a series on Godly government and Godly leaders. There is plenty in scripture on these topics and they’re almost never preached on in evangelical circles. One of the big problems with the evangelical movement is that it hops from one hot fire issue to the next, all of which are treated like they’re the most important thing ever. There never seems to be time to preach on the basics of Christian government and thus the congregation hops from one big political issue to the next without any real guidance about what it’s all for or what the end goal is. This is why the social gospel is such a failure, eventually there is a new issue to get outraged about leaving the old issues behind. There’s no base understanding of Christian civil government and without a base all of these issues become stand alone and largely meaningless. Rather than endorsing candidates, pastors should instead preach on Christian civil government or in the alternative preach topics which are more pressing in their congregation.

[TexasFreeper2009]

Democratic Black churches have been doing it for decades!

It’s past time Republican churches leveled the playing field!

[G Larry]

It is not necessary to endorse by name.

Simply point out that it is immoral for Christians to support or endorse politicians or measures who’s actions or results are contrary to God’s laws.

[Flintlock]

I’s OK as long as it’s a BLACK (as in WHITES not allowed) church and supports the Dhimmocrats.

[jmaroneps37]

Only if they are endorsing Democrats - it’s allowed - written on the back of the Constitution.

[Dr. Sivana]

I think they should denounce candidates from the pulpit. Problem with endorsing candidates is the candidate could be lying (George Ryan, 1998; Barry Goldwater, 1980; both on abortion).

Canonization should always wait until after death.

[cripplecreek]

Yes, if it is their desire to do so and it should be done without fear of repercussions from government. Colonial churches planted the seeds of the American revolution and that tradition should be honored.

"It was Sunday morning early in the year 1776. In the church where Pastor Muhlenberg preached, it was a regular service for his congregation, but a quite different affair for Muhlenberg himself. Muhlenberg's text for the day was Ecclesiastes 3 where it explains, 'To everything there is a season, a time for every purpose under heaven; a time to be born, and a time to die, a time to plant, and a time to pluck what is planted...'"

"Coming to the end of his sermon, Peter Muhlenberg turned to his congregation and said, 'In the language of the holy writ, there was a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away.' As those assembled looked on, Pastor Muhlenberg declared, 'There is a time to fight, and that time is now coming!' Muhlenberg then proceeded to remove his robes revealing, to the shock of his congregation, a military uniform."

"Marching to the back of the church he declared, 'Who among you is with me?' On that day 300 men from his church stood up and joined Peter Muhlenberg. They eventually became the 8th Virginia Brigade fighting for liberty."

"Frederick Muhlenberg, Peter's brother, was against Peter's level of involvement in the war. Peter responded to Frederick writing, 'I am a Clergyman it is true, but I am a member of the Society as well as the poorest Layman, and my Liberty is as dear to me as any man, shall I then sit still and enjoy myself at Home when the best Blood of the Covenant is spilling? ...So far am I from thinking that I act wrong, I am convinced it is my duty to do so and duly I owe to God and my country."



A Christian who isn't politically active is no Christian at all.

[Sacajaweau]

The idea that if you do, you lose your tax free status is ridiculous. Who came up with that??

[pepsionice]

This issue didn’t arise until the 1918 period when national income taxes arrived. It’s interesting how people now design a religion....to be a tax-free device, and get away with it, yet serve as a personal enrichment tool.

[jsanders2001]

> The idea that if you do, you lose your tax free status is ridiculous. Who came up with that??

Satan, his followers, and liberals (the latter two being one in the same)

[Westbrook]

> The idea that if you do, you lose your tax free status is
> ridiculous. Who came up with that??

Heh. Sen. Lyndon Baines Johnson (D) Texas.

I’ll bet you ain’t s’prised.

[jsanders2001]

> This issue didn’t arise until the 1918 period when national income taxes arrived. It’s interesting how people now design a religion....to be a tax-free device, and get away with it, yet serve as a personal enrichment tool.

There are tax cheats in every walk of life. Percentage wise the number for religious cheaters is probably small. People like Jimmy Baker, Jimmy Swaggert, Crouch family were just wolves in sheep’s clothing and fueled the fire making great headlines (and advertising revenue) for the MSM when they misstepped and sinned. The fact that they preyed on people’s innocence, taking their hard earned money and using it to enrich their lives instead of for the ministry made people angry and rightfully so.

[DJ MacWoW]

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate Monthly If You

[Buckeye McFrog]

Obama virtually declared war on my Church, and there was nary a peep from the pulpits.

[LeoMcNeil]

LBJ inserted it into a bill during the 50’s when he was a Senator.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Only if they endorse Democrats, otherwise it should be illegal.

What! Wait! That's the way it is now!

[Ramonne]

Denouncing and giving reasons and examples of past actions and words would be much better.

[2001convSVT]

"Should Pastors Endorse Candidates From The Pulpit?"

YES, I want to know where the Pastors stand and it tells me a lot about the candidate based upon who is doing the endorsement. YES on both accounts.

[FreeAtlanta]

Our pastors need to tell their congregation to vote and point out the candidates that have policies for or against their doctrines.

I have never understood churches like Jehovah Witnesses that don’t want their members to even be registered.

[Arthur McGowan]

“Mormon cultist.”

Any bozo can pretend to be “right with Jesus Christ.” Anyone who votes for or endorses a politician because he’s “right with Jesus” is also a bozo.

It’s idiocy like this that gave us Jimmy Carter. And Obola.

What matters is what the politician will do in office. I’ll take an insincerely pro-life Mormon cultist over a sincere baby-murderer any day.