Received an email from a church pastor today. Apparently, a guest speaker at this particular church must have said some things that the pastor (who was out of town yesterday) thought "crossed the line" regarding discussion of the upcoming election. The letter indicates that the guest speaker must have shared who he/she thinks Christians should vote for. [I don't know which candidate he/she sided with.] In full disclosure, I was out of town, too. I did not hear the sermon, do not know who the "guest speaker" was, nor was I able to access the video version of the sermon online.
The following is an email that I received today. I wanted to put it out there (especially for my fellow Christian readers who frequent Talk Wisdom) and ask what your thoughts are about the content of the email. I will hold my opinions about it until a few days have passed - giving readers a chance to express their own opinions about it.
Copy of email (with name of church and pastor redacted):
Talk Wisdom Reports...You Decide.I am writing in response to comments made by our guest speaker at the morning services yesterday. Even though the intent of the interview was to focus on the general concept of voting according to a biblical worldview, the speaker's comments strayed further from that message than I would have liked so I wanted to clarify where we stand as a church on issues related to the election.
As Christians, God's Word should guide and direct every area of our lives, even our voting decisions. Proverbs 3:5-6
Because God created the concept of government as a tool to fulfill His will, Romans 13:1, our political views and voting decisions should not be separated from our biblical beliefs. Just as non-believers vote according to their belief system, so believers should vote according to their belief system.
How that pertains to this particular election is up to you. The [ ] Church has no intent to endorse or campaign for one party or candidate. We do not at all believe that one party or candidate has a corner market on the bible or God.
I am fully aware that there are strong opposing political opinions in our church and I respect those differences. Since I was out of town for this Sunday's services, I was not immediately aware of the content. When I became aware, we made the necessary adjustments to the presentation.
I want to encourage you to pray and trust that the Lord will lead you in your voting decisions. We are committed to praying for and partnering with whoever is elected our next President.
If you have any comments that you would like to make, or thoughts on how we can do things better, please contact Pastor [....].
Posts
13 comments:
Good morning Christine.
Well, the explanation is somewhat vague for me. If the guy out and out said "Vote for Romney" or "Vote for Obama" ... then I think it would be problematic ... not for me personally, but for the church. It would cause all sorts of tax-exempt status problems, etc. I think a pastor does have a responsibility to perhaps educate his congregation of the importance of voting, but he should be "wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove" in doing so. He should reinforce the sanctity of life and let the congregation know that whether we like politics or not, politics has a direct effect on our freedom to worship.
Thanks Steve! Absolutely great points all around.
I checked again and the sermon is still not online. I wonder if it will not be included in the church archives?
Wanted your opinion about these two sentences:
1. I want to encourage you to pray and trust that the Lord will lead you in your voting decisions. (I whole-heartedly agree!!)
2. We are committed to praying for and partnering with whoever is elected our next President.
The "partnering" idea bothers me...especially knowing about all the harm that has been done to America by Obama.
Also - about the sanctity of life issue. Obama was THE most pro-abortion member of the Senate before running for president. He had a 100% rating from planned aborthood. That was the very first issue that turned me against him as a candidate. There is now a plethora of reasons to be against his candidacy now!
Why is it that so many born-again Christian blacks voted for Obama anyway? Was race more important to them than the lives of unborn children? Guess so...
Of course, Christians whites also voted for him. They fell for the hope and change zombie mantra. Was casting a vote for such propaganda more important than the lives of unborn children? Guess so...
I always wanted to hear a pro-life politician say one thing when someone on TV spews the oxymoronic "women's right to choose" lie. Why don't they say in reply, "what about the women in the womb's right to choose?"
"I want to encourage you to pray and trust that the Lord will lead you in your voting decisions."
Absolutely and this is where, I believe, the pastor is used by God to answer those prayers.
"We are committed to praying for and partnering with whoever is elected our next President."
This is easy enough I suppose to answer ... Yes pray for our elected leaders ... "partnering" with them is entirely another thing. We don't partner with someone say, of Barack Obama's character, but we reprove them. Anyone who clealy violates God's word regardless of their position of power is not to be "partnered" with by believers; ie, John the Baptist.
Christine ... if you want to really realize the limitations of the liberal mind check out John Liming's blog. Never a word about any of these things ... abortion, reckless regard of the lives of our military ... Fast and Furious ... or any other of the multitude of scandals the Obama regime has been involved in. It is ALL about government programs and what they do for "the people".
I've seen Liming's comments at your blog. I don't visit liberal blogs because it would drive me crazy to read their drivel.
Someone once quipped, "what the government gives you can be taken away." We are seeing this now in socialist-gone-broke austerity measures happening in Spain and elsewhere in Europe. Why would any American want to willingly go that route is mind-boggling!
My own liberal menace (he wants to be known as "my favorite nemesis"), GM, does the same thing. He ignores all the scandals and mocks my concern for the nation. How a former military member could support Obummer is a severe disgrace.
I am gearing up to post about the controversy and cover-up over the Benghazi murders. It will be LONG and I know that most Americans have a short attention span. But I want to "get it out" before the election.
Blogs are the new media which exposes the complicity of the media-of-mass-deception out there. The cover-up of Benghazi by the alphabet soup news shows is staggering!! We get some info via Fox News, but the blogs are FAR MORE ahead with information to peruse and help decide what the truth really is about Benghazi-gate.
The truth, madam, is that you don't visit liberal blogs because your head may explode from all the new (and correct) information it would receive. If you have The Truth™, as you like to claim, then it doesn't need protection; it can stand by itself against anything. But you don't really believe that, do you?
The truth, Christine, is that I'm known as your favorite nemesis only because you called me that, and not once, but twice. Want me to post them again? Ever since then, I've simply tried to live up to that designation, which is after all what a nemesis is supposed to do. (BTW, you really should look up the origin of the word.) You're doing it again now; I'm not a 'liberal menace', nor do I represent any such thing. I'm not mocking your concern for the nation either—it seems genuine enough. What I'm mocking is you, and your concerns over things such as Obama's secret Muslim decoder ring.
I'd have supported Obama even if I were still in uniform, and particularly if I had just come back from my fourth combat tour in Iraq, like so many others...a nation we invaded based on faulty intelligence and personal vendettas, in case you don't remember. It's also killed far more that just four people. There was the scandal of of inadequate armor for both the Humvees and the troops who rode in with them; the deplorable treatment (and environment) of returning wounded at Walter Reed Hospital; the 'nation-building' that we suddenly found ourselves doing, three years after we were supposed to have been gone; and finding none of the WMDs we supposedly went in there to get.
It seems more active-duty military currently support him over Rmoney; or maybe it's just that Mitt's supporters don't send him money because they know he's got so much of it. I don't feel disgraced at all.
Thirty years ago Reagan talked of a “600-ship navy” and I wondered where the people to man those ships would come from. When unemployment hit the 10.1 percent level, I thought “Oh, that's where he'll get the manpower!” It didn't work then, and it won't work if Lord Romney gets into office.
Hey, Mitt's supposed to have his own planet to rule after he dies. I wish him luck with it. But I don't want him to practice on this one, that's all.
GM,
Consider this an official "take back" of that former title given to you. It was given WAY BEFORE your sad ObamaBorg Bot ideology became known.
The title of Liberal menace is much more accurate.
Go see Steve...he seems willing to tolerate you.
BTW, can't help but notice that
YOU
ARE
STILL
IGNORING ALL THE SCANDAL POSTS HERE.
That's it...blame it on Bush...the usual typical liberal gibberish.
But I understand. It is difficult to defend the indefensible...
I'm sure that GM is "IGNORING ALL THE SCANDAL POSTS HERE" because he knows it's just so much far right wing lunatic fringe propaganda.I've been to a few sites on your blog roll and there's nothing on them but lies, conspiracy theories and more lies! Do you really expect anyone to take Wing-Nut Daily and CommieBlasters seriously? Really? I've been coming here for a while now and the only one that "Talks Wisdom" is GM.
CJW: ”Consider this an official "take back" of that former title given to you. It was given WAY BEFORE your sad ObamaBorg Bot ideology became known.”
Sorry, madam, but you can't take it back. The whole internet knows you said it, so put your big girl skirt on and live with it. Of course, you could always deny having called me that: that's SOP for many conservatives, isn't it?
”The title of Liberal menace is much more accurate.”
Okay. You call me that, I'll call you Conservative Threat, we'll snarl at each other awhile, and then move on. Happy now?
”Go see Steve...he seems willing to tolerate you.”
My doctor says I'm to stay out of cesspools, so I've limited myself to this one. Someone's gotta clean the sludge.
”BTW, can't help but notice that YOU ARE STILL IGNORING ALL THE SCANDAL POSTS HERE.”
Which ones? That Obama is a Muslim? That he's a radical? A Communist? A Fascist? A homosexual? A tyrant?
The ONLY thing you haven't said about him and the deaths in Benghazi is that he personally incited and led the mob that killed Ambassador Stevens and his aides, and I'm expecting to hear that from you in 3...2...1...
Scandal is easy; proving scandal should be easy too, if you have evidence. If you and your buddies have it, why is it in a blog, and not on the AG's desk, or in the offices of the entire Congress? No, madam, your quest has gone on for four long years, performed by (arguably) better people than you. What have they produced? Badly-written books, loathsome pseudo-documentaries, enough hot air to lift a fleet of zeppelins, and the deaths of unknown numbers of electrons. But nothing that would stand up in a court. Nothing, nothing, nothing.
Crying “wolf” every week burns the readers out. Remember how many posts I made about molestations by Catholic officials on your old site?
”That's it...blame it on Bush...the usual typical liberal gibberish.
But I understand. It is difficult to defend the indefensible...”
Of course you do! You have a sheepskin that entitles you to justify the existence of an all-powerful Big Daddy, his Son-who-is-actually-Himself, his eternal nemesis and the ongoing struggle between them, with us in the middle...all without a single shred of evidence that any of it is true. So I know that defending the indefensible is easy for you; you were doing it long before Obama came along.
See you next week.
It must be Halloween. The liberal zombies are spewing their garbage.
Naw, autumn began last December. That's when the conservative nuts began falling from the trees.
GM...I love you!
Heh heh...GM's got a bloggie groupie!! You two deserve each other. The head-in-the-sand, hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, but certainly sides with evil ObamaFraudBorg Bots.
Sherry - go back to the Daily Kossacks where you belong.
Post a Comment