All Comments for: Who Is in Charge of Our Pulpits? | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2008 > October (Web-only)

Christianity Today, October (Web-only), 2008 |

Speaking Out

Who Is in Charge of Our Pulpits?

Pulpit Freedom Sunday was about bringing kingdom principles to bear on contemporary social problems, not seizing political power.

Ron Johnson Jr. | posted 10/16/2008 03:56PM

As a pastor who proudly participated in the Alliance Defense Fund's Pulpit Freedom Sunday on September 28, I am not amazed when members of the mainstream media and groups that routinely oppose Christians ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 30 comments.

Page: 1 2

Show All

KITTY1955

Posted: October 24, 2008 2:45 PM


Question? Does not the Bible speak on debtness, boldness in speech, defending the truth, and even dying for what is right? (Jesus did)

Louise Wilde

Posted: October 24, 2008 7:37 AM

If pastors speak on the same issues in their sermons that Christ spoke about when he addressed the crowds and when he spoke privately with his disciples, then there would be absolutely no concern from our government that a church is promoting political agendas instead of spiriitual ones. How often did Jesus seek to change the social and political situations of his nation through what he said to his listeners? His words were and are "spirit and life" (John 6:63) designed to make the individual listener "God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works," Eph. 2:10. Every heart and sould into which God pours his love (Rom. 5:5) is automatically a life enhancer for those around them.

Sonia

Posted: October 23, 2008 12:10 AM

I find it amazing that we have all read this article and some just don't get what you are trying to say Pastor Ron. You even state clarity and intentions in your article. I guess it depends on what lens you are looking through. Our forefather's sermons allowed them to speak of issues of their day, including political issues; government and voting. This might be a surprise to some, but we can't ignore that the government violated the Constitution when determining religious speech. So how exactly is this called exercising freedom when the government uses intimidation and fear to restrict freedom? I applaude you for taking a stand! Faith is RISK!

Hannah S.

Posted: October 22, 2008 11:34 PM

I find no where in history that the separation of church and state has ever benefited the church. The only thing that it has done is caused the state to think that they have a bigger sphere of influence than the church. Before, they were satisfied with trying to keep us inside the church. But now, telling pastors what to say from their own pulpits? This has gone too far. If we do not stand up for something now, who's to say that the state won't tell us in a few months that we can't even preach the message of salvation from our pulpits? Sure, it sounds extreme now. But I doubt our Founding Fathers ever even thought about the possibility of the State telling the Church what she can and cannot preach. Edmund Burke said "Evil Prevails when good men do nothing". I believe that it is the pastors duty to stand up for what is just and refuse to be silenced from their message, and I commend Pastor Ron Johnson Jr. and every single pastor that took part in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday".

AHM	Posted: October 22, 2008 9:17 AM


If (God forbid) it comes to the day of persercution in AMERICA where Believers are put in jail for our beliefs, then so be it. But if we just allow ourselves to be compacent and asleep (as when Roe Vs Wade was enacted) til that day is simply foolishness. Way to stand up for righteousness and speak the truth, Dr. Ron.

Harvest Bashta

Posted: October 22, 2008 8:14 AM

I applaud Pastor Johnson’s clear and convicting article. The Pulpit Initiative’s purpose - “to restore the right of pastors to speak freely from the pulpit without fear of punishment from the government,” is long overdue. Since the passing of the Johnson amendment in 1954, pastors have been afraid or purposely neglected to speak out from their pulpits on Kingdom principles related to social issues. This 2008 election draws a critical line in the sand concerning the sanctity of human life and the sanctity of marriage. Pastors have the Biblical responsibility to instruct their congregations how to evaluate the conditions for office in light of Scripture and doctrine. Pastor Johnson has seen the issue clearly and is a forerunner in leading the Church to take its rightful place, regardless of opposition and criticism, even by fellow pastors! The Church is no longer a place of safety within four walls. If we continue to be “safe,” we will be silenced. It’s time for the walls to come down.

Paulie

Posted: October 22, 2008 12:44 AM

I think there a several large misconceptions that are being enterntained in this discussion. Warily, I will try to address them and prapare for the eminent backlash. Jumping into web discussion with 10 plus people is always challenging for a quality debate. In any case, here I go. The idea that the IRS is doing a favor for the Church is completely wrong. The Church is outside of the sphere sovereingty or spehere of influence from government. Government does have legitimate, God-ordained power, however, it must function within its own specific realm of authority. There is much Scripture to substantiate the role of government throughout the Bible. Let us merely look to an illustration from the Old Testament. The priests were completely out of the taxation of the kings and could speak anything to them and the people that lined up with the will and leading of God. The people payed tithes to the priests and monies to the kings, sometimes the kings even blessed the priests,

Ron Meyer

Posted: October 20, 2008 8:00 PM


Write on Pastor Ron Johnson Jr. It is time for the Church to stand up be the Church that is unashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ, preaching the Word in it's entirety, and that includes taking a Biblical stand on "political issues" and politicians stances on those issues.

jim	Posted: October 17, 2008 9:18 PM

Dave, I find it interesting that you justify your participation in Pulpit Freedom Sunday not on biblical authority, but on constitutional arguments. This is *exactly* the kind of syncretism that is harmful to the Bride of Christ. We should be faithful to our Lord and willing to preach the gospel, no matter whether we get financial benefits from our government or not. The fact that you are seemingly having a hard time finding biblical justification for demanding a tax break from the government for your activities suggests to me that you have done exactly what history suggests will happen-- Christians get in bed with someone else (the government in this case) and the Bride of Christ becomes polluted and loses her power... jim

Brian

Posted: October 17, 2008 11:16 AM

The church was receiving tax exempt status long before this law was enacted. Since its inception in the 1950's, the church has remained silent on key moral issues of the day out of fear of losing its "tax exempt" status. Not only should the church speak of the moral issues of the day, it must. It's the churches duty. Is it not a coincendence since the inception of this law that morality, as defined by the Bible, has been on a decline in this nation? The clergy in America need to speak out without fear of losing members (or "tithes") and quit hiding behind the argument that we are to be persecuted. Clergy will be held responsible for the morality of its nation. Has anyone not read the Bible lately? The world hates the church because they believe the only thing church cares about is money. When reading some posts, its hard to disagree. I commend this Pastor for making a stand to speak biblical truth without fear of the financial repurcussions. Wake up church!!!

Dan D

Posted: October 17, 2008 9:21 AM

Pastor, you may not intend for your church to do these things, but you are not the sole actor on this stage. Others will surely take advantage of the ability to run tax-free political advocacy organizations under the guise of "religion." Also, what about a Pastor in a church in financial trouble, and along comes a wealthy parishoner who offers a large donation, but makes it clear he expects the pastor to endorse a particular candidate. Shall he refuse? Today, he has the easy shield of the tax laws. If they were overturned, he would be subject to the monetary influlence of large donors and could be "lobbied" the way Congress is. Finally, taxes are not a "punishment" and viewing them as such is a mistake. If a church wants to involve itself in affairs of the state, than Caesar can demand his due in return. The rest of us do not have the option of being free of taxes for the small price of staying apolitical.

Jim Sparks

Posted: October 17, 2008 9:19 AM

My only question is, were you preaching to prove a point, or were you preaching what God wanted you to preach. If it was the latter, then good. If it was the former, then I must disagree with you. And if it was simply because the "first amendment" says I can - then remember that the "first amendment" isn't anywhere in the Bible. There are ways of being "political" without promoting or supporting any one candidate. One can preach on issues; on why will we vote the way we do; on morals, ethics, justice, debt, etc. Each of these are, and should be, "political". None of these need provide the blatant support for any one candidate.

Chris

Posted: October 17, 2008 5:59 AM

As a member of the Armed Forces and a Christian I believe it is every citizens right/responsibility to stand up for what they believe in. The concept of a tax excempt church has always bothered me. I agree with some of the comments stating some church leaders want to have it both ways. Currently a church can buy up large amounts of property and not pay a penny in taxes on it. No wonder local governments are weary when a church tries to move in on their tax base. His comment "it's time for the church to be the church," also makes me wonder since when did we as Christians get so comfortable that we should expect no persecution. If we are really being the Church, then I think we need to be ready for the government to come calling one day. What will we do when that happens? The Church isnt about buildings, or being tax excempt. The Church is about the Body of Christ, preaching the Good News no matter the cost, even if that cost maybe the loss of a tax excempt status or worse.

Dave	Posted: October 16, 2008 7:48 PM

As one of the 33 pastors that also participated in Pulpit Freedom Sunday, I want to address the tax exemption issue. Here are a few things to consider: 1) Churches have received a tax exemption long before the IRS was even created. 2) Pastors should not have to trade in their first amendment rights in order to maintain a tax exemption. 3) Other tax exempt organizations such as labor unions, professional associatians, chambers of commerce and even 527 PAC's are free to endorse or oppose candidates. And last, but perhaps most important is that the ability to tax is the ability to control. Current IRS rules seek to control the pulpit and giving the government the right to tax churches is simply trading one form of government control for another. The issue is not whether its right for a pastor to preach about the spiritual implications for our nation as a result of electing one candidate or another, but whether or not the government should monitor and control that. Thanks Pastor Ron!

M J Spaulding

Posted: October 16, 2008 5:57 PM

I think that churches should be able to electioneer from the pulpit IF they have the same kind of government regulations and filing requirements that tax-free PAC's do. There would be limits on the amounts that donors could give to the church, the same as the limitations put on PAC's. Churches would also have a cap placed on how much they could give to any one organization. the church would need to document every dollar coming in and every dollar going out. I'm all for this churches collect to much money and build grand buildings that are not necessary. i went to church that one room classes met in various corners. Mega churches cannot possibly know their congregations. It's all a game. I am a Christian who is disturbed by what I see happening in the church.

Gregory Chase

Posted: October 16, 2008 5:25 PM

I cannot believe what Dave, Larry and Jim are saying. Apparently they have read only what the media have told them to read--cool aid drinkers to be sure. Churches are what helped to bring freedom from the British by the preaching that came out of their pulpits. The ludicrous idea that this is a separation of church and state issue leads me to believe Jim never read the constitution. It was a certain unpopular President Johnson who produced a law from congress against pulpits because they happened to be in opposition to him. How convenient! It is a law that would not hold up in the supreme court were it to come up today..

albieon

Posted: October 16, 2008 4:24 PM


Ahhhhhhhhhh yes " I wish to be clear from the outset: I have no desire to turn my pulpit into a Christian version of the Chicago political machine." BUT probably U have turned your pulpit into a Christian version of the McCain/Palin political machine! I think the above comments are right on target!

doug	Posted: October 16, 2008 3:30 PM

I just stumbled on this site today. I figured this was a Christian site of some intelligence, but based on the comments I am very wrong. None of these folks commenting seem to have a high degree of wisdom when it come to a Christian perspective. Maybe I have hit the site at a bad time when liberal trolls are cruising the site. Anyway, it sure is sad to see this type of negative comment. Author, keep up the good work. The Church should always speak out with moral conviction on any subject and in any area.

Ernie

Posted: October 16, 2008 2:37 PM

What constitutes a church? Any organization that calls itself a church? What if my church exists only to work for or against particular candidates, and I see that as God's mission for my church in this world? How does the government, or anyone else, distinguis my organization from a political group? Pastors are certainly able to speak out against what is going on in society from their faith perspective. As we've all commented before, a bright line exists for naming political candidates to vote for or against, and this applies to all non-profits. I think it's a reasonable qualification for non-profit tax exemption. Otherwise, just about anyone can call his organization a church and raise money for a political candidate.

DougG

Posted: October 16, 2008 2:36 PM

I am sorry, Mr. Johnson but I have to disagree with your stance on this issue. Frankly, I had mixed emotions when I heard the IRS was taking a closer look at what is going on behind stained glass windows. I don't want unneccessary government oversight either, but let's face it, things are out of control in many North American churches. When the church endorses a particular candidate and attempts to hold the reins of a political party, something has gone very wrong. Some churches have become "for profit" entities and the leaders of these churches and some of our Christian colleges are living lavish lifestyles that are completley contrary to New Testament teaching. Why don't we see our Christian leaders writing articles and speaking out forcefully on these issues? If we would police ourselves, maybe the government wouldn't have to.

David P

Posted: October 16, 2008 2:19 PM

I agree with some others' comments: it sounds like some church leaders want to have it both ways - get support from the government, but not accept government interference. As a pastor, I must be prepared to deal with the consequences if I say what I feel must be said. I must be ready to go to jail, or lose my tax status, or whatever, in order to stand by my statements. Otherwise, I may be guilty of being the lapdog of the government.

SamB	Posted: October 16, 2008 1:50 PM


The church/state seperation is not so clear to me as suggested in the comments. Is speaking about elections what was/is the issue or is it thocracies like we have had in the past where state and church governs,and often battled each other over governing?

Sam	Posted: October 16, 2008 1:34 PM

Ron, your article is a perfect illustration of the cultural captivity of much of contemporary evangelicalism. As long as you are the darlings of the party in power, you can "benefit" from their abuses. The shoe is about to be on the other foot now, and you are desperately clinging to the illusion of power. You'll recall that a fellow named Paul warned against getting mixed up with "principalities and powers." Spending a little time on the outside looking in might help you get over yourself.

Dave J

Posted: October 16, 2008 1:25 PM


You can preach anything you want from the pulpit. Drop you tax exempt status and you can mix faith and political issues all you like.

Geoff

Posted: October 16, 2008 12:48 PM

Ron, I admire your zeal, but, frankly, it sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it too: You want to preach according to your conscience, and you want the government to let you influence politics with no consequences? Don't you think that's just a bit self-serving, not to mention naive (see Jim's comment)? Moreover, Christ told us to expect persecution; if you really think you have a responsibility to preach on topics that the government has historically held to be contrary to the church/state separation clause, why not accept the consequences, and rejoice in that, instead of complaining that your tax-exempt status is none of the government's business? I admire your idealism, but let's face it, many churches have abused their tax-exempt status (and many are very profitable, whether they are businesses or not), so the government is within its rights to respond punitively. I may not like government interference, but I don't want an American "theocracy" either.

Page: 1 2

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment