News-Record.com

Clearly, there are some churchgoers who attend a service on Sunday (or Saturday) and after the hour is up, leave with nary a thought about what they just heard. For them, church doesn't remotely touch who they are or what they think about the world.

For many others, though, the guidance and teaching they receive at church is a major influence on their worldview. Churches that are full of this second type of person are the ones that vocalize their opinions on nonreligious topics.

You ask if American worship is more than just the study of religious texts, and I think it must be. To me, study that doesn't produce action isn't worth a whole lot. If you believe what the Bible or Qu'ran or Torah says, shouldn't you apply it to how you view politics or fast food restaurants?

Good questions Nancy,

I would put it this way. We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves, that is, with as much effort as we expend loving ourselves. This means looking out for his or her well bring in many ways. In one sense "politics" is just a larger forum for looking after our neighbor. Yes, it can be done for selfish gain, for power, or for fame. But it can also be engaged in for the right reasons - for service. But many issues in the world do not have an obvious answer or solution. Even people of very similar faith perspectives will disagree on certain issues. But, to disengage from the public process is to be selfish really, it is give over our neighbor to his or her suffering. The real world, and the real world of politics, is messy. But it is a mess we, who are all messy, need to engage at some level. Politics is one of those levels. Speaking of Christians being engaged, I think personally this political engagement should be done mostly by Christians as Christian citizens, rather than as Christian institutions. But sometimes the whole, the institution and the people in it have to stand up with common voice and speak, for the good of neighbor, into a situation, even at the risk of being misunderstood.

Nancy, you've launched an interesting discussion here.

As a Presbyterian, I can assure you that official pronouncements of the denomination on political and social issues don't always reflect the views of those of us in the pews or even in leadership positions in our own churches. Many of us cringe at some of the stands taken ostensibly on our behalf. Most lay members, church officers and pastors don't discuss or debate these issues in their churches. Instead, these political policies are promoted by activists throughout the denomination who work the system in order to exert disproportionate influence at our General Assembly - which is much less of a representative body than it should be. Personally, I'd prefer the church to stay out of politics except on issues where an overwhelming consensus can be demonstrated.

The problem of how far churches should probe into political issues has vexed churchmen for centuries.

More recently people and groups have been turning to the IRS to keep pastors from promoting political agendas. Numerous complaints against Democrats and Republicans have been received and investigated.

I don't know its fate but last year Congressman Walter Jones ( R-NC) introduced a bill that would allow churches to endorse candidates without losing their tax-exempt status.

For those clergy who want to be sure they don't cross the line , IRS Publication 1828 explains the political limits on churches. How convenient.

Doug Clark has it about right, I suppose. However are not the local PCUSA churches sending funds to Louisville where the radical ideology, is being fomented , thus oddly supporting views not reflective of those in the pews.

To address "the real divide" issue, I'll simply say that this sectarian struggle has always been present in Christianity (and other faiths), it's just more apparent now because Christianity is currently center stage in our nation and political process.

You write: "The United Church of Christ buys ads supporting gays and lesbians."

Huh? Have you seen the ads? I watched them here and what I saw was a church promoting its openness and nothing that I would define as "supporting gays and lesbians."

Hear hear to Roch! It's only because of the politicization of organized religion (those who would say, "We want our due now that so-and-so has been elected," that being welcoming to all persons is considered a gay agenda. Merry Christmas, as a phrase, is political. IMO, churches, well, those who are actively supporting political parties/causes, have politicized religion and two things need to happen:
1. We need to rethink what organized religion is and
2. We should consider that separation of church and state means that some churches which are really political parties should have their tax-exempt statuses revisited by the IRS.

Sue,

Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it . And where would Jesse Jackson have left to go.. a soap box on a cold and windy corner ?

Nancy,

I don't know what Roch saw. I watched the UCC ad, "All The People," and found nothing wrong or objectional but that is not the ad rejected by some networks and described here.

Fred, "Bouncers" is the rejected ad. And by the way, the description you linked is a good example of the "radicalism" that is dividing the SBC.

So called "apolitical" pastors have swallowed the false argument that the issues they wish to avoid in the pulpit are political, while in reality they are "theological".

The cultural and political pundits in America seek to place all social issues (i.e.homosexuality, abortion, etc.) in the political arena mainly because they believe that politics is what initiates social change. This is an error.

Many social ills were dealt with not politically, but through the church and it's motivation to "love their neighbor. General William Booth was not motivated by politics when after a walk through London streets and seeing the destitute and needy he formed the Salvation Army. And while William Wilberforce was a politician in England, he went against the establishment in order to free the slaves in the name of Jesus Christ. It is the church's responsibility to act out it's love through social action, otherwise, there is no true outlet for loving our neighbor other than to expound useless platitudes which have the sound of something vague, but in reality are meaningless.

Christianity is a social faith. It acts out it's belief by building homes for the homeless and transforming the life of the drunkard. It extends it's caring hand into the darkest of corners where drugs have left it's most recent victim, and rescues them from a dangerous habit. Amy Carmichael went into the streets of India to rescue the child prostitutes set up by a secular political structure in order to fulfill the dictates of Godly love for ones neighbor.

After saying all this, it would be foolish to divorce ones Christian faith from the very society that wishes to perpetrate these types crimes upon it's people. Christianity must both grapple with these issues within the church walls and activate them outside in order to fulfill its calling. No, the church should not side with any political party and must shun the desire to be a "pet" of any particular political cause. But it must not shun it's responsibility to be the agent of God in the earth to check the wrecklessness of secular and human thought that is void of the love given through the cross of Jesus Christ.

So called "apolitical" pastors have swallowed the false argument that the issues they wish to avoid in the pulpit are political, while in reality they are "theological".

The cultural and political pundits in America seek to place all social issues (i.e.homosexuality, abortion, etc.) in the political arena mainly because they believe that politics is what initiates social change. This is an error.

Many social ills were dealt with not politically, but through the church and it's motivation to "love their neighbor. General William Booth was not motivated by politics when after a walk through London streets and seeing the destitute and needy he formed the Salvation Army. And while William Wilberforce was a politician in England, he went against the establishment in order to free the slaves in the name of Jesus Christ. It is the church's responsibility to act out it's love through social action, otherwise, there is no true outlet for loving our neighbor other than to expound useless platitudes which have the sound of something vague, but in reality are meaningless.

Christianity is a social faith. It acts out it's belief by building homes for the homeless and transforming the life of the drunkard. It extends it's caring hand into the darkest of corners where drugs have left it's most recent victim, and rescues them from a dangerous habit. Amy Carmichael went into the streets of India to rescue the child prostitutes set up by a secular political structure in order to fulfill the dictates of Godly love for ones neighbor.

After saying all this, it would be foolish to divorce ones Christian faith from the very society that wishes to perpetrate these types crimes upon it's people. Christianity must both grapple with these issues within the church walls and activate them outside in order to fulfill its calling. No, the church should not side with any political party and must shun the desire to be a "pet" of any particular political cause. But it must not shun it's responsibility to be the agent of God in the earth to check the wrecklessness of secular and human thought that is void of the love given through the cross of Jesus Christ.