Christianity Today Op Ed

[Cow Poke]

The CT editor would disagree with you as regards the evangelical support of Donald Trump and his actions in Ukraine. And so would I. The point of my argument is not this specific situation but the genearal assertion it is NEVER ok to discuss politics from the pulpit.

I'm sure I'll recognize that situation should it ever arise, but this isn't it --- I'll go on preaching Jesus crucified, buried, risen again and being the Lord of our lives.

[oxmixmudd]

And wouldn't that mess with your tax exempt status?

Keeping/Losing tax exempt status is not a valid excuse to avoid preaching against evil.

[Charles]

Perhaps if his Christian critics would do a lot more of that....

This was your response to Ox's line: "Pray for your leaders ..."

Here is what they say in CT:

"We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle."

[Cow Poke]

And wouldn't that mess with your tax exempt status?

It would indeed, but that would never be my main concern --- preaching against homosexuality, for example, could conceivably cost that tax exemption, but so be it.

This is why (several years ago?) I spent so much time on Capitol Hill in Austin testifying with others on religious liberty.

[mikewhitney]

That isn't what I said CP. Right now you are arguing it is NEVER ok to preach about politics or politicians from the pulpit. And I am saying that is not true. Sometimes you must. Is THIS situation one of those? The CT editor will say yes, but it's a matter of conscience to decide WHEN it is time. But it is wrong to say it is NEVER the time. This conversation follows from your assertion you would NEVER discuss politics from the pulpit.

( I even said in my posts I was speaking of that general concept and not applying any absolute judgement that Trump was necessarily over that line, or even that there was an absolute line )

Jim, I think if CP addressed the current politics as your pastor, I don't think you would still be convinced of the coup being done by Congress. So, I don't quite understand your point. You still would see things as just extreme partisan politics -- or that Republicans are so blind that they would accept an evil person as President. I think you forget Satan's efforts to blind the people. You are accepting the message of the world, of the atheists, of the socialist atheist democrats.

[Mountain Man]

Do you suppose none of those same people he baptized where present when he rebuked herod? Do you suppose John did his rebuking in one place and his preaching in another?

This is an argument from silence.

[Cow Poke]

This was your response to Ox's line: "Pray for your leaders ..."

Here is what they say in CT:

"We love and pray for our president, as we love and pray for leaders (as well as ordinary citizens) on both sides of the political aisle."

I realize you have this deep seated need to get in everybody else's business, Charles, but I was addressing Jim, not the good folks at CT.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm FAR more interested in preaching Christ crucified, buried, risen again and being the Lord of our lives, and ZERO interested in preaching politics.

Perhaps a more timely sermon would be something along the lines the Root of Bitterness, or casting stones when our own life is full of sin.

I've not made any personal attacks on you. I've even made quite clear, in two posts at least, that my point with you is not to decide WHEN it is appropriate to deal with politics from the pulpit, but rather that SOMETIMES it is appropriate to deal with politics from the pulpit. The only person trying to make this personal is you.

[Cow Poke]

Still trying to turn in into something personal I see....

And, on that note, I'll leave you to your thoughts.

[oxmixmudd]

I realize you have this deep seated need to get in everybody else's business, Charles, but I was addressing Jim, not the good folks at CT.

He has every right to offer his opinion in our discussion. I should point out MM didn't seem to have a problem offering his opinion in our discussion either. Which he also has every right to do.

[oxmixmudd]

And, on that note, I'll leave you to your thoughts.

So what, I'm not supposed to notice

[Charles]

I realize you have this deep seated need to get in everybody else's business, Charles, but I was addressing Jim, not the good folks at CT.

You did not specify and only talked about "Christian critics" in plural. If you were talking to Ox why not adress him as "you" instead of "Christian critics"?

[Cow Poke]

You did not specify and only talked about "Christian critics" in plural.

You are correct - I went back and read what I said. I was trying not to be "too personal", because...

If you were talking to Ox why not adress him as "you" instead of "Christian critics"?

I was trying not to say anything that would cause him to accuse me of attacking him personally.

[Cow Poke]

He has every right to offer his opinion in our discussion. I should point out MM didn't seem to have a problem offering his opinion in our discussion either. Which he also has every right to do.

I already conceded, Jim.

[Charles]

You are correct - I went back and read what I said. I was trying not to be "too personal", because...



I was trying not to say anything that would cause him to accuse me of attacking him personally.

And then you went on without hesitation to point out it was directed at him and blaming me for pointing out what CT wrote. And now you are even publicly writing "I was trying not to say anything that would cause him to accuse me of attacking him personally." If you were really trying to avoid that situation, you would have not have written it here.