Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Doug Giles :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Cultural Acid Test for Pastors: Part One
by Doug Giles
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


The way I see it, the “God job” has two fronts: 1) to reach out to a lost soul helping to keep it from hell and 2) to righteously leaven our current cruddy culture for Christ.

First, Pastors and Priests are to study and teach the word of God carefully and apply it to our lives practically, so we don’t end up drinking goofy grape and committing suicide en masse with the latest Jim Jones cult. Additionally, they are called to help their congregants build the good society in our nation. Y’know, the “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven” stuff?

A minister has the responsibility of massive influence woven into his job. Instead of using it to fleece his sheep, to molest altar boys, or simply to dole out clichés like a drugged up Kathie Lee, why not re-align with the scripture and focus on fixing this mucked up culture? Huh?

This means you must not focus your attention only on evangelism but also weigh in on all things which affect our culture, i.e., Business, Entertainment, Education and yes, Politics. All the aforementioned directly affect the health and wealth of the people you are trying to reach; and they require that you have a biblically based opinion on each category in order to influence them in ways that honor God.

Given that this is an election year and that the culture-dividing issues are more obvious than Pam Anderson’s “upgraded” breast implants, it is mind-boggling that many clergy are mute or side with parties, policies and principles that are antithetical to what scripture clearly states is holy, just and good. As far as I’m concerned, a silent or waffling pastor or priest in today’s climate is a bad guy. I don’t care how much he likes kitty cats and candy canes. Look, mute boy, if you’re not in the middle of this crucial cultural squabble, then you’re Dr. Evil in my book.

In some kind of ascending order, it seems to me there are 10 reasons why pastors and priests avoid political issues and why they are chicken hearted.

1. Fear of man. If you purport to be a man of “the cloth,” then your regard for God and His opinion must trump the trepidation of the creature God created from spit and mud. Come on, man of God, don’t fear us. We’re ants with cell phones that’ll shoot Botox into our foreheads. We’re friggin’ weird and fickle weather vanes of the modern media. Lead us . . . don’t follow us!

Never live for a nod from the congregation or some political twerp or a particular party, especially when said group is way off biblical base.

2. Ignorance. Most people are not bold in areas where they are ignorant . . . always excepting Nancy Pelosi, of course. I know keeping up with all the pressing political issues is maddening, but that’s life, Dinky; and if you want to be a voice in society and not just an echo, you have got to be in the know. Staying briefed, running each political issue through the gauntlet of the scripture and determining God’s mind on a certain subject are par for the course for the hardy world changer. It’s the information age. Get informed and watch your boldness increase.

3. Division. Y’know, I hate the current non-essential divisions in the church as much as the next acerbic Christian columnist. Squabbling over the color of the carpet, who’ll play the organ next Sunday or who is the Beast of Revelation, is stupidity squared. Hey, divisive Christian rebel without a clue—get a life, por favor! Or become a Satanist and go screw up their church. Do something other than make mountains out of your little molehill issues.

That being said, however; there’s a time and place for a biblical throw-down and an ecclesiastical split from political policies and parties:

• When the taking of an unborn life is the issue.

• When marriage is being redefined.

• When runaway judges are attempting to expunge God and His law from our country’s national life.

For a minister to seek unity with secularists when they are trashing and rewriting scripture with impunity is to side with evil and to allow darkness to succeed. On these kinds of issues, the minister cannot group hug the secular or quasi-Christian thugs.

4. Last Days Madness. Many ministers do not get involved in political issues because they believe that “it simply doesn’t matter” since “the end has come,” and Jehovah is about to run the credits on this failed earth flick. These defeatists believe that any change in the jet stream, war, earthquakes, a warming globe, the success of a corrupt politician—even a new Shakira video—are “proof” that God is getting really, really ticked off, and that His only recourse is to have Christ physically return and kick some major butt.

They see the church and themselves as impotent and having no real ability to change things culturally with any long range ramifications. Thus, any stab at a better tomorrow is simply an exercise in futility for this crew. Attempting to right culture is, in their eyes, equivalent to polishing brass on a sinking ship; therefore, they are content to simply pass out tracts, tramp from Christian rock concert to Christian rock concert, eat fatty foods and stare at Christian TV.

5. Sloth. Classically defined, sloth is lethargy stemming from a sense of hopelessness. Viewing our nation and the world as an irreparable disaster, where our exhortations, prayers, votes and labors will not produce any temporal fruit, leaves one with all the fervor of a normal guy who’s forced to French kiss his sister.

If you’re wondering why your flock is so apathetic, Pastor Grim Carnage, ask yourself if you have stolen their earthly hope that their valiant efforts can actually prevail in time, and not just in eternity? If you constantly pump the doom and gloom message, if you teach them that evil will ultimately triumph on our terra firma, if you spew messages that consciously or unconsciously convey “big, anti-Christ” and “little Jesus Christ,” then you have effectively zapped what’s left of your parishioners’ passion.

To be continued . . .

* Logon to www.ClashRadio.com for Doug’s interview with author, Amanda Carpenter, as they discuss her new book, The Vast Ring Wing Conspiracy’s Dossier on Hillary Clinton. Also, Giles’ 3-Minute video commentary can be seen throughout the week on NRB TV [Direct TV Channel 378].

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Doug Giles’ new book “If You're Going Through Hell, Keep Going!" is now available. Ann Coulter says "Doug Giles is a substantive and funny tour de force for traditional values.” Doug’s talk show and video blog can be seen and heard at www.ClashRadio.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Dr. Dipwad
The Inquisition of the Middle Ages was a civil governmental trial. Bakers, for instance, were taken to the dumping tank for illegal weights in bread. I have visited Europe, and have been to a museum in Germany that explained the Inquisition. One could be called to an inquisition for preaching heresy, but only if one identified himself as a Catholic. Many non-Catholics had invaded the Church, and were involved in heresy from within.
In Spain it got out of hand because Spain had been invaded by Islam, and "conversos" were people who were not Christian, but on the outsisde identified themselves as Christian converts. It got out of hand.
If you want to see how excesses were played out in the Protestant world, just research Calvin's Geneva. People were put to death for adultery, including his daughter-in-law, and for sins against his idea of Christianity.
I suggest the book "Triumph" by H. Crocker III. If not, just log onto the website of the museum in Rottenberg, Germany.

Jerubaal and Psalm 2
You're conflating "the government" with "the rulers of the earth". That's an easy thing to do in a monarchical age, when "the King" and "the Government" were basically the same in small kingdoms and only separated from one another in large kingdoms by bureaucratic inertia and the power-fiefdoms of nobles.

But in an age of Constitutionally-Limited Democratic Republics, "the government" and "the rulers" should be understood to be different things entirely. "The government" is a legal fiction comparable to a corporation; it is ultimately run by officers and the officers are determined by shareholders, but when we speak of the company doing something, we say that "The Company" has done it; a distinction is drawn between what the company does and what an individual officer or shareholder may do when not representing the company.

Similarly, there are two groups of people who may be regarded as "the rulers" in an age of Republics: (1.) Our representatives, and (2.) Ourselves.

You quote the Psalmist, saying:

"10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled."

...and then state that "the government should not serve the Lord with joy and fear"; but that's putting new words in the Psalmist's mouth. He only specifies "the rulers" -- human beings.

There are no "legal fictions" (either representative governments or corporations) described in the Bible, so it is impossible that the Psalmist could say "O corporations of the earth, serve the Lord with fear", or "O representative democracies of the earth"...but even had there been, I am convinced that the Psalmist would NOT HAVE SAID IT.

After all, "the Lord looks at the heart"; "a man must be born again"; "Whosoever believeth in Me"...these are all oriented toward a personal, individual, faith.

It is clear that, in Christianity (unlike in the nastier forms of Islam), there IS NO SUCH THING as a "conversion by force", because such a thing would not be heartfelt, and to God, only the heart matters, not merely outward observances. This is why the Inquisitors of the Middle Ages were not merely mistaken, but heretics: Their attempts to convert by the sword constituted not mere evil, but a complete misunderstanding of what Jesus said about salvation.

The government cannot "fear the Lord"; it is, as it were, a robot or machine, its levers pulled by representatives. It is THEY who can "fear the Lord."

More importantly, were the government to usurp the role of God by enforcing Christian observances on a citizen unbeliever, those who formulated such a policy would be guilty of the same heresy (however well-intentioned) as the Grand Inquisitor of centuries past: Thinking God cares about outward observances, when what He desires is the type of heartfelt obedience and love which can only come from an UNFORCED individual decision.

In this context, a "government" cannot serve God, only individuals can. "Governments" are therefore left to do whatever it is they're constituted for doing. (Like forming more perfect unions, providing for the common defense, promoting the general welfare, and securing liberty's blessings for current and future generations.)

Were the "rulers" of the U.S.A. to obey the Pslamist's injunction to "...be wise" and "serve the Lord with fear", here is what would happen:

(1.) Representatives (who are the most immediate "rulers") would serve Him through individual piety.

(2.) Citizens (who, under God, are the actual, ultimate, "rulers" in a republic) would serve Him through individual piety.

(3.) The Government would enforce only those policies sufficient to ensure that people do not violate one anothers' rights through force or fraud, and are defended from enemies foreign and domestic. The Representatives would only be involved in so far as it was necessary to craft legislation to fulfill this role.

Bipsy Quee
Though we obviously don't agree on our interpretation of Scripture (what's new?) -- I will not continue the discussion. There are so many books I could recommend, but I know that your view is fairly well fixed. As for me, I'll continue to look to Jesus, his actions and reactions to women, which indeed caused him a great deal of problems in his time, even within his circle of friends. By the way, a new book by Tim Stafford, "Surprised By Jesus" (IVP)is a wonderful fresh perspective of our Lord. I must thank you for your civil tone, and avoidance of name-calling -- qualities which seem to be lacking here on Town Hall.

OKJoyce
You are confusing women in ministry with women in leadership positions once again. But I am pleased that at least you will refer to Scripture for at least part of the justification for your position however erroneously you do so.

Philip's daughters were indeed prophets (meaning they had the gift of prophecy) but nowhere that I can find, either in Scripture nor in the early
Church historical record that they were pastors or had authority over a congregation.

Pheobe, amongst many others, was indeed a deaconess, but if you will read the reasons deacons and deaconesses were originally appointed you will find that their services were primarily in the area of distribution of the churches welfare to their members who were in need of this service and was in no way to be misconstrude as a leadership position although a certain amount of respect was inherent in the appointment but that was due to the factors evident in the recipients'lives previously and not for the position, something which has been reversed in today's church, at least as far as leadership positions go.

Euodia and Syntiche did indeed "labor side by side" with Paul but it is an extrapolation without justification to infer that this is intended to imply that they occupied positions of leadership, particularly considering that the person they were laboring "side by side" with was the one who wrote, "I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men" to Timothy (1 Tim. 2:12), a confirmed and ordained pastor.

There is little reason to research your claim that Junia's name was changed to the male designation in the 13th or 14th century since the original Greek does not say that he (or she) WAS an "Apostle" but that he was "of note among the Apostles" meaning that he was known and respected BY the Apostles, something quite different.

As to anything coming out of the 4th century tradition, by that time the Church was riddled with the teachings and practices of heresies and I would avoid using much from Chysostom as authoritative or binding on the church.

I do not mean to imply that women in the church are not to be respected or that they occupy a lesser or inferior status in the body. On the contrary, it is my experience that most of the hard work being done in the church today is being done BY the women, who consistently outshine us men in their zeal and faithfulness. As an example, in my current home city, there is a waiting list for the women's portion of BSF (an international Bible Study program) while we could not get even the minimal number of men involved in order to continue being sponsored, even though the board of directors of the organization (mostly women) relaxed their requirements in order to accomodate the only chapter of BSF in New England.

Look, again, the real problem with the church is not that women think they should become pastors. It is that the entire way we "do church" is out of whack. What we have in the West today is not even Biblical as far as church practice and structure is concerned and many who sit in the pews today are merely churchgoers instead of Christians. There is enough blame to go around for the lukewarm state of affairs, both to the congregation and to the leadership; I do not mean to focus only on women "pastors".

For a good description of many of the problems and their causes and developments allow me to recommend a work by David Wells, a professor of Theology at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary, entitled, "No Place For Truth; Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology".


Bipsy Quee
It is highly arrogant (not to mention judgmental) to label the large number of female pastors serving God as "errors." The only error I can discern is your interpretation or faulty and reading of Scripture.
Female leadership IS indeed Scriptural and historical, especially in the early church, and is NOT not merely a "manifestation of the syncristic influences of humanistic philosophy."

Drawing mainly from the New Testament, we find not only the well-known women around Jesus, but also a host of other prophets, teachers, and administrators such as: Philip's daughters (Acts 21); Priscilla (Acts 18); Phoebe, a deacon: Euodia and Syntiche "labored side by side" with Paul; Also, a female Apostle, Junia (Romans 16), whose named was changed to its male form in the 13th or 14th century -- look it up on the web, and you can find her whole story.
Even Chrysostom, the 4th century Bishop of Constantinople identified Junia this way: "Oh, how great is the devotion of this woman that she should be counted worthy of the name, 'apostle.'"
Romans 16 also lists a host of other co-workers.

I could go on and on, but I do have other work to do. Please do some honest research, and you will find with the apostle Paul that in our faith there is, "neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male or female, for all are one in Christ."

I Timothy
If you want a handbook for what makes a good pastor, read what Paul wrote to Timothy as the pastor of the church of Ephesus in the First Letter to Timothy. We can argue all we want about what a pastor's job is, but ultimately, God has already provided us with a manual. I think we ought to use it.

Wow!
That’s some kind of rough tough make-it-up-as- you-go-along religion. I can see you gathering in that motel conference room dispensing your own personal religion. It’s kind of like sales business with a product that cost nothing, turns a huge profit and carries no guarantees. I guess it beats working for a living.

OKJoyce
Correction: that should be...

"in either Scripture OR Early Church history?"

Additionally, I wish to clarify that there is a difference between women "in ministry" and women in leadership positions.

We are all supposedly "in ministry"; women as well as men. The problem of women assuming leadership positions however, is merely compounded by the fact that the current structure and practice of "ministry" in the industrialized Western churches isn't even Biblical anymore. So for me to get into a long and fruitless argument about women "pastors" is missing a larger and much more significant point, and that is the state of the Church today which gives rise to such errors in the first place.

We are not a Theocracy
I am not going to argue with you about abortion. I happen
to believe that the government should not interfere (which
is NOT the same as being pro-abortion). But I do understand why some churches and church members are
violently against it.

However, the gay marriage thing is different. In your
argument you said that it is redefining marriage. Well,
yes it is, but even within Biblical times marriage was
redefined. Through most of the Old Testament era polygamy
was not only permitted but almost the rule. Later that
was not the case.

I would rather have my son marry a guy than to have my
husband marry an additional woman. Thank you very much.

I think an acceptable way (for me) to deal with this
gay marriage thing is to allow some sort of official
union would that would allow partners to have legal say
for the other (in case of emergency health choices,
burial rights, and all those other things that spouses
have rights to choose for each other; and to be on
insurance plans and social security and pension). Why
should they be denied those rights? But do not
include the right to adopt a child that is not the
biological child of one of the partners or unless there
is a very hard to adopt child that needs a home.

This does not need a church's blessing. We are not
a theocracy. Adultry is not illegal even though the
vast majority of people see it as an evil. Why should
gays not have the same basic rights as others?

I am not asking for you to vote for it. Just keep in
mind that, like adultery, there are things that we don't like which still are not the government's business.
Republicans should know all about that. I thought it
was one of their basic principles.

OKJoyce
The issue is more a matter of where does one take one's influences from. Are we going to get our influences from the culture we live in or are we going to take our influences from the Apostles and the Lord Himself?

As I said before, the issue of women in leadership positions (That is my term; your's is "women in ministry")is neither Scriptural or historical but is rather a manifestation of the syncristic influences of humanistic philosophy which has infiltrated the church and reduced it to its ineffectiveness we see in the
West today.

Other than from currently fashionable sentiments (solely in the developed countries of the West, I might add)where do we see the idea of women in leadership positions expressed favorably in either Scripture of Early Church history?

If one can cite neither case the question an honest Christian should ask themselves is, then where am I getting the idea?


To Bipsy Quee

To Bipsy Quee

Adjusting to the present age does not necessarily mean compromising standards.
I notice that you are adjusting nicely to the 21st century in your use of the Internet. I also imagine that you live in a house with indoor plumbing and don't depend on a donkey for transportation. You are also adjusting in many other ways. You most likely don't deny women the right to wear gold jewelry, you probably don't own slaves, or stone disobedient children to death, or observe a whole lot of the purity laws in the Old Testament -- or the "household rules" of the later New Testament Letters. Cultural issues change with the times, and have nothing to do with the truth of Scripture. Karl Barth, the great theologian of the 20th century said that he takes the Bible far too seriously to take every cultural word literally. I say all that to say that when Jesus came on the scene, he negated the barriers that excluded people and put us on a level playing field. Jesus was remarkably open to women in ministy. In Luke 8 we read that there were women in the company of the 12 disciples as they traveled about -- in fact it was to a woman that Jesus first appeared after the resurrection. You will not find Jesus denying rights to women anywhere in the Bible, so please open your mind. Your statement that female pastors are a 21st century phenomenon is unbelievably misinformed according to Scripture. Open your mind and read some books about women in ministry. You just might be blessed.

Bipsy Quee
But it was just as true 2000 years ago as it is today...

Bipsy Quee
That's a nice quote.

to Dell
Great post! I could not agree more. That is the problem with the church we have been attending because the minister thinks he needs to do/preach/write these things (primarily politically correct or liberal left ideas.)We have a problem with it because the church takes contributions from both sides of the fence, but mostly we have a problem that he does it period, regardless of what side. Again, GREAT post!

JimmyJoe
"My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight." Jesus

Bipsy Quee
You seem lacking in humor. I dont "quote scripture" for the very simple reason that it is impolite to hide behind the gospel, and use scripture for "my" own purpose. In fact, I find it annoying to find people misusing scripture in that sense, by taking it out of context solely to buttress their "own" position. It is also impolite to preach AT people.

And if you are not in a "21th Century Western culturally dependant Christian" frame of mind, one has to question, with the utmost of respect, your actual frame of mind. How do you communicate with us poor souls who live in the West, on planet earth, who are "culturally dependent"? At least Mr Giles is making SOME effort.

I would have thought everyone IS "culturally dependent" on whatever culture they have imbibed through their lives, from the way they speak, to the clothes they wear, to the cars they drive. But hey! What would I know?

IRS
lobo 1776, your issue is exemption from paying income tax. Jesus told his deciple to pay tax "for thee and me". The IRS exemption is a matter of law, not scripture. Is there scripture directing ministers of Christ to avoid paying taxes? Doug has based his message on the Bible.

Pastors & Priests
You are surely doing something right. You sure lit a bunch of fires with this one. But my daddy always said that it is the "truth that hurts" and I do believe it fits.

Hang in, Bulldog.

Social Rejuvenation
I would have to ask the columnist, "Where is the Biblical mandate for a pastor to be a socailly conscious, political proponent, and crusader for social rejuvination?"
A minister's scope of concern is spiritual. He is concerned for the lost soul. He is not a reformer of societies, he is God's method of bringing the message of regeneration to the individual. When the individual's let God reform them and obey the command to teach all nations, then reform comes one person at a time. We do not see Jesus leading socail reform in the bible. He was not a revolutionary. He was concerned with the spirtiual also. God is a reformer of people not societies. He expects the people of a nation to voluntarily turn to Him.

agreeing with OKJoyce
Now that you mention it, there's something a little bogus about a clergyman who claims to know as much about pop culture (including his own painfully slangy writing style) as Doug does.

Do you think he's actually seen a Shakira video? For shame, Doug, for shame. He must read pop culture magazines to know about Pamela Anderson's breast implants. What's he doing reading such things?

What Bible passage tells the Christian to pay attention to pop culture anyway? It's enough for the believer to know that all these things are the product of evil, and that they'll all be destroyed when Jesus comes again.

Sorry, Doug. No rock bands allowed after the final judgment.

I find it curious
that neither Mr. Giles nor his apologists ever refer to Scripture to support their positions, yet claim to speak for the church.

OK Joyce, I have to disagree with you on the point that Mr. Giles needs to remember what century he is living in and adjust accordingly. That is part of the problem with both he and yourself.

The call for women "pastors" is strictly a 21st Century, and I might add Western, phenomenom unsupported by either Scripture or Church tradition.

I'd suggest you find another church body to get your understanding.

The real world

I think some of Doug's points are valid, but some are out of touch with reality. If he has never been a pastor, then he should be a bit more understanding.

Also, Doug's constant referral to pastors as "he" demonstrates that he is not looking around the real world. I attend a church with a female pastor. Our conservative pastor (yes, there are many conservative female pastors)out-preaches any male pastor I've ever listened to.

Also (for someone decrying the current nastiness and immorality of our world) did you notice the many [negative] allusions to women in Doug's column? Pam Anderson's breast implants; Shakira's video; French kissing a sister; Kathie Lee drugged up(?); Nancy Pelosi's "boldness." Sounds to me like Doug needs to remember what century he's living in and adjust accordingly.

bispy quee, it isn't worth much...
that is, your opinion...

It isn't common-sense conservatives like
Doug Giles who have caused "muddle-headedness" in the church, or led us into the cultural "wilderness" that we're in.

It's dim-witted liberals who stand for nothing and believe in nothing.

Revival isn't the issue. Doug never mentioned that. What he's referring to is wimpy, pansy Christians and pastors who won't even stand up for the truth. The truth isn't like wine in old or new wineskins. It transcends all that. Because it was true then, is true now, and will be true when all is said and done.

No genuine believer should EVER be afraid of speaking the truth. Unfortunately, many pastors are.

Gestell
assessment is harsh but on target. This is not a place to mix ministry and politics.

Gestell
How sure are you of your "judgement" of another person? Not even a SINGLE ounce???? LOL! I'm sure there must be!
Mr Giles is humorous, which would indicate that in fact there is at LEAST an ounce!

Wrong pew
If Doug would like, I'd be happy to send him information on effective campaigning, financing political action, spin control, and other political skills. His demogogic capacity is already highly developed, so he doesn't need assistance in that department. I do think he's in the wrong pew, however. There isn't an ounce of humility in him, and he probably thinks grace is the name of someone's maiden aunt. Does he preach Christ crucified or shill for the RNC?

Actually, he's prompted me to think up a new definition for "Christian." Here it goes.

"Christian" (n.) Devotee of right-wing political
figures and ideas. Orig. "believer in
the teachings of Jesus Christ."

JimmyJoe,
You are correct, sir.

No, not in a very 21st century Western culturally dependent "Christian" frame of mind at all.


jerubaal
By the way, I agree with your above post on some taking offense at Mr Giles. A priest, who came in for a great deal of unjust criticism, once told me that it was a sign he was doing the right thing. If NO one criticises, then no waves are being made. And you can be sure of one thing. The person who is never criticised doesnt really stand for anything.

jerubaal
Not a problem. My comment was meant in a lighthearted way, not to be taken "seriously"...!

Bipsy Quee
Oh Dear... not in a very "Christian" frame of mind today, are you? LOL!

I'll say one thing for Mr Giles. He's readable! And given the offensive posts he must read on a regular basis, is able to take criticism in a MOST Christian manner. Otherwise, he'd just sulk and go home!

JimmyJoe
"Naturally, being "told how to vote" is one sure fire way of making people vote in the opposite way!"

If everyone on the planet told me to vote Republican, I still would. It wouldn't even affect my decision.

I guess I just take voting seriously.

bafundi
The problem is that some people just take offense at Giles. We cannot know why, but we can know that it's true, because their emotions cloud their ability to read what he clearly stated without conflating it with something clearly objectionable that he did not say.

not ashamed to be right
Now, you may find my view in this sense acceptable, but Mr Giles is really extending the argument to the political arena. Naturally, being "told how to vote" is one sure fire way of making people vote in the opposite way!

not ashamed to be right
I fully accept your view. However, I still have a problem with giving BOTH sides, when there is a moral issue at stake. This dates back to my time as a Catholic HS teacher.

A text, supposedly teaching Catholic morality, used in class provided "arguments for" abortion on one page, and "arguments against" on the other.

Quite frankly, I took "one" side, and rhetorically asked what on EARTH the "arguments for" were doing in a book supposedly designed to teach Catholic morality!

Oops!
First sentence should read, "I cannot imagine Mr. Giles..."

Jimmy Joe
Thank you for your response to my post. No, I agree with you and I do not imagine Mr. Giles spouting the views of the liberal left. I would have to say that I would prefer the pastor support the conservative viewpoint, but I am not sure I would like him/her to TELL me to vote one way or another on this issue, or any other for that matter. The above church I mentioned does actually TELL members how to vote on issues, not candidates (thereby the church can skirt the law) which is the biggest problem we have with it. I just think churches, if they are going to be involved in politics, MUST give both sides of issues equal representation if they are going to join the political arena in the first place.

JimmyJoe
"Oh that you would keep silent and it would be your wisdom" means that Mr. Giles would do less damage to an otherwise already damaged church if he would simply keep his ego bridled and his mouth shut.

There, have I made it clear enough for you?

truthbetold
LOL! Love your conclusion!

Jimmy Joe
That is what the basic problem is. The pastors of today are SO PC that they can't even preach what a home-schooled six year old could understand to be what is written in the Holy Bible. Why are so-called Christians in favor of anything that homosesuals want in the political arena? Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Holy Bible and if a pastor is saying anything else, you need to RUN OUT OF THAT CHURCH as fast as your legs will carry you. Abortion is morally wrong. If your pastor doesn't believe that LEAVE that church IMMEDIATELY. I believe that there are enough different churches in this country that you can leave your present church and go find one that is NOT RATIONALIZING wicked behavior. If you are giving your money to one of those so called Christian churches that favor abortion and homosexuality, you ARE supporting those things too, whether you want to or not. Vote against those types of evil with your feet and by withholding your money.

Why is NK now talking about not setting off another nuclear bomb test? Because the Chinese are withholding the MONEY!

Bible Handiman
I dont think politics is the standard of Mr Gile's life either. I dont think to conclude that Mr Giles about moving pastors to become "mouthpieces for conservatism" a fair reading of this article.

As to his "caustic tone of writing" I think that is a matter of taste. Personally, I find his style direct and refreshing.

Wrong Approach
I don't think Mr. Giles will influence many with that caustic tone of writing. I am generally conservative in my politics, but politics is not the standard for my life--the word of God, the Bible is, and the two are not to be confused. Conservatism should not be confused with righteousness. Some pastors do need somehow to be awakened, but to seek to move them to become mouthpieces for conservatism is not quite the same as the instructions God has given them.

"NO EVANGELISM" NOT WHAT GILES SAID!
Dear Sister Bipsy please stop gathering wood to burn Brother Giles at the stake as a heretic. He didn't say "stop evangelizing", what I heard him say is that evangelizing should not be a pastor's whole agenda. If fact, no pastor has ever saved anyone. Jn. 6:44 says to me unless the Father draws us, none of us would give Jesus the time of day. (I'm confident Brother Graham would agree).

If one really wants to see where conversion meets the road, it's called discipleship. It's God's part to "get 'em born again", it's church leaders, and elder brothers and sisters jobs to "get 'em norished, and grown" by putting feet on OUR faith.

Our brother Paul, who it is believed authored most to the New Testiment said he was about being all things to all men that some may be saved, and he utilized his Roman citizenship as well as his religious up bringing and knowledge as tools to get the task done he was appointed to.

It's my understanding that Doug Giles is flagging pastors, NOT to be worldly, but also Not to be ignorant, or in denial of the real world of issues that their congregations tromp around in, and are effected by everyday.




Excellent Article
Great article Doug, and absolutely positively correct in my opinion. You and I could probably discuss our agreement on the issues you mention for hours.

Excellent Article
Doug nails it perfectly, and the evidense in the reading of the posts.

not ashamed to be right
"Our church, which we are no longer members other than in name only, spends a great deal of time
"indoctrinating" (not educating) members on political issues. We are sick of church newsletters, meetings, sponsored speakers, etc. all spouting the views of the liberal left."

First off, I should congratulate you on leaving such a church. And I have to agree completely with the sentiments you have expressed here.

However, I dont think this is what Mr Giles had in mind, exactly! I cant see HIM "spouting the views of the liberal left"!!

On your larger point, however, I have difficulty. Suppose one candidate supports abortion, as a "liberal-left" candidate in all likelyhood would, and another supports measures to limit/outlaw the barbaric practise - ie is a "social conservative" - would you still agree that the church should maintain a "neutral" stance regarding the morality of voting for either?

Personally, I am with Mr Giles on this. I dont think its the Church's business to involve itself in the political/social justice field, to the exclusion of the gospel, but an influential pastor, dedicated to God's word, can, in ONE sentence, influence how church members may vote. It IS a moral issue, and comes within his sphere. Also, I concur with Mr Giles in his conclusion that in many cases, those who choose not to do so, do so for reasons of moral cowardice.

How otherwise, can we explain that in a nominally Christian country, no real measures seem possible to row back Roe vs Wade?

Stan
Thanks, I second everything you said.

Practicing Christianity
Following Christ requires exerting your influence in all areas of society. Preaching how to discern basic principles to enable an individual to exercise his right to vote is not the same as advocating an individual, what to vote for, a particular political stance, or person.

With the myriad of nominal Christian fellowships preaching/teaching all kinds of man made doctrines the devout mind will study the scriptures and follow the lead of God and his Christ.

Christ pled for unity among his followers that they might be of one mind.

Mr. Giles, I disagree
Our church, which we are no longer members other than in name only, spends a great deal of time
"indoctrinating" (not educating) members on political issues. We are sick of church newsletters, meetings, sponsored speakers, etc. all spouting the views of the liberal left. For example, and this is only one of several,the minister put campaign signs (for only one side, guess which one?) outside his office weeks before an election. We have taken our contributions elsewhere. This church, while involved in politics and social issues, only presents ONE side whereby we have a problem.
We would prefer to belong to a church which does NOT involve itself in politics of either side, but we have a harder time with a church trying to save the world through liberal socialist ideas. We do not think church leaders should use their positions of power or authority to indoctrinate church members at all.

truthbetold
truthbetold writes:"Where are they when Dumocrat candidates speak at black churches? Are all those Dumocrat candidates ordained preachers or is the double standard in effect as usual? Think about it and let me know if you feel that the law is enforced equally on both sides."

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the audits are VERY political. During the Clinton impeachment years, evangelical and fundamental ministers who would dare speak out against the immorality that was Clinton often found themselves at the mercy of IRS audits, while so-called liberal churches, black or white, who let Clinton use their pulpits or supported him or his policies, were not even looked at even though they may have been guilty of the same IRS offences.

The point that needs to be hammered home is that Christians are under the microscope now more than ever whether it is the Democratic party attempting to redefine who we are and what our message should be for their own political gain, or the media and hollywood liberals attempting to silence us thru ridicule. Christians need to be aware of everything going around them.

Those of you who insit
on the ministy staying out of politics need to read some on the history of the Battle of Concord.

The Gay IRS
An acquaintence of mine spent a career in the IRS.

He said there is one department that is virtually all Gay.

Gay activists generally disdain the Church and its calling their lifestyle non normative by passing on HIV to their partners and killing them.. If this Gay department has audit influence it explains the IRS audits.

IRS audits
Where are they when Dumocrat candidates speak at black churches? Are all those Dumocrat candidates ordained preachers or is the double standard in effect as usual? Think about it and let me know if you feel that the law is enforced equally on both sides.

Pastors... First and most important duty
Pray.

Bipsy Quee
I dont know if you are referring to Mr. Giles as a "musclehead" or not, but surely it is the Lord who chooses, not US.

Also, I'm not sure where you are going with the quote from Job. Would you leave the church without leaders or pastors of any description? This would hardly be in line with what we know of the early church of the New Testament.

I think the one thing that Mr. Giles cannot be accused of is "muddleheaded thinking"! His frankness is refreshing. Generally, I prefer the Church to "mind its own business", but Mr Giles extension into the wider culture IS the Church's business. It rightfully belongs in the schools, on the factory floors and in every sphere of life.

As Mr Giles has stated:
"All the aforementioned directly affect the health and wealth of the people you are trying to reach."

And if you dont understand where they ARE, then you cannot reach them. This is what Jesus did on the road to Emmaus. He went back to where the two disciples WERE, and brought them along at their OWN pace, before finally revealing HimSELF in the breaking of the bread.

Wolf
"on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Ah, that's where you part from what Giles was saying, lobo. Giles never said to support or oppose a candidate, but to speak out on political issues and not adhere to any party, especially those that are against Godly principles. You cannot expect a church to go out of its way to avoid current moral issues that just happen to be taken up by politicians.

Also, I don't see the call to avoid evangelism that some others do.

Bafundi
"have you ever heard of the terms "business meeting" and "congregational vote"?"

One more reason I love my church. It's ruled by the elders, who just happen to also be the preachers. There is no congregational vote to throw anyone out. If anything, the elders could throw out the congregation!

I love it :D.

blindednomore
it is 9:05 on sunday morning. Did you take the day off?

fresh skins
...new wine is for fresh skins" Jesus in Mark 2:22

For what it's worth
I am so tired of every musclehead who can write thinking they can lead the church. All I could think of when first reading this article was that line from Job 13:5:

"Oh, that you would keep silent and it would be your wisdom."

Mr. Giles's idea that what the church needs to do more of is engaging with the culture and less with evangelism is the sort of muddleheaded thinking that has lead us into the wilderness we now find ourselves in. We have been "weigh(ing) in on all things which affect our culture" for how many decades now and no revival is in sight.

Mr. Giles should go and learn what this means, First, "Save yourselves from this wicked generation" (Peter, in the first sermon in Actsand secondly, "No one puts new wine into old wineskins; if he does, the wine will burst the skins, and the wine is lost, and so are the skins. But new wine is for fresh skins


Description of the faithful pastor…

‘Then he went on till he came at the house of the Interpreter, where he knocked over and over; at last one came to the door, and asked Who was there?…Sir, said Christian, I am a man that am come from the city of Destruction, and am going to the Mount Zion; and I was told by the man, that stands at the gate, at the head of this way, that if I called here, you would show me excellent things, such as would be a help to me in my journey.’

‘Then said the Interpreter, Come in, I will show thee that which will be profitable to thee. So he commanded his man to light a candle, and bid Christian follow him: so he had him into a private room, and bid his man open a door; the which when he had done, Christian saw the picture of a very grave person hang up against the wall; and this was the fashion of it: It had eyes lifted up to heaven, the best of books in his hand, the law of truth was written upon his lips, the world was behind his back; it stood as if it pleaded with men, and a crown of gold hang over its head.’

‘Then said Christian, What means this?’

‘The man whose picture this is, is one of a thousand; he can begat children, travail in birth with children, and nurse them himself when they are born. And whereas thou seest him with his eyes lift up to heaven, the best of books in his hand, and the law of truth writ on his lips, it is to show thee that his work is to know and unfold dark things to sinners; even as also thou seest him stand as if he pleaded with men; And whereas thou seest the world as cast behind him, and that a crown hangs over his head, that is to show thee that slighting and despising the things that are present, for the love that he hath to his Master’s service, he is sure in the world that comes next to have glory for his reward.’

‘Now, said the Interpreter, I have showed thee this picture first, because the man whose picture this is, is the only man whom the Lord of the place whither thou are going hath authorized to be thy guide in all difficult places thou mayest meet with in the way; wherefore take good heed to what I have showed thee, and bear in thy mind what thou hast seen, lest in thy journey thou meet with some that pretend to lead thee right, but their way goes down to death.’

[from Pilgrim’s Progress by John Bunyan]

Bafundi has it right
It actually is against the IRS tax code. This exerpt was taken from the official IRS web site. You can read all of it at http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html(cut and paste into your browser).....

"The ban on political campaign activity by charities and churches was created by Congress 52 years ago. The Internal Revenue Service administers the tax laws written by Congress and has enforcement authority over tax-exempt organizations. Here is some background information on the political campaign activity ban and the latest IRS enforcement statistics regarding its adminstration of this congressional ban."

"In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson (D-TX) to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban. The most recent change came in 1987 when Congress amended the language to clarify that the prohibition also applies to statements opposing candidates.

Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

The IRS has published Fact Sheet 2006-17, which outlines how churches, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See political and lobbying activities.

Earlier this year, the IRS released the results of its Political Activity Compliance Initiative (PACI) which investigated allegations of political campaign activity by 501(c)(3) organizations during the 2004 campaign season. Out of 87 completed audits involving churches and charities from the 2004 election cycle, political intervention was substantiated in 71 percent of the cases. No political intervention was found in 23 percent of the cases, resulting in a “no change” finding.

Politics plays absolutely no role in audits. A team of career IRS employees review complaints submitted by the public and determine which allegations merit further review. An independent review confirmed that political considerations played no role in IRS decisions to further investigate allegations of political campaign activity. You can read the report here.

Each election cycle, the IRS reminds 501(c)(3) exempt organizations to be aware of the ban on political campaign activity. The IRS published its most recent reminder in a public news release which you can read here.

The division within the IRS responsible for overseeing churches and charities is the Tax Exempt and Government Entitities Division. TEGE has created a Web page entitled Charities, Churches, and Educational Organizations - Political Campaign Intervention. It is dedicated to the IRS most recent activities related to 501(c)(3) and political activity.

A definitive court case on the issue of free speech and political expression is Branch Ministries Inc. versus Rossotti. In that case, the court upheld the constitutionality of the ban on political activity. The court rejected the plaintiff church's allegations that it was being selectively prosecuted because of its conservative views and that its First Amendment right to free speech was being infringed.

The court wrote: "The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(c)(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose."

The legend behind former Pres. Johnsons senatorial legislation was that he was angered by a Texas minister who was taking then Sen. Johnson to task for some of his questionable activities in Washington. This legislation was apparently attached to a popular transportation bill in Congress so it was hardly noticed by anyone else. A decade or so later, then President Johnson was able to use the same strategy to commit hundreds of thousands of US soldiers into a debacle known as the "Vietnam War".

If you really want some light reading, try reading the actual code for what churches can or cannot do with respect to politics. It is this fear of losing tax-exempt status that keeps many good men and women of the cloth mute with regards to what is going on in America today.

As far as the IRS statement that "Politics plays absolutely no role in audits" there were quite a few fundamentalist Christian churches audited in the Clinton years, more than any other denominations. According to recent reports that trend has begun to increase again the closer we get to election time.

HEY DOUG, THAT ACID TEST BURNS!
You say, " A minister has the responcibilty of massive influence woven into his job... directly affect the health and wealth of the people you are trying to reach, and... require that you have a biblically based opinion... in order to influence them in ways that honour God."

Question, Brother Giles, have you ever heard of the terms "business meeting" and "congregational vote"?

Also, don't forget to mention those deific state assocications, and the polictically correct swill they bring to the fore. ie. Pastor alerts at election time that remind them to remain mute in things politico, less, from their pulpits they trigger an I.R.S. raid on their church's tax exempt status. (note: rampantly found in N.C. in time of past presidentual elections).

And, don't overlook the "We're ALL wrong on how we do church" crowd. A fifth column to be sure. Check out Jim Rutz, Frank Viola, and Gene Edwards who are $elling their latest "pots of mess" that says the position of Pastor, as we know it today, is not to be found in the New Testiment. That church buildings, pulpits, choirs, pipe organs, pews, bulletins, pot lucks, conferences (unless it's one of theirs)seminaries, etc., etc. is un Biblical. (or, like the New Orleans Saints football team is not found in the Bible)

I was fresh out of seminary, serving my first pastorate at ______ church. After my second Sunday sermon I noticed elderly Mr.______ leaning on his cane up by the altar seemingly waiting for me while I was doing that almighty "hand shake recessional" thing at the front door.

When everyone else had gone, I went to find out what he might need. When I got close to him, he looked causiously all around the sanctuary to be assured we were alone. Then he motioned for me to bend down close to him. He put his hand on my shoulder, and whispered, "I'll watch your back for you."

The average tenure of a pastor in that particular denomination then was 18 months. I didn't make the cut. I lasted 16.

This denomination is also big into "Church Growth Studies". One such research project found out that after the 4th year, on average, a congregation gets an "itch" for a pastoral change. One thought as to why this occurs is that in that length of time the pastor has been amoung the people long enough to possibly discover who they really are. (wolf hair, warts et al). So, likened to the Mad Hatter's tea party, someone shouts out "Clean cups, clean cups, move down!", and, if you're the pastor it's time to start collecting banana boxes, and call Penske truck rental. And, of course, pray.

Yes, Brother Giles, there is an acid test for pastors, and it will burn you.

Looking forward to Part Two of your column.

Praise the Lord and pass the Bactine.


blindnomore
Nothing you actually said makes Doug "wrong again." You claim to be "informed of all issues." Check.
When asked your opinion, you "refer to the word of God." Check.

I think Doug is saying pretty much the same thing, no?

Doug is Wrong Again.
As a Pastor I am informed of all the issues. I do not teach issue. When a Pastor teaches his flock the True Word of God, then they will have the sound foundation to make a proper decision when dealing with politics. I am a home church Pastor so I don't rely on their income to support my income, so they always get the Truth. When they ask my opion on politics, then we refer to the Word of God. Jesus tells us all that is right. Trust Jesus, the end times will not scare you. Jesus is Lord!

Bipsy Quee
By who's authority? Jesus' in the Bible. "You are the salt of the Earth and the light of the World"

"Go ye into all the World and preach the Gospel to every creature"

Jesus didn't tell us just to talk to people who would most likely listen, he said "every creature".

The Bible also said that the World would scoff and scorn us, but we should remain vigilant. What Christian doesn't know what it's like to be dismissed as a kook?

Trust in the Lord, All Other Fall
Trust in the Lord, with all your heart and soul, for all other fall, into H*LL. Follow the leaders of the earth and Fall into H*LL. Follow Jesus and Light and Life Live enternally. Amen!!!! Praise Jesus!!!!

Trust in the Lord, All Other Fall
Trust in the Lord, with all your heart and soul, for all other fall, into H*LL. Follow the leaders of the earth and Fall into H*LL. Follow Jesus and Light and Life Live enternally. Amen!!!! Praise Jesus!!!!

When Jesus was asked
"What will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" the first thing He said is, "Take heed that no one lead you astray."

My question to the Christians who agree with Mr. Giles is this, "On what basis do you conclude that he is correct in his assessments and that his teachings (for that is what they are) be heeded and his prescriptions applied?"

ben Haggai
For the record, do you agree with the second Psalm?

"10 Now therefore, O kings, be wise;
be warned, O rulers of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son,
lest he be angry, and you perish in the way,
for his wrath is quickly kindled."

I trust you could reconcile this passage with the one about paying taxes to support the government that you quoted. If you were insinuating that the government should not serve the Lord with joy and fear, then I suppose you do not regard the second Psalm.

ben Haggai
I realize that posting a comment implies you had a point, but perhaps you'd like to help the rest of us by expressing it.

God vs Caeser
Jesus Chrit's advise to "give Caeser what is Caeser's and to God what is God's", is certainly outdated, isn't it? Shame on Him. He should have known better.

Great Article
Hits all the points. I would want to add that it isn't neccessary to structure a sermon series around political issues and current events.

One of many approaches to preaching sermons is to go straight through a book, one at a time for a year or two on each book. To integrate current events and politics into that system would just mean keeping your eye open for when the scripture or your sermon intersects such issues, and to apply the teaching to them.

I want to point out that Giles list of reasons why pastors wimp out is pretty accurate IMO. The number one reason is fear of losing people and money, naturally because that has a direct and immediate effect on the pastor's family. So we can sympathetic to such failings even though they are failings. My mom's church in Charlotte seems to be having this exact problem.

Reasons number two and four scare me the most. Two: ignorance. An ignorant pastor means the blind leading the blind. I don't actually know how many pastors are ignorant, but I've heard so many of them say the stupidest things in their sermons and in person that it made me pity them and their flock.

Four: last days madness. This causes all kinds of problems, not the least of which being the following:

1) We've been in the last days since Jesus resurrected Himself.

2) No single eschatology is persuasive over the others to such a degree that you could really preach one over the other, so you cannot know certainly what phase of the end times we are in.

3) We don't know exactly when the very last days are and won't until they're over; therefore, we need to keep living like there's another 2,000 years left or more while being ready in case it's more like 2,000 seconds.

Christian worldview
Oustanding commentary!

A good article...
...and long overdo.

WOW sounds like the Watchtower cult
-A heads up on the Jehovah Witness-

There is no Armageddon that will annihilate 6.5 billion people,and install Watchtower leaders as world rulers.

The core dogma of the Watchtower organization is that Jesus had his second coming 'invisibly' in the year 1914.Their entire doctrinal superstructure is built on this falsehood.

Jehovah's Witnesses door to door recruitment is by their own admission an ineffective tactic. They have lost membership in all countries with major Internet access because their false doctrines and harmful practices are exposed on the modern information superhighway.

There is good and valid reasons why there is such an outrage against the Watchtower for misleading millions of followers.Many have invested everything in the 'imminent' apocalyptic promises of the Jehovah's Witnesses and have died broken and beaten.

Every Jehovah's Witness member will grow old and die just like everyone else.
----
Danny Haszard 'expert witness on the Jehovah's Witness'
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.