[From the class of 09]

An LU grad taking the other side of the argument....

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archi ... _and_state

[Sly Fox]

I wouldn't call this the other side ... it is more of a centrist approach IMHO. He's simply stating that pastors shouldn't endorse candidates from the pulpit.

On a side note, my pastor just began a 6-week series called "America's Got Issues" that is focusing on hot button political issues where the church should have a voice. This Sunday ... Immigration.

[phoenix]

Baptists have historically been in favor of the separation of church and state. When the state run church is having you arrested for child abuse for refusing to baptize infants, you tend to see the advantages in separation.

It's only been in the last several decades (with the exception of the temperance and abolitionist movements) that Baptists have really been politically active. Doc and D. James Kennedy had a lot to do with that.

[Sly Fox]

I think you might add the Civil Rights movement to that list, Phoenix. I think even the most hardcore Southerners on this board would have to admit now there was some merit in the African-American church getting political in the '50s & '60s.

Whenever moral issues enter the political arena, the church needs a voice there as well IMHO.

[phoenix]

Yeah, I'm not sure how I forgot about the civil rights movement.

There's a fine line that has to be walked. Morality is always going to be legislated, it's just a matter of whose, so I don't buy the whole "You can't legislate morality" argument the way I used to. BUT I worry that when we start focusing on passing laws we'll forget that only God can change the heart. I really think that Prohibition failed because the church forgot to change hearts. I think that the only real solution to the abortion crisis is for Christians to work on changing hearts. We need to vote based on our values, but we need to remember that politics is not the solution.

Personally, I think we've lost the meaning of separation of church and state as originally intended. Originally, the colonists were afraid that the British would establish the Church of England in the colonies (there weren't many Anglicans early on around here), so there was a definite threat that the freedom of worship would be lost to anyone except Anglicans. What the Founders wanted to ensure was that there would never be a religious-based test for anyone to hold office, or to vote, and that the government would never be able to establish an official church. It's become "keep every religious expression out of the government" and "keep any political mention or support out of churches." that's where I have a problem, though I tend to agree that it's generally not a good idea to endorse candidates from the pulpit. Issue advocacy I have no problem with at all, until it becomes all that is preached about on Sunday. I grew up in a left-leaning Methodist church that constantly preached against the war in Viet Nam. My Dad worked for the Defense Department, and ended up not going to church most of the time because he got sick of it.

I've seen too many churches that lost sight of their mission because they got too involved in politics.

{edit to add}
Ironic that it's social activism (AKA social justice) that is the one place that everyone sees the church having a role to play politically.

[SumItUp]

What is this "separation of church and state" that is being discussed? I have searched the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and I can't find it.

[ATrain]

What is this "separation of church and state" that is being discussed? I have searched the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and I can't find it.

It is in a letter to baptists in Danbury written by Thomas Jefferson. Apparently that's become the baseline when judges adjudicate cases dealing with religous freedom.

[BJWilliams]

HAsnt it already been determined that judges have taken Jefferson's statement about "separation of church and state" completely out of its proper context?

[From the class of 09]

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html