Yesterday, ABC ran a story with an interesting title: Palin Shopping Spree Legal? Yes, but Barely
Do you find that title a wee-bit leading? Is it me or does the title of this article make it seem like Govenor Palin is pushing the limits of legality? I conclude from this article that the thing being exposed is not the bottom line of a clothing budget but the bent of the writer, Emma Schwartz.
Also, this week I received a letter regarding_endorsing_political_candidates that is a shot across the bow for those who shepherd the souls of people. Notice key phrases like, “subject to audits” and “significant fines on houses of worship or its leaders.” The full-court press is on!
See source.
To help you navigate the white-water of the political season, I offer you the following article from John Piper. Expose your heart to a fresh perspective in the quest for the truly valuable.
As the saying goes, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Government “benefits” all come with a price. Any time the church intermingles its affairs with the affairs of the civil government through things like 501(c)(3) status or ‘Faith Based Initiatives’ they implicitly give the government authority over the church that it was not intended to have.
I don’t think the problem here is with the government as much as it is with the Church. We’re in effect willing to trade increased contributions (which are the result of being able to deduct them from income tax) for a certain level of government control over our affairs.
I think I would prefer to go to a church that does not endorse a specific candidate. I think there are definite moral issues that are right, good and helpful that candidates can impact but, the selection of a candidate will not change the heart of people. To that end churches don’t need another messiah.
I wonder if project fair play sent a helpful letter to planned parenthood, GLAAD, or the NAACP in the interest of fair play.
Sorry I’m not commenting to address the post’s topic, but I wanted to add my two cents to what O’Ryan just said:
I would imagine it’s difficult to find a church that endorses one candidate, since a church is usually anywhere from 5-5000 individuals, each of whom has his own mind to make up about politics. However, I would expect, even require, that each person that I meet in a church would endorse one candidate. I would expect that of any American, but especially from those in the Church, because of our heightened responsibility to help effect God’s kingdom on the earth. For me, this certainly extends to pastors, for it strikes me as I write that O’Ryan might be talking about church leaders when he says “church.” While I’d look with skepticism on the authenticity of an entire church endorsing a single candidate, I am equally skeptical of a pastor (one who is supposed to be tasked with the spiritual and moral guidance of his flock) who cannot or will not present a rational argument for his support of the candidate of his choice. I think it is irresponsible (of a pastor especially) to feign such ignorance or indifference, or to actually be that ignorant or indifferent.
So, I suppose, were I to state my own sentiment in a similar manner, I’d say I would prefer to go to a church that does not endorse a specific candidate, with members and pastors who each endorse a specific candidate and are glad to talk to me about why.
Piper’s blog is right on in regards to where our focus should be. Our hope is in Christ (the King of Kings) and not politics. Let’s stay informed, vote and be grateful we can vote. Voting and politics is just another opportunity for us to share with others where our hope comes from.