That's quite a leap to say the world is different today and then think Jesus wants you to do something he never did like involve yourself in the governments redistribution of wealth. Then to ignore the thing he asked you to do which was to help the poor individually. And I disagree with the idea that Govt has to provide these services. Until the war on poverty started, these needs were met by local churches and individuals. Churches still do large amounts of serving the poor.

I don't have a problem if people who study God's word decide to support a political cause based on their beliefs, but it wrong to say God says this or that political policy is wrong from the pulpit. There is no example of Christ doing that outside the religious teachings of the church.

Read it again. I didn't say that.

It seemed like you were saying that the world is different and that is why you feel the bible directs you to take political stances. And why is appropriate for a pastor to do that from the pulpit.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point in saying the world was different.

If people studied the Bible and Pastors actually taught the Bible instead of telling a story about jet skiing and how it relates to one or two verses in the Bible church would look a lot different.

So pastors never go on about making abortion illegal*? It's a pretty good bet that any time I end up on a Christian radio station they are going on about that.

*Which I'm pretty sure Jesus had nothing to say about, while he did have a bit to say about divorce and adultery, which seems to be pretty much ignored by everyone but the Catholics nowadays.

Do you support racism, sexism, homophobia...? If not, why the problem with your pastor preaching against those things?

My immediate reaction is one of surprise - surprise that your pastor is left-leaning. For sure I thought this was going to be about you complaining your church was supporting Trump and his policies because it seems there are so many bible-bashers (esp in the south) who think Trump can do no wrong.

I find it all very odd, because the church's teachings of loving one's neighbour and tolerance of others' beliefs are more aligned with liberal ideals. But it seems that the hard line, pro-life crowd will tend to just put their blinkers on and support everything to do with the Republican party, be it denying climate change, being against most if not all gun controls, and of course in many cases, denying evolution.

A friend of mine is from AL and she is having a really hard time with her ultra-religious family. When they found out she marched in the Women's March (in favour of promoting tolerance and respect for women), they near ostracized her from the family. "What? You don't support Trump and everything he does?!" The irony of their intolerance of any views other than their own hard line views (no drinking alcohol, gay marriage is a sin, etc) is completely lost on them.

I was saying that the world is different than when the 66 individual books and letters that comprise the canonized Bible were written, but I didn't say that because it's different we must take political stances. It's important to understand the audience that the text was written to, the time, the culture, and its application to those people; from there I believe it's important to look at the text in context of the overall theme and arc of the complete narrative and then extrapolate out of that modern applicability within our current culture and the human themes that are consistent throughout history.

The example of Jesus was that those human themes came above all else in this life. What I mean there is as I said before, he constantly went to the margins of society and affirmed all individuals on the outskirts, regardless of social creed and status, acknowledging their humanity. He railed against institutions and practices that put the people behind and below the institution and practice.

Like I pointed out with John 6, I think that example starts with us as individuals, because Jesus made it clear that he wasn't going to become a king in a governmental sense and rejected that request. It has to start with us and in starting with us there has to be sacrifice of what we're comfortable with as individuals. I.E. I struggle with a Joel Osteen type of approach that claims God is blessing people who have abundance and wealth, making wealth and comfort an ideal, as opposed to the recognition that in America we nearly all have abundance so to live a more abundant life we won't find it through seeking a deeper consumerism but instead find it through a deeper sacrifice of ourselves toward others as individuals (doesn't have to be politics or money).

That said, because the taking care of individuals is more fragmented in our modern society -- going through government welfare programs, segmented and fractured non-profits, etc. rather than the communal model of the day -- I believe it's also important for the church to continue challenging us individually to not overlook the plight of the marginalized and to not accept institutions that do overlook the marginalized. Sometimes it's the church doing the overlooking or leading to a dialogue that puts the poor down. But in making that call I also believe it's important and necessary that it not be for singular political points or agendas, but instead a challenge to think of where we and our faith fits in how we carry ourselves in larger society. Example: the pro-life movement has fought against abortion but many of the same folks have been opposed to programs that help lift the innocent children out of poverty after they're born. I believe that our mercy and compassion shouldn't stop with one law vs. another but should be a theme of how we think about how our pluralistic society operates and how we live within that.

Yes, it must be a deeply individual challenge, but we're individuals who live in a larger society with needs that the church simply isn't meeting or able to meet. Now a large part of this is how many churches operate and prioritize program budgets and program themes, but that's another topic altogether.

Churches can lose their tax exempt status engaging in partisan politics. However, unless they specially tell you which candidate to vote for they have a lot of leeway.
My experience is just the opposite. Most religious leaders I know of lean to the right and I've heard plenty of them rebuke Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Sounds like not for much longer!

http://abcnews.go.com/...protections-45213856

You must not be Catholic

Churches can lose their tax exempt status engaging in partisan politics. However, unless they specially tell you which candidate to vote for they have a lot of leeway.
My experience is just the opposite. Most religious leaders I know of lean to the right and I've heard plenty of them rebuke Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

You must not be Catholic

It looks like Trump is taking aim against the Johnson Amendment.

https://www.nytimes.com/...ment-trump.html?_r=0