Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists

IMHO many of the Religious Right are first politically conservative and then religiously conservative/fundamental.As an agnostic married to a believer, I've been attending churches for over 25 years. A couple of the churches were Southern Baptist with politically conservative pastors.I remember one pastor from the pulpit urging the congregation to sign his anti-ObamaCare petition. No Biblical arguments, just political ones against ObamaCare. No alternative solutions either.Liberty University is advocating the carrying of guns including on campus. In announcing the change, University President Jerry Falwell Jr referred being able to kill Muslims like those responsible for the San Bernardino shooting as the reason. I however haven't found any references to Biblical justification for carrying a device which has the sole purpose of killing.

I find politicking in churches to particularly disgusting and completely inappropriate. I've seen this type of bullying from the pulpit mostly on the right like Jerry Falwell, but also on the left with people like Pastor Jeremiah Wright. Much of the time there is literally no religious content in the message, but rather an excuse to bloviate about politics or some socioeconomic injustice.Just preach the gospel. We have enough pundits already.

It's interesting then to consider that before the Revolutionary War there were many American pulpits engaged in preaching one way or the other about the question of having a war of independence from Britain, and various Biblical texts WERE used. Both sides of the issue were preached but the "black robed regiment" that preached for independence were thought to have had the most powerful influence.Political preaching can of course be a bad thing depending on how it's done but there's nothing in principle wrong with pastors and Christians supporting a particular political position.

Sorry to be so slow replying but I have been busy and I wanted to spend at least a little time on answering the question on who I would vote for.It seems to me that fundamentalists view their beliefs as being just that - fundamental. It seems to that that when their political views on things like gun control over-ride views that are derived from their religious beliefs it is hypocritical. I had real trouble finding anyone that I would align with. To be honest as a Canadian I haven't followed the election down there as much as I probably should. I took a quiz that said O'Malley most closely supported my views but I just couldn't agree with that conclusion.In doing a little reading I suppose it would be Rand Paul but I know he doesn't have a chance, and I don't agree with him on some issues anyway. I would like to see the US Have a foreign policy that sees military intervention around the world done judiciously, openly and based strictly on the best interests of the area involved without any attempt to impose a western form of government. I suggest that American economic interests should not be part of the equation.

Good post and it again supports my view that US fundamentalism is a rather unholy mixture of a perverted understanding of how the Bible should be understood, political views and nationalism.Actually, if the Bible is viewed as being essentially dictated by God then you can justify pretty much anything. However, if you view Jesus Christ as being the embodied Word of God and read the Bible through that lens then you have a Christianity that looks very different than what we see in fundamentalism. (This is not at all to say that the OT isn't important but it does present a very different understanding of what we are to learn from it.)For anyone interested here is a link to a short book by a highly respected particle physicist, John Polkinghorne, on his views, (which are pretty much consistent with mine), on how to best understand the Scriptures. Testing Scripture: A Scientist Explores the Bible

If it is purely partisan, then it is a problem. If a certain government policy or platform has nothing to do with your faith then there will be people of all opinions in the congregation. It would seem like an abuse of power to use the pulpit to push your opinion to a captive audience who is there for an entirely different message.To use an analogy, it would be like a baseball umpire stopping a baseball game to give a 20 minute presentation on why you should vote for Bernie Sanders. I think you would be a bit ticked off if that happened.

--Percy

This sort of abuse is highly unlikely. Congregations aren't captive audiences. They hire and fire the pastors, and disappointed or disgruntled members leave churches all the time as well. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Maybe Percy will resurrect the red minus for this:I cannot agree that voicing a political opinion from the pulpit is an abuse of power or an inappropriate use of the preacher’s station. Preachers are legitimately leaders of a community. Their duty is to guide the flock and serve as opinion leaders for that community. That is supposed to be part of their role. Any and all political, personal and social subjects are/should be open for discourse from the pulpit. That, imho, would include actions of government at any level, candidates, court judgements, social commentary on the happenings of interest, death penalty, tipping for service, gay marriage, race relations, business conduct, whether the local high school should or shouldn’t have a Christmas pageant or a Halloween dance or anything else that involves the moral and ethical actions or opinions of the community as laid upon by the creed of the specific religion.Where I would see an abuse, hypocrisy, is where a preacher pushes an opinion that violates the creed they were consecrated to lead. Where they twist scripture to excuse violence, oppression, greed and all the other violations of their creed (Assuming those are violations of their creed. You can never tell about religions these days).If the preacher is one who says, Vote my way or go to hell, or is so authoritarian that no one feels they can voice disagreement (not during the sermon, obviously, but in side discussion afterward) then the lay person has a decision to make. Move to get rid of the preacher, find a different church or sit on your hands like a mindless wet noodle.The best option, again my opinion, is to be atheist and adopt a humanist agenda as ones guiding moral and ethical code, but if there must be religions and churches for people to lean upon then the church’s role is to provide that moral and ethical guidance in all aspects of life for a community, is it not? And how do you do that without preaching about them?

So then there's nothing wrong with Rev. Jeremiah Wright or Reverend Al Sharpton or Rev. Jesse Jackson using the pulpit to push a political agenda?(INB4 Faith commits a No True Scotsman fallacy about how they aren't "real Christians")

What a strange thing to say. I don't recall having much if anything at all to say about these men, but in any case I wouldn't say they can't preach whatever they want. I would probably say I object to their views, that's different. About Jeremiah Wright, the point is what Obama believes, not Wright's right to preach it.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It's not up to me to tell a religion what it should preach.However, preachers are typically paid by tax-deductible donations. So, as a taxpayer, I am subsidizing them to do politicking against my interests. Eliminate the tax benefits to religion, and then it won't bother me what politicking they do.Sure, I might still think that they are bogus Christians. But, as long as my taxes don't subsidize them, that's not of great concern to me.

That would depend on whether or not their political agenda aligns with Jesus' teaching. I have no problem with preachers suggesting that their parishioners "should" vote for candidates who support feeding the hungry, healing the sick, etc.

Currently the law does require candidates to refrain from endorsing candidates if they want to maintain their tax exempt status.But with regards to lobbying on social issues that may be against your interests, churches are no more limited than any overtly political groups in supporting causes and maintaining tax exempt status. I suspect that you can find people politicking in favor of your interests that receive similar subsidies.So I am not sure why churches in particular are singled out for muzzling.

Yes, they are captive audiences. Every congregation I have ever been a part of or have known would not get up in the middle of a sermon and leave. All of those congregations would stay seated out of respect. All of which is avoided if the pastor keeps partisan politics where it belongs.