• I’m still working two jobs. I’m contemplating quitting the Pizza Hut job for something else
• I’ve been crazy busy with work. We’ve been getting ready to release a new software program that we’ve been working on for over two years.
• The gig as head of Wednesday night hospitality leader at my church just ended.
• We’re getting ready to go to St. Louis for Thanksgiving next week.
• I loved reading the new Neal Stephenson book called Anathem and can’t wait to blog about it.
• The depression has gotten better.

Not too big on details, but that’s where I’m at. Until next time, check out the twitters over on the right.

Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

Still, it’s good to be able to know that this isn’t permanent no matter how it may feel. Last night I was able to go to a worship service at church and just allow God to speak to me and feel His presence. God is good and He has provided me with a group of people who care about me and who support me as I go through this rough period. When I begin to feel the depression start to well up inside me, I can call out to God and He is faithful to give me the peace that I need.

Instead of posting my response in another comment, I’d like to explain myself a little further in another post. This serves two purposes. One, it makes the discussion of this issue visible to people who may not read the comments and second, it furthers my goal of posting a new article every day for a month. 

I would like to address the issues that Heath brought up in his comment one at a time instead of posting the entirety of his comment. His first point was about the IRS violating a church’s first amendment rights; he said this to say.

1) First ammendments rights are being violated by IRS rules. It is not even close to fair to hold a church’s tax exempt status as leverage against that church participating in free political speech. The constitution is clear that Congress shall pass no laws abridging freedom of speech. They have. It is a violation of the bill of rights.

I am not a first amendment lawyer or a legal expert of any kind but I think that the IRS is the entity that declares a group a tax-exempt 501(c)3 organization for tax purposes. This means that the IRS writes the rules about who can and cannot get this designation of not paying taxes on their income. The rules, as they stand today, don’t say that churches cannot engage in political campaigning, they say that any non-profit 501(c)3 organization cannot campaign for a political candidate. A pastor of a church can say whatever he or she wants from the pulpit legally. However, their status as a non-profit organization my be revoked by the IRS since that pastor has chosen to ignore the rules that the IRS set up. The rules about non-profits do not effect just churches. They impact things like the United Way, the American Red Cross, Goodwill, libraries, literary groups, sporting organizations and other community groups who accept tax deductible contributions. It’s not just churches who live with these restrictions, it’s all groups that fall under the 501(c)3 banner.

Now that I’ve addressed the issue to the extent that my qualifications allow, I would like to address a couple of other items from Heath’s criticism. He begins his second point by saying the following.

2) Saying that a pastor is abdicating his or her reposnsibilty as a shepherd by engaging in political speech is a broad stroke that cannot be supported. While it may not be clear to all which candidate in the current situation should be supported, this is not always the case. Shepherds such as Detrich Bonhoeffer, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Stephen, and Jesus have placed their lives on the line to engage in political speech.

I could not agree more with what Heath says here. Each one of these martyrs, and Jesus himself, died because of the way that they lived their lives. Throughout the New Testament, we see Jesus avoid taking up sides in the political arguements of his day. However, this didn’t stop the Romans and Jews from killing him. Stephen was stoned because he spoke God’s truth directly to the religious tyrants who used God to keep people in line. Polycarp and Justin Martyr refused to take part in the Roman civic religion and did not acknowledge Caesar as a god and they were killed for it. Bonhoeffer, too, was killed by the Nazis because of his actions, not his sermons. Yes, each of these men did engage in political speech but it was their actions that led to their deaths. Those who are put in a position of authority in the body of Christ are called to live a life that exemplifies Christ and doing this means loving and serving others into the kingdom of God, not engaging in the political process of the kingdom of man.

Abortion is a political cause. Euthenasia (sp?) is a political cause. Poverty is a political cause. Should pastors not be permitted to endorse or criticize candidates who support or reject these causes?

As I said above, pastors can endorse a candidate if they choose but they must be aware that they will have violated the terms of their agreement with the IRS in order to maintain their tax exempt status. I think that a better position would be to speak clearly and openly about these evils and lead the church in addressing them. Is the kingdom of God best served by legislative means or by loving and serving those who are facing a crisis pregnancy or terminal illness or poverty? There are better ways to be the salt of the earth and light in the darkness than by allying oneself, or the body of Christ, with a political cause.

Heath’s next point is very good and deserves careful reading and consideration because it identifies the point where action from the pulpit does become necessary.

And what if a candidate was calling for the disillusion of the church? Currently a pastor could say nothing against that candidate. I think that not only should they be permitted too, but actually bear the responsibility of leadership as shepherds to make judgements as leaders of their flocks and guide their congregations accordingly.

If a candidate were running for office and was advocating the abolishment of the church, it would be the responsibility of a pastor to lead their church and guide their congregations accordingly. This is one of the points that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail: when a law of man breaks the law of God, it is a Christian’s responsibility to become an outlaw. Over and over we see Jesus “breaking the law” in the gospels. The religious leaders had turned the law into a rigid set of requirements that dictated nearly every action that a person could take. That is the kind of lawbreaking that we should engage in when the time comes: loving and serving everyone regardless of the consequences.

And so what if they pick a candidate? People are going to make up their own minds as they choose. Good people are permitted to disagree.

This is also a good point. People will make up their own minds as they choose. In most cases, a pastor will not be the deciding factor behind the way the members of his congregation vote. If that is the case, is engaging in a political campaign the best way to spend the limited amount of time that a pastor has each week to teach those who make up their community?

Heath’s third point of disagreement with my previous post is similar to his first point but different enough to deserve a careful response.

3) Sometimes our allegiance to Christ gives us a mandate as to whom we should support. Sometimes it is not as clear. But while you might disagree with your pastor on his or her judgement, that doesn’t mean that he or she should remain silent. In fact, he or she should be compelled to address the political situation in accordance with the principles of God’s kingdom.

I agree that a pastor should be addressing the social and moral issues that make up the day to day world that we find ourselves in. In rare cases, this means engaging in “prohibited” political speech from the pulpit. However, I still believe that the pastors who took part in this protest yesterday are losing sight of the more important issue: the kingdom of God is here. These pastors seem to be concerned with injecting the church into the kingdom of man and that is not an acceptable path to lead a faith community down. Instead of trying to take part in a political campaign that will further the kingdom of man, wouldn’t it be better to address these issues with a kingdom of God perspective? Instead of asking “how should a Christian vote?” maybe we should ask “how can a Christian love?”

While I am a strong believer in the concept that Christians are called to follow God’s law, even if it is in violation of the written law of the land as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. so poignantly described it in his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, I do not think that this is one of those cases. It seems to me that these pastors and their churches want to become a bigger part of the political process and that they are attempting to force their way into the political campaigns. Becoming a part of the political machine is one of the most misguided things a church can do. It doesn’t matter if it’s left or right, conservative or liberal or pro/con on issues: the body of Christ should not be aligning itself with Caesar.

When a pastor takes up a political cause from the pulpit, they abdicate their role as a shepherd to those who gather with them to worship God. The job of the church is to make disciples of all people in every nation. Theirs is a mission of love, to serve and to spread a message of hope to those who are lost in sin. The church is the bride of Christ and is Christ’s visible presence on earth. When a pastor of a church involves the church in a political campaign, the focus of that church shifts away from God’s kingdom to the kingdom of man. Engagement in a political campaign causes the authority of God to be exchanged for political clout and authority.

Please understand that I’m not saying that Christians should not participate in the political process. I don’t think it’s possible for a person to be engaged in society without being politically aware. In November, I will be participating in the election process and encourage everyone who is able to vote to do so. However, I also want to stress that the mission of the church is to be an outpost of God’s kingdom inside enemy territory. No matter how good a political candidate may be, no matter whether or not you think God has called them to be in a position of power, no matter how strongly you feel about a particular issue, our allegiance is first and foremost to God and His kingdom. Those who seek to further the kingdom of God and pray every day for His kingdom to come and His will to be done cannot defect to a different kingdom.

Instead of preaching for or against a specific candidate on Sunday, the world would be much better served if pastors were encouraging their members to practice the politics of Jesus and love their neighbor as themselves.

One of my other duties is to provide a small lesson to get everyone focused on the importance of hospitality and into the appropriate mindset for going out and serving hundreds of people. This has probably been the most rewarding portion of the job for me since it has caused me to spend a lot of time thinking about hospitality and just how important it is to God.

The provision of hospitality was the standard that Jesus told his disciples to use when they went anywhere in His name. If a town showed hospitality, it meant that they were prepared to allow God to move in their midst. If they did not welcome Christ’s message, the disciples were to shake the dust off of their feet since even the dust of an inhospitable town was not worthy of being on the shoes of a follower of Christ. That’s a pretty powerful lesson.

We also see Jesus showing a leader of the Pharisees how removed he was from God’s heart when he did not wash his feet, greet him with a kiss or anoint him with oil. This was a public chastisement that was a direct challenge to this man’s qualifications to be considered a leader. Jesus then held up the example of the prostitute who was at his feet, weeping and kissing them as one who understands how to welcome God into their midst. This is pure speculation on my part, but I believe that the Pharisee who Jesus publicly condemned for his lack of hospitality was probably one of those who pushed the hardest for Jesus to be killed shortly after this happened.

These are only two examples of the importance of hospitality that we see in the New Testament but they are by no means the only two. I think that the reason that there are so many examples of hospitality in the New Testament is that hospitality is a practical way to learn about loving your neighbor. Hospitality is Love 101 as far as Jesus is concerned. If you can’t be bothered to open up your home for another person, you’ll never be able to open up your heart for God. Over and over we see this played out in the words of Jesus: “Whatever you have done to the least of these, you have done to me” is one of the most vivid examples. So, at this point, I’d like to encourage you to think about what hospitality means to you. How willing are you to open yourself up to another person and help them when they are in need. Are you willing to inconvenience yourself and humble yourself in order to assist a fellow human being? How hospitable are you?

These are just some of the questions and issues that I have been thinking about and struggling through lately: service, humility, love and hospitality. No matter how much we think we know about them, there is always a lot more to learn.