Why Politics Should Stay out of Church

I’m really surprised that so many ministers have no problem promoting their political views from the pulpit. In Matthew 21:13 Jesus said” It is written," he said to them,” 'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.” Now check out what Jesus did right before he made the previous statement. Matthew 21:12 "Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves". Apparently I’m not the only one that believes that God’s house is reserved for prayer, praise and worship. This was one of the few times Jesus was so mad he got a little violent. He was extremely put off by what was happening in his house and made it clear with both words and actions. I believe that if ministers concentrated on saving souls and people were walking with Christ, their conscience inspired by God, would lead them to the correct chad with none hanging or dangling in the aftermath. Salvation doesn't require works because God knows as Christians we bare fruit. Meaning we will want to do Gods work without being told we have to. If those of you that have read the bible have noticed, Jesus stayed out of politics for the most part and so should the teachers his word.

Consider the person that doesn’t agree with the minister’s political views and the position they are put in. If they speak out they run the risk of becoming an outcast or fighting with their church family. This in a place they’ve come for peace. Or they keep their beliefs secret and don’t feel as close to the rest, loosing the feeling of inclusion that draws us to a certain church.Politic’s can be such a polarizing, divisive issue that it might even drive a person away. This would be horrible, especially if they had just arrived in a fragile state, and in serious need of sanctuary. Alcoholics Anonymous had a rocky beginning and the organization shut down because it's founders had irreconcilable differences about politics role within AA. Today’s AA carefully avoids any political affiliation and remains strong and successful.

Thomas Jefferson first proposed the Virginia Statute of Religious freedom in 1779 and the General Assembly adopted it in 1786. It was one of the sources for The Bill of Rights and its principles and language have inspired proponents of religious freedom through out the world. He thoughtfully explains the importance of keeping religious opinions from influencing decisions and the makers of those decisions on matters pertaining to civil rights.

The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right, that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.