In today's Rapid City Journal, Randy Rasmussen writes in the "Theirs" column normally reserved for local non-Journal columnists. I've lost track of where Randy is working at the Journal these days, but he used to be the Opinion Page Editor. I think the Journal is having trouble filling the local columnist spot, which is why he is filling it today; others Journal employees, including the current Opinion Page editor Mary Garrigan, have filled that spot recently.
Randy talks about the recent "controversy" in some Black Hills Catholic churches when abortion ban petitions were circulated in the churches.
I highlight "controversy," because I suspect there was no real controversy, outside one or two malcontents like Bernadette Gorszich-Usera, who was cited in one of the articles as opposing the petitions, and certain journalists who would probably rather see unfettered abortion remain legal.
I must strongly commend Rasmussen, because his piece today provides the balance that was sorely lacking from Kevin Woster's fear-mongering piece.
(Of course, the Journal had to get in another bit to reminder churches of their "proper place" even on the same opinion page, as they included a political cartoon that shows an IRS agent walking out of a church and shaking hands with the pastor as he says, "Fine sermon, Reverend. You'll be hearing from my office.")
Rasmussen points out the complete fallacy of the whole "separation of church and state" argument so often used as a club to silence people of faith from being the "salt and light" Christ has commanded them to be.
The phrase “separation of church and state” usually arises in these situations. That phrase, which appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, is most often used by nonreligious people to silence the political speech of those they disagree with.
I find it odd that well-known religious leaders come under heated criticism because they speak out on political issues.
As I pointed out recently, what in our society anymore is not political? Is marriage political? Family? Our cars? Our toilets?
If we ignore the First Amendment for a moment and actually seriously indulge the proposition that churches, pastors and people of faith are not allowed to address "political" things, then they're going to be a pretty quiet bunch, since pretty much everything is political in our bloated, over-weaning governmental bureaucracy...but perhaps that's exactly what the secularists want: church people to keep their mouths shut while they sanitize any vestige of faith from our culture.
Rasmussen puts the matter of the petitions themselves into perspective:
I don’t know what the big deal is about petitions being circulated in churches. No one’s being forced to sign the petitions, even if your pastor or bishop thinks it’s a good idea. And, if it should make it on the ballot, you’re not required to vote for or against it.
If the idea of abortion petitions being circulated in church bothers you, find a church that’s more to your liking. There are many more religions and churches than there are political parties, so you have plenty of choices where to plant your faith.
Well said. If you like one of those churches that's content to be a social club for people who own Bibles, there are plenty of those around. If you want to be a member of a church that doesn't care about teaching what God has said about the kind of behavior he expects from us, there are plenty of those, too.
But if you find yourself accidentally straying into a church that believes God when He said, "Be holy, even as I am holy," then don't go blaming the church for actually repeating what God has said. Either examine your own heart and admit your sin...or go find one of those churches that will pat you on the back as you make your way blissfully to Hell.
Meanwhile, there are men of God like Bishop Cupich, Pastor Steve Hickey of Church at the Gate in Sioux Falls, and any number of other God-fearing pastors around South Dakota who will be busy telling people what God has said and warning them away from the gates of Hell.
Thanks, Randy, for putting the balance back in the Journal on this issue.
6 comments:
The place to "plant your faith" is were the pastorate accurately handles the Word of God.
I couldn't find the article. Halp Halp!
Bruce -
So attending a church that doesn't preach about politics is a pathway to Hell? I find that insulting and not a very Christian thing to say about your brothers and sisters in Christ.
I grew up in a church that didn't discuss political issue during the service. My pastor always said "I won't tell you who or what to vote for or against. But it's important that you go out and vote." I'm not a big fan of preachers telling their congregation how to vote.
I guess I'd be okay with people passing around a petition for something during the coffee hour after church. But I'm not sure about passing it around during the church service. And I'd feel the same no matter what the issue is, whether conservative or liberal.
They don't usually print the "Theirs" column online anymore; you'll have to read a dead-tree version to find it.
I didn't say a church that doesn't preach about politics is the pathway to Hell; I said a church that doesn't preach about what's right and what's wrong let's people head blissfully down the path to Hell.
And one of the things that's wrong is murdering unborn children.
Placing things off-limits by calling them "political" is a cop out. As I stated in the post, there's almost nothing that can't be placed under the banner of "political." That would leave the church with no visible statement on pretty much any moral issue. Which would make it a morally useless institution.
To the best of my knowledge, the petitions weren't being passed around during the service. In my church, they were available in the lobby before and after services.
Gasp! You mean I need to turn pages without using a mouse to read Rasmussen's article. I hope I can remember how. ;-)
Bruce -
RIGHT ON !!
This "petition" is only to put an issue on the ballot !! how can that be interpreted as "political"?
The church is not taking a "position" or "endorsing" a candidate.
I suppose a sermon encouraging folks to vote would be considered threatening to the "seperation" folks.
Post a Comment