Adventist Today has brought to us a very powerful
example of what Pastors should not do. In the article entitled Can a PastorCall Evil by Name—Even If It’s Political? By Reinder Bruinsma.
He
begins by asking the question: “…the question of how pastors in their
preaching might address some of the moral dilemmas that are currently hotly
debated at all levels in the United States. How might they do this in a way
that respects the separation between church and state?” At this point, it should be pointed out that “Reinder
Bruinsma lives in the Netherlands”. So notable he is not any
kind of authority on the United States Constitution. It does appear from his article that he does
not know that the term separation of church and state is not found in the US Constitution
but it is a term Thomas Jefferson used in a letter in 1802. The websiteUSconstitution.net states: “ The
letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and
state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and
state."
So Pastor Bruinsma
begins with a false premise as it matters little how the church respects the
separation between church and state. The Establishment Clause found in the Constitution
is directed at the government. That is why it says: “Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Amendment 1
He continues by saying: “Americans will often claim that their country has realized a
full separation between church and state, but looking at this as a European I
am not so sure. Whenever I visit a church across the big pond, I see, to my
amazement, a national flag on the podium. And I wonder why there is no protest
when the president ends his speeches with the words: “God bless America!” And
how is it that American leaders will host “prayer breakfasts” and that the Senate
has a “chaplain”? I could mention many more things that make me wonder…”
He wonders also: “ I have been utterly amazed to
find, for example, even among well-informed Adventist friends whom I highly respect,
a lot of resistance against a type of universal health care coverage that, for
a considerable time, has proven to function quite well in a number of European
countries (among those, my own country). When this approach is labeled “socialist” it surely betrays a definition of socialism that differs significantly
from that of most people in western Europe.”
It is termed socialized medicine because the government
is the main provider of medical care In
a socialist government the state controls the means of production. In
socialized medicine, the state controls the medical care. It fits the definition
of socialism quite well when applied to medical care as opposed to general
state socialism. But if you incorrectly define something at the beginning it is
easy to continue with more errors to prove a point that was never a fact in the
first place. But to return to the other incorrect definition, separation of
church and state.
The
Establishment Clause gives the freedom of churches to have or not have flags on
the podium The Federal Government cannot tell a church to put a flag on the
podium. The restriction is to be on the government telling churches what they
can or can’t do. Though admittedly after years of political Progressive
politics we have seen the government interfering much more than ever before
with religious freedoms in the US. The Senate does indeed have a chaplain. In
Thomas Jefferson’s day they had church services held in the US Capital building
and George Washington and a host of other Presidents publically prayed.
Incredibly looking at
the comments about this article no one on Facebook has even realized that the
author of the article does not even understand the history or application of
the United States of America’s constitutional rights. I don’t expect a guy from the Netherlands to
be very conversant with the US Constitution but somehow this kind of
foolishness is readily posted on Adventist Today. Possibly with their extreme
leftist views, they themselves have no concept of the US Constitution.
But there is an important point to make here Bruinsma says: “My interest here is the prophetic role of the pastor in the pulpit. “ That is my concern
as well. What do we do with Pastors from the pulpit who don’t know what they
are talking about? It happens far too
often that Pastors think that their limited knowledge is good enough to comment
on political issues. To determine what
political issues are good and what is evil. Bruinsma offers us no real
guidance but hopes that Pastors will have courage and wisdom from on high. I, however, would offer a more substantial bit of guidance. I would say that Pastors have
a duty to research their subjects thoroughly before they make presentations.
That means that they don’t just give one side of a political idea even if it is
popular in the Leftist media. Instead be knowledgeable about both sides of the
question, problem or solution. We don’t
see this a lot on Adventist Media anymore but it is not too late for local
church pastors to actually take some accountability even if the Adventist media
refuses to.
