This comes via AKMA, and a good stream of thought worth reading:

conjectural navel gazing; jesus in lint form: political pulpit?

When I stood before the congregation at North Shore to seek approval for ordination, many people asked me difficult theological questions. One question was this: “Will you preach politics from the pulpit?” Now, in the North Shore context, this means a lot of things. In my time there I did rattle some cages about our nation’s participation in the war with Iraq. I am a pacifist. This does not make me particularly popular some Sundays at North Shore, but they understand that there are differing opinions about the issue of Christian non-violence. So, I preach what I preach, they think what they think, and all of us can come back and depend upon one another when our lives fall apart. As long at the congregation knows the pastor will be there when the %$@* hits the fan, they will allow you to say pretty much anything in the pulpit. This suggests a great deal of trust between pastror and congregation.

My answer to the question was this: “I will not back a candidate and preach that platform from the pulpit. I will, however, share how my faith informs my understanding of how our nation behaves. But I would never use the pulpit to back a particular person or party. Nor would I judge you for voting differently than I do.” (Loverly paraphrasing.)

This was an honest answer and what they wanted to hear. I have been in a congregation where an openly homosexual person voted Republican. Why? He was a retired Navy officer, not a pacifist. If he can vote for W because of his own personal prioritizing of issues, why cannot I, a pro-life (modified ala Sojourners) Christian vote for Kerry? Why cannot our friends in North Carolina speak to the same political complications? This I simply do not know.

After Tripp said this:

Riverside Church backed Kerry. They drew no flack. Now, then again, they did not threaten to kick anyone out of the congregation for voting another way either. That is an important difference.

One of Tripp’s commenters said this:

Ah, but there’s the rub. If the accounts we have so far are accurate, the pastor excommunicated them not simply because of party affiliation, but because he tied specific Christian doctrines and their application to a specific party. And in point of fact, the Democratic party does, indeed, endorse abortion. Not every Democratic candidate does so, of course, but such candidates are a distinct and powerless minority, and are exceptions to the rule. While I would not ever think to tie party affiliation to excommunication, the pastor is on decent historical ground for tying excommunication to the support of and practice of abortion. However, since certain of these parishioners explicitly reject abortion, one gets into a problem. By their votes they are supporting a party which endorses what they reject. Is this enough to excommunicate? Dear heavens, let’s hope not, or all our hands are covered in filth.

Interesting stuff, although I still can’t narrow the worth of a party by its “PR” (platform), and tie Democrat to abortion. That’s one of those “vote-getters” and not one I particularly appreciate, since I can’t quite stomach “pro-choice”, as if the preference (which often is synonomous with conveneinece) of the woman trumps all consideration of the potential life in them (and however one argues about when life begins, life IS sacred. That makes potential life a real close second, and far above the conveneiences and preferences of a career woman. So I HATE the phrase “a woman’s right to choose”, and I support CHOICE for women in every way but what I just described. Responsibilty is responsibility. Sojourners had an issue not too long ago about what it means to be “Pro-life”, and how the Democratic party is less tolerant of those who oppose abortion than the Republican party is of those who don’t.