(Blog) Biblical Truth Has Political Consequences - Ep. 1007 - November 2, 2026

When Scripture speaks to a public issue, political controversy doesn't remove the church's responsibility to address it. That conviction anchors our election-eve conversation on The Smith and Rowland Show: faithfulness to Scripture must come before loyalty to a political party.

In Episode 1007, dated November 2, 2026, Alan Smith and Jeff Rowland discuss the pressure on pastors to avoid political subjects. They begin with a question that reaches far beyond Election Day: Should the church stop teaching about a moral issue because politicians have started debating it?

When Public Issues Become Subjects Pastors Avoid

A Pew Research Center survey cited in the discussion found that 66% of Americans believed churches and other houses of worship should stay out of political matters rather than address day-to-day social and political questions.

Alan and Jeff examine that finding through an article titled "Biblical Truth Has Political Consequences." Their concern is that both secular society and church leadership sometimes treat political controversy as a reason for pastoral silence.

Scripture still speaks to controversial subjects

The article names abortion, marriage, human sexuality, immigration, and justice. Each appears in political debate, but each also raises moral and spiritual questions that Scripture addresses.

Jeff argues that a pastor can't teach the Bible faithfully while avoiding every subject discussed in government. Alan presses the point further: Biblical prophets addressed rulers about corruption and immorality, so their example gives the church no reason to assume those subjects are off-limits.

The article captures the problem with a memorable comparison. If pastors removed every biblical passage that had become controversial in Washington, their Bibles would look like "Swiss cheese."

For both speakers, the responsibility remains the same: Explain what Scripture says, even when the subject carries political consequences.

Biblical Figures Had Consequential Encounters With Power

The conversation turns to a 2019 Pew survey of biblical knowledge. The figures cited in the episode show that respondents recognized Moses, David, and Abraham more often than Esther.

All four, however, had significant encounters with political authority.

The connection matters to the hosts because these familiar biblical accounts include direct engagement with government.

Moses confronted a ruler who held God's people in bondage. Esther approached a king when the survival of her people was at stake. David exercised governing authority himself, while Abraham's dealings brought him into contact with kings.

Jeff sees these accounts as part of a much larger biblical record of God's people encountering political power. He challenges the idea that churches should now treat that entire area of life as something beyond their concern.

Daniel's Position Never Replaced His Allegiance to God

Daniel provides one of the clearest examples discussed in the episode. He served under pagan kings in Babylon and later under Persian rule, yet his access to power didn't silence his loyalty to God.

When King Belshazzar offered him rewards, Daniel refused them. He then delivered a judgment the king didn't want to hear: God had weighed his kingdom and found it wanting.

The article draws a direct lesson from Daniel's example:

God's people cannot remain silent on matters God has clearly addressed simply because those matters have been declared political.

For Alan and Jeff, that sentence identifies the problem. Once a moral question becomes a political dispute, some churches act as though the government has taken ownership of the subject.

Daniel's example points in another direction. Serving near a ruler didn't release him from the responsibility to speak truth to that ruler.

New Testament Witness Reached Governors and Kings

The same pattern continues in the New Testament.

John the Baptist confronted Herod over his marriage to his brother's wife. Paul asserted his rights as a Roman citizen and testified before governors and a king. Their witness extended into places where civil authority operated.

Moral truth applies beyond the church

The article also makes an important distinction: Ancient Israel and Rome weren't modern America. Scripture doesn't supply a political party platform or settle every detail of proposed legislation.

It does, however, establish moral truths that apply to nations, rulers, and citizens.

That distinction keeps the discussion focused. Alan and Jeff aren't arguing that every legislative question has a verse naming its precise answer. They are arguing that political authority doesn't place a person or a policy beyond biblical moral judgment.

Speaking truth can carry a cost

Alan also invokes the apostles' suffering. He describes John as the exception among the apostles who, after Matthias replaced Judas, faced martyrdom.

His point is that the early witnesses didn't gain safety by avoiding conflict with the authorities around them. Their faithfulness brought danger.

Both speakers acknowledge that public witness can lead to isolation or persecution. They regard those risks as part of the history of Christian testimony, rather than a reason to abandon it.

Salt and Light Describe Christian Engagement

Jesus called His followers "the salt of the earth" and "the light of the world." The article emphasizes that neither image suggests withdrawal.

Alan and Jeff understand those descriptions as a call to engagement that makes a difference. Christians remain present in the world while bringing God's truth to bear on the lives and decisions around them.

The central issue, then, is whether Christians will remain biblical when biblical truth has political consequences.

Jeff connects that question to people he has known who professed faith in Christ but placed greater weight on their political party's position than on Scripture. In his account, party loyalty determined their support even when he believed the party's position contradicted God's Word.

He calls that misplaced loyalty sinful and says pastors should address it from the pulpit. Alan agrees.

Their standard is allegiance to Scripture. A party label can't substitute for that allegiance.

Teaching Biblical Principles and Endorsing Candidates

The hosts also distinguish teaching about public issues from endorsing an individual candidate.

During their discussion of what they call the Johnson Amendment, they describe restrictions on churches endorsing candidates. Their emphasis, however, is that such restrictions don't require a pastor to stop explaining what the Bible says about moral questions.

Alan says churches can open Scripture and show people how it addresses the issues voters face. Jeff agrees that churches can encourage people to consider biblical matters when they vote.

The distinction they draw is between candidate endorsement and biblical teaching. Their discussion doesn't attempt to provide a detailed account of election law.

Instead, they challenge the way churches sometimes invoke separation of church and state, fear of offense, or discomfort with political disagreement as reasons to avoid teaching altogether.

For them, a church's reluctance to address a subject doesn't erase its responsibility to speak clearly where Scripture speaks.

Silence Doesn't Remove the Church From Public Life

Alan compares the country to a bus. Asking Christians to avoid public issues, he says, is like throwing the steering wheel out the window while continuing to ride in the back.

The passengers may claim they aren't driving, but they still travel wherever the bus goes.

Churches once helped shape social questions

Jeff recalls a time when churches led public discussion about social concerns. Those questions belonged to the church's spiritual and moral teaching before they became subjects identified primarily with political parties.

In his account, churches began stepping back once those concerns acquired a political label. Government took a larger role in the discussion, while congregations received the message that they should remain silent.

He believes that retreat has left biblical teaching either absent or unclear on subjects Christians need to understand.

The direction still determines the destination

The conversation returns to a saying Alan had shared years earlier: "You end up where you're heading."

Jeff applies it to both the church and the nation. If churches avoid difficult truths, he argues, the consequences won't disappear simply because believers declined to discuss them.

Both men also admit that they underestimated the extent of wrongdoing around them. Jeff says Christians can assume people have heard more biblical truth than they actually have, even if only by accident.

That assumption, he argues, no longer fits what they see.

Biblical Illiteracy Shapes Political Convictions

Alan identifies biblical illiteracy as a central concern. He questions how Christians can respond to public issues when they don't know what Scripture teaches.

He also offers estimates about the prevalence of replacement theology and disbelief in a literal hell. He puts belief in replacement theology above 50%, perhaps closer to 60%, and says more than half don't believe in a literal hell.

These are estimates he gives during the conversation, separate from the Pew findings cited earlier.

Departing from the faith

Jeff connects the discussion to a passage he has been teaching through over several weeks. Paul warns that, in the latter times, some will depart from the faith by giving heed to "seducing spirits and doctrines of devils."

Jeff emphasizes that he understands this as a warning to believers. In his reading, departing from the faith assumes a prior connection to it.

Both speakers connect that warning with the acceptance of teachings they believe contradict Scripture.

Doctrine affects public choices

Their examples include universalism, the belief that everyone will ultimately be saved, and replacement theology, which they describe through the claim that the church has taken Israel's place.

Jeff argues that denying judgment can affect how a person thinks about consequences for sin and behavior. He also argues that beliefs about Israel can influence political attitudes toward Israel.

For the hosts, doctrine and political judgment aren't isolated from one another. What a Christian believes about God, judgment, and Scripture affects the positions that Christian supports.

Their Concern Extends to Candidates and Voters

The discussion becomes more pointed when Alan and Jeff turn to people seeking office.

Jeff says he has two Senate candidates in mind who describe themselves as preachers. He characterizes one, a church pastor, as a Democratic socialist and argues that the candidates' platforms conflict with Scripture.

He sees that conflict as evidence of trouble inside the church itself. His concern reaches beyond the candidates to the congregations and voters willing to support them.

Alan says the voters trouble him more than the people running for office. Jeff agrees.

Their argument is that the nation's political choices reveal something about the church's teaching and convictions. When people who profess Christian faith support positions the hosts regard as unbiblical, they see a failure of biblical understanding.

Jeff summarizes the relationship with the familiar expression, "As the church goes, so goes the nation." In this conversation, he uses it as a warning about the condition of the church.

Election-Eve Humor Gives Way to Unease

The episode opens with jokes about election timing and how long results might take. The hosts compare vote counting with American Idol, teasing that the show could count a huge number of votes within an hour.

They joke about hiring American Idol to handle election tabulation and mention Ryan Seacrest, Simon Cowell, and Randy Jackson. Alan then admits he is "culturally irrelevant."

Later, however, the conversation takes a more anxious turn.

Alan says he dreads the election and doesn't yet have the confidence he wants in the voting system. He describes that lack of confidence as his own struggle and says he hopes his fears will prove misplaced.

Jeff acknowledges the concern. Neither treats Election Day as something Christians can separate from the larger questions they have raised about truth, teaching, and public responsibility.

The contrast between the opening humor and Alan's later admission shows how heavily the election weighs on the discussion.

Spiritual Deception and the Example of Hamas

Alan uses Hamas's tunnel network in Gaza as an example of sustained commitment to a cause he regards as evil.

He emphasizes the labor, dedication, and resources required to build the tunnels. He also speculates about their funding, including possible U.S. aid.

What troubles him most is the degree of commitment he believes such an undertaking required. He connects that concern to the language discussed earlier about "seducing spirits" and "doctrines of devils."

Alan also recalls an encounter he describes as meeting a demon. He says the experience frightened him and left him less confident in his own toughness.

Jeff agrees that demonic influence is real. Both speakers say they believe it affects the country and the wider world.

Their concern is that Christians are allowing destructive influences to pass without a clear response. In their view, the church's responsibility includes recognizing spiritual deception as well as teaching about outward behavior.

Their Concerns About Immigration and Public Law

The conversation then turns to Muslim immigration and Sharia law. Alan describes Muslim immigration as an "invasion" and urges national leaders to announce it in those terms.

The hosts cite what they describe as a Minnesota march of 60,000 to 65,000 people. They also claim that some participants want Sharia to take priority over American law and complain that the matter receives too little attention.

To explain their objection, they compare an announced intention to reject American law with a person entering a bank and announcing a holdup. Their argument is that the declared intent matters even before someone displays a weapon.

They also compare attempts to impose a different governing system with China entering the country to promote communism through political office.

Jeff names James Talarico during this part of the conversation. He argues that being born in Texas doesn't answer his objection to policies he characterizes as communist. He associates those policies with China and Russia rather than with the American system.

These comments extend the hosts' broader argument about the responsibility to judge public positions against their understanding of biblical truth and legitimate government.

The Church's Calling Is Courageous Biblical Witness

The article's closing message brings the conversation back to the church's responsibility. Alan and Jeff affirm the call to stand on God's Word, defend what is right, confront what is wrong, and speak with courage when the culture would prefer silence.

They reject making the church a party's mouthpiece. Their concern is that fear of controversy has weakened the biblical clarity churches should bring to public life.

Our election-eve discussion ends with a call to vote. The conviction behind it is the same one that opened the conversation: Political consequences don't cancel the church's responsibility to speak biblical truth.

"Text generated by [rightblogger] based on (Smith and Rowland Video), Biblical Truth Has Political Consequences - Ep. 1007 - November 2, 2026"