[This is a piece I just submitted to The Logan Daily News, the local paper in the community I serve as pastor.]
Several weeks before the war in Iraq began, I heard from two different pastors who had differing views of the impending conflict. One argued that followers of Jesus couldn’t possibly support the war. The other claimed that it was the moral duty of followers of Jesus to do just that.
Both of these pastors were sincere followers of Christ. But their conflicting opinions show the difficulties that arise when members of the clergy decide they know how Jesus wants us (or our members of Congress) to vote.
“Christianity,” C.S. Lewis once wrote, “has not, and does not profess to have, a detailed political [program] for [application at every] particular moment.”
Christians, I believe, should be interested in politics. And I hope that committed Christians run for political office. But no pastor or church can claim to know God’s partisan or political preferences, if in fact, God has any. Instead, preachers and churches should focus on other things.
Jesus once said, “…when I am lifted up from the earth, [I] will draw all people to Myself” (John 12:32). Jesus wasn’t only talking about His being lifted up on a cross here. He was also saying that when followers of Jesus lift Him up for the whole world to see, in our words and in our lives, others will follow Him. That, in turn, will affect how they live their lives as citizens and politicians. If God wants to guide them in their voting, God will do so without the meddling of preachers or Christian organizations.
Preachers and churches are to keep sharing Jesus Christ. We’re to trust that as we lift Jesus up, at least some in the world will come to see Jesus in our lives and believe in Him.
Except in the face of horrific evil, like slavery, racism, or prejudice, social issues that must be addressed politically as well as in other ways, politics has no place in the pulpit.
8 comments:
An interesting point and one which I would support.
The very big question - one I can not answer - is whether the "church" will be able to stay out of politics.
The same sentiments as yours have been expressed in NZ by the major churches (collectively), but that has not stopped one offshoot charismatic group (calling itself Destiny Church) from promoting direct entry into politics under the sponsorship of their church. We have also had two previous attempts at the promotion of "Christian based" political parties. One of those ended when the leader was convicted of sexual offences involving young girls.
But the main point is this -
Can Christianity control its fringe and extremist groups?
What chance might those fringe and extreme elements have of attaining access to political authority?
The possibilities make the abortion row look like a drag-queen festival.
So, politics does have a place in the pulpit because we are facing the most horrific evil of all-time: abortion (the murder of the innocent and the helpless). The problem is that most pulpits are largely silent concerning abortion. Thus, we see very little change and the evil continues to propogate our society. The church will be judged for the silence just as those who vote for candidates that openly support this heinous act will be judged for their participation and approval.
Eric:
The best way to deal with abortion from the pulpit is for preachers to become the instruments by which such changes of heart and mind come to people that abortion becomes unthinkable, quite apart from what the politics may be.
The Church is to go about its task through moral suasion, buttressed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Jesus never once sought or commended His followers to use the levers of political power to achieve His ends.
In doing its work, the Church can also have a hand in the shaping of Christian politicians, jurists, and others who can, in turn, lead society in changing what is repugnant.
probligo:
Christianity is a polyglot lot, still the fastest growing religion in the world. Even in the first century, there were pseudo-Christians and overly enthusiastic Christians with heretical hobby horses. Church bodies may discipline, instruct, excommunicate, or denounce those who misuse the Gospel for their own differing ends, but the Church has and should have no coercive power to "control its fringe and extremist groups," as you put it.
Suasion, backed by the Holy Spirit, is the best and most effective tool the Church has at its disposal in dealing with the folks you describe as well.
God bless and thanks to both of you.
Mark Daniels
First, there’s the obvious point that by taking no political position, you are in fact taking a political position. Silence is every bit as political as advocacy.
Second, neither Jesus nor St. Paul would have any place in the “a-political” pulpits you seem to have in mind. Jesus had a lot to say about the powers of this world and their role in oppressing people, and Jesus’ own execution was politically motivated. Pilate didn’t kill Jesus because Pilate cared about intra-Jewish religious disputes; nailing “King of the Jews” to Jesus’ cross made it clear that Jesus’ person and teachings posed a political challenge to Roman authority, as well as entrenched interests among temple authorities. And we should not forget that Jesus died because Pilate ordered his death, regardless of whoever else may have conspired in his murder.
Additionally, the acclamation “Jesus is Lord” is an affirmation of God’s sovereignty over ALL the world. Every power in this world, including temporal authorities, is subject to God’s sovereignty. St. Paul makes that abundantly clear, and he too died at the hands of temporal power precisely because he refused to compromise on that point.
Your statement “Preachers and churches are to keep sharing Jesus Christ. We’re to trust that as we lift Jesus up, at least some in the world will come to see Jesus in our lives and believe in Him” begs the question, what about Jesus is the world seeing? Is the world seeing an incarnate Jesus courageously speaking truth to power in the name of the creator God? Or, is the world seeing an innocuous nice guy who wouldn’t dare presume to claim sovereignty over the whole world, and risk challenging the sensibilities of the powers of this world? And whether or not people believe in Him, has no bearing whatsoever on God’s sovereignty; God is sovereign with our without our belief.
You would be absolutely correct to say that the church has no right or business endorsing partisan political institutions, as if they flawlessly embody the will of God. But, you are dead wrong to suggest that disciples of Jesus of Nazareth – clergy and lay – have nothing to say publicly – both in the world, and in our pulpits and pews – about God’s sovereignty and what that sovereignty means for human conduct, including our exercise of temporal authority. Thousands of saints were martyred bearing that witness, to say nothing of our Lord’s own example. We should be wary of abandoning the bold, and very challenging, witness of the apostles, for the socially safer and more discreet option of the gnostics.
Finally, restricting our public witness to “horrific evil, like slavery, racism, or prejudice” ignores the historical fact that none of these were considered “horrific evils” UNTIL faithful disciples of Jesus of Nazareth (and others) publicly declared them so! Counseling the church to keep quiet until there is popular consensus in society begs the question, whom do we really believe is sovereign of this world?
Johann:
Thank you for taking the time to comment.
Now, to each of your points.
First: In the face of an evil that clearly crosses the line from the vantage point of Scripture, obviously not taking a position is to take a position. This was the problem of the quietists, those who maintained silence regarding slavery in the US, the policies of the Nazis, or anyone who fails to condemn racism or discrimination in the civil realm today.
By not expressing a preference for Obama or McCain or anybody else, I am not thereby taking a political position.
As a preacher of the Word, I have an obligation to point out that God has entrusted the care of the earth to us and that we each have mutual responsibilities that we should seek to express as citizens and politicians. But I am on shaky ground as a preacher if I claim to have God's political programs for addressing specific issues.
Indeed, preachers who do this--be they Rod Parsley or Jim Wallis--risk subordinating the Gospel to their political preferences, enshrining their politics as gods and Jesus a pliant, malleable cheerleader for "we righteous ones."
Second: Governments, such as the Roman one which ruled first-century Judea, will often regard those who dare to put Jesus first--as opposed to, say, "country first," a notion endorsed by both Obama and McCain--as a threat. Clearly the religious leaders in Judea, who were more political than spiritual, and Pilate, regarded Jesus as a threat precisely because the crowds proclaimed Jesus "King."
But Jesus never set out to be a political king. He set out to be king of everything. He also set us free to live out what that means through prayerful dependence on God and the power of the Holy Spirit.
Jesus says that we are to render unto God what is God's and unto Caesar's what is Caesar's. Whatever else that might mean, it seems to me that it's pointless to think that there is a straightforward Christian political philosophy that we can put on the marketplace of isms along with liberalism, Marxism, conservatism, libertarianism, and such. Nor can we say that any one of those human inventions, which are really just perspectives on how to operate the finite kingdom of the left, is from God.
In a book which I feel ultimately veers away from much usefulness, 'The Politics of Jesus,' John Howard Yoder wrote about Paul's writing as it relates to governing authorities. He points out that in Romans 13, Paul commended prayer for the emperor. In Romans 12, Paul told Christians not to be conformed to this world. Yoder's conclusion: As citizens, we give the government what support we can, for the good of the neighbor, so long as that government isn't engaging in evil or preventing Christians from living their faith.
Nowhere in the life of Jesus or the writings of Paul will you find them laying out a political program. Herod was, Jesus said, "that fox." But He neither calls for Herod's overthrow or offers a platform for reforming Judea politically, economically, or socially.
Finally, the Lordship of Jesus and the guidance given to Christians by the Holy Spirit can become the incubator and the power source for positive political, social, cultural, and economic transformations. But preachers who claim that this candidate is preferred by God or that political platform quench the Spirit of God and enervate Christians' motivation to enact their rolls in "the priesthood of all believers."
Letting the world see an incarnate Jesus is to show them Christ's compassion and concern about every aspect of life. So, by all means, preachers should point out what is just and unjust when appropriate. Churches should be engaged in service to neighbors. And they should invite others to follow Christ so that they too, can enjoy the internal transformation who transforms lives and sets Christians loose on a world in need of Christ.
But that doesn't mean that I should say, "Vote for X" when I preach. Indeed, I think that it would be wrong for me to do so, except to stop a David Duke or an Adolf Hitler from being elected.
Besides, I haven't noticed the country beating down preachers' doors to find out who we're voting for.
Thanks again for writing.
God bless!
Mark
Mark,
I appreciate your care and thoughtfulness in your post and responses, especially given how politically enmeshed churches and Christian groups have become.
A comment and two questions: In Jesus' and Paul's day, the people to whom they preached had no opportunity to effect change in society through government; they were not participants in government in any significant manner. Given that we live in a different world with both the privilege and responsibility to participate in the political process, what would "render[ing] unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" mean for our informed participation in government (for Christians, not the Church)? And how does the Church help us understand and apply Christian truth to our political engagement?
Okay, one more. I believe Luther pointed out that one use of the Law was to restrain wickedness. Understanding that we don't live in a Christian nation or culture, to what extent is it appropriate for Christians to engage in the political process in order that law and policy should more reflect righteousness?
Jeff:
Thank you for taking the time to post your thoughtful questions.
You're absolutely right to point out the difference between the political situations in Jesus' and Paul's days on the one hand and our own on the other. I believe that Christians must be involved in the political process. I believe though that to avoid the implication that their own political beliefs are from God, preachers should avoid taking political positions from the pulpit. (And maybe on their blogs.) Our call, in part, is to preach the Word, pointing to God's will, and then to trust the Holy Spirit to guide Christians.
There are times when the call to preach will lead us to make overtly political statements. But those occasions are rare and should always be in service to God's Word.
Your question about based on Luther's discussion of the uses of the law is an interesting one. I don't think that the answer is an easy one and I'm not altogether clear myself about the answer. But a few thoughts...
(1) I personally believe that God has written His law on our hearts. All people have some awareness of right and wrong, of God's will for human beings.
(2) We live in a pluralistic society.
(3) Christ doesn't coerce acquiescence to His Lordship.
(4) Also according to Luther, the state exists as the "left hand" of God's rule, the way by which God keeps the sinfulness of humanity at bay, an emergency measure necessitated by the Fall. The true function of government and of all law, is to enact and enforce moral standards for society, standards under which we would voluntarily live if we all lived in Christ's kingdom of grace.
Those are a few principles. Generally, where they lead me is to say that how one enacts God's moral law in civil and criminal law isn't always clear and that great humility should be exercised by Christians in the political realm. Even when we think we have a clear understanding of God's will, we must admit that we could be wrong and there may be multiple ways to enact God's will in law.
For the sake of our witness and our higher calling of making disciples, I think that we should avoid any appearance of arrogance.
I also think that preachers should generally stay out of politics. I say this as one who ran for political office four years ago. I regret that. I now say that the only time I would run for political office again is if I were retired from the pulpit or under what the Lutheran theologians would describe as an emergency circumstance when the state is out of control.
That probably doesn't respond adequately to your thoughtful comment, Jeff. But, in my defense, it's late.
God bless you.
Mark
Mark, thanks for your thoughtful reply. I think we share much in terms of perspective and concerns.
I will be leading a Bible study over the next few weeks on what it means to be a Christian in a pluralistic society and how our faith informs our political engagement. I appreciate and value your input.
Post a Comment