I have been part of a local church where the pastor was obsessed with politics. On Sundays the sermons told the congregation how to vote (Republican) on a variety of topics. He would even say that those who voted opposite of his ideologies were not Christians. It was horrifying.
“Eh, so you prefer that I remain silent about Hitler and preach on the ‘purpose driven life?’ ” – Bonhoeffer (no, he didn’t really say this!)
For many years I held the view the pastors/preachers should refrain from political engagement. I hoped for an apolitical pastorate. Even now I get very nervous when I hear a sermon inch closer to addressing some “hot topic” in our society (e.g., same-sex marriage, individual health care mandates, particular definitions of “religious freedom,” et cetera). I don’t mind a pastor having politic views, but often politics can be very nuanced and when someone addresses politics in a thirty minute sermon it is not possible to be fair to the complexities of social engagement. For example, let’s suppose every Christian in the congregation affirms homosexuality as immoral, this does not mean that every one of them feel that the right thing to do is vote for legislation that prohibits homosexuals from this or that “civil right.” Another example: Christians might agree for the need for “religious freedom,” but they may differ on the HHS mandate. In other words, Christians might agree on broad principles while disagreeing on how to apply those principles to society.
That said, I understand things can become very complicated. One of the major critiques of To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World by J.D. Hunter (I haven’t read the book, though I was interested) is that it works fine for someone who is semi-comfortable to be apolitical. If life is fairly easy being apolitical may be a option. But it is not an option for all, especially the oppressed. So while I cringe when I hear Pat Robertson or John Hagee sound bites I don’t know that I am willing to make the statement “pastors should be apolitical” a universal one. Should Bonhoeffer said nothing about the Nazi regime? Should Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. have refrained from using the pulpit to address civil rights?
Usually I struggle to agree with John Piper, but I was sympathetic of his recent sermon (see the video here) where he said these words in conclusion:
“My job is to feed the saints with such meals that they go out strengthened and robust and able to do the study and do the courage and do the action needed as salt and light in this world. And that will go away if you insist on the church and the ministry being the political leaders. It will and we can point to many where it has.”
I don’t expect to hear anything this Sunday from the pulpit on the Supreme Court ruling regarding Obama’s ”individual mandate” and I am thankful for that. I wish more pastors were humble enough to know their job is to exegete and proclaim Scripture so that the saints have a foundation upon which to approach sensitive subjects in society. But I don’t know that this is always true and I don’t know that I have thought through what makes Bonhoeffer different from Robertson or King different from Hagee.
What are your thoughts on this matter? How should pastors approach political engagement? Do you advocate complete abstinence in the pulpit or do you think there are some applicable principles that allow pastors to wisely avoid some subjects while necessitating that they address others?
Jesus was not apolitical, he was about the Kingdom of God, very political. The problem today is that christian politics has been co-opted by conservatism. It is not a Kingdom of God politics. The question we should be asking is not whether a pastor is political or apolitical but rather are they following the politics of Jesus.
Sam
While I think I agree in principle with what you are saying can I ask you to flesh it out a bit? What does this “look like” in the pulpit? Should preaching avoid particularities? If not, what particularities are fair game and which are off-limits?
Taking the example of the health care law. I think some partiularities don’t matter. To give a crude example most people seem to be focussed on the constitutionality of the law. I honestly think Jesus would not have cared for the consititution. But where the focus should be is making sure that health care if available to all. Now Jesus when on earth led the way on this. He healed people wherever he went, for free, even on the sabbath! Of course his healing ministry was part of his greater purpose of conquering death. So while the particulars of the health law do not matter, as a community we should be working towards healing for all regardless of what captialism dictates because our greater purpose is life.
Sam
Again, I think we are on the same page. I do wonder how the “already, but not yet” aspect of the Kingdom of God contributes to this discussion. Yes, the Kingdom invites the poor and weak, but we live in a world where the Kingdom of God has not swallowed the Kingdom of Satan and we share a democracy with others who do not confess “Jesus is Lord.” So the practicalities of living the Kingdom of God in our temporal democracy can be sticky.
Thankfully there are neither Republicans nor Democrats in my constituency (true, but said in jest). Political landscape tend to have more dimensions outside of the US. Even so, you ask a good question “How should pastors approach political engagement?”
Pastors are to shepherd their sheep, not engage in politics. Likewise, Pastors lack authority to brand ‘political issues’ and ‘politicians’ as sanctioned or unsanctioned but instead teach people to recognize their moral or immoral consequences. People like to cite Bonhoeffer as one who opposed politics, but Bonhoeffer did not die for politics. He died opposing immorality “The ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world that it leaves to its children.”
When a Pastor teaches his flock morality, or to differentiate godliness from godlessness, he must ultimately trust the flock to make moral choices, not make those choices for them. When a Pastor endorse politics ‘officially’ ultimately he is not allowing them to make moral choices for themselves, and he’s categorically pigeon-holing the political issue being addressed.
Consider the political issue surrounding homosexuality with respect to this last comment. There IS something moral about saying “I don’t want to live in a society that prejudices people because of their sexuality”, just as there IS something moral about saying “I want to live in a moral society where immorality is not sanctioned or condoned; homosexuality is immoral”.
Rarely in a (political) debate does one side have a monopoly. Homosexuality IS immoral. Prejudice IS immoral. For a pastor to endorse one side of the debate over the other politically, they is miss the chance to dissect both sides of the debate from the moral perspective, notwithstanding their own political view of the matter. There is tension between both moral views. For the church to interfere politically, would be nothing less then impeding a believer’s right to be convinced in their own mind [Rom 14:5].
Both Christians and non-Christian’s live in society. Christian’s in free societies have a moral obligation to influence the values of that society. However, this does give the church the right to choose the politics of the congregants, even if it has an obligation to safeguard biblical morality.
Sam, here’s how I understand ‘political’:
po·lit·i·cal (adjective) – 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with politics.
pol·i·tics (noun) – 1. the science or art of government.
In what sense do you believe Jesus was political? I’d agree Jesus’ Gospel had political ramifications but this is not the same as him being political.
Jesus hid from people who wanted to make him King [ John 6:15]. When Caesar asked him a political question, he replied apolitically “My kingdom is not of this world” [John 18:36]. One of the false claims the Jews levelled against Jesus was that He was in political competition with Caesar
except that Pilate himself saw his response as being apolitical [John 19:12].
[Mark 12:16] “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.”
[ Mark 12:17] “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.
In saying this Jesus was drawing a line in the sand between politics and what he was interested. Man is created in the image God (realm of creation), the coin was created in the image of Caesar (realm of politics). Clearly he was interested in one more than the other.
andrew seems to be alluding that immorality = Godlessness. i think that’s an interesting way of defining immorality, and brian, i am curious to know if you think that is a useful perspective. andrew, i hope i am not mischaracterizing what you’ve said, i think the idea has merit and i’ve not heard it expressed in this way before.
Andrew
I tend to Jesus’ actions as political, though I think Jesus redefined expectations. You are correct that Jesus did’t conform to the expectations of the people. That doesn’t mean he (anachronistically) advocated an extreme separation of church/state. Rather, Jesus followed the Father and this lead Jesus to disavow politics as is, not politics. If Jesus’ action expected a change in how people lived and how rulers ruled and how nations functioned, and if Jesus is the Psalm 2 King as the Book of Acts and the Pauline Epistles seem to advocate, there is no getting around his political posture.
Even in saying “render unto Caesar” he advocates a political position of his Kingdom not physically usurping Caesar’s (at this time, if that is how we should interpret his very vague words).
Sarah
I am comfortable with that definition. I’d say immorality results when we don’t act in love toward God and neighbor. I think this is how the Ten Commandments frame it and how the prophets summarized it and how Jesus portrayed it.
@brian I could be wrong, but whenever i hear “but how do i live practially?” i am wondering if people are forcing the scriptures to answer one of their own questions. Don’t get me wrong, i think the scriptures answers a lot of questions, but not everything under the sun. All that is needed has been answered by the Bible (2 Tim 3:15-17, i include v15 to stress the faith in/of Jesus Christ). Even though i do not answer all questions, i am thorougly equipped.
Out thinking is to be renewed too. I take this to mean, that we start thinking like how the scriptures do. A person would perfect thinking will be reasoning as the scripture does and dwelling on things the scriptures dwell on, not everything under the sun.
I guess in short i am saying that sometimes we don’t have to put ourselves in sticky situations.
I do agree with the already not yet, but of late i have been expanding that by saying that Jesus reigns and is in the process of subduing his enemies. We subdue his enemies when we faithfully follow him.
@Andrew Jesus preached the good news. The best way to understand good news is to think of it as the news that matters. There is lot of news out there, but there is only one the matters which has truly changed history, it is called the good news. The good news is that God reigns or Jesus is King. it is within this context you need to see the verses you have quoted.
When Jesus says that his kingdom is not of this world, he is not making a distinction between spiritual and physical. Those distinctions that we make come to us from a greek thought. Rather Jesus is saying that his kingdom is not going to be like men’s kingom, it is going to be very different. Understand the context that John sets his gospel in, while the world has rejected him, he is still here to save the world, not in a universalistic way but in a way where “his will in heaven will be done on earth”. People of Jesus kingdom even fight wars, but we do not fight as the world does (2 Cor 10:4).
In Mark, he was really being asked whose side was he on? Was on Ceasar’s side on the side of the Jewish people. His reply was not some endorsement of Ceasar’s politics but rather that God is Lord of all things, so follow God.
Sam
I aim to avoid the Bible as “answer book” or “life manual” for the very reasons you note. That said, I think the canon starts the conversation and sometimes ends it, but more often directs us to ask the necessary questions for our current context in a way that has us meditating upon the history of the people of God to which we belong.
@Brian I think you say things better.
BTW i re read what i wrote and it was horrible. There were typos and my sentences were broken up. Sorry about that. maybe next time i will think and type slowly.
Jesus was apolitical in the earthly sense. As far as I can see, His sole comment was “Give unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s”. He also appears to have no affinity for Israeli nationalism and He never seems to have acknowledged the Macabees- Antiochus Epiphanes era.
Jesus’ era had a culture that was extremely evil beyond Hitler’s( if you believe the desire to murder God exceeds that of men) and He wasted nothing on any earthly political activism. He simply preached the same thing He had in the OT text when the Jews were apostate, He warned them to avoid war with their enemy when He was “not with them”.
Jesus was about His kingdom, which is not of this thoughtless world system even at it’s apotheosis and as much as I revere Bonhoeffer( and all Christian martyrs) if a believer was so spiritually blinded and into the darkness he couldn’t discern Hitler was a very extreme example of evil, Bonhoeffer’s speaking out about it wasn’t going to wake them up.
Only the unrelenting, negative judgment of God woke the Germans up.