Here is what I have concluded:
1. It is impossible for a church to be non-political. The gospel that we preach is inherently political. We preach Jesus as King and the in-breaking of God’s Kingdom through Him. This means that we preach ultimate allegiance to Jesus, which threatens and challenges all other allegiances: to family, to country, to job, and to political parties.
2. The church can and does lift its voice and must speak plainly when we believe that a violation of biblical values is occurring. Thus, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. appropriately led the church to protest the segregation laws as violations of the biblical doctrines of human dignity and equality. Likewise, the church must speak plainly and clearly whenever we see human life, freedom, or dignity threatened by the state or by our culture.
3. Churches (and pastors) should serve as spiritual and moral advisors to Christian individuals who will lead political fights. It is Christian individuals, not the church or pastors that should engage in political fights. By doing this the church avoids dividing the body, we avoid compromising our value systems, we avoid implying that another conversion is necessary beyond coming to Christ, and we avoid hair-splitting discussion that are foreign to our approach to life. Christian individuals may have a calling to the world of politics. Churches (and pastors) generally do not.
4. The place for the church to proactively engage the world is by redefining the public square. Nothing that I’ve said should be read to imply that the best course for a church is to withdraw from the larger society and simply offer a privatized or merely “spiritual” gospel. Instead, St. Andrew’s has chosen to change the terms of the discussion altogether. We want to completely redefine engagement with the public square. It is not necessary to debate the proper role of government in order for a church to set up a prison ministry. We need not get every Christian to agree on government provided healthcare for us to set up a free medical clinic. The church need not be divided or endlessly debate the wording of legislation to do justice by tutoring kids, offering free legal services, helping people to get their GEDs, or serving unwed moms in crisis pregnancies. And we need not be aligned with any political party or be beholden to any politician to practice racial reconciliation or assist families struggling with mental illness, poverty, or domestic violence.
All true enough; Rick Warren would approve. It is so much easier to tell us waht we should be doing (Purpose Driven) than to tell us what we are in Christ ( Promise Driven). It can also grow a Church very quickly as Grace Alone is so offensive to all of us in the initial hearing of it.
Can a Church do both; Preach God’s Grace in Jesus Christ while also setting up a structure for application? Possibly; but if it were common letters like this would include the Gospel itself rather than mentioning the Gospel.
I can’t find anything on the web site to tell me what city, state, and Christian denomination this church belongs to.
They are in Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina. From the links page, I take it that they are an Episcopal parish but organizied more like a megachurch.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
On the surface, I agree with the author, but there seems a thin thread somewhere that would take me outside his logic.
Perhaps it is the difference between what the Church does and what its members do. The big one, I suppose, is that the Church must not be a part of the polititcal system, though it must condemn sin where ever it is found and lift up the saints where ever they are found. But, I, as a Christian and memeber of the Church, must be involved with politics and to fail to do so is hatred of my neighbor.
I find such failures of differentiation troublesome in debate.
I appreciate much of what Rev. Wood has to say here, not knowing anything about him or the parish he serves. It might help to remember that he is primarily addressing his immediate flock. Like most churches, there’s a good deal of political and quasi-political talk from time to time. Momentarily substituting my own rector’s voice for Rev. Wood’s, I can see how this congregational letter might be one way to address a number of issues that have come up within a specific parish. Surely Rev. Wood knows best whether his parishioners appreciate having scripture quoted at them in their in-house communications, or if, by parenthetical reference they “know where he’s coming from.” This isn’t a position paper for the world at large. But a way for Rev. Wood and his parish to deepen and refine their thinking about the church’s relationship to politics. In view of all that, I appreciate what he’s said and how he’s said it.