The fundamental task of a religious organization is to serve God, not win in secular politics. Once this distinction is lost, the identity of the religious organization is compromised beyond repair. This is bad not just for the integrity of that religious group, but also for society, which if it is to flourish needs a variety of social institutions performing a variety of functions ”” not every social institution morphing into a political organization.
Specifically for Christians, we (should) know that the mission of the church is to be Christ’s faithful people, and to do its core work of preaching, teaching and serving our neighbors. If it is true (as we boldly believe) that the church is the central location for the work God is doing to redeem the world, then our focus should be on the church’s work, not the state’s. As one aspect of our God-inspired love for our neighbor, we can ask the state and its leaders to do justice, protect life and advance the common good. We can do this in many quite constructive ways, from scholarly work to declarations of principles to activism on specific issues.
But we dare not identify the work of any state, any political party or any politician with the work of God or the task of the church. Every time we do so we end up embarrassing ourselves, enraging the neighbors we are called to love, deepening the culture wars and damaging our own mission.
David’s words are instructive. In many ways they reaffirm Mark Noll’s thoughts concerning “the scandal of the Evangelical mind.” He writes,”Evangelicalism in America has been a movement stressing moral activism without providing a major role for the church. Evangelical political reflection is oriented in a populist direction because Evangelicalism has been a populist movement…evangelicals in general have trusted their sanctified common sense more than formal theology, systematic study of history, or deliverances from academically trained ethicists.” Perhaps the best way to change the world is to renew and revive the church.
“But we dare not identify the work of any state, any political party or any politician with the work of God ”
Can we identify a certain government as NOT the work of God?
Eugene, I seriously doubt it. God even pointed out that he was using the Babylonians as His agents to punish (and enslave) Israel. I would imagine we need to be really careful when we go defining what God is doing, no matter how ‘clear’ we think the picture is.
I have been to many churches in my life, but never one in which the pastor had the temerity to “single-out” one political party as being worthy of the churches support. Its wrong, and more often than not its career suicide. Just my opinion.
So, what is the fascination during this election with the affinity of evangelical Christians with the Republican party? Its always been there and it ain’t going away. I guess its only fair that Democratic political strategists have found a way to erode this “religious” advantage by making people feel guilty about supporting the GOP. The liberal establishment is quite adept at trying to “lay guilt trips” on people when they offer nothing substantive in return.
I do know of church establishments that are overtly political. Nothing will change that and you aren’t going to make that subset feel “guilty” in the least (on both sides of the political spectrum).
So, they must really be speaking to a subset of independent voters that attend church regularly and generally trend Republican trying to convince them separation of church and state also applies to ones own political views. You have your religious views and you have your political views and one should not encroach on the other. Which is Hogwash.
I understand the “dangers” of what the author speaks of but the most flagrant violators of his thinking are those that don’t care about those dangers in the first place. So, its a bit of an apologetic piece of thinking for my taste.
An advantage of age is that I remember, and what I remember is a politically active Christian Left that existed before a politically active Christian Right. I remember Martin Luther King acting in the public square on the basis of his faith. I remember William Sloan Coffin protesting the Vietnam War on the basis of his faith.
At best this article is a simplistic and one-sided statement of how faith and the public square should intersect. At worst, it could encourage a quietism that would leave untouched the profound moral questions of our time: the legalized murder of unborn babies, legalized avarice and materialism, public sexuality, just war, and so on.
I’ve seen a heck of a lot more “liberal,” “progressive” and “mainline” Churches that are overtly Democrat than evangelical ones that are overtly Republican. In fact, I’ve never been in an evangelical church that preached politics, at least the ones I have been in are scrupulous about avoding mention of politics.
Barak Obama used the steps of a Pentacostal Holiness church to make a political speech and impromptu press confrence Sunday. Shouldn’t the pastor of that church have declared neutrality lest he come across as supporting the election of BO or at least support of the Democratic Party? The REVEREND Jesse Jackson and the REVEREND Al Sharpton routinely speak out in support of specific candidates, yet few people question their right to do so.
Democratic Candidates regularly use the pulpits of liberal churches to give speeches.
So why single out the Evangelicals for something the Democratic Party has been doing for decades?
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
Correction:
The REVEREND Jesse Jackson and the REVEREND Al Sharpton routinely speak out in support of specific candidates, [i]and to denigrate and deride others[/i], yet few people question their right to do so.
We Catholics heard for years the “seamless garment” argument which is that all the social issues must be given relatively equal weight. It was a cover for pro-abortion Catholic Democrat politicians back then and I’m happy to say that the American bishops have clarified the Church’s stance, which is that abortion is instrinsically evil and may never be supported. It appears that the writer of this article is attempting to provide a “seamless garment” case for evangelicals. He’s about twenty years behind the times.
I agree with Rev. Kennedy that if the Republicans were to remove the pro-life plank many evangelicals and most Catholics who now support them would abandon them in a heartbeat(not necessarily becoming democrat).
Actually, lots of people question Jackson and Sharp, but those aren’t voices given credence in the elite circles of society. Thank God for the internet.
#7, well written. It is easy to see where ‘one-issue’ voters come from, when that issue is the killing of the unborn. It is an “either-or” situation, either you are for it (to any degree) or you are against it (totally). And it is the defining issue of the 20th, and so far, the 21st century, in American morality. So far, we have outdone the Nazis in our atrocities, and it is really that simple. Our nation will be, or is now being, judged.
“If indeed our premise has been correct, that abortion ends the life of a human being, then no other “issue†even comes close to ranking in importance with it; not the war, not poverty, not healthcare, taxes or immigration.”
Thank you Matt Kennedy! Where the candidate stands on abortion is my “litmus test,” and will remain so as long as abortion remainds a convenient option.
T
Why can we not have a candidate who is pro-life and who supports quality education for all, universal health care, responsibility for the environment, and thinking six times before engaging in war?
1) why not a candidate who is pro-life? There ARE some out there.
2) I don’t know of any candidate of any party who is for substandard qualities of education for all.
3) Universal health care will require a very high tax rate, and will destabalize the economy rapidly. So I would not support a candidate who supports this type of program.
4) Responsibility for the environment, it should be noted, was championed by Republicans since pre-Teddy Roosevelt’s decision to set aside lands as National Parks. What I do not support in a candidate is someone who has bought the lie of “we are causing Global Warming and so must legislate immediate high cost/low result changes”. A simple anti-pollution, pro-recycling, alternate forms of energy candidate would suffice.
5) If we are attacked, I want a president who will take charge and respond quickly before the dust settles. It’s a matter of national security. We haven’t had a major attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, thankfully. Under Bill Clintons’ inaction we had multiple attacks from terrorists on US soil and US property abroad.
Universal health care, or universal health insurance? They are not the same thing.
The universal health insurance we have in place (Medicare and Medicade) is not in good shape, and is seriously over burdened.
So, either. I can’t see the government handling either with any great success or aplomb, and the outcome being anything less than a very expensive disaster.