Resisting the Politicizing of My Pulpit: Part 3

Alan Dunn

This is the third article explaining why I resist the politicizing of my pulpit. In part one, I reacted against the Americanizing of Christianity which led us to reflect upon the more foundational concerns that we began to consider in part two. The doctrines of creation and sin are both relevant along with the doctrines of salvation and eschatology.

The Relevance of Salvation

It was a Lord’s Day near the 4^th of July. We were on vacation. We attended a prominent Evangelical Church in town. I could hardly differentiate our “worship” from a political rally celebrating Americanism. Flags were flown, national songs and the anthems of each of the armed services were sung while the veterans stood amidst grateful applause, and the sermon Christianized [theocratized?] America. As we walked out of the meeting, some in my party commented that it appeared that I had not enthusiastically participated in the worship and they were curious: why not? Couldn’t I endorse the American Church? I’ve received emails, articles, fund drives, invitations to attend conferences – all predicated on the assumption that I, as a pastor, am committed to the American Church.

To the church of God which is at Corinth [1 Cor 1:2a]. Paul’s salutations come to mind along with Jesus’ letters to the seven churches in Rev. 2-3. Paul does not write to “the Corinthian Church,” but the church in ________ [fill in the blank]. That means that whatever I would preach to the church in America should basically be the same message that I would preach to the church in ________ [fill in the blank]. The same gospel is to be proclaimed in countries that are socialist, communist, Islamic, democratic republics, or tribal chiefdoms. The cultural, economic, political, even religious context does not dictate the content of our message. The circumstances of New Covenant worship will be influenced by the cultural setting and the forms of worship will bear the marks of ecclesiastical tradition, but New Covenant worship transpires in the heavenly presence of Christ [Heb. 12:22ff]. It is the Head of the church who dictates what constitutes the elements of worship which would essentially be the same regardless of the earthly location or the cultural setting of His assembled people. Sure, when we get to applying Scripture, we need to give practical directives that connect the Word of God to the realities of day to day discipleship, but even there, we need to be regulated by Scripture and the priorities of Christ’s Kingdom, not political opinion.

We must remember that ours is New Covenant salvation. The central tenet of our faith is “Jesus is Lord.” Jesus is the crucified, risen and enthroned Sovereign. If we, in the expression of our religion, are not consciously, intentionally, persistently focused on Jesus as our risen and glorified King, then our religion is not New Covenant religion. If we are not vitally, livingly joined to the risen Lord by faith due to the regenerating work of the Spirit, ours is not New Covenant salvation. Because of the resurrection of Jesus, we no longer recognize men according to the flesh [2 Cor. 5:16a]. We’re aware of our respective cultural backgrounds, but in Christ, in the church, there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all [Col. 3:11].

Paul informs us of his cross-cultural modus operandi in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23. Even as Americans in America, we need to apply these principles as we engage in cross-cultural ministry in an increasingly post-Christian, secular yet quasi-pagan, pluralistic society. In his freedom in Christ, Paul voluntarily made himself a slave to Jews and Gentiles, and accommodated himself to their idiosyncratic culturalisms in order to win and save some, for the sake of the gospel, all the while aware that his own salvation was bound up with the execution of his ministry. As Christ’s saved freeman, in service to his fellowman, Paul was adaptable to the mores of any given culture, sensitive not to offend at the point of social protocol. But his salvation included his submission to the law of God under the law of Christ [v.21]. The creational goodness encoded in the Ten Commandments regulated his conduct regardless of his societal setting and his obedience to the command of Christ to love others sacrificially characterized his interpersonal interactions. No matter where he was, he never stopped loving God and loving neighbor. There is no law against a man who bears the fruit of the Spirit [Gal. 5:22-23].

As for the spectrum of societies, civil authorities, and political policies, we are to render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s [Mat. 22:21]; to be in subjection to the governing authorities [Rom. 13:1ff]; and to submit ourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as one in authority, or to governors… honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king [1 Pet. 2:13-14a, 17]. Whatever the political philosophy being implemented by our civil government, our influence for social good should be respectable and lawful. If we, as legitimate citizens of our earthly society desire change, our method should be that of reformers, not revolutionaries.

However, our compliance with government in whatever social milieu has limits. There is a difference between Romans 13 and Revelation 13. When civil government outlaws our compliance to the government of King Jesus, we then run the risk of becoming “outlaws.” In such incidences we say with Peter, We must obey God rather than men [Acts 5:29]. Here we stand before a door that opens up to a vast array of knotty ethical issues. It is left to each man’s conscience as to how to work out obedience to Christ if he is convinced that he should pursue a course of civil disobedience.

My point is that the church is not tasked with developing the political policies for the city of Cain. We are to endorse our culture’s common grace creational order and withstand its manifestations of the common curse – both of which are found in varying degrees in every society throughout history and throughout the world. When John the Baptist counseled tax collectors and soldiers, he urged moral integrity in the discharge of their duties [Luke 3:12-14]. Likewise, Paul spoke to Felix about faith in Christ Jesus and discussed righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come [Acts 24:24-25] – all subjects relevant to an unconverted civil ruler. He didn’t tell Felix, a Jewish king, to jettison the Pax Romana and reinstitute the Old Covenant Theocracy or, were he to become a disciple, that he would then be obliged to constitute a Christianized Theocracy. When the opponents of Paul accused him of teaching men to act contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying that there is another king, Jesus [Acts 17:7b], they misunderstood the gospel and the word of the kingdom. I fear many professing Christians in our day are making the same mistake and intend to come and take Him by force to make Him king. Jesus withdraws from such a proposal [John 6:15].

I’m hard pressed to find a biblical mandate for us, as a church, to renovate culture. It seems that our salt and light [Mat 5:13-14] more indirectly affects culture by flavoring, illuminating, and stimulating the consciences of our fellowmen to a more consistent alignment with the morality of common grace creation ordinances. Ours is a mandate that focuses on the redemptive kingdom of Jesus, our enthroned Savior and Lord. As individual disciples who are citizens in this American political experiment, we have the liberty to engage in politics provided we do not compromise the primacy of our citizenship in the monarchy of King Jesus. We do well when we shine the light of Scripture on those matters of common grace and common curse in order to promote the well-being of our fellowmen. We can and should speak and act biblically in the political arena because it is a legitimate sphere of human activity. We are both blessed and challenged in that the degree of political involvement afforded to us in America and the West in general is unique in the history of men. Even today, many believers do not have the political freedoms that Americans have. The challenge is to weigh the relative weight of the various claims that political issues make upon our consciences. We cannot compromise a conscience cleansed by the blood of Christ in His courtroom for the sake of pursuing issues of genuine conscientious concern that are adjudicated in the courtrooms of men. My fear is that we can be more zealous for the White House than for God’s house.