Christian Ministries and Politics

CNN.com has published a commentary by Bishop T. D. Jakes titled Commentary: No political party can contain us. My wife called my attention to it as a blog topic.

Bishop Jakes is explicitly addressing his comments to the African-American community. To what extent should black churches use the pulpit for politics? How much should they depend on a single political party to accomplish their goals. Often ministers disagree on this issue. Bishop Jakes says:

I do not believe that African-American ministers should allow their political views to dictate the subjects and tone of their sermons. Some believe their calling is to consistently petition society to address its role in depriving African-Americans of the full benefits of citizenship. Others believe they are called to inform, encourage, coax and propel people of color to provide for themselves, shape their own reality and build institutions to better their communities.

I’ve encountered both types of ministers, and often they can be very impatient with those who have a different emphasis. Their goals are generally very similar, yet the debate over strategy can get in the way of recognizing the similarities. Bishop Jakes suggests a solution:

If we as African-American ministers allow anyone to script our sermons for us, where will it end? I respect each minister’s views and recognize his right to tout them, but it is dangerous to try to force all members of any group to align themselves with anyone’s viewpoints, including my own. Each of us must answer the call that he or she receives from God, not the direction of any man.

Now I don’t feel qualified to comment on how the African-American community deals with politics, but I think he has some very good ideas for the rest of us. We all face issues of how politics relates to our spiritual beliefs and activities. Should a preacher use his pulpit to deal with social issues? If so, just how specific should he get about the solutions to such problems? Should we, as Christians, look primarily for temporal solutions to our problems, or is our focus on another world, if not to the exclusion of this one, certainly to its diminishing?

There are two temptations for the preacher or church leader involved in politics. First he may get so involved in political solutions that the good news about Jesus gets lost. Second, just as he can with doctrinal issues, he may make peripheral matters, or issues of strategy or tactics become central, and thus divide the body over non-essential issues. Both of these problems occur in the church as a whole.

For many Christians, good goals get confused with the specific strategy for accomplishing them. Using the issue of abortion as an example, I believe we have farily widespread agreement amongst Christians that reducing the number of abortions in this country is a good goal. As a matter of strategy there are various mixtures of education and legal sanctions. For many, the strategy becomes the actual goal. Thus many conservatives accuse liberals of actually desiring abortions to take place, and believing they are good things, because those same liberals do not support particular laws against abortion. Liberals, on the other hand accuse the conservatives of a lack of concern for the health of women, for individual choice, and for the needs of the children who are born. Now while the priorities may differ, I suspect that the vast majority of liberals are concerned with life, and do not regard abortions as a good thing, while the vast majority of conservatives are concerned with the health of women and with the care of born children, and not just the unborn. While the priorities differ, the hopes are similar.

Solving this sort of issue in a political way, through the action of the law, can interfere with the gospel way, which is the transformation of people one by one through the power of the Holy Spirit. Such transformed people would be much less likely to have unstable families, and much less likely to be having unjustified abortions. The point here is not to condemn one form of politics over another, but rather to suggest that we can get together on the more basic issue of the gospel, while we differ on political strategies.

The second problem, making the political strategy part of the goal, is one that was first called to my attention in reading the United Methodist social principles before I joined the United Methodist Church. The social principles struck me as material written by impractical idealists–in many cases (but not all) admirable goals, yet rarely well-considered strategies for attaining those goals. Conservatives are generally likely to agree with me here, though they will often consider the goals themselves less than admirable. Liberals may wonder why I object to the social principles at all.

Recently I wrote about the minimum wage, so let me use it as an example. I had a very pleasant exchange with a commenter on this blog who disagreed with me on the topic, yet we found that we agreed on the goal: a just, living wage for all. Now we disagreed profoundly on the strategy for implementing that goal. Politicians of all stripes seem to forget that simply because you say some strategy is for the purpose of accomplishing some goal, doesn’t mean that it actually will accomplish that goal. I believe that increased funding of education and infrastructure will tend to improve wages and go further toward creating a living wage than will the minimum wage. Others disagree. It is important to note that we are disagreeing not on the goal, but on the strategy. I think there is little doubt that Jesus would want his followers to support a living wage. But he didn’t tell us how best to accomplish that in 21st century America. That matter of strategy is left to us to decide.

Even greater confusion results when a pastor allows himself to be identified with a particular political party. The American political parties do not represent a coherent ideology, and certainly neither one can claim the allegiance of Christians in all areas. Those who suggest otherwise are in grave danger of obscuring or drowning out the message of the gospel. This error is again something that can happen from either side. In these cases church leaders would do well to talk about principles and goals, and allow church members to choose strategies for themselves.

In all cases, however, Bishop Jakes’s advice is important. Each of us must follow the calling of God in what we say and do. Let’s just make sure it’s not our own political and social agendas we are following, and not God’s calling.