Politics and Church

I highly recommend all Christians read this article from Tim Alberta of The Atlantic. My recommendation shouldn't be read as an endorsement of everything that the news outlet is known to support (and neither is it a full endorsement of the writer himself). But Alberta breaks down an exceedingly difficult issue in a way that I think is instructive for church-attending Christians (there is no other kind). 

All of that said, let me give my response using the format of an academic analysis. This might sort of double as a guide in reading the article, for those interested: 

Pros: 

1. The writer notes the extremism present on both the right and left. 

It is very clear that in the current day, many people on the right and on the left have moved further to their sides on social issues than they were 15 years ago. There is a growing right-wing extremism and there is a growing left-wing extremism. Further, these sides do this in response to what they perceive to only be extremism on the other side. In other words, such moves are reactionary. A type of what Coldplay called "a battle from beginning to end, a cycle of recycled revenge." 

2. The writer rightly criticizes the news and media over-consumption present on both sides. 

As a conservative Christian pastor (in a denomination that used to have "conservative" in its name), I find myself constantly warning my people that they need to guard their hearts better regarding their Fox News consumption. This past Sunday from the pulpit, I said that the news stations keep you watching by keeping you, first, scared (that is, scared that the opposite side is winning), and secondly, flowing the first, angry (that is, that no one is doing anything about it). And while I preach (hopefully) helpful messages that serve to disciple my people well, they're listening to me talking for 40 minutes on a Sunday morning (or 100 minutes if they come to adult Sunday school and evening service), while they're consuming maybe dozens of hours of media a week, filled with takes, narratives, etc. based on ungodly worldview. No wonder we're so taken in with political concerns.  

3. The writer emphasizes that healthy churches treat the gospel as superior to world issues. 

Christians should be gospel people first and foremost, viewing themselves as ministers of reconciliation, imploring the world to "be reconciled to God" (2 Cor. 5:20), themselves concerned with living lives that reflect the beauty and humility of their Master (1 Pet. 1:15; on humility and quietness, 1 Tim. 2:1-2). That is, they labor for people to find the risen Jesus and to follow Him. If He rules and reigns even in the present, then that means that he is not surprised by current events, nor can those events not serve His eternal purpose in the end. If this is the case, why are Christians--right and left--SO concerned with the cultural moment? This is a passing moment, and nothing is new under the sun, 

4. Finally, the article does a good job of explaining the tension a lot of pastors are facing.

While my congregation has been very supportive of a gospel-oriented and God-focused ministry in an age of political tension, I know many pastors who have either left ministry or been close to it because they face a palpable tension within their congregations regarding political and social issues. This aspect alone, whether construed pastorally as I have, or just noticing the tension present in so many churches and among so many believers, makes the article worth reading. 

Weaknesses: 

1. In warning against both right and left extremism, the writer conflates the right and the left as being equally dangerous (TRIGGER WARNING).

The writer seems to make right and left more similar than different, such that both need equally avoided. I cannot say that this is accurate. As a conservative Christian, my view is that the right and the left are not the same. Both have issues, and neither can save America or the free world. But regenerate Christians can not support the legalization of infanticide (read: abortion), which the left is closely identified with. I am not saying that every Democrat is a supporter of infanticide - many are not; I have several in my congregation who despise the practice. It is clear that America has many pro-life Democrats, for which I am thankful. But the Democratic Party has positioned itself (to many pro-life Democrats' chagrin) as the party of abortion. This alone, among other reasons (such as the courting of LGBTQ and CRT ideologies, as well as, more broadly, the all-out assault on the traditional family), is reason I can't conflate right and left. 

Instead, there is a type of cautious conservatism that I'm convinced Christians should pursue, one that votes for healthy policies that support peace, the traditional family unit, and free speech, without automatically writing off other Christians who have questions or differences in definitions. The problem is not, as the article suggests, that today we are told that we must "pick a side." The problem is that so many Christians are so afraid to do so that they refuse to think through how to. And other Christians are so sure of themselves that they never stop and question themselves, so they don't think either. The problem is that we're too busy to think. 

2. The writer bolsters weak theology, which is the church's biggest problem, in my estimation. 

While the writer himself didn't make this claim, he did mention endearingly a center-leaning pastor's argument to his congregation that believers should know that Jesus came to save everyone, even, as the pastor said to his congregation, Ilhan Omar. I have no clue Mrs. Omar's eternal destiny, only that if she doesn't bow the knee to Jesus (as far as I know, she is not a Christian), she will enter eternal judgment alongside of every other conservative or liberal who didn't embrace King Jesus (Mt. 25:46). It is weak theology to assume that Jesus "came" for everyone. There are two things that the Bible says are true, regarding this topic: First, sovereign election is true (ie, Lk. 10:20, 18:7); that is, in the divine purposes of God, He has a particular regenerate people whom He freely and graciously drew to his Son (Jn. 6:44, 65) who truly bore the penalty for their sins at the cross. Second, I don't know who all of these elect are. But I know I should pray that the Lord works on Mrs. Omar's heart to draw her the same way that he drew me. I just don't think it's productive to say "Jesus died for you," to her or any lost person; the Apostles never preached the gospel that way. Instead, it is much more theologically healthy to put it like this: "Mrs. Omar needs Jesus the same as I do, and Jesus is just as willing to receive her if she were to ask" (cf. Jn. 6:35). 

As it is, "Jesus died for you" theology is just as weak in my view as Left Behind/Rapture theology. Both are built on faulty exegesis, and neither are life-giving: To tell people who are rebels against God that Jesus died for them is to confirm them in their pride (ie, "look at how valuable you are"); and to hold to Left Behind theology is to all but confirm that you will soon be sitting in judgment on the world outside. 

Overall: 

The article is extremely helpful in parsing out the various issues that people are doubtlessly struggling with in local churches today. Thus, I highly recommend you read it and give it some thought. 

If I had any advice for pastors and church leaders, it would be this: Cultivate Kingdom-mindedness in the churches. Do this, first, by focusing the peoples' attention on missions, in particular, how the gospel is more global than it ever has been. Do this, secondly, by preaching and teaching the Trinity. Get them focused on God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 4:4). Finally, be Kingdom-minded by preaching idolatry and sin. Calvin said that idolatry is proof of our need for God: We are made to worship and enjoy him, but until he finds us, we give our attention to other "gods." Therefore, in order to keep their eyes on the God who is "slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love," (Ex. 34:6), show them the reality of sin within all of us and our need for God's grace in His Son. Confront their news and media addictions, their guilt-driven leftist ideologies, and their past-driven America-first mentalities. Show them that a healthy diet of media is helpful, compassion for the poor is Biblical, and a desire for a country that practices righteousness before God is a good desire (just as being thankful for such a wonderfully blessed country is good, too). But these things will only be experienced in a healthy and balanced way by being Kingdom-minded first. In showing your people this, you are taking every thought captive to obey Christ; and in time, they will, too.