RSSShould Pastors Endorse?
W.H. Chellis
While we are on the topic of who’s/ why’s of endorsing Presidential candidates, I would raise a different question. Should Pastor’s engage in endorsing of candidates? Does this violate the spirituality of the church?
Thoughts?
stevez
November 14th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Nope.
Yep.
I’d say more, but I need a new needle for my turntable first.
CBrown
November 14th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Excellent question. It was on my mind when I posted about a DRC endorsement the other day. I think most Reformed pastors would avoid making an endorsement from the pulpit. But what about recommending a candidate on a pastor’s blog? I’m not sure I would do that either. However, if someone in my congregation asked me about my choices for the upcoming election, then I would probably share my thoughts.
The bottom line for me, at least, is that U.S. politics is not my area of expertise. My area of expertise is the gospel. So, any political “endorsement” I might offer shouldn’t really carry much weight. There are other men in my congregation who have studied these matters more than I have. Besides, I’m a presbyterian, not a pope. If Reformed churches were to engage in political endorsements, then it seems to me that it would make more sense for sessions, presbyteries, and synods to make such decisions.
W.H. Chellis
November 14th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
I actually think I agree with Steve on this one. While I am comfortable as a lawyer or as town chairman of the Walworth Conservative Party making an endorsement, I am not comfortable doing so as a Pastor.
This means I have to have a bit of a split personality…. one who wears the hat of lawyer/politico and one that wears the hat of the local bishop. Thats thing about the secular and sacred…. as The Offspring used to sing, “you gotta keep ‘em seperated”.
stevez
November 14th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
Look, I got a new needle…
I am sure this will quickly dispel any kumbaya ‘round the 2K campfire, Bill. But I actually hold to a bit more conservative view about just how the local bishop ought to comport himself.
I think the burden on one who holds an office such as yours is one that may frustrate those same office-bearers with strong political leanings; at least, when I say the following to these kinds of pastors they misinterpret me to be wanting to say they can’t participate in the LHK or they can’t have their views or they can’t pull the lever on the voting booth or some other such nonsense. But while I think he may certainly have his foot in the LHK and participate, I also think his participation must necessarily be different from mine (imagine the irony as I am not particularly political). So sitting on politically partisan boards or working to get a candidate of any stripe elected, for example, I find inappropriate. In short, I can do that, you can’t; you have to play it close to your chest, I do not. I know you won’t like it one bit, but I say a pastor ought to retire his politico cap once he dons his Genevan gown, not merely do a Victor/Victoria impression. I’d rather watch James and Julie do that since most pastors seem to have two left feet when they try and laity can’t tell the difference. Besides, I would think most pastors would welcome a rule that allows them more sanity.
CBrown said, “However, if someone in my congregation asked me about my choices for the upcoming election, then I would probably share my thoughts.â€
I have no problem with that, sounds perfectly reasonable. I did have a problem with a fairly well known Reformed pastor posting his explicit approach to voting once. His justification was that a parishioner once came to him wanting to know how to vote and this was his way showing us all how he counseled. First, huh? The little old lady manning the booth tells you that. Ok, that was tongue-in-cheek. But seriously, someone doesn’t know how to vote? Sounded not a little made up; sounds a lot like, “I don’t know how to order from the drive through.†Second, even if we allow that, how about telling him that is not a part of your vocation? Do we ask our pastor which person to marry or school to attend or house to buy or whether we should biggie-size it?
Rusty O.
November 14th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
“I have to have a bit of a split personality…. one who wears the hat of lawyer/politico and one that wears the hat of the local bishop.”
So the ordination of a man to the ministry has no ontological efficacy? The office is to be put on and off like a hat?
“a pastor ought to retire his politico cap once he dons his Genevan gown”
…except that his Genevan gown betrays a transnational citizenship in Heaven requiring martyrdom for the one true Lord- the ultimate political statement.
W.H. Chellis
November 14th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Geneva Gown… where do I sign up?
Seriously, someone should have told John Calvin. He, a lawyer, helped prosecuted Servetus and used his legal/political skills in sundry other ways around Geneva.
Some should also scratch John Witherspoon’s name from the Declaration of Independence.
stevez
November 15th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Rusty,
I’ll see your “ontological efficiacy” and raise you a qualification: Martyrdom is required of us all, without distinction and no matter our outfits; but I am not wild about hurrying the sheep to slaughter due to the shepherd’s schizophrenia.
Bill,
Well, be careful how you sign your name…you have a funny way of spelling “persecuted.” I’ll only second scratching Witherspoon’s name as soon as I myself figure out how to un-ring bells. Until then, so be it.
Rusty O.
November 16th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Steve,
I agree. Don’t read “politically active” into my comment. Paul wasn’t “politically active” like Pat Robertson is. But his martyrdom was the ultimate, in your face statement of his loyalty to Christ over Caesar. Faithfulness is political, or at least it was in Rome’s eyes. Perhaps in the two kingdom view the lesser, temporal kingdom gets to decide when we are being political. In China, prayer groups are political. In the U.K. spanking your kids is political. In the U.S. church endorsement of a candidate is political.
The church is inescapably political, just like the old Jerusalem was political. It’s all in N.T. Wright.
The state is political, too. This is why we never get along. Church vs. church parody. Christ’s Body vs. body abstractly and impossibly incorporated. Individual and corporate harmony vs. the state’s constant flip-flop between tyranny of the one and anarchy of the many. Prince of Peace vs. false prince of violence.
The two kingdom view is a Lutheran compromise. It’s all in William Cavanaugh.
JAFielding
November 26th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
The Church is always spiritual. Jesus said that his kingdom was not “of” this world. Saying, however, that it is not “of” this world does not necessarily mean it members do not or should not participate in the institutions of the creation. Government is just such an institution. Pastors are both head of a local spiritual institution whose members participate in the world as the soldiers of the new kingdom. as such, they should receive instruction *all* aspects of spiritual life on this earth. So, yes, I beleive pastors should endorse and should not suffer IRS recriminations as a result. Since they do, however, they should endorse circumspectly, as individuals rather than representatives of the institutional local church.
W.H. Chellis
November 26th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
John- welcome to the fray
stevez
November 27th, 2007 at 10:05 am
“I beleive pastors should endorse and should not suffer IRS recriminations as a result. Since they do, however, they should endorse circumspectly, as individuals rather than representatives of the institutional local church.”
I think this is exactly where the rub is and is worth scrutiny. If you mean pastors should hold their cards painfully close to their chests, fine. They may be at the table, crunching a stogie like the rest of us. But I don’t think many really appreciate what it means to have a poker face. I think this all really has to do not with spoken messages, since we all robotically know in America the right answer about “the separation of church and state,” but with that message which is more powerful, the unspoken, implied one.
I want to be careful not to read as much into JAFielding’s comment. But I tend to perceive that such things are said by those who seem to, more or less, have a particular set of politics up their sleeve. That is fine with me, as even ordained leaders are full participants in both kingdoms. However, it doesn’t seem long before 1) those politics get implied as being heaven’s, and 2) another is discerned as having a different set of politics and then an ostensibly “spirituality of the Church” doctrine is invoked, which seems more designed to silence the other guy because he doesn’t necessarily share the former’s baptized secular views than it is zealous to protect the Gospel from the traditions of men. In other words, the “social gospel” charge seems usually leveled against he who simply doesn’t have the correct one–which seems much more Erasmian-esque than “Lutheran.”
Falwell, I think, was a great example of this during the civil rights era. He invoked what looked to be like a SOTC doctrine when he said that it was no concern of the church. So far so good, I say. But the advent of the Moral Majority only proved what he really meant: “The cultural and political status quo is one with which I personally identify, so I don’t want to see things change. I will piously invoke an other-worldly doctrine until my secular views get rocked, then I will invoke God against my adversaries.” When it begins as a SOTC doctrine in the 50’s and naturally, progressively becomes the Moral Majority of the 70’s, it becomes very clear that ex-Liberal Tomas Oden was spot on when he said that “Fundamentalists and Liberals have more in common than either would admit.” What drives Fundies isn’t the SOTC but the same thing that drives the Liberal, and fire is merely fought with fire. The problem is that while red and blue flames burn very hot and heavy, they can’t compare to the white heat of heaven. No matter how the world shakes out along particular lines, the Most High is still “coming to judge the living and the dead.”
I ask the same thing Mike Horton does: “How can the gospel be advanced when it is perceived as a radical political and social agenda, when it always sides with a particular segment of society predictably, whether it is Jerry Falwell or Jesse Jackson?”
MarkPele
November 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Maybe this will tie it together with the last post, but having a national sales tax rather than other forms of taxation - property, income, etc., would negate the need for churches to seek tax-exempt status. It’s becoming more and more clear that tax-exempt status is going to be used as a carrot or stick to bend the churches to the will of the state.
Nick Steffen
November 27th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
John,
Jesus actually says that his “kingdom was not from this world” (ek tou kosmou in Jn 18:36). NT Wright (who I’m probably channeling here) likes to say that his kingdom might not be from this world, but it’s certainly for this world. I don’t know if he’s right…but it sounds good.
Anthony Cowley
November 27th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
As to the IRS, they can tax us as soon as they start paying tithes!
As to endorsements, I would think it okay to instruct the people as to the responsibilities of government and the offices up for election in a way similar to how we should instruct folks in the election of elders and deacons - here are the responsibilities (job descriptions) and qualifications for the office, as per scripture. While the US Constitution does not give the same listing of qualifications for public offices in the Civil sphere as the Old (and New) Testament(s), it is certainly the job of the Teachers of the church to explain what the Scriptures have to say about this. And, we are not - in practical terms - telling the ‘world’ what to do, we are instructing out flocks.
And, personally, I don’t endorse candidates for elder and deacon. I point otu the qualifications, and then the congregation chooses. THEN the candidates are examined to see if they qualify. If someone sets up an elder training course, or deacon course, and a select number of persons take those courses, this is something that may be mentioned. The Session then has to apply the standards of the church to the situation. The Session is a teaching body, and acts judicially in judging the fitness of the candidates. It is not the electing body under normal circumstances.
Where the US Government does not set up godly qualfiications for office, the Church should still instruct her members.
However, part of their priestly duty is to discern the times, and the elders should not tie their hands and say that they must vote for candidate x, or z. The elders may set up the pattern, and point out that Teddy Kennedy does not fit the pattern. And, that any number of men do not qualify for any number of reasons. But, I think it is a matter of Christian liberty for the members of the church to decide for whom they will vote, if they believe they should vote at all!
I think that if the RP Testimony’s qualifications about Civil Magistrates were taken seriously, Mike Hukabee and Ron Paul would not be disqualified. But, would I discipline someone who told me they voted for Rudy, or the Mormon guy, or Hillary Clinton? I suppose a personal remonstration with a person might be a form of discipline, and I might do that. If a person were working the polls for someone, or promoting someone IN CHURCH and that person were clearly against the standards of Scripture and the church’s subordinate standards, then I would interfere. And, again, I would preach the qualifications and preach about what things need to be reformed to conform to Scriptural patterns (Divorce laws, abortion, etc.), but I would not think it right to say, “Vote for Ron Paul, or Mike Hukabee” from the pulpit. However, I might say, “Anyone who says xyz is clearly not someone a Christian ought to support!” Some times I might go so far as to say something practical about a particular candidate, if he or she has recently been in the news in a major way. If my scripture for that week has something to say about health care, family responsibility, the life of the unborn, education, drunkneness, sabbath breaking, etc - I’ll preach the text!
I think we need to be careful not to preach beyond what the Scriptures themselves reveal! We make application, do good and necessary consequence. Voting for Paul or Hukabee is not a necessary consequence - if there is no one qualified, then not voting for any of them at all is possible too. IF the system is so corrupt, then not voting may be the only option.
And, were I living in Australia, where I hear voting is mandatory, and on Sunday, I would consider making a point of NOT voting for the sake of the Freedom of worship and the honor of the Lord’s Day, as well as freedom of conscience. I wonder if they allow voting by mail ahead of time? I don’t know what the Aussie RPs do. Maybe they don’t vote at all.
Enough for now…
Rusty O.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
“…as individuals rather than representatives of the institutional local church.”
In all humility, how is this possible? How does a pastor change himself from representative of the local church to non-representative of the local church? Is this not akin to changing oneself out of other covenantal roles? Can I speak as a father to my first son and then as an individual to my second son? What about marriage? Can I take on and put off the hat of husband? Can I speak as a friend to Jack one day and as an individual the next?
Rusty
stevez
November 27th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Rusty,
It is funny how I hear that I go too far. Yet, what I hear from you is what I would tend to call “going too far.” A pastor has a foot in both kingdoms, this is simply inescapable; the next question seems to be just how should he go about negotiating this reality. Some seem to be rather lax in their prescription, others overly-restrictive. From my viewpoint, ultra-conservative restraint is the order of the day, but not to the point that we actually have our man behave as if he is the only one in the Church who has one foot. I mean, from what you seem to imply (or I infer, or both) our man cannot have views and cannot participate, etc. Not only does that seem to deny the reality that ALL of us have a foot in both kingdoms, but I wonder if it also suggests that the kingdoms can in fact be collapsed, just into one of us.
Rusty O.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:11 pm
Steve,
I’m not sure I was clear.
I agree that our pastors should have views on and can participate in politics. My point, in fact, is that if he has political views he is inescapably representing the church in those views. He can’t speak outside of his calling. It doesn’t even make sense (How would it go?-”I’m not speaking as your pastor, Steve. But as an individual who is magically non-pastor for the duration of this political discussion”).
Rusty
stevez
November 28th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Rusty,
Don’t worry; I think the breakdown was mutual! The more I thought about it, the more I think I mis-read you. And your response helps confirm.
You wouldn’t have our man be non-participatory, but in point of fact speak/behave freely because he cannot escape his… what did you call it?… “ontological efficacy,†whereas I would have him practice a deliberate and conscientious restraint precisely because of that inescapable reality. We both have him participating. We both acknowledge his inescapable reality. But you favor his liberality in expression, while I favor his utter restraint. What I still read in you is a form of kingdom collapse, one that simply realizes it in a particular officer of the Church. But that seems a likely interpretation from one who thinks “the Church has nothing relevant to say†to any perceived felt need of the sarx, up to and including political felt needs.
Rusty O.
November 28th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Steve,
I think we are both for restraint, but for different reasons. I believe that a pastor (or any Christian) is inescapably political, but that doesn’t pan out in political reforms so much as church reforms. So “liberality of (political) expression” looks like the Lord’s Supper and the preaching of the Word. This is because I believe the church is the only true polis. Here’s the case, in brief:
The nation-state is irredeemable.
It is inherently at odds with the church. I would wish the nation-state out of existence if possible. This is not necessarily a one-kingdom view, because I might be in favor of a greatly more complex space (to borrow Milbank’s language) instead of some kind of Christian anarchy or stateless ecclesiocracy. This is where regionalism or localism would have application. I want my fealty to be made complex by local loyalties and accountabilities (sort of a redeemded medieval society) and all subordinate to the church.
This would be over and against the simple space of the U.S. where I am directly accountable to dozens of federal agencies at any given moment who could contact (indeed, arrest) me within minutes of deciding to do so (the kind of power Roman Emperors wouldn’t be able to fathom). And if they did arrest me they could theoretically murder me and accountability for their crime would be corporate and ambiguous (vs. personal and direct).
The nation-state, according to Alisdair MacIntyre as cited by William Cavanaugh in “Killing for the Telephone Company” is “…a dangerous and unmanageable institution, presenting itself on the one hand as a bureaucratic supplier of goods and services, which is always about to, but never actually does, give its clients value for money, and on the other as a repository of sacred values, which from time to time invites one to lay down one’s life on its behalf…It is like being asked to die for the telephone company.”
Assuming the nation-state in discussions about one and two kingdom views is to commit a gravely dangerous equivocation.
The Nation-State cannot be Christian, it’s construction is inherently unChristian. Please challenge me before I become more convinced of this.
Rusty