On this blog in history: January 26-31, 2008

Whose table?
A brief reflection on the Lord’s Supper.

The Jesus heresy?
You can’t be properly Christ-centered without being Trinitarian; worshiping Jesus without the Father and the Spirit isn’t really worshiping Jesus at all.

Church as consumer option?
I’m looking forward to following up on this one by reading Skye Jethani’s The Divine Commodity:  Discovering a Faith Beyond Consumer Christianity.

Justice and mercy
On the need to affirm the justice of God, and why even his mercy is, in a way, an act of his justice.  I want to go back to this one at some point and develop it at greater length.

GCNC video

This is a catchall post for the video of the various sessions as I find it:

Tim Keller, “The Grand Demythologizer: The Gospel and Idolatry” (Acts 19:21-41)

John Piper, “Feed the Flame of God’s Gift: Unashamed Courage in the Gospel” (2 Timothy 1:1-12)

Philip Ryken, “The Pattern of Sound Words” (2 Timothy 1:13-2:13)

Mark Driscoll, “Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth” (2 Timothy 2:14-26)

K. Edward Copeland, “Shadowlands:  Pitfalls and Parodies of Gospel-Centered Ministry” (2 Timothy 3:1-9)

Bryan Chapell, “Preach the Word!” (2 Timothy 3:10-4:5)

C. J. Mahaney, “The Pastor’s Charge” (1 Peter 5:1-4)

Ajith Fernando, “Gospel-Faithful Mission in the New Christendom”

Conference Panel Discussion

Ligon Duncan, “Finishing Well” (2 Timothy 4:6-22)

D. A. Carson, “That By All Means I Might Win Some: Faithfulness and Flexibility in Gospel Proclamation” (1 Corinthians 9:19-23)

7 quick takes: GCNC edition

(GCNC being the Gospel Coalition 2009 National Conference, which I attended earlier this week, for those who might not know.  For those not familiar with 7 Quick Takes Friday, it’s hosted by Jennifer F. over at Conversion Diary.)

>1<

Of all the great preachers and all the great sermons I heard (including C. J. Mahaney’s, which was essentially a plenary session scheduled as a workshop), the one that—I don’t want to sayimpressed me most, because I don’t want to come across as a dispassionate observer doing some sort of ranking, and I don’t want to say moved or touched me most, because different messages did that differently—but the one that I keep coming back to the most was Mark Driscoll’s.  As he himself noted (and many others commented that evening), it wasn’t a typical Mark Driscoll sermon, because of the text assigned; I don’t know who was responsible for breaking up 2 Timothy or by what logic he was given 2 Timothy 2:14-26, but it was clearly a God appointment of a most unexpected sort.  If you want to look at the sermon outline, it’s up here.

What impressed me the most about this sermon wasn’t its homiletical brilliance or its practical usefulness, but rather that I do not believe I have ever in my life seen a preacher so completely submitted to—even conquered by—a biblical text.  At one point, he described the passage as an anvil on which he’d been beating his head, and he was clearly preaching under a sense of deep, deep conviction, brokenness before God, and repentance—and preaching out of that sense, bringing that powerfully alive in the room.  I’ve long respected Mark Driscoll, even though I’ve heard some harsh criticisms of him, for his devotion to the gospel, his vision for ministry, and his sheer guts (I grew up in Washington state, I know what Seattle is like); this week, I saw him model a defenseless openness to the word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit that I have never seen nor—to be completely honest—experienced before in preaching.  He didn’t have to do that, on a worldly level; I suspect he felt the Spirit driving him to, but even so, the courage that it took to lay himself that bare before the Scripture, to let the word of God challenge and convict him that deeply, and then to preach that, inspired a holy awe in me.  At some point, God is no doubt going to hit me that hard through his word; at some point, maybe he did, and I refused to stand to the mark.  When that day comes (again?), I now have his example to try to live up to.  It’s a great gift, if a daunting one.

>2<

Speaking of courage, I should also express my deep appreciation for John Piper, who summarized the main point of 2 Timothy 1:1-12 (and by extension, he argued, of the whole letter; I can’t speak for anyone else, but he convinced me) as “Timothy, keep feeding the white-hot flame of God’s gift in you, namely, the gift of unashamed courage to speak openly of Christ and suffer for his gospel.”  I appreciate him because he wasn’t just preaching about his topic, he was preaching it, and preaching through it.  He declared,

If you ask Paul, “How do I feed the white-hot flame of God’s gift of unashamed courage to speak openly of Christ and to suffer for the gospel?” he answers, By the power of God (verse 8)—the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit. And if you ask, “How do I express the fullness of this power?” he answers in 2:1, Be empowered by the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And if you ask him, “How do I receive this ongoing grace?” he answers, Timothy, this grace is coming to you right now through the word of God. God’s grace is coming to you in my words. “I have not received the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that I might understand the things freely given me by God. And I impart them in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit” (adapted from 1 Corinthians 2:12-13).

These aren’t ordinary words, Timothy. They are God’s words. You were with me on the beach in Miletus. Do you remember what I said as I left? I said, “I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is powerful to build you up [in courage!] and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32).

The answer, Timothy, is that you feed the white-hot flame of unashamed courage to suffer for the gospel by preaching to yourself the foundational truths of this letter. And you feed the courage of your people the same way. God has ordained that his sovereign grace comes to you with power for unashamed courage through my God-given words.

(That, note, is from the posted text, not a transcript.)  Now, it’s one thing to say those words, and there are other preachers who could do that.  It’s something else again to preach them as if you believe them, not only in theory, not at some point in the future, not as a possibility, but for that moment, for that sermon, for the people to whom you’re preaching—and that’s what the Rev. Dr. Piper did, passionately, in the expectation that what he was preaching about, God would do in us.  I don’t think I’ve ever felt so much in the crosshairs of a sermon in my life, and I’m not sure I ever will again.

>3<

I’m very grateful to have been present for C. J. Mahaney’s talk, but I have both a confession and a small regret about that.  I was there looking forward to his listed topic (he’d originally told the organizers that he would speak on “Trinitarian Pastoral Ministry”), but that’s not what he spoke on; he actually spoke on “The Pastor’s Charge,” from 1 Peter 5:1-4, and if I’d known that, I probably would have been in another workshop.  I’m glad I wasn’t, though.  I do regret the fact that I had too much blood in my caffeine stream—I’d only had one can of Pepsi and no tea all day, which just wasn’t enough caffeine at that point, and I would have known that if I’d thought about it—and so I had a hard time shifting gears mentally to catch up to the Rev. Mahaney; I even started to crash a bit early on.  By the grace of God, though, he sent me a second wind, and I’m grateful for that gift, because it was a beautiful and encouraging message on shepherding God’s flock; I’ll definitely be meditating on this going forward, and I plan to watch the video so that I can catch things I missed in my initial mental sluggishness.  Jared Wilson asked on Twitter, “Anyone else feel like Mahaney was preaching specifically to them?” and I think it’s safe to say that many of us there did—probably most of us, at one point or another.

I particularly appreciate this—he was quoting someone, but I didn’t get down whom:  “The shepherd must know he is one of the Shepherd’s needy and loved sheep.”  Amen.

>4<

After Tim Keller’s address on Acts 19:21-41, which opened the conference, the thought crossed my mind that I could go home right then and the conference would have been worth the money.  I had no intention of doing anything that silly, of course, but if I had, it would have been.  I’ve done a bit of posting on some of the idols in our culture, and in the church in this country, but before Tuesday afternoon I’d never thought quite so starkly about the fact that Paul always challenged the idols of the people to whom he spoke, and that we cannot expect to see the transforming power of the gospel in our churches if we don’t do the same.  As Ben Patterson likes to put it, we can’t just tell people what to say “yes” to, we have to tell them what that means they have to say “no” to.

The Rev. Dr. Keller did a brilliant job of laying out what it means to discern, expose, and destroy the idols we face—in our own lives, no less than in the church and the culture—and how we do that; and he was unsparing in warning us of the risk we take in so doing, making the point multiple times that idolatry in all its forms is violent at its core.  As radical feminists would say of patriarchy, idolatry is founded on violence, and rests on violence for its legitimation.  There was a lot of wonderful material in his message, but I think I most appreciated his prescription for dealing with idolatry:  rather than trying to hack away at the loves that have become idols in people’s lives, help them to love Jesus more, and thus restore those other loves to their proper place and proportion.

>5<

The pastoral application of his message made itself known that evening in one of the random conversations I had (and at any event like this, the random conversations are among the joys of being there); I wound up talking with a woman who was worried about a friend back home who I guess has been doing some heavy wrestling with despair.  As we were talking about this woman’s concern for her friend and her efforts to be an agent of grace in this friend’s life—she was really struggling hard to find a way to pierce the armor of her friend’s despair—we remembered the Rev. Dr. Keller’s comment about people who say that they know God has forgiven them but that they can’t forgive themselves:  he argued that people who talk that way do so because they’re in thrall to an idol, and the idol of course won’t forgive them because idols never do.  What you need to do, he contended, is to identify the idol, expose it, and destroy it.  When this came up in our conversation, this woman’s face lit with a joyful smile, because she knew what her friend’s idol was, and that word showed her what she needed to do to set her friend free to really hear the gospel of grace.  I’m praying for her for the success of her ministry.

>6<

I greatly appreciated the panel discussion Wednesday evening, for a lot of reasons.  One rather odd one is that Ligon Duncan, one of the participants, has a massive pulpit presence—I don’t know that he’s actually that big a man, but the way he’s built, and with that deep, powerful Southern voice of his with his grand, grave cadences—which I think combined with his reputation to work against him with some of the folks there (judging by the semi-sotto voce conversation going on behind me through the first chunk of his message); he doesn’t exactly project humility in the pulpit, and it was good to see the humble side of him in the evening conversation before he rose to preach the next day.

More than that, though, there was a lot of experience, and a lot of humble wisdom, and a lot of hard-earned lessons up on that stage that evening, which the participants shared in a remarkably open fashion.  It was comforting to hear from these successful veteran pastors that times of brokenness and failure aren’t necessarily disqualifying, but that brokenness and failure are among the things God uses to make us useful; coming just a few months after I heard Craig Barnes say much the same thing, and combined with their firm testimony that Jesus will never abandon us in such times—and that if we will rely utterly on him and his word, that will be enough—it came as a real word of grace.  There was a note of rue in Crawford Loritts’ voice as he quoted an old proverb (one I’d never heard before) to the effect that “God never uses anything that comes to him together,” and went on to describe suffering as God’s marinade for our souls; but there was also a deep faith that had learned to trust God through suffering, and I greatly appreciated it.

>7<

One of the real blessings of this conference was the way in which I felt, time and again, Paul’s heart for Timothy—not just indirectly, but coming from the speakers and directed toward us, and especially those of us who are younger in ministry.  John Piper really set the tone on that, and it carried through the whole conference, in various ways.  (In Mark Driscoll’s case, as a younger preacher who felt the challenge of his assigned text deeply, he really preached his text as Timothy, as the one receiving the message, rather than from Paul’s position.)  Other than the Rev. Dr. Piper, I think I felt it the most strongly from Ligon Duncan, speaking on 2 Timothy 4:6-22, as he shared Paul’s appeal with us to do everything possible to be sure we cross the finish line.  He didn’t soft-pedal the fact that that isn’t easy; as Paul did for Timothy, he made no bones of the truth that just because we’re faithful to God doesn’t mean we won’t be opposed, doesn’t mean we won’t be betrayed, doesn’t mean we won’t be abandoned and end up alone.  After all, that’s what happened to Paul, and it’s what happened to Jesus, and if we’re following in their footsteps, why should we expect any different?  But the saving grace is that Jesus has been there, and so he was with Paul in his suffering, and he will be with us as well when those times come; his Spirit will be with us, through whom he will give us what we need to run the race, to fight the good fight, to cross the finish line, if we will just rely on him.

 

What math class taught me about pastoral ministry

Show your work.  Process matters—it’s more important that you tried to solve the problem the right way than it is that you got the right result, because it’s more predictive of whether or not you’ll get the next answer right, and the one after that, and the one after that.  What matters isn’t coming to the right conclusion by whatever method works for you, but whether or not you understand the real problem and how it works; shortcuts may seem to work at first, but in the long run they just mess you up and put you behind.

Pastoral ministry likewise isn’t primarily about getting the “right answer” to produce the desired results; it isn’t about whatever seems to work.  Rather, it’s about all the things that lie behind that. Read more

First reflections on the last few days

I’m back home from the Gospel Coalition‘s 2009 National Conference (henceforth GCNC), Entrusted with the Gospel:  Living the Vision of 2 Timothy, and I have somewhat mixed feelings about that.  On the one hand, I wish it could have been longer.  The presenters were, as one would expect, phenomenal, and I’ll have some things to say about the various messages over the next little while; as well, I had some wonderful conversations over the course of the conference.  In particular, I had the privilege and pleasure of meeting Jared Wilson in person and talking with him a bit, which I thoroughly enjoyed—it’s no surprise to find that he’s as much a man of the gospel and as appealing a person face to face as he is in print, but that’s no less a joy for all that—and of running into (via pure God appointment) Dave Moody, one of my classmates at Regent and also a fellow pastor in the PC(USA), whom I always appreciated but hadn’t seen in years.  Put all together, it was wonderfully refreshing and energizing, and I do wish it could keep going.

On the other hand, I already have more than I could absorb in a month of Sundays, and if itdid keep going, I’d overload my processing capacity before much longer.  It’s very human, confronted with a pleasure (and the pleasures of this conference were sharp and deep), to want to prolong it—but deep pleasures are a heady wine indeed, and not only is it true that the body can only absorb so much, the spirit can only absorb so much, before it falls to staggering.

It’s worth noting, though, that I don’t mean this in quite the way that many probably assume.  At one of the workshops I attended, the presenter spoke of “information overload,” but that’s not really what I’m talking about; I didn’t feel that at all.  Yes, there was a lot of information, and a lot of ideas, and I’m sure that I’ll spend a fair bit of time thinking about them, and probably writing about some of them, and that over time they’ll make their way into sermons; but I never felt like my head was overstuffed.  I told someone Tuesday night that I felt like I’d been stretched in several directions—but it wasn’t my mind that felt stretched, it was my soul.

I think, actually, that the conference served to illustrate a point made by Ligon Duncan, that preaching is not merely information transfer—that while certainly information is transferred, that takes place in order to serve the broader purpose.  The principal point of preaching is that God has chosen to work through it for our transformation; Jesus meets us in his word, and his Holy Spirit operates through it to grow and change us, to the glory and pleasure of God the Father.  What I experienced these last few days wasn’t primarily intellectual and informational, though I certainly learned a great deal, and that in itself will take a lot of time and thought to process; rather, it was holistic, God working on my soul in the fullest-orbed sense of that word as the whole of my life in and before him.  Like I said, I feel . . . stretched, and in some ways I didn’t expect, and am still feeling out.  This is a good thing.  God is good.

Crown and throne

Crown Him the Lord of love, behold His hands and side,
Those wounds, yet visible above, in beauty glorified.
No angel in the sky can fully bear that sight,
But downward bends his burning eye at mysteries so bright.

Worship isn’t about our experience, but that doesn’t mean our experience is meaningless; and I will tell you that standing to sing that Tuesday night with 3300 brothers and sisters in Christ, all of us singing at the top of our lungs, gave me chills.  I have a sense of what it means that the Lord is enthroned on the praises of his people, because I could feel it, just a little.

All hail, Redeemer, hail! For Thou has died for me;
Thy praise shall never, never fail throughout eternity.

The Invitation

(Isaiah 55:1-5John 4:7-14John 6:32-40)

Salvation has come. The Servant of the Lord has come to be God’s covenant with his people and the light of his salvation to all the world, and he has accomplished his purpose; he has submitted to death in order to win his victory over it by his resurrection, and there is no enemy that can overcome him or undo what he has done. He has won his victory, bringing reconciliation for those estranged from God, and now he extends that victory to all who will accept it and follow him. What remains to be done?

What remains is for Israel and the nations to respond; and so from proclamation of God’s great victory and its blessings, the prophet turns to invitation. He doesn’t actually begin there, though; that first “come” is something of a mistranslation. The best translation I can think of—Caroline, would you do the honors?—Thanks, that’s it. Of course, you can’t put Caroline’s whistle on the printed page, but something like “Hey, you!” would also work decently well. Isaiah doesn’t actually start with the invitation, because he has to get people’s attention first, and as we’ve seen, the people of Israel were past masters at missing the point. If there were such a thing as a Ph.D. in being oblivious, if you could get a doctorate in ignoring the obvious, these folks would have earned it with honors. After all this time, they still didn’t pay enough attention or listen carefully enough to God to understand their true situation and what was really missing in their lives, or what God was doing about it; they’re like people walking through a street market so focused on the guy down the way selling fake Rolexes cheap that they miss the person who’s selling what they really, actually need.

And so Isaiah begins by tapping his people on the shoulder and shouting in their collective ear: “Listen to me! Look up, and pay attention! Each and every one of you who thirsts—yes, that means you—come to the waters. You don’t have any money, but that’s all right—come, buy and eat.” It’s an extraordinary appeal. Some of those to whom the prophet called knew their need; more, no doubt, did not—but Isaiah doesn’t trim his message to suit them. That’s a mistake a lot of churches make—as deliberate strategy, not by accident; it’s a very popular way to build a church—of tailoring the message of the church to what people think they need, and what they’ve been trained by the culture to want and to expect. That way, you may give people good ideas, but you won’t give them good news; you might bring a lot of people in, but you’ll send them right back out unchanged. The true gospel message, as Jesus himself noted, winnows its audience, because it’s for those who have ears to hear—which is to say, for those who recognize their true need: their thirst for his living water, and their hunger for the bread of life. Those who aren’t willing to admit their thirst, whether to others or even to themselves, hear the prophet’s call and walk on by. That’s well enough with him; those who are willing to listen will stay, and they are his proper audience.

What he offers them is remarkable. In the first place, you’ll note, he doesn’t say “Come take,” as if all this were simply being given away; that might stir suspicion that they aren’t worth the price, or else that they come with significant strings attached, but that isn’t the case. Indeed, this food and drink must be purchased, for they come at a very real price—it’s just that that price has already been paid by someone else. What remains is for people to complete the purchase by accepting the price paid, and to receive in return everything that’s necessary for life: not even just water to drink—significant as that was by itself in the arid Near East—but also wine and milk, and though this doesn’t come through in our English translations, that word “buy” was in fact a specific word for the purchase of grain or bread, so food is included here as well.

Now, that’s quite an offer—everything you need has already been purchased for you; you just need to pick it up at the checkout!—so why would you turn it down? In particular, why would you reject such an offer in order to go spend real money, which you’ve earned by your own hard work, on something that isn’t real and won’t satisfy? That’s Isaiah’s question, and it doesn’t have a good answer. Which isn’t to say that it doesn’t have any answer; there are reasons why we do that, they just aren’t good ones. A lot of it, I think, is that we want what we want, and we don’t want to believe that what we want isn’t what’s best for us. It takes both trust and humility to accept that what we want really isn’t bread, that it really won’t nourish our lives, and that we need to learn to want what God gives us instead; and both trust and humility come hard for us. But they are, I think, the two keys to the Christian life, to living a life that pleases God; they’re the two first lessons we have to learn.

Thus Isaiah says, “Give ear”—literally, “incline your ear”; we might say, “dig the wax out of your ears and listen”—“and come to me; hear, that your soul may live.” That word “soul” is the Hebrew nefesh—oddly enough, the most basic meaning of it is the neck—and it doesn’t mean “soul” in the sense that we use that word; rather, it denotes the whole person, body and spirit both. The idea here is that what the world gives us is essentially junk food, and hurts us both spiritually and physically, while if we go to God, he becomes our food, and he gives us what we need and what is good for us—physically as well as spiritually. As you can see, Isaiah’s drawing a bright line here: the only way to find real life is in God, which requires listening carefully to his prophet and doing what you hear. Anything else is “not bread,” it’s false food, and ultimately will not satisfy because it cannot give real life.

For those who will listen and come, God promises an eternal covenant, “my faithful love promised to David.” Now, “faithful love” is again the word hesed, which we’ve talked about a number of times, including last week; of particular significance in this case is the fact that hesed is a covenant word. God is saying, in essence, I made a covenant of love with David, I made a commitment to love him and to bless him and his descendants, and if you’ll answer my invitation, I’ll include you in that.

How? Well, here we have the fusion—it’s the first time this is made explicit—of the Servant of the Lord with the Messiah, the Son of David. You see, in verse 4, there’s the reference back to David himself, the declaration, “I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander of the peoples”; but how has that happened? The key to understanding this is that in verse 5, the “you” is singular—this verse isn’t addressed to the same people as verses 1-3, it’s addressed to one person. Specifically, it’s addressed to the Messiah, the Son of David—who is, in this context, the Servant of the Lord. It’s to the Servant that God says, “Surely you will summon nations you don’t know, and peoples who don’t know you will run to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor.” It’s in the Servant, the heir and fulfillment of God’s covenant promises to David, that we are brought into God’s covenant with David, that the covenant relationship God had with him and the promises that go along with that become available to all of us.

Now, the interesting thing about this is that this invitation and this promise are offered to people who were already outwardly members of the people of God. The nations aren’t excluded here, to be sure—the invitation is given to all who are thirsty—but there’s no explicit summons to them, either, and the invitation is framed in terms of what God did in and for David. The point, one which Isaiah’s been making all along, is clear: though Israel has heard the law, and has heard the prophets, and they have all kinds of head knowledge about God, that hasn’t translated for them into any kind of real relationship with God. They consider him their God because they’re Israelites and he’s the God of Israel, and doesn’t everybody in this country worship God?—but many of them haven’t answered his invitation, and maybe haven’t even really heard it before. They haven’t learned that there’s more to their faith than just being a faithful templegoer.

Indeed, there’s far more. The challenge to us of Isaiah’s expansive invitation is—do we still need to hear it? Have we really accepted it, or are we no different than the Israelites? I’m not coming to this as a Baptist who thinks you need an altar call every week so that the saved stay saved; you only need to accept the invitation once, and then get along about living it out. But in this country, it’s very easy to be a Christian, and that means there are a lot of folks who are outwardly Christian for all the wrong reasons, with no inward reality, no real faith in Christ. The church has to shoulder a lot of the blame for that, of course, because there are a lot of churches in this country that don’t give people God’s invitation, that don’t challenge people with the call of the gospel; it’s easier not to, after all, easier just to give people what they already know they want to hear. Even for the church, it’s easier to serve junk food. But underneath and through it all, God’s invitation still goes out: “Come, all of you who hunger and thirst; come to me, that you may live.” And we need to ask ourselves: have we really done that, are we really living in God? Or do we still need to accept it?

The temptation and peril of theologized politics

The question of the proper interrelationship between religion and politics in this country is a complex one.  There are those who argue that, essentially, there should be no relationship between them—that religion should be kept rigidly separate from politics; but as I wrote last month,

There’s a certain superficial appeal to this suggestion, but a little more thought shows it for the discriminatory idea it really is. Why, after all, should non-religious people be permitted to vote on the basis of their deepest convictions, but religious people be forbidden to do the same? Any attempt to make religion the problem is ultimately an attempt to privilege one mode of thought (the secular) over others, and thus is essentially antithetical to the nature and purpose of the American experiment.

That doesn’t mean, however, that an uncritical fusion of the two is a good thing, either; as I also noted in that post, that tends to result in religion becoming the handmaiden of politics. When our faith becomes “a tool to advance a political agenda,” and as such is no longer “free to critique and correct that agenda,” what we have is in fact a betrayal of Christian faith; we have the political heresy that I labeled “theologized politics.”

Now, it should be obvious why politicians encourage such a thing and seek to make every use of it they can; the short-term political benefits are undeniable.  This approach essentially seeks to mobilize Christianity, with its adherents and their assets, as a political force to accomplish the political purposes of one party or the other. The goal is to deploy the church (or as much of it as possible, at any rate) as foot soldiers for the party in this or that political struggle. It’s an effective way to rouse people to active political participation, and to win not merely votes but enthusiastic and committed support. The theological side of the equation, however, is problematic, because the political side is primary; this results in a purely instrumental view of Christian faith, one which “make[s] men treat Christianity as a means,” as C. S. Lewis put it. It moves us from valuing social justice (or any other good) because God demands that of us, which is a good thing, to “the stage where [we value] Christianity because it may produce social justice.” This is a serious problem, because

[God] will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop.

The problem with theologizing politics is that it can be a good political strategy in the short term, but in the long term it has a toxic effect on both the church and the political process. One negative consequence for the church should be obvious: if Christians come to value their faith primarily for the excellent arguments it offers for their chosen political agenda, they will value it less for everything else—and this is not good for the church. Beyond this, it’s bad for our spiritual health, in that it’s essentially a replacement of true faith with something else. It’s bad for the community life of the church, because that “something else” is something outside the church, and fundamentally distinct from it. It could well also be financially bad for the church: if the primary goal is the advancement of a political agenda, then contributions should primarily go to that agenda, rather than to the local congregation. And finally, it’s bad for the witness of the church, because when the church becomes identified with one party, then those who don’t support that party will view the church as the enemy and respond to it with hostility.

The toxic effect of this approach on our political system in this country may be less apparent, but it’s still very real. The problem is that good politics requires a mix of passion and dispassion. One must care about one’s own positions and believe in one’s own ideas enough to want to articulate them and fight for them; one must be passionate enough about the problems in this country and committed enough to one’s proposed solutions to be willing to put the work in to address those problems and implement those solutions. At the same time, however, one must have the necessary dispassion to be able to step back and evaluate those ideas and solutions when they aren’t working; to be able to disengage from one’s own positions enough to consider what may be learned from someone else’s; and to be able to work with those with whom one disagrees, to come to compromises when necessary, and to make common cause when the time is right. When religion is brought uncritically into the political mix, only as a way of supporting one’s own positions (and not as a means of critiquing them), it is excellent at stirring people to passion, but not so helpful in creating the dispassion necessary to balance that passion. The result is something which has been aptly called “the politics of inflammation.”

At this point, again, someone might argue that the solution is to remove religion from politics; and again, the response needs to be made that the true solution is not to break that connection, but to repair it. What is needed is to break ourselves of the habit of using the language of Christian faith to support what we have already decided we believe, and to teach ourselves instead to use our faith to critique our politics, and ultimately to rebuild our political convictions on the ground of our faith.

Photo © 2008 Son of GrouchoLicense:  Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic.