Who sets our agenda?

A recent news article about immigration set me off a little. The focus was on the diversity of viewpoints within biblical Christianity. Within the article, a Republican lawmaker indicated that religious leaders would lose their churches and the White House if they didn’t get on his side of the question, and at his volume level. Another political operative suggested that temperate voices in the immigration debate were being co-opted by the political left. Again, if we don’t all get in the same place on the same side, we’ll lose elections.

OK, this is the last time I’m going to use the word “immigration” in this column, so don’t write me about that issue until I say something about that issue. Look at the other point, the assumption that our agenda related to the loudest issues of our day should be crafted in a way that helps one side or another win elections. That’s the kind of language that makes biblical Christianity shy away from political discourse.

Let’s look at some of the assumptions present in just the brief description I’ve given of this news article. First, the assumption that “we” can win or lose the White House. Of course I know what he means by that, but think about what actually happens. I’m 5 for 9 regarding presidential elections since 1976. During the years that my candidate was actually president, some things on my agenda improved though not as much as I’d hoped they would. Some things got worse. When the other guy was in the White House, my agenda suffered, though not as much as I feared, and other things got worse than anyone expected. There has been no presidency that fixed America and no presidency that was the end of hope for our country. So I’ve never had the White House and neither have you. For churches, even for individual Christians, to put winning or keeping a political majority too high on their priority list is a roller coaster ride of futility, despair, and misplaced optimism.

The second assumption is that what Christians should do is the same thing that churches should do. I understand the math. If a political advocate can convince the pastor to help his cause, he’s got his foot in the door with a hundred or more people that he’d otherwise have to convince one at a time. That’s what churches are to them, gaggles of voters who will more or less do what their leaders tell them. Few political operatives understand Baptists to any degree. While church members are citizens and should be informed voters, the church they attend is something beyond the sum of its members, the body of Christ. That matters in ways that outsiders can’t imagine. That’s why, IRS regulations aside, a political sign in my yard is a far different thing than a political sign in the front yard of my church, even if every member agrees with the message of the sign. My call to be a good citizen is an extension of our call to be the body of Christ but it is not the reason that we have been called together.

And then there’s the question of why, upon what basis, a church or its pastor might express a conviction regarding a timely issue. Issues are part of but also transcend politics. Those who wish to win elections think in terms of how to advance a cause while keeping the cost as low as possible?compromising a lesser thing to get a little more of a greater thing. Those lesser things might be core values that the politician hopes to go back and renew, after making sure he’ll stay in office long enough and with sufficient influence to do so. I’m not judging hearts here; I’m pointing out that preachers and churches don’t have the prerogative of saying that we’ll let this thing that God has told us to do go by the wayside in order to ensure the strength of our “ministry.” Later, we can apologize and hope God will understand. Check out 1 Chronicles 13:9,10 for a cautionary tale. The way politics works, universally I think, is not the way churches, who live according to the revealed will of God, should work.

To what degree should pastors base the things they say or don’t say on whether or not they’ll lose their churches? This threat is one that all pastors consider at one time or another but none would say that continued employment and climbing numbers should dictate his message. Sometimes it does happen that way, but there is consensus that it shouldn’t. So suggesting that pastors need to toe this political line or that one in order to keep their congregations is insulting. And hard-fought public policy issues are not the places where the battle for a pastor’s integrity or a congregation’s unity will be fought.

Regarding the suggestion that some leaders are unwitting dupes for the left: It’s insulting to suggest that a Christian leader should change his viewpoints in order to keep the other side from benefitting from a misunderstanding of his intent. Clearly one group is hoping to co-opt Christian leaders and yelps when they think the other side might beat them to it. We should base our leadership on a constant effort to discern God’s will. Once we believe that we have heard the voice of the Lord, we are obligated by it. If we have rightly discerned the Lord’s leadership, being called “pawn” or “traitor” by those whose calling is different from ours is often the lightest blow we’ll take for our stand.

We shouldn’t despise the fact that groups of people make decisions, politics. Even anarchy has political dynamics I expect. In fact, I reject the commonly expressed opinion that all those involved in politics are of the same cynical and crooked clan. I think our elected leaders and their supporters represent more idealists than the general population. Some of them are more godly and sincere than most of their Christian brothers and sisters. In fact, I imagine that quite a few politicians would never suggest that pastors or churches should place gaining or retaining the White House anywhere on their agenda. My warning is to those who focus too narrowly on winning what seems to me to be temporal and illusory. My warning is to pastors who might be tempted to trade their God-given influence for flattery or a place at the head table and a plate of chicken cordon-bleu. My warning is to me when I feel vexed and powerless in the face of the absurd knavery sometimes done in my name by my elected leaders. Anything that empowers me to express that frustration is a temptation to leave the battle so I’ll have time to tilt at windmills. I’m tempted to let some expert convince me the real battle is engaged in Austin or Washington. I’m tempted to run toward the sound of pop guns.

Let’s do that less often. We are engaged in a great undertaking already. The agenda that God sets for our churches is one that only the body of Christ is called to do. It is a diversion and dissipation for us to leave what no one else does to dabble in what others do better.

God is the Lord of churches and of Christians; and it’s hard to imagine that a political issue or particular candidate will ever be the reason for his calling out of any church. Hopefully without overstating my case, I maintain that pastors should carefully guard the unique identity of their churches against those who do not understand what a church is or does. One of the things we can bring to every corner of our society is the distinction between those things that are ultimate and those that are merely important. Our churches and their leaders must do that first by example.