Relating Well In Divided Times
(How Not to Be a Jerk in Engaging Politics)
How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity! It is like precious oil poured on the head, running down on the beard, running down on Aaron’s beard, down on the collar of his robe. It is as if the dew of Hermon were falling on Mount Zion. For there the Lord bestows his blessing, even life forevermore.
Psalm 133:1-3
This Psalm declares the beauty of God’s people living in unity... and the blessing that it bears. David may have composed this song when he was finally received as king over all the tribes of Israel. Following a terrible season of national division and discord, he sees the gift of restoring the nature of one kingdom. This song was especially relevant for pilgrims traveling together to Jerusalem... from many different walks of life, regions, and tribes, as they ascended to that place in which they affirmed their unity in God and His Kingdom...affirming how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity.
Such a beautiful calling is being uniquely challenged in this season of our lives. Within the first portion of this year we have each been processing the most global pandemic and immediate change in life that has ever been experienced in recent history... and then in its midst... the most extensive outcry regarding racial injustice in our lifetime. Each of these are deeply affecting...and are proving to also be deeply dividing events. They have become events that are looking for a plot... a narrative to provide a way to see and understand them. Subsequently, each has become a constant source of polarizing political narratives... now engaged across a world of social media. So we do well to pause and realize that we are in the midst of the most intensified combination of events and mediums of communication that are at work in dividing us from one another. And what lies before us? The second half of this year now brings the more extended challenges and contentions related to public health, economic recovery, and restoring racial justice. And at the center of this coming season... comes our national election... certain to heighten every potential source of debate and division.
I believe it is vital for us to consider HOW we are relating amidst the increasingly sensitive and polarizing nature of current issues and their underlying polarizing political narratives. I believe that this year may be the most defining in this challenge. The last national election became arguably the most divisive in our lifetime... ending with the most notable mind and means of “de-friending” friends and family. [1] Since then, the polarization has widened with each political party being re-defined in new ways (i.e. “tea party” and “socialism”)... creating far more extreme opposition, not only in ideas, but in the moral judgments of all those “on the other side.” [2]
On a communal level, I fear it will be difficult to maintain the unity of Christ amidst our diversity if we do not stop and consider what and how we are “speaking” to one another. We represent the hope of something larger than any political party or force can enact... the reclaiming of the one true Kingdom that rules over all the powers of this world. As God’s Kingdom is honored with our ultimate allegiance ... it reveals the work of Christ to unite us as one new humanity in all our earthly diversity. We are at a juncture in which we must see that our highest calling and hope is threatened by the various earthly “camps” we may identify with. These “camps” will seek our allegiance to a political party and the subsequent media sources that can provide us with identities and narratives rooted in pride and superiority. Our earthly “camps” may offer forms of rightness (“righteousness”) ... but we must never allow them to become pride-serving substitutes for the true Kingdom that unites us in grace as sinners. As finite humans we are certain to have different perspectives and positions about various issues related to what is involved with loving God and loving our neighbors. There is no need to escape those differences. However, if we do not stop and consider what and how we are “speaking” to one another about those differences... we will have become no different than the world that is merely defined and divided by it’s pride and pretense.... by dividing the world into our versions of “good” and “bad” people.
On an individual level, I also have a growing concern for the consequences of individuals losing family and friends due to the nature of relating in primarily adversarial and oppositional ways. We have all been aware that social media can be less than an ideal context to engage sensitive and difficult topics. Ideally, we may find it a great source for “sharing” ideas. Of late, it has often become a context attacking and dismissing not only ideas ...but real people. While the commitment to “speaking the truth” may have a righteous intent... if we are honest...we know that the way we “speak” on social media can lack a basic sense of God-given regard for relationship and kindness that we would have if we were sitting down with another in the mutual presence of God. I fear there is often a lack of considering the relational cost to the many lives who are affected by what and how we communicate.
As such, I would like to challenge each and every one of us, including myself, to consider HOW we can express our thoughts and views in a way that better serves the centrality of Christ, our basic care for others, and our personal growth in understanding. I want to help us engage issues in such a way that is more rooted in Christ than political ideology, in humility more than pride, and in grace more than blame. Here are ten challenges.
1. Embrace engaging political issues as an essential part of our reality and responsibility. So often people have found the experience of engaging in politically loaded topics to become both so uncomfortable and unrewarding that it’s easy to understand why they simply feel that fellow Christians just shouldn’t discuss politics. Some will even suggest that our Christian faith should avoid “being political.” That may sound like a pleasant alternative. However, simply avoiding politics is not a true alternative as followers of Christ.
The nature of “politics” is essentially that of how people choose to live together. Clearly God who is the Creator of all such life speaks of how we should live and live together. The Scriptures speak of such matters from beginning to end. [3] They include examples of those involved with organizing people and God challenging many of those who do so unfaithfully. God brings consistent calls upon his people to care about the foreigners, the poor, the widow, and the “least” in general. God speaks into what is honorable in managing money, our bodies, and one another. All of these matters are that which speak to social issues... which become political in nature. In addition, we are gathering around Christ... who came to declare God’s kingdom over all the powers of this world.
As one pastor in Washington DC describes, “We cannot transcend politics. The gospel is a word that was used to declare the birth of a new emperor (Christ as King). Our speech heralds a new ruler, one hated by the Caesars and Herods who continue to kill innocents and crucify dissidents in an attempt to hold onto their power and thwart God’s reign. Whenever we deploy words, especially in the service of God, we are acting politically. There is no such thing as nonpolitical language.... Our prayers, songs, sermons, and testimonies are acts of political speech.” [4]
As Tim Keller notes, “Those who avoid all political discussions and engagement are essentially casting a vote for the social status quo. American churches in the early 19th century that did not speak out against slavery because that was what we would now call “getting political.” They were actually supporting slavery by doing so. To not be political is to be political.” [5]
In addition, as the reference to slavery can remind us, political engagement is not as simple as “just following the Bible.” While we may wish it were that easy, some misused portions of the Bible to justify slavery. We must see that the Bible is a living testimony of God speaking into various contexts of governance. God speaks about who humanity is. God speaks of how the nation of Israel should live together... which is a distinct “theocracy” under God’s rule. Jesus speaks of how he is reconstituting the ways of God in a people united as citizens of the kingdom of heaven. As such, there are significant questions which must be considered about how the various teachings apply to our participation in a democracy. This involves considering how the role of personal ethics should be applied to social governance. The more we can accept this type of challenge, the more we can appreciate that those who may seek to honor God’s values may have different views of how such values should be applied in the larger governing of a nation. Such questions are worthy of an extended set of thoughts on how to think theologically about politics. However, this work is focused upon considering how we relate well amidst our diversity.
So what is our calling? “Rather than disengage in the political process, Christians have a duty to elevate it. Like any other sin, we are called to stand above the partisan dissension and demonstrate a better way.” [6]
2. Do not allow ourselves to become more partisan than Christian... more defined by a single political party than by Christ our King. The challenge that we must continue to face is: What are we giving our primary identity and allegiance to... Christ and the Kingdom of God... in all it’s radical distinctions... or to a political party and it’s narratives? While we all like to have a team to align with... and one may find that one of the political parties currently reflects more of their sense of God’s priorities... we will sell ourselves out if we allow either political party to dictate our values and views. The truth is that the historical Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments. As Tim Keller notes, “we were never supposed to fit into a two-party social mold.” Our current political parties represent “artificial demarcations” for our moral guidance. We must decline the “package-deal ethics” where one must subscribe to the entire party’s platform.
It is helpful to consider that each political party is not a definitive unchanging set of ideas or character. Each party may be rooted in some general values... but these have proven to be fluid in what those principles should mean in shaping policy. To simply embrace being a “life-long” Republican or “life-long” Democrat is problematic in terms of what such a commitment represents.
It is also helpful to understand that the general draw to one political party over another is often connected to our different background. If we understand that a significant part of what effects “party affiliation” is due to different life experience... including race, gender, vocation, age... then we can see the value in seeking to understand a more diverse view on what is important in serving the common good.
3. Recognize the nature and limits of the “narratives” that seek to define our world and it’s events. A “narrative” refers to the plot that explains what is happening...like an unfolding movie in which we think we have figured out who the bad guy is... and what they are really doing and seeking... and in turn, who can be trusted. There is a type of comfort that comes with a narrative that explains and resolves the complications. Various political views are essentially presenting such a narrative... a plot to understand what is really happening...who the good and trusted characters are ... and who the bad and untrusting characters are.
The recent pandemic and how it is being managed...has created the ultimate event looking for a plot.... a narrative. The current narratives for responding to the pandemic are along two general plot lines. Some may be identifying with the narrative that the “liberal” minded are simply trying to gain control of people’s lives... have manipulated the information... and are causing profound economic suffering. Some may be identifying with the narrative that the “right-wing” minded are simply fools who will dismiss any facts in the name of freedom...and are causing profound loss of public health and lives. The most recent death of a black man by police and subsequent unrest regarding racial injustice has presented another issue for which different narratives provide different perspectives and priorities. Some see the central need for systemic change with various focus’s including changes to law enforcement ...while others see a significant need for maintaining civil order as an essential part of what serves justice and righteousness. Of course those are simplistic ways of stating what comes with variations...but the point is that we are all relating as people operating out of differing narratives... different ways of understanding the storyline of what is happening.
It can also be helpful to realize that there is often a particular draw towards drama. At some level we all like conspiracies. They thrill us. They make things bigger and even more exciting. This may explain in part why many will be drawn to the various internet videos that claim to reveal the hidden conspiracies and cover ups, about either side, to be the “real story” ...and be excited to share them. What we can fail to realize, is that when we indulge in conspiracy theories, we often damage our credibility. [7]
The challenge with such narratives is realizing that because of how they can serve and satisfy ... we become attached to their story and more certain of what they tell us. We assume that the masses on the “other side” are drinking the Kool-Aid and we don’t want to consider the same level of how we are being served our narrative. No single side of cable news, headlines or subsets of Christian culture has the only market for serving a narrative. They all do. [8]
As such, we have a challenge... as we desire to be a community...which means having “common unity”...but we are each tending to identify... notably to different degrees...with very different narratives. What can we do? We can start by slowing down our almost unrealized enthusiasm for having “it all figured out.” This involves understanding that just because we can find a solid basis for connecting our “side” with God... it may only reflect one part of the larger God-given truth...and as such...we may not be operating as wisely or righteously as our simple narrative is telling us we are. We cannot avoid narratives...but we can recognize they must remain open to all that God reveals to us. (Joshua 5:13-15 and John 9:1–12 may offer insightful examples.)
I believe that differences of perspective can generally be healthy. However, if one does not sense value to actually consider other views... or if everything correlated with one “side” is right and the other “side” wrong...then the differences will only become a source of conflict... not only with others...but with God.
4. Do not become exploited by fear and anger. Political media sources understand that fear and anger are the two emotions which can be exploited to secure people’s commitment. While both feelings are a natural part of life, Jesus called his followers out of the fear and anger they held towards one another’s movements, to that of fearing only God (in a healthy sense) and seeing the common enemy.
We would do well to ask what we are being told to fear....and what we are being told to have contempt for. With every national election we can be drawn into the fear that one candidate will bring utter ruin. If we step back, we may realize that we have a long history of swinging back and forth between leaders from both political parties... and neither has simply ruined or fixed the whole of our nation. As those who live in a democracy... we certainly have a responsibility... even a moral responsibility... to participate in seeking the common good... which is the essence of voting in a democracy. However, we also do well to look deeply at the earthly ministry of Jesus. Amidst the passionate divisions in how God’s people should relate to the great oppression of the Roman Empire.... he was clearly not focused on simply a better Roman Empire. He called all who followed to an allegiance to the hope that was beyond all earthly powers. What he taught about life engages many politically debated issues, but Rome was neither the center of his hopes nor his fears nor his anger. We too can focus on a larger hope and a larger enemy... not as a means to political indifference... but as a means to help us maintain perspective.
5. Avoid the self-righteous temptation of primarily focusing on blame. A central force in political media is to identify with being “good” people through a focus on blaming the “bad” people. We do well to recall the time in which the religious leaders bring a woman they caught in adultery and throw her down before the village in the presence of Jesus... and all the people raise their stones to project all their shame onto her ...until Jesus silences them as he invites whoever is without sin to cast the first stone. I sense that sometimes our cable news has become little more than that which identifies the sinner to make everyone else feel better about themselves. If we can identify a sinner ...we can throw our stones and go comfortably home.... in our own self-righteousness. Jesus refuses to allow such shallow righteousness.... and calls us to follow the path of humility...to stop and allow ourselves to focus on our own complicity ...even while affirming the significance of sin that those “caught” should turn from. [8] In regard to most human social ills, we do well to become confessional before we become accusational.
6. Recognize the significant difference between having the “right” position and becoming the right kind of person. Jesus emphasized that we should be known not for what we say...but what we do. He called us to “let our good deeds shine out for all to see.” (Matthew 5:16) Having the “right” position on any issue is as easy as a simple statement... whether verbal or posted or any public external acknowledgement. While such affirmations of a position may reflect good moral reasoning... we must understand that they say very little about whether we actually embody the claimed good in ourselves. For example, many men who declare a bold position for women’s rights have been found to have little personal respect for women. Similarly, many who claim to be passionately “pro-life” .... and disapprove of abortion...have not shown a consistent value for all lives across the whole of life and all that undermines that value of life. Similarly, in facing the reality of racial injustice, our current cultural emphasis is to focus on publicly denouncing racism more than honestly exploring one’s own racial prejudices.
If we can honestly recognize the significant difference between having the “right” position and becoming the right kind of person, it will help diminish the level of inappropriate pride and passion in the public claims we may make for “our side” as well as those against the “other side.” We will understand that the exchanges we may have with others about differing positions should not be deemed as that which is simply between “good” and “bad” people.
7. Overcome the tendency to compare our best with the other sides worst. This again is a significant part of what political media does to give us a false sense of superiority. Much of what is presented are the alleged failings, hypocrisy, deception, and corruption of the other “side.” What we should realize is that rather similar accusations can be made about some of those on our “side.” If we do not confront this tendency, we will reveal a lack of honesty, fairness, and commitment to the truth.
8. Actually care about what others have to say. We may not like what others appear to be saying. We may not agree with what they appear to be saying about life or about us. However, our call to value others involves seeking to understand them. This involves not only listening...but listening with a desire to understand. [10]
As the Scriptures so clearly challenge us, “You must all be quick to listen, slow to speak, and slow to get angry.” (James 1:19) These words seem to understand that we have become quick to speak... and to speak with anger. The antidote is to listen.
As Dietrich Bonhoeffer (German theologian who died in a Nazi prison) wrote in his book on Christian community, titled Life Together, “The first service that one owes to others in the fellowship consists in listening to them. ... He who can no longer listen to his brother will soon be no longer listening to God either....Anyone who thinks that his time is too valuable to spend keeping quiet will eventually have no time for God and his brother, but only for himself and for his own follies.”
In speaking we reinforce only what we understand. In genuine listening, we open space for understanding what we don’t yet see and know.
9. Avoid communicating with others only in an oppositional “either / or” manner that dismisses what is also reasonably valid in their views, values, and experience. Many of the exchanges, on social media in particular, tend to be oppositional and dismissive in nature. They tend to reflect the political media which is rooted in the need for opposing “sides” and declaring everything as the “valid” against the “invalid.”
In regard to the pandemic, this “either / or” approach created an oppositional approach between those who valued concerns for the life-threatening nature of the virus and those who challenge the restrictions because they valued concerns for the threat to livelihoods. The expressions of concern for either one tended to be communicated in a form that dismissed the other. The natural result is to become rooted in communicating that which dismisses not just something valid ... but also someone’s real fear and pain. Why do we communicate this way? Is it because we are actually engaging people who have no value for life?....or no value for livelihood? I would venture to say that everyone actually holds some significant value for BOTH life and livelihoods. The reason we communicate in such oppositional ways is not because it reflects the truth about others, but because we are set into the narrow narratives that reduce what is valid with an “either / or” way of thinking.
Following the unjustifiable death of George Floyd in Minneapolis... we have all been faced with the deep unrest of racial injustice. I know that many people are connecting to many views about HOW the problems of racial injustice are being responded to. Some are focused on the historic injustice that has shaped our systems. Some have concerns for the respect that so many serving in law enforcement deserve. Some have concerns for the neglect shown for looting and the losses to local businesses. While these have been engaged in an oppositional “either / or” manner, most of us actually could engage them in a “both / and” manner. Concerns for the pain of racial injustice does not have to mean I cannot care about the pain of someone who had their business destroyed ...or vice versa. Not only are they fundamentally not in opposition to each other...if we accept an “either / or” way of thinking ...we are becoming smaller minded and smaller hearted people. We will find ourselves invalidating what is valid in others...because our narrative is too closed... too small.
The gift many of us need is the gift of being freed from the false “either / or” way of framing things... and the freedom to communicate in a more “both / and” way of thinking. Allowing ourselves to frame various values in a “both / and” manner creates the common ground where different views can find conversation amidst the conflict because they are each potentially adding to the concerns of the other rather than only attacking them.
If we can step back from any “camp” we may be influenced by, we may begin to see that there are many aspects of what the “other side” may raise that are not inherently in opposition to what we value...nor outside our own potential to consider to be reasonably valid. Is there not a God-given value for BOTH...
· personal salvation and social change
· personal responsibility and empowering the disadvantaged
· legal protection of the unborn and providing support for choosing life [11]
· concerns for over-reaching restrictions by governing authorities and under-care for public health
· concerns for racial injustice and social order
· concerns for racial profiling and the value of honoring the service of law enforcement
· concerns for systemic racial disadvantages and the potential for victimization
If we step back, we may see that the perceived opposition at hand is not inherently oppositional. While various views may be expressed in oppositional ways, they are often different ways of believing how similar values are best met. As one notes, “In reality, hardly anyone who opposes gun control laws wants children to be murdered at school, they just think there’s a different way to keep kids safe. Most people who advocate for universal health care don’t want the government to take over our lives, they just want everybody to get the medicine they need.” [12]
I want to encourage each of us to realize that when we follow the oppositional “either / or” way of relating to others, we are making a very significant relational choice. There is a significant difference between that of sharing a wider view and that of dismissing someone’s reality altogether. Those who are experiencing suffering from Covid-19 or racial injustice or the disregard for the life of those who serve in law enforcement... can often accept some element of the wider picture or point of view that someone else shares. However, if one simply attacks the entire validity of such issues... It tells those experiencing the pain of loss that you believe nothing significant is really at hand... and it will define your relationship with both those who are suffering and those who know and care about them. (If one enjoys dismissing the pandemic as a farce... they simply must accept that those who work in active front line health care...or have lost a loved one... will never consider them a safe person again. If one enjoys dismissing the validity of racial injustice... they simply must accept that those who experience it... will never consider them a safe person again. If one tends to simplify the character of law enforcement... they simply must accept that those who serve or whose family serve in law enforcement ... will never consider them a safe person again. Those may seem like obvious statements, but I fear such truth is not being taken to heart.)
Reacting in an oppositional manner may seem to fit the current nature of cultural conversation ... where oppositional begets oppositional. However, why not take the time to change that oppositional nature...and to approach things in a more expansive “both / and” way?
10. Dare to let praying change us. Most of us have been reminded at times that the Scripture tells us to pray for our governing leaders (2 Timothy 2:1-4) and to respect those in authority (Romans 13:1-7). But do we pray? If it has not been easy to pray for those who govern... it may reflect that we have welcomed a spirit of cursing rather than blessing. If we find it hard to pray for our leaders... especially the one’s we do not like...it probably reveals how much we need to... not just to change them...but to change ourselves.
SOME CENTRAL STEPS TOWARDS CONNECTING ACROSS DIFFERENCES...
In closing this rather lengthy set of thoughts, let me offer a few central choices to help us form a future in which we can experience unity amidst our diversity.
1. Follow the way of Jesus in setting the Kingdom of God as your ultimate hope and allegiance.
If any of us has an allegiance to either political party that is not willing to see some conflicts between the political party or subsequent “camp” ...and what God has declared as the ways of His Kingdom...we are not fully committed to following Christ.
This is not a challenge to those on either particular “side” ...but to all of us who must consider their relationship to any “side.” No church with any diversity will get through the coming elections well unless we seriously humble ourselves and consider the limits of the “sides” we identify with...and their subsequent and simplistic nature in assigning blame, justifying animosity, and extending false self-righteousness.
The great truth is that the Kingdom of God is the best of all human good. It is the only true Kingdom that is utterly good and deserves our ultimate allegiance.
2. Follow the way of Jesus in seeing others beyond the social and political boxes that have become sources of separation. Jesus formed a team that included those that had understood each other only in oppositional terms. (i.e. a violent revolutionary “zealot” and the highest form of complicit traitor... a “tax collector.”) Let us be those who are gracious in joining others in being transformed by a new allegiance. Let us shape our way of relating to become more expansive than oppositional.
3. Follow the way of Jesus in focusing on the value of cleaning out the inside... our own hearts... before focusing on dealing with what we see others need to do. (Matthew 7:3-5; 23:26-27) [13]
The example of King David’s prayer can serve us well:
“Search me, O God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.” - Psalm 139:23-24
If we allow the Spirit to search our own hearts...and show us what is not honorable... and what comes from being anxious...we can develop what is more fruitful. For “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” (Galatians 5:22-23) If we seriously embrace these qualities as that which we welcome God to develop in us... the way in which we communicate with others is going to mature in the right ways. So stop....and read those qualities again... “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” ...and let them become your goal and guide for relating to others.
By it’s nature, such a process is not initially comfortable. When we begin to accept that our hearts and minds cannot be reduced to a simple single political narrative or party... it can be disorienting. We may find some loss of excitement from being so aligned with one side of the political war. But look again at the life of every disciple...and you will see it has always been this way...you will see a holy disorientation and discomfort. Although it appears that they were initially disoriented with the ways of Jesus that did not fit their cultural “camps” ... we see that they were in the process of coming closer to ultimate truth ...and discovering a higher allegiance... that would never end.
As we continue into the second half of this year, may we choose to grow like those first disciples...to become those who become more deeply united in Christ and the Kingdom he bears.
How good and pleasant it is when God’s people live together in unity!
For there the Lord bestows his blessing, even life forevermore.
Psalm 133:1,3
Notes:
1. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of evangelicals agree that social media has increased the divisive political climate in America and about a third (32%) have said that they have unfollowed or unfriended someone due to social or political issues. While it’s a good idea to block those who harass or insult, that so many respondents believe they had to block others shows how we let these issues dominate our online presence. - Too many evangelical Christians fall for conspiracy theories online, and gullibility is not a virtue, By Ed Stetzer and Andrew MacDonald; May 17, 2020 - link
As one described so well, “Political discourse is the Las Vegas of Christianity - the environment in which our sin is excused. Hate is winked at, fear is perpetuated and strife is applauded. Go wild, Christ-follower. Your words have no consequences here. Jesus doesn’t live in Vegas.” - How to be in the world, not of the world, in a culture of political vitriol. - February 1, 2016 Bryan Roberts - link
2. The growing rift between the two political parties has hit an all-time high. As the Pew Research Center has found, each party has become more ideologically homogeneous, and more hostile toward the opinions of members of the other party. Both parties were far more ideologically diverse even a decade ago. In 2004, 68 percent of Democrats were more consistently liberal than the median Republican, and 70 percent of Republicans were more consistently conservative than the media Democrat. Today, virtually all Democrats, 97 percent, are more liberal than the median Republican, and 95 percent of Republicans are more conservative than the median Democrat. - Study: Americans more divided along party lines than ever By Steven Shepard, 10/05/2017 - link
Psychology explains this political polarization as an effect of groupthink: Put in a position of “us versus them,” people will strongly side with those who think and act like themselves and want nothing to do with the other side. This creates a spiraling effect which further widens the “us versus them” gap. - What Psychology Offers Christians Amid Political Polarization - Steven Zhoujune 24, 2019 - link
3. Politics in the Bible – created by Christians in Politics - link
4. William H. Lamar IV, pastor of Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church in Washington, D.C, cited in Do politics belong in church? – Christian Century, September 24, 2018 - link. Lamar further states, “Our speech is political because it is the speech of God’s new creation. The church’s language is not spectator language. It does work, and it has work to do. The church’s language has the ambitious agenda of making all things new. And that is political. The church has often abandoned these politics for access and power. Like Jesus, and many of my ancestors in faith, I want to live and to die for the politics of God’s reign. If these politics do not animate our prayers, songs, sermons, and testimonies, our speech is reduced to sounding brass and tinkling cymbals.”
5. How Do Christians Fit Into the Two-Party System? They Don’t - by Timothy Keller, Sept. 29, 2018 - link
6. How to be in the world, not of the world, in a culture of political vitriol. - February 1, 2016 Bryan Roberts - link
7. Regarding conspiracies and our witness, the following is helpful to understand: “When evangelical Christians indulge conspiracy theories, we damage our credibility. While some might see this as unimportant, our credibility to know and profess the truth lies at the core of our witness, whether we are effective evangelists for what we believe is the truth. Central to our faith is our profession that Jesus dwelt among us as fully God and fully man. Thus, when Scripture calls us to be wise in resisting the temptation to foolishness and warns against those who “turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths” (2 Timothy 4:4), its point is not only in how this hurts us, but rather how it reflects the Gospel we profess. Believing and sharing conspiracies does not honor the Lord. It may make you feel better, like you are in the know, but it can end up harming others and it can hurt your witness.” - Too many evangelical Christians fall for conspiracy theories online, and gullibility is not a virtue, By Ed Stetzer and Andrew MacDonald; May 17, 2020 - link
8. As Bryan Roberts describes, “Political talk radio and cable “news” only want ratings. When media personalities tell you they are on a moral crusade, they are lying to you. These personalities get rich by instilling fear and paranoia in their listeners. If we give our favorite political ideologues more time than we give Jesus, we are following the wrong master. There are unbiased, logical and accurate news sources out there. But it’s up to you to be a good steward of information—to fact-check for yourself, take ideology with a grain of salt and make decisions based on facts rather than gossip.” - How to be in the world, not of the world, in a culture of political vitriol. - February 1, 2016 Bryan Roberts - link
9. This incident is recorded in John 8:1-11.
10. We do well to take Jesus’ instructions seriously.
“... if you are presenting a sacrifice at the altar in the Temple and you suddenly remember that someone has something against you, leave your sacrifice there at the altar. Go and be reconciled to that person. Then come and offer your sacrifice to God.” (Matthew 5:23-24)
Jesus knows that we can’t try to honor God is we don’t care about his children…those who bear His very image. So if you are aware that anyone has anything against you... if there is potential hurt... If people matter then it will reflected in your concern for their pain and the priority of your pursuit.
Regarding the value of listening, Jonathan Merritt writes. “I wonder if bravery might mean learning when to shut our mouths for a moment. To observe rather than to opine. To let our ears carry the weight of a conversation. To seek to understand someone before we seek to be understood. I like to think that Winston Churchill was onto something when he said, “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. “Courage is also what it takes “to sit down and listen.” Being Christian in Public: Embodying Faith in a Divisive Age - Jonathan Merritt, July 13, 2017 - link (Ed has developed an online course called “Christians at Our Best” - link
11. I know that the politics related to abortion can be the most difficult to see in a “both / and” manner... and stands out for many as a potentially fitting “single issue” to determine the choices a follower of Christ should make...which in turn can limit the value of engaging in further political issues. I understand that many consider the pro-life fight against the legality of abortion to be that which must subvert all other issues in determining political allegiance. As one who believes in the sanctity of all life, I naturally feel that the position a candidate or party platform holds on this issue reflects something fundamental to the heart of God. I can understand seeing a “pro-life” candidate as representing the potential of saving between 700,000 to 1,000,000 lives every year in the U.S. The opportunity to make that type of difference would understandably overshadow the impact of any other factor in voting. Given the potential this often has for viewing communities as only having one valid political party affiliation or candidate at the outset, I want to recognize the merits to those who do not deem the legality of abortion as being a “single issue” that determines all decisions in political support. These include the following:
· The broader nature of honoring life. While abortion may clearly be the most fundamental concern for honoring the sanctity and value of every life, there are several issues which reflect respect and care for life. So, it cannot be separated from all other issues. (This may help in understanding why there has been a significant difficulty in understanding between white and black lives with similar “Evangelical” commitments... in which 75% to 85% of white Evangelicals tend to affiliate as Republicans and 75% to 85% of black Evangelicals tend to affiliate as Democrats. Both tend to affirm being ‘pro-life.” Many deem the difference in political affiliation to reflect how their different life experience influences what is involved with being “pro-life.)
· The limited role that a party platform and candidate may have on the legality of abortion and the more direct role they have upon other issues. The role of a president has limited direct control in the legality of abortion. The current season has provided the potential to for a Supreme Court Justice to retire...and if so... for making a nomination for a new justice... which must be approved...and if so... could one day see a case which raises a challenge to the Roe vs. Wade case legalizing abortion... and if so, they could vote in favor of change... and if so it could prove to create a majority decision...and if so, it would change the law for an uncertain length of time. Given how significant such a change would be, it is could be deemed to reflect significant influence. In addition, a candidate’s expressed position is arguably also the primary way in which a voter can express the desire for the nature of their society and government. However, what some who share the “pro-life” moral conviction note, is that they see the choice they make as one between the limited influence such a candidate makes on the issue of abortion alongside the direct influence they may have on other issues. As such, it is not deemed simply a matter of the significance of the issue but also a matter of the actual effect that a platform or candidate has on the issues. One may deem that more direct and certain influence that raises what is morally wrong outweighs more uncertain influence on another moral good.
· The potential of other priorities to limit the number of abortions. The goal of overturning the Roe vs. Wade case which made abortion legal may not have the effect of lowering the number of abortions in comparison to providing more resources that could lead to more women to embrace choosing to save the life of their unborn. It is noted that overturning the Roe vs. Wade would not declare abortion illegal, it would likely redirect the States to decide on it’s restrictions. The direction of the current culture would likely lead to similar legal support by most States…and perhaps all States will support legal abortion within the coming decade. Some analysis suggests that if left to the states, the change in the number of abortions could be less than the effect of supporting legislation that provides more resources for women involved to not choose abortion. As such, there are merits to seeing a priority on supporting those who provide such resources.
· The relationship and difference between control and influence. Jesus calls us to grasp that he is changing lives more than laws…not because laws don’t serve lives…but because they don’t ultimately change them. It’s been noted that politics is downstream from culture, and the culture is moving further away from disapproval of abortion... increasingly notable in those younger...and they appear to be reacting to the emphasis on “controlling choices at all costs” and the lack of care for life more broadly. This would suggest that while a “pro-life” candidate might ideally have a positive influence on short term legislation, it is vital to also consider the nature of their long term influence on the “public conscience” in terms of the long term effects.
The point I am seeking to make is NOT that of encouraging less of a commitment to life…but rather to bring the politics associated with such a commitment into perspective. This can be needed in a consideration of how a community of those centered in Christ engages in political views, because it is the most challenging issue by which many will find it difficult to consider any valid alternative view. This issue reflects the need to consider how even a shared view on the morality of an issue may still have legitimate differences on the politics of that issue. It can help those of either affiliation, converse across such affiliations, not simply declaring the other as fundamentally immoral... but perhaps as one who shares moral values and must navigate the inherent conflicts of political choices.
12. Do politics belong in church? – Christian Century, September 24, 2018 - link
13. Jesus said: “Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.” - Matt. 23:26-27
In a similar challenge, Jesus said, "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.” - Matthew 7:3-5
Some further resources:
Regarding Engaging Politics
How to be in the world, not of the world, in a culture of political vitriol. - February 1, 2016, Bryan Roberts - link
Being Christian in Public: Embodying Faith in a Divisive Age - Jonathan Merritt, July 13, 2017 - link (Ed has developed an online course called “Christians at Our Best” - link
America’s crisis of contempt: What I said in my address to the National Prayer Breakfast By Arthur C. Brooks
February 7, 2020 - link
Crossing the Difference Divide (TEDxEverett) by Jim Henderson – link. This is a great 12 minute introduction to the issues of our divide.
3 Practices for Crossing the Difference Divide – by Jim Henderson and Jim Hancock (November 26, 2019) - link – More than a book, the 3Practices team provide online engagement and training. The 3 Practices are
1. Being unusually interested in others, 2. Staying in the room with difference, and 3. Not comparing their best with the other person’s worst.
“Respectful Conversations” website - created by Harold Heie to model respectful conversations among Christian who disagree about controversial issues. The format for each topic has two Christians who have opposing views on a "Leading Question" engage in give-and-take in an attempt to uncover common ground and illuminate remaining disagreements in order to facilitate ongoing conversation. To check out the archive of conversations, visit the website.
Christians in Politics – A UK movement to encourage positive engagement in politics - link
Too many evangelical Christians fall for conspiracy theories online, and gullibility is not a virtue, By Ed Stetzer and Andrew MacDonald; May 17, 2020 - link
How Do Christians Fit Into the Two-Party System? They Don’t - by Timothy Keller, Sept. 29, 2018 - link
Uncommon Decency: Christian Civility in an Uncivil World by Richard Mouw - link
City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era by Michael Gerson and Peter Wehner link
Both-And: Living the Christ-Centered Life in an Either-Or World by Rich Nathan and Insoo Kim (August 26, 2013) - link – Though not about social / political issues per se, this work grounds an understanding of how so much of what we are, particularly in Vineyard understanding, is that which affirms truths that are often separated...but not exclusive. (Evangelical and Charismatic; Unity and Diversity; Mercy and Justice; Proclamation and Demonstration; Personal and Social; Already and Not Yet)
Regarding the pandemic
Hope in a Time of Fear: Lessons Learned from HIV/AIDS for COVID-19 by Perry A. Jansen, MD, MPH (May 7, 2020) - link
Regarding racism... these are just a few resources that may offer some assessable perspectives...
VineyardUSA have assembled a list of resources for you here . Not comprehensive resources, but food for thought, articles, sermons, stories, and tools to be used.
Deconstructing White Privilege presentation by Dr. Robin DiAngelo (for UMC) - link
Holy Post - Race in America - link (Phil Vischer... yes the creator and voice of Veggie Tales... created a good presentation to help understand racial injustice). This 17 minute investment is worth it’s time.
How Anti-Racism Hurts Black People - John McWhorter - link - This is a good challenge to the misguided potential in anti-racisim
Note that the two views above are not inherently opposite...even though they provide different assessments
Tony Evans: How to Be a Part of the Solution, Not Just the Complaint (Short 14 minute video which he shared following the death of George Floyd)
Racial Jeopardy And American Politics By Lisa Sharon Harper, Jan 26, 2012
Be the Bridge: Pursuing God's Heart for Racial Reconciliation by Latasha Morrison (Oct. 2019) - link
The Color of Compromise: The Truth about the American Church’s Complicity in Racism by Jemar Tisby (January 7, 2020) - link