January 30, 2008
The God Strategy
Religion has become a political weapon in America, and in the church.
Given my age and childhood in the South, I cannot remember a time when being a good Christian did not require being a devout Republican. I accepted the situation as a matter of course until I realized that Republican politics has no corner on virtue. The Republican platform opposes abortion and defends family values. But the Democratic platform seems more sympathetic to the poor, orphans, and widows—as is God. As a result, until we vote on ballots that allow us to punch our position on issues, rather than select the name of a politician, I'm not sure whether to vote Republican or Democrat.
It may not be news to some of you, but I was encouraged to discover that my political confusion is representative of a historical confusion among Christians. According to David Domke and Kevin Coe, authors of The God Strategy (Oxford Press, 2008), it was only in the 1970s, after integration and Roe v. Wade, that Christians and Republicans began going steady. Since then, the authors argue, Republicans have had greater success than Democrats in employing the "God strategy" to curry the Christian vote.
The God strategy involves a
series of carefully crafted public communications employed by politicians to connect with religiously inclined voters…In combination, these approaches seek to entice both the many religious moderates who want leaders to be comfortable with faith, as well as devout Protestants and Catholics who desire a more intimate convergence of religion and politics.Some politicians may use the God strategy because they are religious themselves. Regardless, the method is strategic and effective. Evangelicals are eager to endorse candidates who sound like one of them. The trouble is, we may indiscriminately endorse candidates—whether Republican or Democrat—who sound faithful enough, but are simply using Christian vocabulary as a smoke screen. If the conversation started by CT's recent interview with Barack Obama is indicative of a trend, when conservatives feel they're being misled, serious questions about issues are ignored and the debate devolves into an effort to determine whether a candidate is genuinely Christian.
In other words, we seem to either buy the God strategy and cozy up to a candidate or doubt a candidate's sincerity and oppose him or her. In either case, we avoid the issues and are swayed by the candidate's personality and appearance of authenticity.
Domke and Coe identify four strategies politicians use to win, or dupe, religious voters. These points are a basic summary of the God strategy:
1. Acting as political priests by speaking the language of the faithful
2. Fusing God and country by linking America with divine will
3. Embracing important religious symbols, practices, and rituals
4. Engaging in morality politics by trumpeting bellwether issues
Politicians can't take all the credit for the effectiveness of the God strategy. Ministers encourage their congregations to view politicians as priests when they imply that having the right president or the right party in control of Congress will result in legislation that will deliver our nation from its sin. Preachers fuse God and country by confusing gospel liberty with political liberty and by conflating the American narrative with the biblical one. Worship committees mingle sacred and secular symbols by hanging the American flag behind the baptistery and introducing psalms to the state among praises to Jesus. And all of us are guilty of welcoming "morality politics" when we reduce the gospel to dos and don'ts. In short, church leaders work the soil in which the God strategy eventually bears fruit.
So where do we begin in 2008? How do we vote if the "God strategy" is simply that—a tactic to trick the undiscerning into electing a candidate they wouldn't otherwise support? How does a younger generation of evangelicals vote the issues when it appears no one is giving us the truth? What advice do we offer our congregations?
Personally, I wouldn't be disappointed if the presidential campaign of 2008 undermined our hope in the political system. I'm not promoting cynicism; rather, just a simple reminder that while some trust in chariots, we trust in the name of Jesus our Lord.
Posted by UrL at January 30, 2008 | Comments (18)
January 28, 2008
Out of Context: Tim Keel
"In the modern world, we tend to reduce the complexity and diversity of the Scriptures to simple systems, even when our systems flatten the diversity and integrity of the biblical witness. We reduce our sermons to consumer messages that reduce God to a resource that helps the individual secure a reduced version of the 'abundant life' Jesus promised. And the gospel itself gets reduced to a simplified framework of a few easily memorized steps."
-Tim Keel is the pastor of Jacob's Well in Kansas City, Missouri. Taken from "An Efficient Gospel?" in the Winter 2008 issue of Leadership journal. To see the quote IN context, you'll need to see the print version of Leadership. To subscribe, click on the cover of Leadership on this page.
Posted by UrL at January 28, 2008 | Comments (11)
January 24, 2008
John Ortberg Takes the Quiz
Can the hermeneutics quiz really determine your view of the Bible?
As expected, the blog has been abuzz with people’s opinions about Scot McKnight’s hermeneutical quiz in the new issue of Leadership. Some of the heat is coming from the assumption—primarily by those who have not seen the quiz—that it is a scientific instrument of high precision and accuracy. That was not McKnight’s intention when he created the tool. He writes in the introduction:
This quiz is designed to surface the decisions we make, perhaps without thinking about them, and about how we both read our Bible and don’t read our Bible. Some will want to quibble with distinctions or agree with more than one answer. No test like this can reveal all the nuances needed, but broad answers are enough to raise the key issues.
Earlier we posted the scores and responses from three Leadership contributors. Today we have another. John Ortberg has taken the Hermeneutics Quiz and scored 68—on the borderline between Moderate and Progressive. His comments about the quiz are below.
I was struck by how often the statements that were placed on different places on the continuum actually seemed compatible or even mutually dependent to me. For instance, "The Bible is God's message for all time" and "The Bible is God's words and message for that time but need interpretation and contextualization to be lived today." These are BOTH statements that I would fully endorse; and its precisely the truth that the Bible is God's message for all time that makes it cry out for careful interpretation.
Also it occurred to me going through the statements that there is a difference between 'conservatism' and 'orthodoxy,' although in evangelical circles we often equate the two. For instance, since classical liberalism is associated with a denial of the divinity of Jesus, 'conservatism' tends to be associated with an emphasis on his divinity, even at the expense of his humanity. So docetic teachings about Jesus may be 'conservative' in that sense, but are clearly not 'orthodox.'
All of which is to say that the 'conservative-moderate-progressive' continuum is an interesting one. We tend to want to put people into a box and label them with these words, but I wonder what other kinds of frameworks might be developed to help us examine our approach and faithfulness to the text.
It also struck me how difficult it is to measure the kind of belief that really matters. Take Jesus' teaching, "It is better to give than to receive..." The hard question is—am I actually the living what I 'really' believe?
If you haven't already taken "The Hermeneutics Quiz," you can find it here.
Posted by UrL at January 24, 2008 | Comments (5) | TrackBack
January 21, 2008
The Hermeneutics Quiz
Scot McKnight creates a tool to uncover our biblical blind spots.
As you read this, the winter issue of Leadership is hitting mailboxes. One of the more provocative features of the issue will no doubt be a hermeneutics quiz created by Scot McKnight. The issue’s theme is, “Is Our Gospel Too Small?” To help answer that question, we invited McKnight to develop a simple tool to assist church leaders in diagnosing their own biases and blind spots with Scripture. In the introduction to the quiz, McKnight says:
I’m curious why one of my friends dismisses the Friday-evening-to-Saturday-evening Sabbath observance as “not for us today” but insists that capital punishment can’t be dismissed because it’s in the Old Testament.
The quiz is comprised of twenty multiple-choice questions designed to surface the decisions we make, perhaps without thinking about them, and how we both read our Bible and don’t read our Bible. Here are a few sample questions:
The Bible’s words are:
A. Inerrant on everything.
B. Inerrant on matters of faith and practice.
C. Not defined by inerrancy or errancy, which are modernistic categories.
The commands in the Old Testament to destroy a village, including women and children, are:
A. Justifiable judgment against sinful, pagan, immoral peoples.
B. God’s ways in the days of the Judges (etc.): they are primitive words but people’s understanding as divine words for that day.
C. A barbaric form of war in a primitive society, and I wish they weren’t in the Bible.
The command of Jesus to wash feet is:
A. To be taken literally, despite near universal neglect in the church.
B. A first century form of serving others, to be practiced today in other ways.
C. An ancient custom with no real implication for our world.
After answering all 20 questions, your score is plotted on a hermeneutic scale ranging from Conservative (20-52), Moderate (53-65), and Progressive (66 or higher). McKnight offers helpful analysis concerning the strengths and weaknesses of each of these ways of interpreting Scripture, and he reveals how his own use of the quiz produced some surprising results. He writes:
I was surprised by the low score of an emergent friend and the high score of a professor at a very conservative Christian college. Some answer progressively on one controversial issue (say, women in ministry), while answering conservatively on others (homosexuality, for example).
We invited a few regular Leadership/Out of Ur contributors to take the quiz and report their scores. Here’s what they had to say.
Dan Kimball is pastor of Vintage Faith Church in Santa Cruz, California, a columnist for Leadership, and the author of a number of popular books including The Emerging Church. QUIZ SCORE: 62
I wasn't too surprised that I came out in the moderate category. I think the score represents me well. This was a great little survey as Scot causes us to stop and actually ponder the way we view Scripture. Too often we simply make assumptions and draw conclusions without really thinking about why. I am giving this quiz to our staff and elders. I think it will be a great discussion.David Fitch is a pastor at Life on the Vine Christian Community in Long Grove, Illinois, a professor at Northern Seminary, and the author of The Great Giveaway. QUIZ SCORE: 67
I find myself unhappy with my score on the quiz because it labels me a "progressive" (but just barely). I am unhappy because a progressive is described as a person who doesn’t believe in the plain and literal meaning of the text. Yet I certainly do. I just don't believe the plain meaning is always immediately evident to each individual reading the text all by him/herself (and this includes even the most brilliant historical critical exegetes among us). Indeed that plain meaning is best preserved through the ongoing community of the church carrying out its apostolic task to faithfully transmit the gospel both in the community's preaching and its living. If that makes me a progressive, so be it.
I also must protest that seeing the Bible as "historically shaped and culturally conditioned" somehow makes me a progressive. For there is no more conservative view than believing in the incarnational nature of the gospel that has come in the particular person of Jesus Christ. This means that Truth necessarily comes via history and culture. The fact that I believe this should make me a raving lunatic conservative in these times where everyone wants to find God in the universal. All in all, I enjoyed taking this quiz and I say thanks to Scot. But I still wonder, how can this quiz help evangelicals escape the hermeneutical categories (of modernity) that individualize and dehistoricize the ways we seek to interpret Scripture?
Bryan Wilkerson is the senior pastor of Grace Chapel in Lexington, Massachusetts, and a regular contributor to Leadership. QUIZ SCORE: 59
The quiz put me squarely in the Moderate category, which feels accurate and comfortable for me. While I would agree with McKnight's description of the Moderate as "flexible," I see flexibility in terms of applying scripture to a wide range of issues, rather than allowing freedom to pick and choose which commands to obey and which to dismiss. Similairly, what McKnight describes as the moderates’ "struggles...to render judgments," don't feel like struggles to me, but rather like reasonable and defensible principles for interpreting difficult issues.
Recognizing these distinct approaches to the Bible (conservative, moderate, and progressive) helps to explain the difficulties we often have resolving controversial issues in the congregational. When wrestling with issues like women elders or modes of baptism, healthy debate and biblical discussion doesn't always lead to resolution because sincere believers are operating from different hermeutical perspectives. Awareness of these categories can defuse some of the tension, and reminds church leaders of the importance of teaching and modeling sound biblical interpretation.
If you haven't already taken "The Hermeneutics Quiz," you can find it here.
Posted by UrL at January 21, 2008 | Comments (33) | TrackBack
January 17, 2008
Disarming the Boomers (Part 2)
The key to bridging the generation gap between church leaders: massive quantities of coffee.
David Swanson is back with the second half of his post about working with a church leadership team dominated by Boomers. He believes there are a few simple strategies that can help a younger leader not only survive in a Boomer church, but even begin to influence the congregation toward change.
This morning I met one of our church leaders, a self-identified Boomer, for breakfast. We talked about the tendency for younger leaders within established churches to eventually leave for greener (more exciting, more like-minded, more missional) pastures. As one who has remained, I shared how lonely it can be as a young leader whose priorities and passions are often not shared by the congregation or its Boomer leaders.
I imagine loneliness is not a unique experience among young leaders. Not long ago a youth pastor in his twenties visited me from out of state. His first year in ministry was going well, but he was beginning to feel like a fish out of water in a church dominated by older leaders. After commiserating, I shared with him the limited wisdom I had gained from working with Boomers.
Paint pictures of the future
In Part One I pointed out the need to repeatedly earn the trust of older leaders. Skepticism was often expressed when I shared new concepts and ministry ideas. Whether it was fear, resistance, or simple misunderstanding, many conversations would end with those dreaded words, “You’re just going to have to be patient with us.”
One day I summoned the courage to share a very specific and, in my mind, risky ministry initiative. Bracing myself for the usual hesitancy, I was amazed by the enthusiasm of one leader’s response. So I shared the idea with another leader, and then another, and finally to an entire team of Boomers. Each time the response was the same, “We could do that!”
This new ministry initiative was informed by the same concepts and ideas that had met with such uncertainty before. What had changed? The difference was that my co-leaders could now imagine the future I was talking about. What seemed radical as a theoretical concept now looked reasonable as a specific ministry initiative. Their inconsistency didn’t seem rational to me, but I was not about to argue with their enthusiasm.
Answer the questions being asked
There is a line in a song by Over the Rhine that reads, “You need questions, forget about the answers.” It’s a judgment about the tendency to give simplistic responses to complex realities. Many young church leaders can relate to this lyric. Call it a generational shift, deconstruction, or good old-fashioned rebellion; the fact is that many young leaders are not satisfied with the overly-pragmatic Boomer mentality.
We are more comfortable with questions and ambiguity. As a result, we present ideas based on a way of seeing the world that may seem peculiar to the previous generation. As to be expected, our ideas are met with raised eyebrows and lots of practical questions—questions we believe often miss the point.
In Part One I related how the disconnect between a young leader’s ideas and a Boomer’s questions is often rooted in the battles the older leader fought a generation ago. But this doesn’t make their questions illegitimate. That is a lesson I am continuing to learn. We may not like the Boomers’ questions about our ideas, but they still need to be answered. Our new initiatives will have a greater chance of success if we take the time to address the concerns of the older leaders, despite their apparent irrelevancy and no matter how often they are asked.
Drink a lot of coffee
Those of us who itch for change are faced with the fact that, in most cases, it is the senior leadership’s prerogative to initiate those changes. This can be a frustrating reality for a young leader. Our options are to give up on large-scale change, disconnect from the church to attempt our own new thing, or drink a lot of coffee. Tea works too.
A couple of years into my time as an associate pastor I began scheduling regular breakfasts, afternoon coffee breaks, and evening conversations with some of our church’s Boomer leaders. These conversations were agenda-free. It was a chance to talk about past experiences, current challenges, and future possibilities for our church. The only measure of success was that coffee was consumed and good conversation was had.
Over time, as relationships developed, it became apparent that my ministry ideas were being met with more acceptance. Some of my new ideas even became conversation topics among our older leaders. It was deeply satisfying to participate in a strategic vision for the church that had begun as a conversation over coffee. Don’t underestimate the importance of investing in relationships.
I still have a lot to learn about working with Boomers, and I’d welcome stories and wisdom from other your leaders reading this blog. What has been helpful to you as you initiate change among your Boomer congregation? And to the Boomers among us, what council do you have for the next generation other than, “You’re just going to have to be patient with us.”
Posted by UrL at January 17, 2008 | Comments (8)
January 14, 2008
REVEAL Revisited
One sociologist says Willow Creek’s research may not be as revealing as we think.
The research conducted by Willow Creek and published last year in the book REVEAL: Where are you? has generated a great deal of conversation on this blog. Some have heralded the findings as conclusive evidence that Willow’s popular philosophy of ministry is fatally flawed. Others have applauded Willow for the courage to be transparent about its shortcomings and seek more effective methods of making disciples. While the discussion has been stimulating, most of us lack the credentials to offer anything more than a layman’s opinion about REVEAL. But not Bradley Wright. He is an associate professor of sociology at the University of Connecticut, and has written an 11 part analysis of Willow’s study on his blog. Wright has summarized his take on REVEAL below.
When I go to my physician for a check-up, he starts with a series of simple tests—shining a light in my eyes, looking at my throat, listening to my breathing, and so forth. If the results of these don’t seem right, he then orders more sophisticated tests, such as blood work, a biopsy, or x-rays. I would hope that he wouldn’t cart me off for surgery or chemotherapy based solely on the initial, simple tests.
This illustrates how we might think about the REVEAL study conducted by Willow Creek Community Church. As described in the book REVEAL: Where are you?, this study collected data from about five thousand respondents in seven different churches. Its results have caused quite a stir. Critics point to them as evidence against the Willow Creek model of ministry. In the foreward to the book, Bill Hybels, senior pastor of Willow Creek, describes the findings as almost “unbearably painful.” The findings of REVEAL, he writes, “revolutionized the way I look at the role of the local church.” Coming from as successful a pastor as Bill Hybels, this is a powerful statement.
Is such a strong reaction warranted? I would say probably not, and here’s why...
The type of survey used by REVEAL has its uses, but it’s not well suited for evaluating the effectiveness of a complex institution like a church. It’s not that REVEAL’s findings are wrong, rather they are highly inconclusive. In fact, if I had to make a judgment, I would interpret the findings as generally supportive of what Willow Creek is already doing.
Technically, REVEAL used a cross-sectional survey with no comparison group and no randomization. This means they surveyed people once during a given period of time—it's like taking a snapshot of a group of people. It’s the tongue depressor of survey methodology—a good place to start, but not a very powerful tool. While this type of survey does a good job in describing peoples’ characteristics, it doesn’t explain them. It describes “what” but doesn’t explain “why.” Findings from this type of survey are open to multiple interpretations, and the data themselves can’t distinguish the correct one. To illustrate, let’s consider some of REVEAL’s findings.
Involvement in church activities does not predict spiritual growth.
REVEAL finds little correlation between involvement in church activities and what they term “spiritual growth”—behaviors such as tithing, evangelizing, serving others, reading the Bible, and praying. The authors conclude that being involved in church activities does not promote spiritual growth. Another interpretation would be that individuals new to the faith are as equally attracted to church activities as those who are more mature. Perhaps part of spiritual maturity is not volunteering for as many activities in order to concentrate on a few.
Self-reported relationship with God predicts spiritual growth.
REVEAL creates a four-stage progression measuring a person’s self-reported relationship with God. They call it the “spiritual continuum,” and it includes:
1. Exploring Christianity
2. Growing in Christ
3. Close to Christ
4. Christ-centered.
The study finds that progress on this continuum predicts spiritual growth. So, for example, individuals who say they are Christ-centered read the Bible more than those who say they are exploring Christianity. Again, it’s hard to know what to make of this finding. Perhaps the causation runs in the reverse direction. Loving God and others (i.e., spiritual growth) may make us feel closer to God (i.e., spiritual continuum). Do we read the Bible because we feel close to God, or do we feel close to God because we read the Bible?
A more sensible approach might be to use both “spiritual continuum” and “spiritual growth” as outcome measures (rather than having one predict the other). That is, churches want people to love God, love others, and have a strong relationship with Christ. The question, then, becomes what increases all of these?
Up to 25% of respondents were spiritually stalled.
In my experience, spiritual growth is not linear. I’m doing well if I go two steps forward for every step back (and often it’s the other way around). Feeling “stalled” might just be an inherent part of maturing spiritually—consider recent reports of Mother Theresa’s periodic crises of faith. If so, it may not be alarming that a minority of respondents reported this feeling.
In addition, individual feelings of being stalled may reflect a healthy church culture. If a church constantly urges its members to move forward, then some of them, unable to do so at that time, will be frustrated and feel stalled. Perhaps the only churches that have no stalled members are those that have no expectation of growth.
Up to 25% of respondents were dissatisfied with the church.
Is this a high or low number? Many institutions would love to have more than three-quarters of their members satisfied. In addition, churches are voluntary organizations and dissatisfied people can leave at any time. The question then becomes: Why do some stay? Maybe a successful church is one that can hold on to its members during periods of dissatisfaction. The only way to get 100% satisfaction levels may be to drive off those individuals who aren’t perfectly happy.
I believe that American churches have a lot to gain by collecting data, and REVEAL represents the current state-of-the-art in church surveys. My guess is that REVEAL will be remembered best for popularizing church surveys more so than for its findings. I look forward to future research by the REVEAL team, but in the meantime I would caution against making too many changes to Willow Creek, or any other church, based solely on the current study.
Read Bradley Wright’s complete 11 part analysis of REVEAL at his blog.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
After posting Bradley Wright's article we received the following comment from Cathy Parkinson, day-to-day director of REVEAL and co-other of the book:
The timing of this post couldn’t be better. We too enjoyed Professor Wright’s series of posts (see Ten REVEALing Posts from 2007 on the REVEAL blog) and are in the process of soliciting questions from anyone who wants to understand more about the methodology behind the REVEAL data. In just over a week, we’ll be recording a podcast where our two key researchers will explain our process and respond to these questions. We’ve invited Bradley Wright to join us in the studio to talk through these issues and chances are he will. We are just over half-way through conducting the REVEAL survey in 500 churches and continue to have a strong sense that God’s hand is on this work. I address some of Professor Wright’s concerns directly in a post on our REVEAL blog. In case you want to check that out.
Posted by UrL at January 14, 2008 | Comments (24)
January 9, 2008
Disarming the Boomers
Can a younger pastor bring change without getting blown away?
Let’s be honest. The distance between the Boomers and Busters isn’t just a generation gap—it’s a generation gorge. The cultural, technological, and philosophical shifts that have occurred in recent decades have given these two generations fundamentally different perspectives. Although some younger pastors have abandoned the Boomer church to launch their own communities, there are many struggling to serve side by side with the older generation. In part 1 of his post, David Swanson shares the lessons he’s learned as a younger pastor attempting to bring change on a team dominated by Boomers.
In his letter introducing me as a new associate pastor to the congregation, the senior pastor included the Apostle’s advice to his young apprentice, "Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity" (1 Timothy 4:12). I was 25 years old and, while it was a nice sentiment, the verse hardly seemed necessary. Five years later it is clear Paul’s words were more than a kind gesture; they were a hint at the reality to come.
The generational gap between myself and those I was leading quickly became perceptible. As long as my energy was primarily spent maintaining ministries, the difference between the Boomers and me was negligible. It was when I began asking questions about our ministry strategies and effectiveness that Paul’s councel took on new significance.
The leaders at our church are too gracious to have looked down on me as I asked my ministry questions. However, as more time was spent looking for ways to answer those questions, the differences in our ages and ways of seeing the world were a constant reminder of my youth. Even as we came to understand and accept the differences, there continued to be surprises. Three of these came up repeatedly.
Trust must be earned again, and again…and again
As a young staff person, I rightly trusted our church’s leaders. These were men and women who had been commended with the significant task of leading our community. And while I knew these leaders liked me and appreciated my gifts, in those first years it was clear they didn’t entirely trust me. One morning I was venting about this to my senior pastor when he said, “Just wait until you’re 30. I’m not sure why, but something changes on your 30th birthday.”
In hindsight I see how true his observation was. Who knows why, but people’s perceptions of a young leader change when he or she is no longer in their 20’s. In the meantime, I had to accept the fact that trust was not mine to lose, but mine to earn…again and again. It’s a slow process that required a lot of relationship building over a lot of coffee.
Last decade’s battles feel like yesterday
One of the ministry questions I asked of our leaders was whether we were intentionally engaging our culture with the love of God. One person consistently pushed back when this topic was raised. He would say, “How can we be sure this kind of engagement won’t lead to relativism?” I never understood where this question came from, but we shared many lunches where I hoped to convince him that I had no interest in relativism of any kind. I would walk away assuming the conversation was closed, only to receive an email the next week asking the same question in a slightly different way.
Over coffee with a different leader, I expressed my frustration with this person’s questions. “He’s like a broken record!” I huffed. From across the table came the reply, “You have to understand that moral relativism was the battle of our generation. Everything hinged on that issue for us Boomers.” The stars aligned in that moment. Suddenly this individual’s concerns seemed much more valid. While at times I still got frustrated, I was also more patient knowing the source of his concerns.
My slow is your fast
One of the phrases that a young leader grows to loathe is, “You need to be patient.” Or at least I did. The truth is that “slow” and “fast” are very subjective. After a couple of years, I began to recognize the subtle looks of panic as I would suggest strategies or new ideas for the church. While these ideas seemed reasonable to me, to some of our Boomer leaders they sounded quite risky, radical even.
Perhaps, as a leader ages, it is inevitable that the tolerance for risk diminishes. What once seemed reasonable eventually appears risky and fast. I don’t know. This is one surprise that continues to be frustrating to me at times. While I see the need for the wisdom of my elders, I also do not want to lose the sense of urgency for the work God has called us to.
These are just three of the surprises I encountered as a younger leader. For those of you in this category, are there additional things that caught you off guard? And for you Boomer leaders, what do you find tricky about working with or being led by the younger generation?
In part 2 of his post, Swanson will suggest a few ways the younger leader can intentionally serve and lead an older generation.
David Swanson is the associate pastor of Parkview Community Church in Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
Posted by UrL at January 9, 2008 | Comments (22)
January 7, 2008
Politics from the Pulpit
Can a church support a presidential candidate without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status?
The race is on for the White House and it began with excitement last week in Iowa. Tomorrow it’s New Hampshire’s turn, and on February 5, “Super Tuesday,” near half of the country will be voting to select the Democratic and Republican nominees. With one of the most open races in recent history many Christians are still undecided, and some are looking to their church and pastors for direction. Should the church wade into the murky waters of politics? And if it does what is the risk? Allen R. Bevere, pastor of First United Methodist Church in Cambridge, Ohio, and contributor to RedBlueChristian.com, has written to share what a church is legally allowed to do in this political season.
The Associated Press has reported that several pastors in Iowa, who have publicly supported Governor Mike Huckabee for President have received anonymous letters warning them that their churches are in danger of losing their nonprofit status. The fact that the letters are anonymous means that they are probably from someone opposed to Huckabee, who wants to silence these ministers who support him.
There is great misunderstanding, even in government, as to what tax-exempt status does and does not mean in reference to what churches are and are not allowed to say and do when it comes to politics and elections in particular.
First, for some history:
Historically there was no law in the United States restricting any church or other nonprofit organization from endorsing or opposing a candidate for political office.
In 1954, after being opposed by a nonprofit organization, then Senator Lyndon Johnson proposed legislation prohibiting nonprofits from either opposing or endorsing any candidate (which did not and still does not apply to appointed offices such as Supreme Court Justices). The code was amended without debate. Since that time, the political landscape has changed.
So, exactly what is it that pastors and churches are allowed to do politically?
Churches may not directly endorse or oppose a political candidate. The key word is "directly." No church may officially say, "We endorse Jane Doe." "We oppose John Doe." In addition, the pastor should not send out a personal written endorsement on church letterhead. Political signs should not be displayed on the lawn of the church. "Indirect" participation is allowed and includes the following:
1. Pastors may personally endorse a candidate. The office of pastor does not exclude clergy from expressing their personal views. Everyone has that right. The IRS explicitly states that, while a pastor may endorse or oppose a candidate in the parking lot of the church or in the local grocery store in conversation, he or she may not directly endorse or oppose a candidate from the pulpit. There are many who believe, however, that such a view is unconstitutional. At the very least it is problematic from a polity standpoint in that, even in the pulpit, most pastors do not speak officially for their congregations.
2.Pastors may also personally work for a candidate and contribute financially to his or her campaign. No church may contribute to a campaign.
3. Pastors may even endorse a candidate in print, such as in a newspaper ad. The pastor's title and the church s/he is affiliated with may also be listed for the purposes of identification.
4. Pastors may also preach on moral and social issues (abortion, gay marriage, economic matters, etc.) which, depending on the pastor's views, may by implication throw support behind one candidate over another. It is wise, however, not to connect any one candidate to any one position during the sermon. Churches may also take official positions on such issues, as long as they don't directly endorse or oppose a candidate in the process.
5. Churches may organize voter registrations and drives as long as they are directed at all eligible voters and not only toward voters of one political party.
6. Churches may hold forums where candidates address the issues.
7. If a candidate visits a church during worship, he or she may be introduced publicly.
8. Churches may host candidates who may speak from the pulpit, as long as that candidate is not directly endorsed or urges the congregation to vote for her/him.
9. Churches may distribute non-partisan voter guide giving information on where each candidate stands on the issues. Churches should be warned about using guides that come from outside sources as they may be deemed to be partisan.
10. Churches may use their premises as voting stations.
Whether or not it is a good idea for a pastor to personally endorse a political candidate or not, and exactly how far a church should go in getting involved in the political process is another post for another time; but for those pastors and churches that are so inclined, it is helpful to know what the rules are as Caesar continues to domesticate the church into doing his bidding; whether it is in threatening the church's tax-exempt status, or in so sucking us into the partisan political process in both parties, that we forget the church's more profound political task of reminding the nations of the world that it is God who reigns and they are on borrowed time.
Allan R. Bevere is the pastor of First United Methodist Church in Cambridge, Ohio, and a Professional Fellow in Theology at Ashland Theological Seminary in Ashland, Ohio.
Posted by UrL at January 7, 2008 | Comments (14)
January 2, 2008
An Alternative to “Excellence”
Should the church be striving for excellence, or is it time to abandon the loaded term?
Last year I met with a team of leaders from my church. Our task: to rethink and rearticulate the guiding values of our congregation. The work was relatively easy. Upon investigation we determined that most of our core values hadn’t shifted. We still believed in the centrality of relationships to ministry, our bent toward creativity, and the importance of participation. But then we came to “excellence.”
For years our church has listed “excellence” as one of its core values. Support for this word, if not the idea behind it, has been slipping for years. A growing number of leaders are uncomfortable with excellence for a number of reasons. Perhaps the most common objection is that it’s a more subtle way of saying we are perfectionists. Others object that the word is off-putting to people in the church that cannot achieve “excellence.” It’s exclusionary.
Defenders of the term say it has nothing to do with perfectionism or elitism, but a desire to “do our very best for God.” And one person’s very best may differ significantly from another’s, but both are upholding the value of excellence. In the end the decision was made to change the articulation of the value and drop the word “excellence.” But what word should we use?
Daniel Schantz recently wrote an insightful, dare I say excellent, article about the increasing discomfort with the notion of excellence in the church. You should read the entire piece at the Christian Standard website. Here is a brief excerpt:
The term excellence is often spoken by church leaders in condescending tones, as if to say, “Others may be content with being average slobs, but not us. We must have only the best.” This can be a slap in the face to members who don’t have the capacity or means to be excellent—the “good,” the “fair,” the “poor.”
Can only good-looking, gifted singers serve on the worship team? Must church buildings resemble palaces in order to be useful? Do all preachers have to be Madison Avenue models, professional comedians, celebrities, best-selling authors, and able to speak five languages? The gospel was targeted to the poor, not just to the exceptional.
Schantz’s article reads like a transcript from one of our church leadership meetings. He captures the arguments surrounding the term “excellence” perfectly. But the question remains—is there a positive alternative? What word should replace excellence in our ecclesiastical lexicon? Or, are you a true believer in excellence who is willing to fight the slippery slope of mediocrity? Read Schantz’s article and come back with your comments and suggestions.
Posted by Skye Jethani at January 2, 2008 | Comments (35)
