Last Sunday was “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”; that raises two questions:
(1) Do churches have a Constitutional right to endorse candidates while maintaining tax-exempt status? (This is up for debate).
(2) More importantly, regardless of the Constitutional issue, is it wise for churches to endorse candidates? I hope we can answer this question today as well as pursue some broader implications of this discussion.

In order to do so, let’s pursue an answer to the two following questions:
(1) What is the responsibility of the church (as a corporate institution) with respect to politics?
(2) What is the responsibility of individual Christians with respect to politics?

I. What is the responsibility of the church (as a corporate institution) with respect to
politics?

Directly, the church has no responsibility.

Our responsibility: Matt. 28:18-20; this will likely have an indirect impact on culture and the
political process, but God has not given us a mission that is directly political.

Theological background:

(1) In this present age, believers and unbelievers live together in the same society under God’s ordained rule, the state (Romans 13:1-7).
(2) The power to make and enforce laws (the power of the sword) has been entrusted to the state, not to the church, for the regulation of the common kingdom.
(3) The church as an institution, however, exists in the present age as an outpost of the Kingdom of God, the “redemptive kingdom.”
(4) As such, the church has been given the mission of bearing witness to Christ in this present age, but not of seeking to influence directly the affairs of the state.
(5) If the church allies itself to parties and candidates, it not only distracts itself from the mission it has been given, it also seeks to employ the methods of the world (seeking worldly power) to achieve its ends. The church then becomes more like the world and loses its distinctive nature and voice.

Examples are found on both the left (liberation theology) and the right (the religious right).

Indirectly, the church’s responsibility is to proclaim the whole counsel of God, thereby helping
to shape the worldview of its members, who will then be better equipped to participate in the
political process as individuals.

Examples:
(1) Abortion is an abomination. The church can declare this on God’s authority. However, the church has no word from God on the best way to achieve a political victory on this issue (through incremental gains? No compromise?). Individual Christians can agree that abortion is murder, but they will likely disagree on what should be done about it. We cannot bind your conscience on the latter.
(2) Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This is revealed truth. But Christians may disagree on the best way to protect and honor marriage in society (federal law, amendments to state constitutions, all of the above, etc.)

Does “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” represent a wise course of action for the church? No.

II. What is the responsibility of individual Christians with respect to politics?
Our citizenship is in Heaven (Phil. 3:20), but we are also citizens of the common kingdom for
now. We are exiles (1 Pet. 1:1).

As exiles, our responsibility here is to seek the good of our temporal home (Jer. 29:7; Titus
3:12). The motivation for Christian influence in the political process is love for our neighbors.

Our involvement in the political process will vary depending on our calling:
(1) As citizens of a republic, the authority to elect our leaders has been entrusted to us; therefore, we are responsible to cast informed votes.
(2) Some of us may have callings that involve more direct political involvement: working for political organizations or law enforcement or running for office.

Two dangers to avoid:

1. The danger of a politicized church: it adopts the methods of the world, abandons its mission, and compromises the holiness that makes it a distinct people in an evil age.

Greg Wills: “In fact, the more churches concerned themselves with social order, the less they exerted church discipline. From about 1850 to 1920, a period of expanding evangelical solicitude for the reformation of society, church discipline declined steadily. From temperance to Sabbatarian reform, evangelicals persuaded their communities to adopt the moral norms of the church for society at large. As Baptists learned to reform the larger society, they forgot how they had once reformed themselves. Church discipline presupposed a stark dichotomy between the norms of society and the kingdom of God. The more evangelicals purified the society, the less they felt the urgency of a discipline that separated the church from the world.”

2. The danger of an uninvolved individual: in a free society, we have greater blessings and
(consequently) greater responsibility. Appropriate involvement in the political process is an
aspect of neighbor love.

Patriotism is a Christian virtue: love of our country, home, neighbors; This is not the same as nationalism. (HT: Brett McCracken)

The Church and the Political Process: What is our Role?