A rejection of a One-Party Church, and pastors as political operatives

In a response to essays by Pastor Timothy Keller (How Do Christians Fit Into the Two Party System? They Don't), and Pastor Kevin DeYoung (The Church at Election Time) David Closson of the Family Research Council wrote his own opinion piece that disagreed with the warnings of Keller and DeYoung (and my own over the years to my much smaller audience, I concur with most of what both Keller and DeYoung wrote) of the Church becoming too closely connected to one political party.  Instead, Closson advocates in his essay (How Shall We Engage Politically? A Response to Timothy Keller and Kevin DeYoung) that American Christians ought to do nearly the opposite, support wholeheartedly one party, and one party only.  Please read the three essays above so as to understand the positions each one is taking, my response {in brackets} to Closson's advocacy is below:

while believers can register under a party affiliation and be active in politics, they should not identify the Christian church or faith with a political party as the only Christian one. There are a number of reasons to insist on this.
One is that it gives those considering the Christian faith the strong impression that to be converted, they need not only to believe in Jesus but also to become members of the (fill in the blank) Party. It confirms what many skeptics want to believe about religion — that it is merely one more voting bloc aiming for power...Another reason Christians these days cannot allow the church to be fully identified with any particular party is the problem of what the British ethicist James Mumford calls “package-deal ethics.” Increasingly, political parties insist that you cannot work on one issue with them if you don’t embrace all of their approved positions. - Pastor Timothy Keller, Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NY

As Christians, we should take seriously our responsibility to be salt and light in a world that is often rotten and dark.
And yet, I believe pastors must be careful how they lead their churches in our politically polarized culture. I know there are good brothers and sisters who may disagree with these principles and their practical implications. But at the very least, pastors must disciple their leaders and their congregations in thinking through these matters wisely and theologically...The point is to protect Christian freedom and preserve Christian unity, both of which are ultimately about maintaining a faithful gospel witness in our world...To be sure, Christians may seek to educate and mobilize their fellow American citizens. But the unique aim, purpose, and warrant of the church is to educate and mobilize our fellow citizens of heaven. We must not confuse one mission with the other.  - Pastor Kevin DeYoung, Christ Covenant Church, NC

However, despite Keller and DeYoung’s contributions to the question of Christian civic responsibility, the utility and real-world application of their advice is limited due to an underlying political theology that hasn’t fully accounted for the realities of the political system within which we have to work. Although their warning to not equate the church’s mission with the platform of a political party represents faithful Christian convictions, they don’t follow through with a remedy for our current situation. Christians are left asking: Well, then, how should I engage politically? - David Closson
{Here's the thing, when you hear, "that biblical/ethical/moral position is fine in theory, but this is the real world and it won't work" it ought to be a red flag.  (1) Why can't it work in the real world?  Is the way things are now the way they have to be?  (2) Is my primary allegiance to the real world, or to the God to whom I will one day account for my life?  Closson rejects the advice of Keller and DeYoung, not because they are unbiblical, for he several times recognizes the validity of their ideas, but because in the current American political climate, they are impractical.  To continue down this path is to walk out onto thin ice...Here is an uncomfortable truth: In the 'current situation' maybe there is no place for a consistent biblical worldview.  Perhaps the Gospel is so counter-cultural that neither political party is worthy of the allegiance of Christians.  This is not a conclusion, but it remains a possibility, one that Closson is not, at least in this essay, considering.  Jesus did not work with the Pharisees or the Sadducees, neither did he participate in the political system of his day, eschewing both the collaboration of the Herodians and the militant nationalism of the Zealots.  If Jesus was outside the box, must his followers always engage within it, playing by the rules set by others?}

 it is simply not enough for pastors to hope their congregations are informed about candidates and issues. If the act of voting is the act of delegating the exercise of the sword, pastors should communicate to their members “This is what Christians should do.” Given the unavoidable role of politics and the real-world impact that the state’s decisions have on people’s lives, downplaying the role of voting amounts to a failure in Christian discipleship and a neglect to offer neighborly love. - David Closson
{This is in response to DeYoung's explanation as to why his church doesn't host voter registration drives or put out voter guides.  This is a serious charge to level against every pastor who chooses to not use his/her pulpit, and/or the church's worship service, or the church building itself, to advocate participation in the political process.  A failure of Christian discipleship?  Neglecting love?  Are the people in our congregations so inadequate that they must be told to vote, and for whom, by their pastor?  Are pastors to make voting the right way a test of fellowship? (And how would we know, must we demand from our congregation proof of who they voted for, in contradiction to the Constitution?)  Would failure to vote be a reason for discipline within the Church?  If a pastor MUST advocate these positions as questions of black/white morality, it would only be logical for the next step to be treating failure to heed that teaching as rebellion/sin.  I know that Closson is advocating none of these follow-up positions, but can we say, 'this is what Christians should do' and stop there?  Is any of this responsibility within the scope of Paul's instructions to Timothy?  If, however, I teach my congregation to be Christ-like, grounding them in biblical principles and a Christian worldview, are they not capable of evaluating the questions related to voting on their own?  As a Baptist, I firmly believe in the Priesthood of All Believers (that the same Holy Spirit indwells us all, the laity no less than myself), yet this top-down viewpoint acts as if the laity are in some way inferior.  While it is true that I am more educated (regarding theology, philosophy, religion) than my congregation, and most pastors will be, it does not follow that I am naturally wiser regarding the 'real world' of politics, nor necessarily any less susceptible to prejudices, corruption, greed, blind spots, and arrogance when pontificating about politics.  I'm a Baptist, I trust the laity, they govern this church, I am only its steward.  Increase the power and influence of pastors?  No thank you I have enough responsibility already, I'll trust what Lord Byron had to say about the tendency of power to corrupt.}

pastors would do well to educate and equip their members to think biblically about political issues, candidates, and party platforms. It is not enough to espouse concern for human dignity but not support policies and candidates who will fight to overturn profound moral wrongs. In a Genesis 3 world plagued by sin, Christians are called to drive back the corroding effects of the fall wherever they exist. This must include the realms of law and politics. - David Closson
{There are two flaws in this line of thought: (1) That teaching Christians in our churches to think biblically has any limitations.  In other words, when the text of Scripture declares God's holiness and righteousness by relating it to a moral issue (typically in the life of Israel or the Early Church), that teaching automatically applies to family life our friends and neighbors, our work and business relationships, and our role as citizens.  To say that politics must be highlighted is to assume that politics is either somehow not automatically included, or somehow more important than the others.  Would David Closson, and the many evangelicals (and liberals) who hold such views of the role of a pastor, really want me to apply God's teaching about marital fidelity and adultery to current American politicians?  The Bible's teaching on the danger of wealth by examining from the pulpit the finances of various politicians? (2) The second flaw is that pastors ought to take it upon themselves to be judge and jury as to which policies best fit biblical principles, and which politicians truly embody them.  Is there only one economic system that is biblical?  Only one theory of taxation?  One monetary policy?  Are there politicians in whom a pastor can place his trust who will not subsequently cause shame and guilt by association through future immoral behavior?  Am I to yoke my reputation to that of a politician?  Are we, as Christians, to seek to 'overturn profound moral wrongs'?  Absolutely, it was Christians who spearheaded the abolition of slavery, both in England and America, and Christians who led the charge in the Civil Rights movement.  It does not follow, however, that advocating for 'political issues, candidates, and party platforms' will achieve the desired end of Justice.  What if the chosen position, candidates, and parties make things worse?  What of the Law of Unintended Consequences?  That Christians should be involved (politically or otherwise) in fighting against immorality is not the question at hand.  The question is: should pastors (and thus the church, at least in public perception) be the ones leading the charge, and should these efforts be mixed with Christian discipleship, Gospel proclamation, and Worship?  If this is something that Christians ought to do, it still remains an open question regarding whether or not this is the right way to do it, questions whose answers Closson are assuming to be affirmative.}

This idea that historic Christian positions on social issues do not fit into contemporary political alignments grounds the outworking of Keller’s political theology. Although not explicitly stated, he suggests that while Republicans may hold a more biblical view on issues related to abortion and marriage, Democrats are more faithful in their approach to racial justice and the poor. Implied in this analysis is that these issues carry similar moral freight and that consequently Christians should be leery of adopting either party’s “whole package.” - David Closson
{This is a false dichotomy: In Closson's view there is not room for Christians to support a third party, because a third party does not currently have a chance of winning, only two choices may be considered.  In addition, Closson is setting up himself, or individual pastors, to be the sole arbiters of which moral issues belong in the 'first tier' (where is this defined in the Bible?  Where are abortion and marriage elevated above all other concerns?) and which can be secondary (and in practical political terms, mostly irrelevant).  If Christians decides how to vote only on 'x' issue, they show the political parties to whom they are wed that they are willing to compromise morally on all other issues.  For example: If abortion is the only issue that matters, Christians will still vote for us no matter what position we take on gambling, the treatment of immigrants, elective wars, and a host of other issues about which the Bible is also explicit.  Do they not also matter?  Do the lives of the unborn outweigh the lives of the living?  Must Christians swallow immorality in order to win politically?  While there will be defenders of the two major parties, insisting that everything they do is correct, can we really say that this is biblical?  Must pastors lead the charge by becoming cheerleaders for a party's entire platform?  If a party's platform is 51% consistent with Biblical principles, is that sufficient?  Is 90% sufficient?  What if the platform seems 35% biblical to me, but 65% biblical to you?  These are profound questions about which we would expect God-honoring, Bible believing, Christians to disagree.}

Consequently, the Bible speaks to the issues identified by Keller; committed Christians, therefore, must care about all of them. Faithfulness to God’s Word requires nothing less. However, the tension arises when it comes to application—when biblical imperative intersects with the realities of today’s politics. - David Closson
{Closson acknowledges that the WHOLE council of God must be considered, that we cannot focus upon one or two moral issues to the exclusion of all others, but then immediately downplays this biblical truth by saying that the 'realities of today's politics', at least in part, negate that concern.  Biblical imperative cannot be lightly set aside.}

However, it is also true in recent years the two major U.S. political parties have clearly adopted positions on first tier moral issues on which the Bible does speak. “First tier” moral issues include questions where the Bible’s teaching is clear and where specific, positive action is prescribed. - David Closson
{In the following paragraph Closson declares that the right to life and human sexuality are 'first tier' issues about which the Bible is clear.  Are there not others?  Are these the only two issues about which the Bible is sufficiently clear as to allow Christians to view them with certainty?  The Bible spends more time speaking to wealth and the abuses of it than any other moral topic.  Why are we creating 'tiers' of morality anyway?  "Be holy because I am holy" has devolved into 'tiers' of morality?  If 'life' is granted 1st 'tier' status, does it follow that the only issue related to 'life' is abortion?  This is thus an artificial list of two, and only two, priorities that fit nicely with the current two party system, and contrast favorably with the party that Closson identifies with.  Were there then no 'first tier' moral issues in America before Roe vs. Wade?  From the abolition of slavery until Roe vs. Wade, were Christians free to support any political party, but now are constrained and must actively and publicly support a particular party?}

In short, if theologically conservative Christians appear aligned with the Republican Party, it is only because Democrats have forced them there by taking positions on moral issues that oppose the Bible’s explicit teaching. Thus, while Keller is right that Christians should not feel perfectly at home in either political party, is it fair to suggest that they should feel equally comfortable in both?
In 2018 the answer would seem to be “no.”
It should also be noted that the challenges facing American Christians regarding politics is not unique; brothers and sisters in other nations face the same tensions. This is because there is no “Christian” political party; no party aligns perfectly with the Bible. This is true even in countries where dozens of political parties participate in any one election. This means that there is never a perfect choice when it comes to political engagement; on this side of the Parousia, faithful Christians will always be choosing from less than ideal options. This is why wisdom, prayer, and counsel are indispensable when it comes to Christian political engagement. - David Closson
{It is a long distance from 'equally comfortable' to 100% with one and 100% against the other.  Closson accuses Keller of creating a false dichotomy by pointing out the faults in both parties (subsequently Closson highlights the faults Keller mentions for one party but defends/minimizes them for the other) and yet only two choices remain to his question, Red or Blue?  Why are neither, some of both, or partial/conditional support of one of them not options?  Why must we be 'all in', especially given that Closson is willing to recognize the truth that no political party (in any country) has ever been perfect?  I am heartened that Closson is willing to acknowledge that there is not perfect answer, some pundits would never do that it speaks well of his integrity, but what if becoming a partisan is what perpetuates the status quo preventing the deep systematic change that our system needs, and what if not given a particular party the full allegiance of the American Church is what spurs that party on toward reforming itself?  Is is still possible for Christians to believe in the separation of Church and State, as a Baptist that is the viewpoint of my ancestors in the faith.  And it is also possible for a Christian to believe that the government is not the best enforcer of public morality (for example: the disaster of Prohibition), that today's Pro-Christian enforced morality could easily become tomorrow's Anti-Christian enforced morality, and thus Christians would be better off adopting a libertarian stance.  Again, these are not my beliefs, I'm trying to keep my beliefs out of this, but serious questions that must be addressed when pastors/churches are being told they need to 'get on board' or be labeled as either insufficiently Christian or insufficiently American.}

For the sake of Christian faithfulness, we need an informed Christian citizenry. It is not enough for pastors to acknowledge that various policy positions are profoundly evil yet withhold the requisite tools that empower concrete action. It is not enough to pray for candidates and speak on a handful of issues without equipping believers with everything they need to honor God in the voting booth.
Over the last few years, many Christian leaders have lamented the current state of American politics. They have reiterated that Christians have no home in either major political party (a state of affairs to which we might ask whether Christian indifference and distaste for politics has contributed to in the first place) and that in secondary and tertiary issues Christian liberty should abound. While these calls are helpful, people in the pews are yearning for more direction. Of course, it would be pastoral malpractice to pronounce a “Thus saith the Lord” when there is no biblical warrant. However, in areas where pastors and Christian leaders can say more, they should. These areas include grappling with the reality of our two-party system and following our political theology to its logical end by voting.
If political engagement is an aspect of Christian faithfulness, it is also a matter of discipleship. Thus, church members must be equipped to honor God in the political arena in a way that goes beyond merely describing current challenges. Applying a faithful political theology in our context requires a thorough understanding of biblical morality and an awareness of the positions of the political parties and candidates. As this dual knowledge is acquired, Christians will better understand the times and increasingly know what they ought to do in politics. - David Classon's conclusion in full
{'withhold the tools for concrete action'??  If a pastor doesn't preach/publicly endorse a party and its candidates, he/she is depriving Christians of the ability to take action??  When did pastors become the political gate-keepers?  My ordination oaths (both stated in the ceremony and those I made directly to God) were to serve his Church, to shepherd his people, and to seek the Lost with the Gospel.  I made no oath to defend, uphold, or advance the two-party political system of the United States (nor the United States itself, in America we don't take oaths of loyalty to the government; even those serving in the military swear to defend the Constitution, a key distinction).  And for good reason, as both Keller and DeYoung pointed out, when pastors become political partisans half of those with whom we must contend for the sake of the Gospel are less likely to hear the words of Jesus Christ rather than the Democrat gospel or the Republican gospel.  In addition, when pastors become political partisans, their congregations tend to follow suit, those who disagree (whether Republicans, Democrats, or Independents) are more likely to leave, hopefully finding a new church (although not always), and typically landing where others agree with them.  Thus the American Church continues to become polarized, where our congregation are not only racially segregated, but politically as well.  They then become echo chambers where an us vs. them mentality is fostered and a 'no proper Christian could see this issue any other way' attitude grows.  Classon wrote, 'it would be pastoral malpractice to pronounce a “Thus saith the Lord” when there is no biblical warrant'  Exactly!  Where is the Biblical warrant that tells me to support a candidate or party?  What text should I preach that under proper exegesis illuminates the 21st century American political landscape without doubt?  Know this, and know it well.  When a preacher preaches from the pulpit, calling upon the Word of God in support of the message, it is perceived by many to be a 'thus saith the Lord' pronouncement.  It is given authority because of the office and the pulpit.  If I can't say, 'thus saith the Lord' with conviction and based firmly upon God's Word, why am I preaching?
I have 25 hours in the pulpit each year (50 weeks times 30 minutes, I often go longer, but round numbers will suffice) during which I can expound upon the Word of God, a pittance and not nearly enough, but the only setting where the majority of the congregation (both members and non, regulars and irregulars) will be in attendance.  Why would I devote even one of those sermons to praising or denouncing a politician or a party?  The pulpit is a sacred trust, an awesome responsibility for which those of us ordained to lead the Church will one day answer.  I know that this opinion is wildly unpopular with many on both the Left and the Right, but I will not risk profaning the name of God, the reputation of the Church, and the glory of the Gospel, by staining it with the mud of politics.  John Calvin's Geneva merged Church and State, how well did that work out?  Is this a model to aspire to, or a warning sign?  Don't expect all Christians to agree on the answer.  Paul warned Christians to not be 'unequally yoked with unbelivers', referring primarily to marriage, but is not the union of Church and State, or Church and Party an unequal marriage?  Is not the Church the one being asked to compromise its beliefs, swallow the immorality of political leaders (in the church they ought to be removed, and persistent sin is absolutely disqualifying for a pastor to remain in the ministry, but in politics no such compunction applies; various politicians of both parties have been, and continue to be, immoral in their behavior, yet retain, or even advance, in leadership.  Is this an example that reflects well upon the Gospel?).
In short, while David Classon is willing to admit that both Keller and DeYoung make several valid points, his conclusion overwhelms them, while caution and thoughtfulness are praised, in the end the conclusion is stark: There is only one party in America that any thoughtful Christian could think to support, that support must be public, and ought to be championed from the pulpit (if the conclusion is inescapable and undeniable, no lesser platform will do).  This is a false choice, A or B, when in reality the 'real world' of politics also has a C, D, and E. (C:mostly A and a little B,D: mostly B and a little A,E: none of the above).  I will continue to teach my congregation the Word of God, continue to help them to see how that timeless world can fit into the 21st century, but I will choose to let them use their own God-given, and Spirit sanctified, minds to enter the political realm as their conscience dictates, not only because they are capable of choosing with integrity and wisdom, but because attempting to make those decisions for them is a path filled with danger, a temptation to replace spiritual transformation with earthly power, and a corrupting influence that will inevitably cause me to sacrifice my integrity for political expediency.  No thank you.