Where society leads, should the Church follow?

** Disclaimer **  This post is not about politics (none of mine are), so please don't project this into that realm.  All human beings deserve equal rights and equal protection under the law, what "equal" means and whether or not a particular situation is "equal" is a healthy debate for a free society, but not my intention here.  America is not a theocracy, nor would I wish it to be.  My job, as a pastor, is to shepherd my local church, and beyond that to help the universal Church in any way that I can. `


What is the relationship between the Church and the societies in which it operates?  Are we friends, competitors, enemies?  The answer isn't black and white, at times the Church and society can work together, at times the Church is competing with society, and at times society can be an enemy of the Church.  How do we know what the stance of the Church should be on issues of morality, and how do we know when the Church should defy society on an issue, even at its own peril?

Islam is a reflection of 7th Century Arab culture, it champions what that culture championed and rejects what that culture rejects.  Judaism and Christianity are different, however.  When it was given, the Law of Moses was a unique set of moral principles, one that did not simply reflect the society in which it was given, but transcended it.  Over the following 1,500 years, the authors of the various portions of the Bible interacted with that Law and sought to apply it to their time and place.  The New Testament writers, and the Early Church fathers, did not seek to undo the Law of Moses, but to fulfill it under the New Covenant.  Throughout its 2,000 year history, the Church has been both a minority in society, and the overwhelming majority, at odds with culture, and also at times the creator of culture.  The one constant throughout this combined 3,500 year history has been the authority of the Scriptures.  Neither the people of Israel, nor the Church, have been given the power to challenge that authority, nor to supersede it.  Why?  Culture is always changing, what once was shunned is now celebrated, and vice versa, why doesn't the Church change with it?  To answer that question, one needs to understand where the Scripture came from.

We call the Bible the Word of God for a reason.  Paul declared that the Scriptures were "God-breathed", Peter added that its authors wrote as they were "carried along by the Holy Spirit."  In other words, it is not the product of the mind of man, but of God.  As such, we cannot, even should we wish to, usurp its authority or declare its commands and principles null and void.

Modern Western society celebrates materialism, the Bible warns of the dangers of riches, many times, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against materialism.  It is not a question of what we want, or what we would prefer, but what God has commanded.  Society celebrates fame and pride, the Bible champions humility, and warns of the dangers of pride, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against the dangers of pride.  Society celebrates unfettered sexual expression, and an attitude of self-indulgence, the Bible champions self-restraint and self-control as well as purity, therefore the Church has no choice but to teach and preach against the dangers of self-indulgent sexuality in all its forms.

Jesus called his followers to be salt and light in the world, Saint Augustine wrote that the people of God are to be a "city upon a hill".    When society is wrong about morality, the Church needs to stand in contrast, it isn't our preference that matters, but God's Word.  It is unlikely that proclaiming the virtues of self-control and humility, regarding wealth, fame, or sexuality will be popular, but popularity is not our standard for morality.

I would love every church on Sunday morning to be bursting at the seems, full of people who have repented, been forgiven, and now are celebrating the love of God, but it would be the death of the Church if we sought to fill the pews by rejecting the authority of the Bible in favor of societal norms.  A church without the authority of the Bible, even if it is full of people, is on a path of spiritual oblivion.  We are the heirs of 3,500 years of God's work among his people, we cannot be the generation which abandons that legacy in order to be popular.

The Temptation to be a Culture Warrior as a Pastor, and why I'm not interested.

I've been a pastor for ten years, five at my first church in Palo, MI and five here at Franklin, PA.  During that time I've received many expressions of thanks and many heart-felt signs of appreciation for things that I've done in my capacity as a pastor such as funerals, hospital visitations, my class on the history of the Bible, and various sermons.  These are the kinds of things that keep a pastor going when his desk is covered in post-it notes, like mine usually is, of things to do.  This job is a calling, and the person who first said that you shouldn't be doing it if you can envision yourself doing anything else, was right.  It is uniquely demanding in many ways, but also uniquely rewarding.  I can't see myself doing anything else, and the only task that compares is one that I do as part of this profession anyway: teaching.

A couple weeks ago here in Franklin a controversy started brewing.  An anonymous letter writer threatened to sue the city of Franklin if the nativity scene that had long been placed in the downtown park's bandstand wasn't removed.  I was asked by the religion reporter of our excellent local paper if I would comment on the impending decision by the city council as to whether they would acquise to the threat of a lawsuit and remove the nativity, leave it as is and risk the cost of a lawsuit, or seek some sort of compromise.

Those of you who have followed this blog for some time, and/or know me in person, know that I've chosen to avoid politics in my public life.  I don't talk about politicians, elections, or the latest culture war issue raging on Facebook.  It is a choice I've made for reasons that I believe are extremely compelling.  They include: (1) That ministering to the Gospel is far more important than whatever political decision is currently being made, (2) that the marriage between the Church and politics has always been a one-sided affair that tarnishes the Church's reputation, and (3) that the last thing I want to happen is for somebody to avoid coming to my church to hear the Gospel, or choosing to leave it, because of a position that I might take on a political issue.  During the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. my patience was sorely tested, there were a great many things crying out for comment, but I refrained.

There are exceptions to this self-imposed rule, when the issue being discussed is primarily one of morality and not politics, and when the issue is of local concern.  My comments about the nativity fit that restriction.  I spoke to the reporter about why I'm troubled by the threat of a lawsuit being a reason to make a decision, whether it is a church, school, local government, or business that is being bullied by the threat.  I also spoke about how this was the type of issue that could easily have been dealt with locally by a compromise that works for all concerned rather than bringing outside organizations into it, thus making any equitable conclusion more difficult.  Those were carefully considered comments, and pretty much the limit of what I was willing to say about this topic.

Long story short, the city council voted unanimously to compromise by placing some secular items in the bandstand along with the nativity and thus hopefully negating the threat of the lawsuit without removing the nativity.  The crowd that had gathered at the council meeting cheered this outcome when the vote was taken.

What has happened since the article quoting me appeared in the paper is another reason why I remain committed to NOT being a culture warrior as a pastor: I've been congratulated, a lot.  I've received phone calls, personal remarks, even an old fashioned letter in the mail, cheering on my stand on this issue.  Are these appreciated and appropriate?  Sure, but they illustrate a very solid fourth reason why I should avoid politics and make only very rare exceptions to my own rule.  A pastor could easily grow to love the adulation and let it influence how he does his job.  It feels good to have so many people express confidence in you and say they're proud of you, it really does.  The never ending culture wars in America are a ready-made source of cheers for any pastor who wants to be their champion.  But that's not why I was called to be a pastor by God, and that's not the mission I'm responsible for.  If all I wanted was the cheers of men, I could easily have it by shouting about the latest battle in the culture wars, but Jesus warned us of this temptation, "when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men.  I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full." (Matthew 6:5)

I don't need to tempt myself by doing things that will allow me to be "seen by men", I don't need to find out if my pride can be kept under control, if my preaching can be kept focused on what the Word of God is saying, not what I think people want it to say.  These are temptations that have ruined the ministry and reputation of far too many pastors.  If you want to be a culture warrior, that's your business, I've already got a job, and my boss' kingdom has higher priorities. 

The Church in a Post-Christian society

Much discussion has occurred in recent years, and will continue to occur, regarding what the Church's response should be to the growing number of non-committed, agnostic, and atheist young people in the Western World.  One of the motivations behind the conscious decision made by Pastor Andy Stanley eight years ago to change his approach to evangelism is his desire to make a greater impact upon a post-Christian America.  While it remains to be seen if we truly are entering into an era of post-Christian society, after all a majority of Americans still self-identify (I know the accuracy of such things is debatable) as Christian and trends can run both ways, but given that a significant portion of Millenials and other young people have a negative view of the Church, Scripture, and God, it behooves us to consider whether or not we ought to change our ministry approach in response.  Those churches which have embraced a seeker-friendly attitude are one such attempted response.

Let me, however, offer a counter-point and word of caution.  If indeed our society continues in its current direction of removing the sacred and the divine in the process known as secularization, does it really seem wise for the Church to imitate them by downplaying Scripture, prayer, or worship?  Shouldn't we maintain our emphasis on the exalted nature of our worship services so as to provide a contrast to the secular world?  Aren't we showing the world what it is missing as God's Creation when we continue to hold high not only the authority of Scripture, but the sacred qualities of prayer and worship?  For a church to downplay its religious symbols and to make worship more approachable for the Lost by putting the Bible and God in a lesser role, is not making them more appealing to those who need God, but removing from them the one element that society without God cannot imitate, the presence of the Holy Spirit in our midst.
It is absolutely legitimate to hold a rally or have a special gathering that is seeker-friendly, but this cannot be what we allow our worship service to devolve into.  Why are we in the house of the Lord on his day?  To lift his name, to worship the Almighty, and to be molded and shaped as his disciples.  The Lost are absolutely welcome to join us, to observe our worship, and hear the Word of the LORD preached, but it would be a mistake for us to remove from our worship the things that make them uncomfortable.  The Lost should feel welcome in our midst, but they shouldn't feel comfortable, for the wrath of God abides on them until they repent; seeker-friendly can't change that fact, and the Church should never try to hide it.

How the Pope became popular among Evangelicals

The title alone seems like a crazy thought; it least it would have only a generation or two ago.  Having just finished Diarmaid MacCulloch's Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years (with its 1016 pages no less), I could not help but comment on his observation that Secularism (in particular cultural battles over sexual morality) was an unintentional boost to the modern alliance between formerly rival factions within Christianity.  A generation or two ago, the primary threat as seen by Evangelical Protestants would have been Liberal Protestantism and Catholicism; Orthodox Christianity wouldn't have rated a mention as it languished behind the Iron Curtain.  Fast forward past the Cultural Revolution of the 60's, Roe vs. Wade, the rising tide of divorce in the West and America, and the battles for ordination for women and homosexuals.  With all of these struggles in common, a remarkable shift has taken place: "a survey on approval ratings among American Evangelicals showed that Pope John Paul II, who would have represented Antichrist to an earlier Evangelical generation, out polled assorted spokesmen of the Religious Right" (pg. 1010, from a poll taken in 2004).
What did it take to make the Pope popular among Evangelicals?  The realization that we have more in common with our brothers and sisters in the Catholic (and Orthodox) Churches than we do with a society that has come to embrace sexual promiscuity, divorce, abortion, and euthanasia.  It was not a sudden outbreak of Christian brotherhood that prompted those looking across the divide of Christianity for solidarity, but a realization that we must work together lest we separately be overwhelmed by atheism and agnosticism.  It seems that after 500 years of confrontation (in the case of Orthodoxy, 1000 years), the worldwide Church is beginning to see that the message of the Gospel is needed in our world regardless of which one of our Christian denominations is doing the telling.  What we have in common is more important that our differences, however important they may be.  The world needs a message of hope, forgiveness, and reconciliation, far more than it needs us to continue the arguments that have raged within the Church in the shadow of the writings of St. Augustine.
Did I once think the Pope would be the Antichrist?  Sure I did, that's what was being taught in Evangelical circles 30 years ago.  The times, they are a changing.  In the words of the American Patriot Benjamin Franklin, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."