The Politics of Religion

We've heard that it's best to avoid religion and politics and conversation. Those topics can only lead to trouble. Sometimes advice needs to be disregarded.

*As a disclaimer (I was also recently given advice not to begin papers or speeches with disclaimers, but here I go), I must say that I like denominations in the Christian Church. Particularly in a nation like the United States where the Church's primary concern isn't survival, denominations can give local or regional bodies the chance to network with like-minded people to accomplish their mission better, explore specific theological veins or missional philosophies, and pool resources to enhance educational opportunities, evangelism and missions, scholarship and publications, and speakers and conferences.

*As a second disclaimer, this is not about people or churches which preach a "different gospel" which Paul condemns.

There are 50 states in our country. This fact is politically expedient for the entire USA, because different states can experiment with different ideas. Let's say Michigan gets the idea for a higher speed limit. Let's say it bombs--accidents increase, vehicles get worn out more quickly, people's budgets are drained, other areas of the economy struggle...it's a mess. Well, other states can look at that and say, "Hmm...I don't think we'll be trying that one any time soon." Or, let's say it works. Traffic becomes more efficient and less bogged down, accidents decrease, and commerce soars. Other states will happily adopt such a change.

In a similar way, the plethora of churches and denominations have strength in their diversity. Obviously, we live by faith and not just by what we see, as in the states illustration. And God will be the judge of our work, so it's not all about judging results either. However, I think it was Spurgeon who said that if we're so concerned about what the Holy Spirit is telling us (or our church), shouldn't we be equally concerned with what he's been telling the millions of other believers both today and throughout history? There is much to be learned from the wise and Spirit-led teachings of those standing in a tradition different from ours. Also, there is also much to be learned from what God's people do wrong. It's easy to see where an over-emphasis on faith causes people to deny reality. Over-emphasizing head knowledge can make people cold, unfeeling, unloving. Over-emphasizing free grace can make people passive. Over-emphasizing good works can make people legalists. And I could go on.

The point is, we can deceive ourselves into believing that we are above criticism or new ideas. Not that we always accept new ideas out of hand (a speed limit of 120 is just stupid), but we cannot be so arrogant to think that we've completely figured something out (like a transcendent, spiritual, holy God) and then just rest on our work in quiet contentment. Again, neither do we "re-invent the Christian faith" every generation, like a popular local pastor likes to say. But it doesn't mean we ignore the moving of the Holy Spirit through his word or through his people either.

The United States are "united" around one authoritative document--the Constitution. Jesus' Church is united around one authoritative document, as well--the Scriptures. And more specifically, the message of the Gospel. Certainly, if someone gets the gospel wrong, well...they're not marching under the flag of Jesus any more than someone adhering to the French constitution is marching under the American flag. Jesus said the good news of the Gospel is that the Kingdom of God is at hand. The flag of that Kingdom is the one under which we march and the one that unifies all God's people.

However, instead of unity among the Gospel-believing churches, what I often see is enmity, name-calling, accusation, intolerance, jealousy, skepticism, confusion, misrepresentation, and an unwillingness to understand another's point of view.

At this point, I must give some examples. I do not label myself "Reformed" or "Presbyterian," but some people would happily fill out those name tags and stick them to me while I'm not paying attention. When those tags become visible to certain people with whom I've spent time, the results have been mixed. In one particular group, I received many very interesting comments. One friend, upon hearing that I was going to a Presbyterian church, cautioned me that the Presbyterians have "lost their first love." Another was concerned for my spiritual well-being, stating that Reformed churches are "cold, dead places." He warned me that such theology would lead me further from God instead of closer. A couple other friends strangely assumed that a Presbyterian wouldn't believe in the (very Reformed) doctrine of eternal security, based on previous experience with one apparently rogue Presbyterian.

Now, I love these people, and they weren't saying these things out of hate, but out of concern. However, their comments at the very least demonstrated stereotyping, misunderstanding, and a rush to judgment. Had I grown up in the Presbyterian church (which, it should be noted, is not one denomination, but quite a few and quite disparate), my identity with it would have probably caused me to be rather offended. So, while I find it silly and destructive to attack a label, it is another thing entirely to confront a doctrine. That is what none of these friends seemed interested in doing (or, when they did, it was out of a complete misunderstanding of what I actually believed). Many other friends (including some Dispensationalists, with whom I was raised), upon hearing about the turns I've taken on my journey of faith, have responded warmly, wanting to hear about it, commenting on what they've heard or read from leaders of certain Reformed movements, still embracing me as a brother.

I do NOT say these things as though I am a victim of denominational profiling. I am not a victim. I am a concerned observer and participant in the Christian discussion. And what I too often observe is not unity around the Gospel, but disunity due to...I'm not sure...fear? Fear of impurity, maybe? News flash--there are exactly two pre-requisites for salvation and entry into the Church. One: you must be human. Two: you must be a sinner. You must be IMPURE. God did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Now, is there one state which "does government" better than all the others? Undoubtedly (It's also undoubtedly NOT Michigan). Is there one denomination which is the most correct doctrinally and methodologically? Sure. And it's probably not the same one as ten years ago or twenty years ago. And many of us likely think we're in it. Some of us wouldn't be at the church we are if we didn't. But none of this is really the point. If you love your denomination, think they're doctrinally and methodologically "the best," and think every denomination should be more like yours, that's wonderful! Now realize that there are people from every denomination that feel the same way about theirs. They wouldn't exist if people didn't. Don't let that thought curb your enthusiasm for truth, but do realize that our fellowship is ultimately around the Gospel, not a tradition, as valuable as tradition is.

A group which has been an enormous encouragement to me is Together For The Gospel (T4G). This group brings Baptists and Charismatics and Presbyterians and others together around the only message that matters--the Gospel of Jesus the Messiah. Check 'em out. And enjoy your faith tradition. Learn from it and let it build you up. But as the 38 Special song goes, "Hold on loosely." Only hold tightly to the Gospel.

Christopher M. Cuffman

Coram Deo