Kingdom Life, not ‘Politics’
by David Cassidy
The Apostle Paul did not go around the Roman Empire cursing Caesar, but rather urging prayer for the man. However, he was also preaching the Gospel of God, a message that threatened and eventually undermined the foundations of Roman power. To confess Jesus Christ as Lord was certainly to deny Caesar the same honor. Yet even this was not a repudiation of Caesar per se, but rather a refusal to participate in his sin, and by this to perhaps warn him as well.
There’s something I’d like us to consider. While pockets of American Christendom remain, Christian America (if there ever was such a thing) is now gone. That doesn’t mean it is gone forever. It does mean that we have to know where we are, when we are—here and now—and act accordingly. We live in a society that is in many ways sympathetic to basic Christian ‘values’ but intolerant of Christian dogma. The two are inseparable, of course, but many prefer to simply ignore this. More than this, ‘personal liberty’ (often just slavery to self and fashion, but that’s another matter) is the primary value in the life of the vast majority of people in our culture, who thus vigorously oppose the ‘imposition’ of Christian morality on the culture, especially in areas of sexuality.
So what is to be done? To begin with, we should be studying the Book of Acts and the Gospels more carefully. If post-modern America, especially in its urban centers, more closely resembles ancient Rome than Puritan New England (and it most assuredly does), then we are called as never before to faithfully preach the Gospel in word and deed, pass on the Faith to the next generation, sacrificially build communities of the Faith, and live out a witness to what we believe, rather than merely seeking the Kingdom’s implementation through political means.
After Rome’s conversion, Emperor and Bishops were joined together in unique ways that brought blessing to countless thousands. The demise of the Empire necessitated Augustine writing The City of God to refocus the faithful on the lasting inheritance of the Kingdom. Such a vision sustained and nurtured the Church through the darkness that followed the western empire’s collapse. It led to the preservation of the Faith, to bold endeavors in mission, and to the re-evangelization of Europe.
There are similar signs of demise in our culture today. America itself is not collapsing, but a secularist revolution has occurred, marginalizing the old evangelical consensus, and seeking to eliminate its presence from the public square. I would humbly submit, then, that it is evangelical America that is collapsing. I honestly doubt whether evangelicalism in its current forms can last for more than another generation. It will certainly die if it goes on confusing its message of grace with a political agenda, or a political party. Which isn’t to say that we have nothing to declare when it comes to the powers–on the contrary.
What this means is that we must give ourselves to bearing witness to a Christian culture in the midst of an increasingly hostile secular culture. We are going to have to live it rather than seek to legislate it. It seems painfully obvious to me that the credibility of the evangelical scene and, in some places, the Roman Catholic Church, is completely shot. If this is correct, it means that actions are now much more essential than words.
Take abortion as a case in point. We can’t stop abortion on demand through legislation, so we have to instead urge those considering abortion to abandon the idea, and we have to get busy adopting babies and children right here, and from overseas as well. In the realm of political discourse, we should adopt a new language of the Kingdom of God rather than the agendas of men. We must not imagine - or allow others to imagine - that Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly speak for the Church; they don’t. From time to time, we will have points of agreement with them, and with individuals from the other end of the political spectrum. Because we are Christians we will sometimes have positions that appear ‘conservative’ and at other times ‘liberal’; such appearances can be misleading. For example, some people can wrongly imagine that since I think President Obama is hopelessly wrong on abortion that I think he must be wrong on everything. I don’t. Some people can equally think that because some future President will be right about abortion he must be right about everything else; this too is a grave mistake and to be avoided.
The coincidental agreement of Christian views with those of people in power exists because, at certain points, our mission to proclaim Christ, live for him, and share that life together as servants in the world intersects with their views and agenda. This neither redeems their mission nor secularizes us. What I hope to be crystal clear about in this matter is as follows: I am not for the time-being interested at all in a ‘Christian America’; indeed, I think it a likelihood that America will become a persecutor of the Church in its midst. What I am interested in is living and preaching the Kingdom of God. And the Kingdom of God, let it be said, is a lot bigger than the PCA. New connections, fresh alliances, and surprising shifts are probably all part of God’s plan to reposition his people for the harvest. Lets get on with it. We can spend our time cursing the darkness…or proclaiming the Light that overcomes it. We can try to build and protect a denomination…or we can seek first the Kingdom. We can spend our common life together like the curator of a museum to an America long since gone…or we can be the architects and builders of parishes in God’s city, an eternal and catholic city that will withstand whatever happens to the America that now is. I’d like to suggest that some tough choices need to be made by us, and made now.
—
David Cassidy is the pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas.
Posted: February 2nd, 2009 under Cultural, Mission, Practical Theology.
Comments
Comment from T Ganz
Time February 2, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Quite a rousing post, and yet you offer very few concrete examples as to what “[adopting] a new language of the Kingdom of God” really looks like. Painting with a broad brush is fine and good in certain circumstances, yet when dealing with such a touchy topic, the more specific and concrete one can be, the less likely it will be that someone will misunderstand you.
Also, you create this straw man by developing a dichotomy between building and protecting the PCA, and “seeking first the Kingdom”. I hope that you as a pastor would see that building and protecting God’s Church is part of your job as an elder, and the essence of seeking the Kingdom. Christ tells Peter to shepherd His flock, which entails building and protecting, and thus cannot be the antithesis of “seeking the Kingdom”. Perhaps I am missing your point, and even if I’m not, clarification would be appreciated.
Comment from David Cassidy
Time February 3, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Bob, glad to know you found the post encouraging.
T Ganz, thank you for taking the time to read and for your critique, and hopefully I can offer a brief response.
Specificity tends to be somewhat localized, and that is why I have written in somewhat more general terms. in other words, Pastors and others can take general principles and observations and apply them constructively within their own sphere of responsibility or in their own locale. I would be deeply concerned if something I had written came across as telling others what they needed to do in, say, Tampa or LA or Peoria simply because that’s the way the world looks from Austin. Having said that, I would suggest we pay careful attention to our work among the poor and voiceless, how we champion a ‘culture of life’, how we work together on a variety of issues with Pastors and leaders across our city who aren’t necessarily Reformed, what strategies we are pursuing to present Christ to those who do not yet know him, and how we embody historic catholicity in worship (which again may be too broad a brush stroke to satisfy, but in the PCA at least worship is a very local issue!).
I’m afraid I would respectfully dissent on the issue of a straw man being present. I am not putting forward a dichotomy between the Church and the Kingdom, or between the Pastoral charge and the work of the Kingdom. What I am suggesting is that our pursuit of the Kingdom will no doubt take the form of tasks and responsibilities which, while always doing justice to the local call (I emphasized parish development and covenant succession), will reach beyond the specific congregations in which we may serve, or even beyond our denominational identities. By way of example, we might consider Tim Keller’s church planting efforts and innovations in leadership development. I hope that offers some of the clarification that you seek.
To summarize, it is not by the pursuit of a political agenda but by a proclamation of and lived witness to the Kingdom that the influence of the Church - both as sign of hope and sign to be opposed - will be most magnified. I believe the most earth-shaking activity we do is our worship every Lord’s Day, gathering to glorify the name of Christ, hear the word of Christ, and feast at the Table of Christ, prepared then to go and proclaim the name of Christ in the world. That’s a very ecclesiocentric vision to some - for me it appears to be sanity, unifying Church and Kingdom in a vibrant witness held forth by ‘a people formed by Christ as his own inheritance, zealous for good works.’
Comment from T Ganz
Time February 4, 2009 at 10:38 am
Thanks for the response. Two quick thoughts. First, you say that you did not create a dichotomy between the church and Kingdom, yet, how is one to take a statement such as “We can try to build and protect a denomination…or we can seek first the Kingdom”? You characterize two, according to you, differing positions, and set them in opposition to one another, which seems to exemplify a dichotomy. Perhaps you could clarify what “build” and “protect” mean in your statement. However, to most, those terms carry positive connotations, and most pastors, I would think, would take it as a compliment if told they were building and protecting God’s church.
Second, there seems, to me, to be a disconnect both in your post, and in your response. You use terms and concepts, that, ideally, would be applied to the individual believer, and yet use them almost solely in reference to the PCA, and the Church’s role. Take for example the disparity between your first and third main paragraphs in your response. You say in the first paragraph that we should focus more on the “voiceless” and “propagating a culture of life”, and yet in the third paragraph say that the main thing that should be pursued by pastors is teaching and preaching the Word, and administering the sacraments. I’m confused, which role should the church assume: teaching and preaching or pursuing mercy ministry. This disparity is again evident in your second paragraph, as you briefly extol the virtues of Keller’s leadership development, and yet seems relatively distant from your “ecclesiocentric vision” in paragraph three. Perhaps you could clarify your stance a bit, and how your “ecclesiocentric vision” fits with social justice and leadership development.
Comment from david cassidy
Time February 4, 2009 at 12:19 pm
There are different vocations in the Church, and the Church has both an outward facing task in the world and an inward facing responsibility with regard to ministry. Pastors and elders are charged first to care for and equip the flock, yet this may well include nurture and training for their work of mission/mercy in the world.
I don’t think a great deal of the phrase ’social justice’, as this has become something of a buzz word, pregnant with too many conotations to embrace. We do engage in works of mercy - as the Church always has through the centuries.
With regard to the potential dichotmy you have raised, it is a question of emphasis. In other words, I hold it to be parochial and unhelpful to assume that the progress of the Kingdom and my work in its furtherance is exhausted by growth in the PCA or even in the local church I serve. This is where my work begins, not where it ends. That said, even if that was the only sphere of service allotted to me as a Pastor, I would be saying to the Church members, ”You are a going people, a mission people - go in love and power to proclaim and show forth the grace of Christ”, encouraging work in the church and society. This is not an either-or proposition. As I am sure you are aware, Keller’s work engages both mercy and church-planting/nurture. It is not focused on the PCA per se, grateful as we all are to call it home.
Best regards,
David
Comment from Nathaniel Ruland
Time February 5, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Thank you for the post. I really like this blog. As a 1st year seminary student at RTS-Charlotte and after coming under the care of Western Carolina Presbytery I find the honest denominational examination refreshing. Right now I’m a pastoral intern and I have to say that I’m awakening more than ever to the worldly political ties that seem so strong within our denomination.
Word and deed are two legs that the catholic church stand upon. Clinging to the politically oriented neo-Calvinism of Abraham Kuyper is a failing proposition. Although Calvinism does provide a holistic worldview it is not the PCA’s job to inject this reality into the structures of society. Evangelicalism is failing as a political force and sadly the world doesn’t know an Arminian from a Calvinist from (oftentimes) a Mormon–we’re all evangelicals to them.
It seems like so many want immediate answers for how the PCA can move forward into caring for the poor while maintaining political conservatism, trickle down economics, etc. I think a good place to start is Acts 10. Then continuing on to read Keller’s book “Ministries of Mercy: The Call of the Jericho Road”.
Frankly, it’s a good chance that Obama’s administration may be the first shakings of a purification. We could very well see God setting the PCA free from our reliance on the security of ‘family values’ which have allowed our clergy the safety to simply provide a service for so long, instead of pointing to the salvation light which our Savior Jesus’ kingdom brings.
Comment from T Ganz
Time February 6, 2009 at 11:32 am
Thanks for the clarification, and I have one final thought/question. I appreciate your elucidation of the Church’s inward and outward roles, however, would you apply any type of primacy to either of the two? I have noticed that many pastors/elders tend to favor the outward duties over the inward duties because they garner more notice, success can be judged more easily, and with some types of outward ministry, are much more trendy, and so add a “relavent” edge to the church. Do you think that the leaders of the church should be reasonably fulfilling their inward duties, before they consider any outward duties? I have seen too many pastors neglect the inward needs of their congregation in favor of outward duties for the reasons listed above, all the while their congregants are becoming spiritually stunted.
Comment from David Cassidy
Time February 6, 2009 at 8:15 pm
T Ganz,
It saddens me that you have witnessed such neglect, and I hope that will be reversed. I am a minister of word and sacrament, seeking by prayer and the ministry of the word to give myself to the Church for which Christ has given his own life. That’s the priority, plain and simple. This doesn’t negate the other, but perhaps, especially as I think history flows from the throne-sanctuary, an Ezekiel like vision of wheels within wheels would be best describe things - there are ripples/circles of activity flowing out of the middle, and dependent on the center. I don’t view that concentration as confining, but as liberating me and the Church to accomplish its work in thw world. Again, I beleive the most important thing we do for and in the world is the word we proclaim and the supper we eat every Lord’s Day.
Comment from David Cassidy
Time February 6, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Nathaniel,
I hope your studies continue apace and that you’ll find them rewarding. Thank you for your thoughts, though I wouldn’t be quite so quick to dismiss our old Dutch friend. Kuyper has so much to offer us, and it need not be a warmed up version of the 1980s. It isn;t the PCA’s job, as you note, to transform society, but two points here should be born in mind: Christians are seed sown in the field of the world, so we will have an influence within certain spheres, whether as scientists, executives, manufacturers, moms, dads, profs, or medical workers. In that sense *we* have been injected into the world for her greater good, Secondly, the Church as an instituion can and must speak prophetically in the world, especially to the powers, even if it is an ignored or even martyr voice.
Your recommendation on Keller’s Minisries of Mercies is spot on - required reading for diaconate training here.
All the best,
DC
Comment from Steve Zrimec
Time February 9, 2009 at 9:17 am
Having said that, I would suggest we pay careful attention to our work among the poor and voiceless, how we champion a ‘culture of life’…
I think this is an example of how those who correctly recognize that our function is not political, etc. (read: spirituality of the church) don’t also realize that references to the so-called “culture of life” is a highly political term. What is given with one hand seems to almost always in this instance be taken away with the other.
I would suggest that if one is really serious about the SOTC he also re-evaluate how much credence he gives to what might be deemed a softer, more intangible form of politicism.
Comment from David Cassidy
Time February 16, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Well I am not a SOTC sympathizer at all. Thanks for the note that some people hear ‘culture of life’ as a political phrase. That’s not how I hear it. In fact, I tend to think of it as more of a John Paul 2 kind of statement. That leads to a wider discussion of where we work together on social and cultural matters with friends in other communities, or even other religions.
Thanks again.
Comment from Bob Smallman
Time February 2, 2009 at 11:38 am
Thanks, David, for your refreshing comments.