Do Politics and Morality Overlap?
Politics is Merely the Moral Pursuits of a Society
I wanted to use this essay to take up the question of whether politics and morality overlap. The reason I am wondering this is because I once observed the teaching pastor (and soon after senior pastor) of a megachurch imply that issues are sometimes political and sometimes moral/biblical/theological. Although not outright stated, the assumption gleaned from this observation was that issues could only be either political or moral, not that issues could be both political and moral. Although I use a specific church example in this essay, the essay will still apply to any church that claims they are “not political,” “nonpartisan,” or constantly trying to straddle the line dividing political parties.
Let me give a few examples of this megachurch claiming to be nonpartisan to illustrate how morality and politics are sometimes portrayed as mutually exclusive concepts. The teaching pastor gave a message that was, in his own words, “about churches selling Jesus out to political parties.” A few clips from the message were shared on the church’s social media, including one that said the following:
“For 36 years as a church we have been aggressively nonpartisan. We’ve never endorsed candidates, never made some official statement about court decisions, and no one’s ever said anything about it. But for some reason these last 2 years, we’ve gotten more people asking us to endorse candidates. We’ve gotten more people asking us, you know, something like this: When will our church take a stand? I just want to tell you man: I’ve seen some churches in the past couple of years take stands that would be more progressive and left-leaning. I’m just gonna take a wild guess to say I don’t think there’s any Republicans in that church. And I’ve also seen over the last couple of years some churches get up and take a public stand for more right-leaning policies and right-leaning politics and I’m just gonna take a wild guess that there aren’t any Democrats in that church. Here’s the reason we’re not going to lead with political positions: because we’re not trying to lead people to a political party, we’re trying to lead people to Jesus. Following Jesus may challenge and change and give you convictions politically. Great. But why in the world would we alienate half the population of people we’re trying to reach that God loves relentlessly, just to put a stake in the camp of something that isn’t even eternal?”
People shared their thoughts about this post in the comments, and—in a rare occurrence—the pastor engaged with some of those comments through his personal account. Although specific issues were brought up in the comments (e.g., abortion), the only comment that the pastor responded to with a specific issue in it was one in which the individual did not want the church to be “wishy-washy on how to treat the poor, or foreigners, on non-violence, or on what to do with wealth.” The pastor responded, “This message was about churches selling Jesus out to political parties. The issues you raise (caring [sic] the poor, caring for foreigners, etc…) are not political issues for Christians—those are biblical/theological issues. We have and continue to take stands on those all day long—including regularly teaching about greed, how we handle our money, mobilizing our church to partner with orgs working with the poor all across the state. Again, the stand I’m talking about in [sic] message isn’t related to any of the things you listed.” Again, the pastor does not engage in any right-leaning comments that mention specific issues, but does engage in a comment—and agrees with the comment—that lists issues typically associated with the political left. He claims his church is aggressively nonpartisan in the message, yet appears to let the mask slip even in the comments of that post.
More importantly for this essay, what the pastor is trying to do is set up a false dichotomy that treats some issues as political and other issues as moral. You see it in his comment above: “those are biblical/theological issues.” So they are not political issues, too? The pastor is left in a tight spot here because if he admits they are also political issues, then the church is taking a stand on political issues, and it would contradict his claim that his church is aggressively nonpartisan. So he cannot do that. What he can do is just state that they are moral issues, and hence the church can say whatever it wants on them; he also gets to still claim that the church is aggressively nonpartisan.
See the game? Any political issue the pastor wants to discuss can just be recast as a moral issue, which means the pastor and his church can discuss it “all day long.” And any political issue the pastor does not want to discuss can just be called a political issue, which means the pastor and his church do not have to discuss it because they are aggressively nonpartisan. It is a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose way of thinking. And it is immoral because it is deceptive.
The people in the comments were also receptive to this legerdemain of the pastor, with one stating: “They’re asking you to take a moral stand.” Another stated, “Being pro-life is not a political issue, it’s a moral issue.” What these comments are correctly getting at is that moral issues and political issues significantly overlap, and by taking a stand on one, you are also taking a stand on the other.
This is not the only instance when this pastor has laid out this false dichotomy. Another example was what the pastor said after the death of George Floyd. In a selfie video titled “Let’s Talk About A Little Lie,” posted to his personal social media account, this pastor talks about how his church’s response to “race, racism, and reconciliation” had brought about questions from church attendees, wondering why the church was becoming political. This pastor again explains that this church “has been and always will be aggressively nonpartisan. We don’t do the political stuff here . . . We’re aggressively nonpartisan.” Yet then the pastor goes on: “When did addressing the issues of race, racism, and justice ever become about anything other than a theological, biblical issue?” The game is afoot! Let me explain.
Less than two weeks prior, the senior pastor at this same church stated in a video posted to the church’s social media that he had “heaviness when it comes to racism, and apparently, we haven’t made much progress over the last 150 years.” We haven’t made much progress on racism in the last 150 years! Again, this is coming from the church that claims to be aggressively nonpartisan. Saying we have not made much progress on racism in the past 150 years is about as political of a statement as one can make, and this is nothing compared to how false and unjust (for justice requires truth) that statement is.
So when people brought to the attention of leadership that the church was becoming political, they were correct. It was not that the church was addressing race, racism, and justice, but how they were addressing those issues. When the church says that not much progress has been made on racism in the past 150 years, not only is it immoral because it is false, but it is also political. In 2012, the social theorist Thomas Sowell stated, “Racism is not dead, but it is on life support—kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as ‘racists.’”[1. Sowell, T. (2012). Random thoughts. Creators Syndicate. Retrieved from https://www.creators.com/read/thomas-sowell/07/12/random-thoughts-12-07-24] Kept alive by politicians, but now we have church leaders doing the same work as politicians.
Recall that this teaching pastor is arguing that issues of race, racism, and justice are only theological/biblical issues. He makes it abundantly clear: “When did addressing the issues of race, racism, and justice ever become about anything other than a theological, biblical issue? It is not political. If you’re a follower of Jesus, this has nothing to do with partisanship, it has nothing to do with politics, it has nothing to do with organizations…nothing. It is purely, unfiltered theology. This is about diving into the Bible…Most importantly, what it means to be a follower of Jesus.” (Italics my own.) So let me get this straight: Saying that not much progress has been made on racism in the past 150 years is “diving into the Bible?” Saying that not much progress has been made on racism in the past 150 years is “purely, unfiltered theology?” Saying that not much progress has been made on racism in the past 150 years is “what it means to be a follower of Jesus”? Talk about a little lie.
The church also posted a black square to its social media account. Posting a black square is “diving into the Bible”? Posting a black square is “purely, unfiltered theology”? Posting a black square is “what it means to be a follower of Jesus”? I could give other examples, too, but these two are beyond enough to show that the church was a far cry from taking “anything other than a theological, biblical” stance on these issues.
Just as before, the pastor must play the game: He must claim that his church’s stance on race, racism, and justice is purely, unfiltered theology. It cannot be political. This gives him and the church leadership free rein to say anything they want on these issues, up to and including that little progress has been made on them in the past 150 years. And when you point out to the pastor that the church seems to be straying from the truth in how it is discussing these issues, he can simply claim that you are making it into a political issue. You see, it is your fault that you noticed.
In the same “Let’s Talk About A Little Lie” video, the pastor says: “But the fact that these conversations about race, and racism, and justice have been hijacked as political conversations now, that, by the way, is a tactic of the enemy.” He puts air quotes on the word “political” in that statement, again reinforcing his point that these issues are not political in any way. The church wants immunity to discuss these issues as they see fit, with no pushback, so they must frame them as purely theological. They claim that others have hijacked the issue, but it is the church leadership who have hijacked not only the issue, but also how the issue is framed. Their ignorant pontifications have become their obvious projections.
The church seems to want to have its cake and eat it, too. They want to claim they are aggressively nonpartisan while at the same time selecting certain issues (and only certain issues) to discuss, and they want free rein to discuss these issues however they want.
Yet many issues, including issues of race, racism, and justice, are both political and theological/biblical. Marriage is both a political issue and a theological/biblical issue. The family is both a political issue and a theological/biblical issue. Abortion is both a political issue and a theological/biblical issue. Whether men can become women is both a political issue and a theological/biblical issue. There is much overlap, and to pretend that there is no overlap strains credulity.
My suggestion to this church and any other church going through a similar situation: Stop trying to claim that you are nonpartisan. It does not matter. Just follow God and do as He says. Talk about all issues (not just selective issues) where God has spoken. Let the chips fall where they may. If it means you are perceived as leaning a certain way politically, so be it. You are there to speak the truth of what God has said, including what God has said on issues of the day, no matter what political party supports or does not support them.
What Republicans and Democrats believe may shift over time, but God’s word does not shift. It is unwise to try to straddle the middle of the ever-changing line between Republicans and Democrats. Conversely, it is wise to center the church on the truth of what God says. The line dividing political parties may constantly be in flux, but the line centered on God’s truth never moves. To claim one’s church is aggressively nonpartisan is to admit that one is oscillating with the shifting line separating political parties, instead of staying centered on the line of God’s truth.
This is not to say that we cannot be wise in how we approach issues. God is wise, and He gives His wisdom to us. We do not need to approach every issue with guns blazing; there can be a space for incremental change. But this is quite different from 1) claiming you are aggressively nonpartisan when you clearly are not (e.g., 150 years and little progress on racism) and 2) saying you speak “all day long” on moral issues, yet upon examination, it becomes clear that you are playing a game in which issues you want to talk about—and talk about in a particular way—are labeled as “moral,” and issues you do not wish to talk about are labeled as “political.”
I am reminded of another statement from Thomas Sowell: “Today, many jurists flatter themselves that they are wrestling with the new complexities of modern life, when in fact they are struggling to extricate themselves from the labyrinth of their own inconsistencies.”[2. Sowell, T. (1993). Is reality optional? and other essays. Hoover Institution Press. p. 149.] This saying also applies to church leaders who assume politics and morality do not overlap. A church may ‘flatter’ itself by claiming it is aggressively nonpartisan, but this will only lead the church into a ‘labyrinth of . . . inconsistencies.’ These inconsistencies include that the church will claim it is discussing only purely, unfiltered theology in one breath, and in the next say that not much progress on racism has happened in 150 years. The church will ignore social media comments on abortion, but make sure to comment on the discussion of foreigners. The church will post a black square like Hollywood celebrities, far-left activists, and politicians did, and yet claim you are the one being political for noticing.
The inconsistencies are ever-present because the guiding assumption that morality and politics do not overlap is false. What we assume is as important as what we say, for incorrect assumptions lead to incorrect thinking—and incorrect preaching.
In the end, we must live in the reality we have been given. It may be very convenient to keep politics and morality completely separate, to claim that some issues are purely, unfiltered theology. But this is not the reality we live in. The reality that we live in is that political issues and moral issues overlap heavily with each other.
Over and over and over again, Jesus called the church leaders of his day “hypocrites.” These leaders would say one thing and do the other. The same story appears to be playing out in modern church leaders. It is time to end this hypocrisy.
The good news is God forgives the hypocrite. I have been a hypocrite many times, and I am thankful for God’s forgiveness. May we be humble enough to change how we think and preach because we have more than enough confidence in God’s forgiveness.