In 2005, while still a student in Romania, I remember watching with interest a debate that erupted among evangelicals in North America over “Justice Sunday.” Two organizations (Family Research Council Action and Focus on the Family Action) sought to mobilize conservative Christians to put pressure on the Senate to stop filibustering President George W. Bush’s nominees to the Federal Judiciary. At the time, conservative evangelicals were (rightly) concerned that qualified candidates were being opposed because of their religious beliefs or judicial philosophy. Two more “Justice Sunday” events followed, the last taking place just before the Senate hearings for soon-to-be Justice Samuel Alito.
What intrigued me was the back-and-forth online between pastors who felt pressure to devote their services to discussion about the Federal Judiciary. Politically aware church members encouraged (and in some cases demanded) their pastors to join the fight. Some pastors advertised the event; others addressed the topic in their preaching. But for most, the Sunday came and went, with churches following their normal pattern of worship and preaching.
I thought about “Justice Sunday” recently because of the questions many faithful pastors have these days about when to speak, and on what subjects, and how best to engage in cultural disputes or political questions. Social media has increased the pressure to speak and advocate, as we have faster and easier connection to various opinions on a wide range of issues.
Shifting the Frame
The pressure on pastors is compounded by a political phenomenon that now affects the church.
A common maneuver in politics is to shift the frame of a discussion so that you put more pressure on your fellow party members. For example, calling for the defunding of police suddenly makes those advocating “mere” police reform out to be “moderate” or not as “serious.” Another example: if members are committed to a bill that will cost $1 trillion (a massive amount!), a few members will soon commit to a $2 trillion bill, making the $1 trillion types out to be “squishes” who won’t go for the gold.
I don’t know if there’s a name for this in politics, but it’s common, and it has a long history. In reading up on the 1960 election between Nixon and Kennedy, I was struck by how large the crisis over Cuba loomed at the end of their four debates. Even though both candidates were serious about the threat of Communism, Nixon—going against his persona as a hawk—skillfully shifted the frame so as to make himself seem coolheaded and Kennedy to be a warmonger. Par for the course in political engagement!
Shifting the Frame in Church Debates
Unfortunately, this tactic takes place in church discussions as well, and it increases the pressure on pastors to go against their often well-developed instincts and to allow others to set the agenda for their ministry.
For example, congregants influenced by various Christian political action committees may urge church leaders to trumpet from the pulpit certain positions on a regular basis. This happens on the right and the left, just with different issues. The flip side of these calls for action is a wrongheaded assumption: A pastor who isn’t speaking out on what’s happening in the government or the culture must not care or must lack courage!
Of course, it’s possible that some pastors refrain from preaching certain parts of Scripture because of how controversial they are. The Bible’s take on the sanctity of life, the goodness of gender, God’s design for sexuality, the Christian’s responsibility to those in poverty, the truth of the imago Dei that confronts racial injustice, and the requirement to show hospitality to “the foreigner” among us—well, let’s just admit there’s enough there to anger partisans on either side of the aisle. And it’s certainly possible for pastors to lack the courage to preach on matters they know won’t go over well with their constituency.
But to assume that not engaging a cultural issue in a particular way means one doesn’t care or lacks a spine is worldly. It smells more of political wrangling than prophetic truth. It risks turning the pastor into a pundit and the pulpit into a political platform.
For example, picketing abortion clinics is an important tactic by many committed to the pro-life movement. I’ve picketed clinics myself. But it would be wrong to call every church to have a picketing ministry and then infer that if they don’t fight for life in this way, they lack courage or commitment to the pro-life cause.
Give Room for Pastoral Wisdom
Remember this: Christians may share the same convictions and yet differ on the tactics to best achieve their aims. Pastors may agree with other pastors on any number of political and theological issues and yet decide to engage these topics differently in preaching, teaching, and hands-on ministry.
What we must resist, especially as our discourse seems more and more shaped by worldly tactics of political polarization, is this insidious inference—that if you don’t engage this issue in this way, or follow the lead of this political action committee, or take orders from a famous Christian leader, then you’re failing to “take a stand,” or you’re not “truly committed to Scripture.”
It’s insidious because it creates division in the church where there doesn’t need to be.
It’s insidious because it binds the consciences of pastors who seek to lead faithfully (and who rightly resist bandwagons).
It’s insidious because it puts pressure on pastors to send signals to their peers that they’re “solid” and “committed” to a cause when they’d do better to focus on the congregation before them, for whom they’ll give an account.
Shifting the frame and slandering opponents may be common practice in politics, but God help us if such behavior becomes commonplace in the church.
If you would like my future articles sent to your email, as well as a curated list of books, podcasts, and helpful links I find online, enter your address.
