Barack Obama is right- to a point- and Albert Mohler is wrong
Baptist seminary president Dr. Albert Mohler is usually right on the money with his commentary on political issues. But with respect to Sen. Barack Obama's attempt to foster dialog between Democrats and "people of faith," Dr. Mohler is frankly all wet. And although it is both, his problem is more theological than it is political.
Dr. Mohler takes issue with the paragraph which- both politically and theologically- is actually the strength of Obama's position:
Incredibly, Dr Mohler writes:
Balderdash. To suggest that there can be such a thing as a purely secular principle is to violate some of the the central assumptions of Christianity itself. Did God create the seculorum, or didn't He? What Obama is doing is simply avoiding the Gnostic dichotomy between the sacred and the secular for which Mohler seems to be arguing- a dichotomy whose logic ends up endangering the Incarnation itself. Did God truly become incarnate in Christ, or was Nestorius right- was there a part of Him that was too mundane to be assumed by divinity?
Whatever the flaws in Obama's speech- and they are many- he's a good enough theologian to recognize something basic which Dr. Mohler misses: to recognize what Lutherans would call the Two Kingdoms.
No Buddhist or atheist or agnostic is going to be convinced to vote a certain way because "the Bible tells me so." No Presbyterian or Methodist will be convinced by an appeal to the authority of the Roman Catholic magisterium. And while the Gospel- the Good News of what Jesus has done in winning salvation for a fallen world, the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins- is indeed a specifically Christian proclamation, the Law is simply not. On the contrary, as St. Paul writes in Romans 1, the Law is written on the human heart. All human hearts. It may be distorted. It may be rationalized. It may even be denied. But it is there, and it is God's Law: the Law encoded in the very substance of creation- and written down in the Scriptures.
As C.S. Lewis pointed out, what is remarkable when one studies the ethical and legal traditions of the various cultures of the world is not, as the ethical relativist would suggest, the differences, but precisely the similarities. The natives on some remote island may be polytheists, but they still understand that there are "correct" forms and objects of worship, and "incorrect" ones. They are simply confused about which are which. Blasphemy is close to a universal cultural taboo- even though it seems to be disappearing in the West. Sacred time and respect for elders and persons in authority are neither culture nor religion- specific. Whatever strange customs may set the precise boundaries, murder and theft are disapproved of pretty much wherever you go. Few cultures see covetousness as admirable.
In case you didn't notice it, the above is a quick excursion through the "high points" of the Ten Commandments. The "Tao," Lewis called it: the Way to which the human heart and conscience, precisely as the apostle writes, universally bears witness- however broken and distorted that witness may be.
And it is the Tao- or Natural Law- to which Sen. Obama appeals. God has no laws specifically for Christians that He has not laid down for everyone else- and it is in that capacity, as citizens of what Luther called "the Kingdom of the Left Hand" (which parenthetically is not, as the common misunderstanding has it, the state or the secular society, but the realm of law and compulsion and coercion wherever it is found- including in the Church). Believers and unbelievers alike are citizens of the Kingdom of the Left Hand. In this fallen world, it is a prerequisite for civilization.
Christians are Christians because of their faith in Christ, not because of their positions on abortion or human embryo research (however clear the implications of Scripture for these issues may be). Faith is trust in the Good News, the Gospel- and while genuine faith is always accompanied by a desire to behave in accordance with God's Law, the two are simply not the same thing. To confuse the two is to prevent either from doing their divinely-appointed job. To confuse the two is to end up trying to govern by grace, and to be saved by works.
Only Christians are citizens of God's Kingdom of the Right Hand- the arena of grace, and of mercy. But decent human beings precisely of all religions- and none- are citizens of the Kingdom of the Left- of compulsion, of coercion- of law, whether human or divine.
Dr. Mohler's objection is simply a non sequitur, and as serious an error theologically as it is a complete misunderstanding of the role of faith in a democratic, pluralistic society:
Again, that is nonsense. Obama's remark is merely patronizing and inaccurate- not because he means to be, but because he completely understands the theological implications of what he is saying no more than Dr. Mohler does. It is simply not the case that those who believe in the authority and inerrancy of the Bible must make any arguments at all on the basis of what theologians call special revelation in order to carry its ethical and even legal content into the Kingdom of the Left Hand, which is the only place where matters of governmental policy arise. That is why unbelievers often approximate specifically Christian ethics in their own ethical formulations, to the degree which St. Paul might almost be thought of- at least in the realm of ethics- as a Stoic philosopher! It should not be particularly difficult- Obama to the contrary- for those who hold those convictions to make their case precisely on the basis of Natural Law, of that which is written on the human heart- and, properly understood, of reason.
By the latter I do not mean "reason" in the sense that Luther railed against it: the presumption of the human mind to a wisdom equal to or greater than God's, and the hubris which leads it to seek answers beyond its creaturely finitude. Rather, I mean the kind of "reason" Luther himself invoked precisely in applying God's will to matters in the Kingdom of the Left Hand: the very same powers of observation and intellect involved in biblical exegesis and Christian theology, employed explicate the parallel content (in terms of Law) of the "general revelation-" what may be known of God by observation of His creation and by His witness to it in our very moral core.
The fallenness of the human mind is not the issue here, either; the mind which interprets Scripture is fallen, too, yet that does not eliminate Scripture as a source of authority where indeed it is the only authority: for that which observation and common sense and the experience of the ages across the barriers of culture and language cannot tell us, that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
But not in the arena of the Law- moral or political. That part of revelation which has to do with politics and government is completely accessible on the basis of what is observable in nature and written on the human heart. The Natural Law is accessible in its general outlines- in general revelation- even to the most benighted pagan. Granted, it is distorted there. Granted, it is watered down. But it is available there- and available in a form accessible to common sense- a form which will get a hearing where the appeal to Scripture will simply end the conversation. And our task in the Kingdom of the Left Hand is to attack the distortions and the dilution, not to end the conversation prematurely by declining to engage our fellow citizens on common ground.
In suggesting that the deepest convictions of Christians as they relate to the divinely-appointed business of government requires the citation of Scripture, Dr. Mohler ironically is setting himself in opposition to what Scripture itself teaches. He is denying general revelation- or at least that general revelation has any particular point.
"Better," my seminary advisor used to paraphrase Luther, "to be ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian." The same applies to a Jew, or a Mormon, or even an atheist or an agnostic who is also a decent human being of good will. One does not need the Good News of Jesus Christ to govern; that's simply not what it's for. One governs by the Law. And the Law is accessible, not only in the Scriptures, but in the very structure of creation itself- the creation in which we all live, regardless of our religious convictions.
Ironically, Dr. Mohler is the one in this exchange who is essentially defending the liberal, secularist position: that a Christian cannot carry his or her religious convictions into the voting booth or the public square without doing so as a sectarian. Senator Obama is correct in that he sees- if only "thorough a glass, darkly-" that this is nonsense; that people of common sense and good will can discuss even the issues of right and wrong which the Bible itself addresses simply by consulting that common sense- and what is written, however broken and distorted the form, upon the hearts of us all.
One need not, to use an example, refer to the Bible at all to make the point that by all scientific criteria life begins with cell division- at conception, or so soon thereafter that it makes no difference; that in the case of members of species Homo sapiens, by definition these lives are human lives; and that to say that there are some human lives which of no great ethical significance and which we should permit to be done to death at will by those who find them to be inconvenient is to cross a line- however unthinkingly- which, once crossed, leads us to places most people of good will (including those who are pro-choice) would rather not go.
The choice is precisely what Sen. Obama suggests that it is: whether to carry precisely our religious values into the public square, and to express them in terms which will communicate and persuade those who do not share our religion, or to marginalize those very values and effectively exclude them from the arena of public policy by arguing, not on the basis of Natural Law and common sense, but by citing Scripture- and erecting walls between our values and the very people we are trying to persuade.
Of course, evangelism is also necessary. Of course, witnessing to Christ is also our duty. But politics and evangelism are as different as Law and Gospel, as strict justice and lavish mercy, and as the Kingdom of the Left Hand and the Kingdom of the Right.
In evangelism, we proclaim the Savior of sinners; in politics, we set limits to the opportunity of those sinners to harm each other through their sin. He who confuses the two, as Luther so vehemently insisted, completely misunderstands the Christian faith- and, in a pluralistic democracy, will be utterly and absolutely ineffective a witness to the very values he espouses.
It's ironic that non-Lutherans who are actually familiar with the distinction between the Two Kingdoms tend to confuse it with the very radical distinction between the sacred and the secular which Dr. Mohler tries to make. In fact, its essense is to do with the distinction between the sacred and the secular exactly what Chalcedon did with the human and divine natures of Christ, and what Luther himself did with the distinction between Law and Gospel: to distinguish between them, discussing each within their own, divinely-mandated perameters, while avoiding the danger of seperating them- of dealing with them outside their divinely-ordained relationship with one another.
"Brewing the two into each other," Luther wrote of the Two Kingdoms, is the devil's constant joy. Just as happens when Law and Gospel are confused, it ensures that neither will accomplish their God-given functions- and we Christians need to be on strict guard against it.
HT: Evangelicals for Mitt
Dr. Mohler takes issue with the paragraph which- both politically and theologically- is actually the strength of Obama's position:
...Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Incredibly, Dr Mohler writes:
So, after encouraging believers to bring their convictions into the public square, Sen. Obama now tells them to keep such convictions to themselves, at least when it comes to any matter of public policy.
When the senator demands that any policy proposal be couched in an argument from secular principle -- "some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those of no faith at all" -- he is institutionalizing secularism. This is the same kind of argument heard from academics like Robert Audi and the late John Rawls.
Balderdash. To suggest that there can be such a thing as a purely secular principle is to violate some of the the central assumptions of Christianity itself. Did God create the seculorum, or didn't He? What Obama is doing is simply avoiding the Gnostic dichotomy between the sacred and the secular for which Mohler seems to be arguing- a dichotomy whose logic ends up endangering the Incarnation itself. Did God truly become incarnate in Christ, or was Nestorius right- was there a part of Him that was too mundane to be assumed by divinity?
Whatever the flaws in Obama's speech- and they are many- he's a good enough theologian to recognize something basic which Dr. Mohler misses: to recognize what Lutherans would call the Two Kingdoms.
No Buddhist or atheist or agnostic is going to be convinced to vote a certain way because "the Bible tells me so." No Presbyterian or Methodist will be convinced by an appeal to the authority of the Roman Catholic magisterium. And while the Gospel- the Good News of what Jesus has done in winning salvation for a fallen world, the preaching of repentance for the forgiveness of sins- is indeed a specifically Christian proclamation, the Law is simply not. On the contrary, as St. Paul writes in Romans 1, the Law is written on the human heart. All human hearts. It may be distorted. It may be rationalized. It may even be denied. But it is there, and it is God's Law: the Law encoded in the very substance of creation- and written down in the Scriptures.
As C.S. Lewis pointed out, what is remarkable when one studies the ethical and legal traditions of the various cultures of the world is not, as the ethical relativist would suggest, the differences, but precisely the similarities. The natives on some remote island may be polytheists, but they still understand that there are "correct" forms and objects of worship, and "incorrect" ones. They are simply confused about which are which. Blasphemy is close to a universal cultural taboo- even though it seems to be disappearing in the West. Sacred time and respect for elders and persons in authority are neither culture nor religion- specific. Whatever strange customs may set the precise boundaries, murder and theft are disapproved of pretty much wherever you go. Few cultures see covetousness as admirable.
In case you didn't notice it, the above is a quick excursion through the "high points" of the Ten Commandments. The "Tao," Lewis called it: the Way to which the human heart and conscience, precisely as the apostle writes, universally bears witness- however broken and distorted that witness may be.
And it is the Tao- or Natural Law- to which Sen. Obama appeals. God has no laws specifically for Christians that He has not laid down for everyone else- and it is in that capacity, as citizens of what Luther called "the Kingdom of the Left Hand" (which parenthetically is not, as the common misunderstanding has it, the state or the secular society, but the realm of law and compulsion and coercion wherever it is found- including in the Church). Believers and unbelievers alike are citizens of the Kingdom of the Left Hand. In this fallen world, it is a prerequisite for civilization.
Christians are Christians because of their faith in Christ, not because of their positions on abortion or human embryo research (however clear the implications of Scripture for these issues may be). Faith is trust in the Good News, the Gospel- and while genuine faith is always accompanied by a desire to behave in accordance with God's Law, the two are simply not the same thing. To confuse the two is to prevent either from doing their divinely-appointed job. To confuse the two is to end up trying to govern by grace, and to be saved by works.
Only Christians are citizens of God's Kingdom of the Right Hand- the arena of grace, and of mercy. But decent human beings precisely of all religions- and none- are citizens of the Kingdom of the Left- of compulsion, of coercion- of law, whether human or divine.
Dr. Mohler's objection is simply a non sequitur, and as serious an error theologically as it is a complete misunderstanding of the role of faith in a democratic, pluralistic society:
But this is also demanding the impossible. Sen. Obama seems to believe in the myth of a universal reason and rationality that will be compelling to all persons of all faiths, including those of no faith at all. Such principles do not exist in any specific form usable for the making of public policy on, for example, matters of life and death like abortion and human embryo research.
This is secularism with a smile -- offered in the form of an invitation for believers to show up, but then only to be allowed to make arguments that are not based in their deepest beliefs.
The senator also made a very interesting and perceptive observation: "Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic society, we have no choice."
That is a truly remarkable statement. He recognizes that those who believe in the authority and inerrancy of the Bible must, of necessity, make some arguments on the basis of that revelation. Nevertheless, this is just not to be allowed in our "pluralistic society."
Again, that is nonsense. Obama's remark is merely patronizing and inaccurate- not because he means to be, but because he completely understands the theological implications of what he is saying no more than Dr. Mohler does. It is simply not the case that those who believe in the authority and inerrancy of the Bible must make any arguments at all on the basis of what theologians call special revelation in order to carry its ethical and even legal content into the Kingdom of the Left Hand, which is the only place where matters of governmental policy arise. That is why unbelievers often approximate specifically Christian ethics in their own ethical formulations, to the degree which St. Paul might almost be thought of- at least in the realm of ethics- as a Stoic philosopher! It should not be particularly difficult- Obama to the contrary- for those who hold those convictions to make their case precisely on the basis of Natural Law, of that which is written on the human heart- and, properly understood, of reason.
By the latter I do not mean "reason" in the sense that Luther railed against it: the presumption of the human mind to a wisdom equal to or greater than God's, and the hubris which leads it to seek answers beyond its creaturely finitude. Rather, I mean the kind of "reason" Luther himself invoked precisely in applying God's will to matters in the Kingdom of the Left Hand: the very same powers of observation and intellect involved in biblical exegesis and Christian theology, employed explicate the parallel content (in terms of Law) of the "general revelation-" what may be known of God by observation of His creation and by His witness to it in our very moral core.
The fallenness of the human mind is not the issue here, either; the mind which interprets Scripture is fallen, too, yet that does not eliminate Scripture as a source of authority where indeed it is the only authority: for that which observation and common sense and the experience of the ages across the barriers of culture and language cannot tell us, that God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
But not in the arena of the Law- moral or political. That part of revelation which has to do with politics and government is completely accessible on the basis of what is observable in nature and written on the human heart. The Natural Law is accessible in its general outlines- in general revelation- even to the most benighted pagan. Granted, it is distorted there. Granted, it is watered down. But it is available there- and available in a form accessible to common sense- a form which will get a hearing where the appeal to Scripture will simply end the conversation. And our task in the Kingdom of the Left Hand is to attack the distortions and the dilution, not to end the conversation prematurely by declining to engage our fellow citizens on common ground.
In suggesting that the deepest convictions of Christians as they relate to the divinely-appointed business of government requires the citation of Scripture, Dr. Mohler ironically is setting himself in opposition to what Scripture itself teaches. He is denying general revelation- or at least that general revelation has any particular point.
"Better," my seminary advisor used to paraphrase Luther, "to be ruled by a smart Turk than a dumb Christian." The same applies to a Jew, or a Mormon, or even an atheist or an agnostic who is also a decent human being of good will. One does not need the Good News of Jesus Christ to govern; that's simply not what it's for. One governs by the Law. And the Law is accessible, not only in the Scriptures, but in the very structure of creation itself- the creation in which we all live, regardless of our religious convictions.
Ironically, Dr. Mohler is the one in this exchange who is essentially defending the liberal, secularist position: that a Christian cannot carry his or her religious convictions into the voting booth or the public square without doing so as a sectarian. Senator Obama is correct in that he sees- if only "thorough a glass, darkly-" that this is nonsense; that people of common sense and good will can discuss even the issues of right and wrong which the Bible itself addresses simply by consulting that common sense- and what is written, however broken and distorted the form, upon the hearts of us all.
One need not, to use an example, refer to the Bible at all to make the point that by all scientific criteria life begins with cell division- at conception, or so soon thereafter that it makes no difference; that in the case of members of species Homo sapiens, by definition these lives are human lives; and that to say that there are some human lives which of no great ethical significance and which we should permit to be done to death at will by those who find them to be inconvenient is to cross a line- however unthinkingly- which, once crossed, leads us to places most people of good will (including those who are pro-choice) would rather not go.
The choice is precisely what Sen. Obama suggests that it is: whether to carry precisely our religious values into the public square, and to express them in terms which will communicate and persuade those who do not share our religion, or to marginalize those very values and effectively exclude them from the arena of public policy by arguing, not on the basis of Natural Law and common sense, but by citing Scripture- and erecting walls between our values and the very people we are trying to persuade.
Of course, evangelism is also necessary. Of course, witnessing to Christ is also our duty. But politics and evangelism are as different as Law and Gospel, as strict justice and lavish mercy, and as the Kingdom of the Left Hand and the Kingdom of the Right.
In evangelism, we proclaim the Savior of sinners; in politics, we set limits to the opportunity of those sinners to harm each other through their sin. He who confuses the two, as Luther so vehemently insisted, completely misunderstands the Christian faith- and, in a pluralistic democracy, will be utterly and absolutely ineffective a witness to the very values he espouses.
It's ironic that non-Lutherans who are actually familiar with the distinction between the Two Kingdoms tend to confuse it with the very radical distinction between the sacred and the secular which Dr. Mohler tries to make. In fact, its essense is to do with the distinction between the sacred and the secular exactly what Chalcedon did with the human and divine natures of Christ, and what Luther himself did with the distinction between Law and Gospel: to distinguish between them, discussing each within their own, divinely-mandated perameters, while avoiding the danger of seperating them- of dealing with them outside their divinely-ordained relationship with one another.
"Brewing the two into each other," Luther wrote of the Two Kingdoms, is the devil's constant joy. Just as happens when Law and Gospel are confused, it ensures that neither will accomplish their God-given functions- and we Christians need to be on strict guard against it.
HT: Evangelicals for Mitt
Comments
As usual, you are right on the money. I have always appreciated your excellent understanding of the two kingdoms. This distinction does seem to be a major flaw with our Evangelical friends.
Now, I have been meaning to ask you this for a while. Would you consider a post about just what the boundaries are for a pastor (especially a Lutheran one) when it comes to "political" speech?
I ask this especially because you are clearly interested in politics and speak freely here on your blog, but I know you are also seeking to become a public minister of word and sacrament again, and these matters must be carefully navigated. I am particularly interested in where and why you intend to draw the lines, when you are serving as a pastor again.
I am constantly struggling with this myself, as a pastor with strong political opinions. I have used the rule of thumb that "if it's a moral (theological) issue, it's fair game" but pure politics are not. Therefore issues like abortion and homosexuality are fair game for me (indeed, I MUST address them). But taxes, border enforcement, flag burning, etc... are much more "political" and less "moral".
The problem I often have is that there are political aspects to the moral issues and moral aspects to the political issues. For instance, while I believe homosexual marriage is untenable to our morality, I am loathe to endorse or decry the proposed constitutional ammendment (publicly) because there are various options to public policy regarding that matter. Christians, I feel, can disagree politically about "what to do" about gay marriage - an ammendment, new laws, better enforcement, work through the courts, etc... - but we may NOT disagree on its morality vis-a-vis scripture. I feel this distinction was lost when our Synod president endorsed the constitutional ammendment recently.
Another example would be when government forces us to do something immoral, like worship idols. In those cases the Scriptures are clear we must obey God rather than man. But what of it when government merely "permits" immorality? Or what about when a government "encourages" it?
I guess I see that there are instances in which the Moral/Political classification simply doesn't work so well, or in which shades of gray fuzzy up the lines.
Further struggles:
Obviously we can say that endorsing a candidate from the pulpit is inappropriate. But what about in bible class? What about with a bumper sticker on my car, or a sign on my lawn? Here I think we also come to the question: "when does a pastor speak 'publicly', out of his office, and when (if ever) is he a 'private citizen'? Only in the voting booth?"
And what about on a blog?
Whether I will return to the public ministry is, at present, up in the air. Without going into the details, the district committee has recommended that I spend a full year in residence at once of the seminaries. While I personally would love to do that, it's simply not financially possible.
Where that is going, I don't know; I'm still trying to establish a dialog with some of the faculty people at the seminaries to see how far the recommendation of the committee will be binding. If the colloquy people follow the district recommendation, it would seem that a return to the parish for me would be effectively precluded.
Now, having said that, when I was in the parish I did not hesitate to put a bumper sticker on my car, or on a couple of occasions even a yard sign in front of the parsonage. I was a delegate to the state party convention as a vicar, and to the county party convention as a pastor. I made it a point, however, never to use my title or the trappings of the Office in any context in which they could be remotely being used in the service of my personal politics- except insofar as the matter at hand dealt with a direct, specific and concrete violation of divine law by the government ("tweaking the prince's nose,in Luther's phrase, being part of a preacher's job).
In short, I freely participated in the life of the Kingdom of the Left, while carefully and even pointedly distinguishing my persona as a minister from my persona as a citizen of the Kingdom of the Left, with a responsibility to God in that Kingdom, too. I never saw any problem with handling the two roles that way, and to my knowledge nobody else did, either- including folks who disagreed with my politics.
I wouldn't endorse a candidate in a Bible class. I wouldn't hesitate, however, to explain the conclusions to which I believed the Word had led me even on controversial issues.
Were I to re-enter the ministry, I would almost certainly re-think this blog. I'm not sure whether I'd delete it; I might, or again, I might let the archives remain, being things I'd written in the past as a purely private person. But from the moment I re-entered the public ministry I would feel obligated to carry my previous practice of distinguishing between my roles in the Kingdom of the Right and in the Kingdom of the Left into the blogosphere as well. At the very least, that would mean separate blogs for political and theological matters. Anonymity might well be required for the political one. I'm still in the process of thinking it all through.
I do think that I'd continue blogging in both areas, but only with safeguards sufficient to prevent any perception of my use of my office for partisan or other personal political purposes.
Your thoughts?
Thanks for the compliment- and my apologies for my delay in responding.
Whether I will return to the public ministry is, at present, up in the air. Without going into the details, the district committee has recommended that I spend a full year in residence at once of the seminaries. While I personally would love to do that, it's simply not financially possible.
Where that is going, I don't know; I'm still trying to establish a dialog with some of the faculty people at the seminaries to see how far the recommendation of the committee will be binding. If the colloquy people follow the district recommendation, it would seem that a return to the parish for me would be effectively precluded.
Well I pray the Lord's will is done, and that such includes your service in the Ministry.
Now, having said that, when I was in the parish I did not hesitate to put a bumper sticker on my car, or on a couple of occasions even a yard sign in front of the parsonage. I was a delegate to the state party convention as a vicar, and to the county party convention as a pastor. I made it a point, however, never to use my title or the trappings of the Office in any context in which they could be remotely being used in the service of my personal politics- except insofar as the matter at hand dealt with a direct, specific and concrete violation of divine law by the government ("tweaking the prince's nose,in Luther's phrase, being part of a preacher's job).
In short, I freely participated in the life of the Kingdom of the Left, while carefully and even pointedly distinguishing my persona as a minister from my persona as a citizen of the Kingdom of the Left, with a responsibility to God in that Kingdom, too. I never saw any problem with handling the two roles that way, and to my knowledge nobody else did, either- including folks who disagreed with my politics.
I can't imagine being so open and it NOT causing problems. Perhaps that was a function of a less politically-polarized time in which you served. Or perhaps it is just my imagination. I imagine it it to be very difficult to make the distinction SO clear that no one would misunderstand the distinction. Therefore, it seems much easier to me to simply be more private about my political activities.
I have had shut-ins, for instance, raise political questions to me occasionally, and I almost always avoid them - change the subject - whatever.
Granted, they probably shouldn't be asking such questions of their pastor, but especially when I disagree with their politics, I find it unimaginable that voicing my opinions could be in any way appropriate.
I wouldn't endorse a candidate in a Bible class. (nor would I). I wouldn't hesitate, however, to explain the conclusions to which I believed the Word had led me even on controversial issues. Nor would I hesitate. I always say, "you connect the dots".
Were I to re-enter the ministry, I would almost certainly re-think this blog. I'm not sure whether I'd delete it; I might, or again, I might let the archives remain, being things I'd written in the past as a purely private person. But from the moment I re-entered the public ministry I would feel obligated to carry my previous practice of distinguishing between my roles in the Kingdom of the Right and in the Kingdom of the Left into the blogosphere as well. At the very least, that would mean separate blogs for political and theological matters. Anonymity might well be required for the political one. I'm still in the process of thinking it all through. I actually started an anonymous blog to discuss my politics, however I haven't kept up with it.
I do think that I'd continue blogging in both areas, but only with safeguards sufficient to prevent any perception of my use of my office for partisan or other personal political purposes.
Your thoughts?
Thanks for giving this some thought, Bob. I suppose, as usual, I am looking more for general principles than what any one individual chooses to do. I wouldn't use a bumper-sticker, for example, because my car is often used for my work and I believe it leads to a greater possibility for confusion and offense.
A lawn sign at my private home, however, which is not right next to the church, is another matter. But if I lived in a neighboring parsonage, I would think twice about a lawn sign.
As for blogging, I try to be very careful about what I blog - and have described mine as "semi-professional". While I use it to post sermons and theological topics, I also do some personal things. But those are fairly innocuous and not likely controversial like my politics would certainly be.
I think there are two concerns here. One is maintaining the distinction between the office and your role as private citizen. The other is clearly expressing that distinction in your public activities. The former seems the easier, in my opinion.