I am fortunate to be a leader in a diverse church. Our church actually looks like our city, which is one of the largest and most diverse cities in the U.S.

The problem of preaching politics

But as I have written here before, that diversity would not be possible if, like so many Evangelical churches, we preached politics from the pulpit. Instead, our philosophy has always been not to create stumbling blocks for those attending our church who don’t know Jesus. 

Why have them reject us based on politics before they even hear the gospel? If they are offended by the gospel—well, Jesus warned about that (Matthew 11:6). The Bible said Jesus was a stumbling block (I Peter 2:8), a rock of offense (Isaiah 8:14). We can live with that, but we don’t want them leaving before they’ve even heard the gospel. If we regularly preached politics from one side of the political spectrum or the other, we would not be diverse. 

Other churches may be willing to risk the diversity of their membership in favor of more political unity. Sometimes that is not a choice that is consciously made, but when there is a steady stream of politics being preached from the pulpit, there will almost certainly be very little diversity.

The resulting dilemma

So, churches find themselves on the horns of a dilemma: diversity but no politics or politics and no diversity?

The trade-off for the political church is clear, but there is often a trade-off for the diverse church that can extend beyond the absence of political discussion. Because if the diverse church avoids addressing any issues that are political, it will likely not preach on certain issues related to holiness. Examples of such issues include abortion, homosexuality, and gender-identity. 

I think there is a better way than the traditional dichotomy of politics vs. no politics.

A third way

That better way starts with recognizing a distinction between political public issues and issues related to personal holiness that have become political. 

For example, the role of government in caring for the poor, what is an appropriate level of taxation, or national immigration policy, are all public political issues. They have no direct bearing on one’s personal conduct. A church need not address those issues and probably should not address them if they want a diverse membership.

Conversely, whether one chooses to have an abortion or live in a homosexual relationship is absolutely a matter of personal holiness, regardless of what political position they take on these issues. Addressing such issues with church members may affect members’ political views as well, but that is merely a result, not the goal.

How it plays out

Thus, greed, adultery, sexual immorality, dishonesty, racism, abortion, and homosexual conduct are all fair game from the pulpit because they involve personal holiness and conduct, even though they may also be political.

Christians may disagree politically about tax rates, immigration policy, zoning laws, military intervention, tariffs, healthcare systems, entitlement programs, or dozens of other political questions and we needn’t feel compelled to address those from the pulpit.

Every issue has the potential of becoming political, but that does not mean the church should avoid those issues in the name of preserving their diversity. A church is called to make disciples before it makes demographics. 

At the same time, a church that preaches politics where personal holiness is not at stake will rarely remain diverse for long.

The mission of the local church includes the sanctification of its members, not political uniformity.  The church should be in the business of making disciples not political partisans, but just because an issue may have political implications does not mean it is off limits. 

The question should be first and foremost: Is this an issue of personal holiness or merely political opinion? GS