Not of the world

This recent NY Times article, about a pastor who has taken firm stances on keeping the work of God through the church out of the political fray, has been a topic of discussion in a few places lately. I wanted to post a comment I left on another blog here too, as well as further thoughts captured throughout the day. There are many questions here. Feel free to comment yourself.

The blog-comment: "I was very encouraged by this article, and admire Boyd greatly for taking a risk he felt God was calling him to take, one that cost him on the numbers side in terms of the congregation, and put some services at a disadvantage (children's ministry). Yet his move wasn't about power, it was about love and the mission of Jesus. We are in danger of making the same mistake folks did in Jesus' time, thinking that having him on our side will make a difference in temporal politics, as some of the Jews thought he would rescue them from Rome in a political/military sense. I say 'we' as all folks involved as citizens, conversative, liberal or in between. I think Jesus is above (or below?) this tug-of-war.

'Power under' is an interesting way to put it. If we are not to be of the world yet in it, we cannot help but respond to policies and laws made by our government [I would edit this to make it not conditional: we will respond to policies and laws as humans, but should strive to be not of the world]. But there is a clear way we are supposed to act: caring for and bringing comfort to the poor, sick, aging, lonely, etc. Sometimes it seems like we are supposed to do this within a governmental framework: working for better policies, supporting government agencies who do health and human services, etc. But is this not much more removed that what Jesus is calling us to do? He wants us to get involved, to clean feet, to actually feed people.

Having been involved in a peace activism group in recent past, and slowly becoming disillusioned with it, I have become increasingly convicted that I am supposed to be doing radical things in this regard, not operating on a policy-level. I am wrestling with this as a so-called 'progressive Christian', fan of Jim Wallis, regular voter, etc. It's risking loving people as deeply as Jesus did and calls us to do. Anyone who thinks this is easy with comfortable chairs and good music signed up for the wrong thing.

Politics is divisive, and this article shows it. I like what our church has put on some t-shirts: Love Wins. That should be uniting us."

More thoughts on the article, the pulpit, politics.

Conservative Christians should not be persecuting nor shunning their more liberal brothers and sisters in Christ, nor should Liberal Christians be taking glee in any downfall, unraveling or expose' of the Bushies and the Religious Right.

Thinking about congregations, is it right to leave your church when you disagree with the pastor? I stopped going to my mother-in-law's church partly because the pastor would insinuate right-leaning politics into a sermon every once in a while (without a lot of context around the comments). It seems that we should stick it out when the pastor says something difficult, something convicting, because it will help us grow in Christ, vs. bailing to find a church where there are more "people like us." Do the folks who left Boyd's church feel convicted at all to examine their views on these issues, or are they taking the easy way out? How would they have grown if they had stayed?

Should congregations hold their pastors accountable when values of the political world are espoused in sermons? Would the congregation be self-examining enough to know that they are not reacting from a political point of view themselves, vs. from Christ's point of view?