Gingrich and Social Conservatives
January 22nd, 2012 § 6 Comments
by Matthew Raley
The victory of Newt Gingrich in South Carolina puts evangelicals and other social conservatives at a crossroads. Gingrich by any measure is morally equal to Bill Clinton, upon whom social conservatives released so much rhetorical lava in the 1990s. Yet one of the GOP’s most traditionalist states has just told its delegates to vote for Gingrich at the convention.
The message is hard to misunderstand. South Carolina Republicans could have voted for three family men whose private morality is unquestioned. Ron Paul is one. Mitt Romney lives the way social conservatives say public men should live. His pro-life credentials are weak, but no weaker than George H. W. Bush’s were. Rick Santorum also walks the family walk, and has the additional advantage of being publicly acclaimed by evangelical leaders at a summit in Texas.
No deal. It’s Gingrich.
According to exit polls, Gingrich won almost every voter category, including independents. Women favored him 38% to Romney’s 29%. Married people favored him over Romney 41% to 28%. Gingrich won both “somewhat” and “very” conservative voters by large margins. He swept evangelicals with 44%. Romney and Santorum each took 21% of evangelicals, meaning that even their combined vote wouldn’t have beaten Gingrich.
The conclusion is inescapable: the people who wanted President Clinton removed, and who only recently heaved Mark Sanford (R) from the governor’s office for his notorious adultery, just said that adultery doesn’t matter in Gingrich’s case.
The hypocrisy cannot be healed by excuses such as:
1. Christianity is really about forgiveness.
Rick Perry used the line when he endorsed Gingrich. And, to be sure, there’s something in this forgiveness thing. But some evangelicals in the 90s, notably Tony Campolo, tried to alert evangelicals to the gospel’s potential for President Clinton, and got the smack-down. Is forgiveness only for Republicans?
2. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy that uses the politics of personal destruction.
Yes, the ABC interview with Gingrich’s ex-wife was transparently an attempt to sway the South Carolina primary. It was too exquisitely timed. But, when the words were “vast right-wing conspiracy,” social conservatives scoffed.
3. The accusations against President Clinton were never about sex, but about his perjury.
Yes, the impeachment process was about perjury. But what really bothered social conservatives at the time was Bill Clinton’s cultural significance. He was not merely a 1960s liberal, but a 1960s libertine. He represented the triumph of moral relativism and the mainstreaming of sexual immorality. Or so they said. Why not Gingrich? Why doesn’t his behavior equally symbolize the decline of sexual ethics? Symbolize it more?
Bottom line: social conservatives in Bob Jones country voted for Gingrich because they think he can win. And that’s always the bottom line in politics, left and right.
I do not believe Clinton’s or Gingrich’s transgressions tell us much about American culture, in the 1990s or today. In fact, public presidential immorality has been worse in the past. Grover Cleveland assumed responsibility for an illegitimate child in 1884, going on to serve two terms as president. The public shame of such politicians is just the continuing story of power. For the story of American culture, we have to examine what ordinary people do.
I’m one of many pastors have been arguing for years that the evangelical political machine is wrong both about the gospel and politics. Those who believe we can take back our culture through political means, and who have been selling us politicians for the last 25 years, have yet to show one cultural transformation. They keep stumbling over their spin. They have failed to understand that the political process rarely shapes culture, but is culture’s slave.
The only hope for transforming our nation is for evangelicals to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to people’s hearts. When we get our message clear again, we will see God change lives, and our culture will change as a result. Pastors are doing this with leaders of both parties, choosing to see them as men and women who need counsel, healing, and repentance rather than as enemies who should be crushed. Leaders like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich. If followers of Christ never said another word about pro-family policies and spoke only of the restoring power of Christ through his death and resurrection, we would be amazed at the results.
The power-game will always be with us. It’s past time for us to choose Christ instead.
Oakland and the Claims of Justice
January 10th, 2012 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
Two stories popped up Monday morning about Oakland, CA. One reported that there were anti-police protests in the city Saturday night. The other detailed the rise in homicides last year.
The homicide story was wrenching, not just because the total number of killings hit 110 but also because three small children were among the slain. A 5-year-old was shot beside his father’s taco truck. A 3-year-old was shot while being pushed by his mother in his stroller. An 23-month-old in his father’s arms was shot in the head. This last shooting made headlines nationally because it occurred at the taping of a rap video.
An activist named Todd Walker attended at least 50 of the funerals for these homicide victims. He said, “Safe streets should be the main priority of this city, period! There are no more excuses.”
The Oakland police were busy on the streets Saturday night quelling the violent march by about 100 self-identified members of Occupy Oakland. The protesters threw bottles, broke shop windows, slashed tires, and vandalized a media van. One of the six arrested had a quarter-stick of dynamite. Police were busy with occupy protesters last Thursday as well, when a number tried to push their way into city hall. Last month, occupiers succeeded in shutting down the Port of Oakland — and in provoking the hostility of unions whose workers lost wages because of the stunt. Last fall, Occupy Oakland was one of the camps most notorious in the nation for violence and drugs.
Saturday night, the occupiers decried police violence. They said they would organize a weekly “F– the Police” protest.
Some occupiers claim that they cannot control everyone in their marches, attempting to shift responsibility for violence to “anarchists.” This video offers some examples:
OAKLAND: Damage from violent weekend Occupy protest leads….
Those excuses won’t cut it. A blogger makes the case for the occupiers’ tolerant attitude toward violence here (profanity heads-up).
The mainstream ethic of occupiers seems to be:
1. Your grievances justify your criminality, if that’s how you choose to handle stuff.
2. I am not implicated in what you do. I have no responsibility as a citizen to stop violence or vandalism when I see it.
3. The police have no right to use force against protesters.
First reality check: there are protest marches across the United States every week that do not degenerate into crime. The marches are often loud, confrontational, and provocative, but Americans know how to make strong statements without violence.
Second reality check: you cannot have a real community without accepting your responsibility to speak up when crime is being committed.
Third reality check: criminality escalates. A confident society empowers the police to use force against criminals. I am not endorsing police brutality, nor am I denying that police corruption is a serious problem. But a society that claims to be “above” the use of force against criminals, or that has a guilty conscience about using force, ends up with dead toddlers in its streets.
This is not merely about Oakland, or the occupiers. Citizens of London got that third reality check last year. Even little Chico is being affected by rising violence (cf. #3 in the editorial). Rising violence is everywhere. This is also not about “social” justice. Crime is about simple justice, the priority of order. We have a right to walk the streets without fearing for the safety of our kids. Hat-tip to police officers who do their best to secure that right every day.
Santorum’s Rise in Iowa
January 4th, 2012 § 2 Comments
by Matthew Raley
When I watched Rick Santorum’s debate performances over the last several months, I was struck by two things. First, his answers were unusually direct and fluent. He didn’t waste time trying to be charming (like Rick Perry) or delivering scripted zingers (like Michelle Bachmann). He seemed to have no use for evasion. His answers showed that he had become effective taking questions from small groups. Second, he routinely tied his answers to the concerns of Iowans, mentioning their towns and counties with the ease of a man who’d spent a year touring them.
It reminded me of John Kerry’s strategy in 2004, disappearing from the national radar as an apparently hopeless candidate wandering ridiculously local precincts. Then he won the caucuses, snatched New Hampshire, and secured the nomination. It helped that Kerry had a post-Iowa plan, and as a northeasterner could make a serious instant play for the Granite State.
Last night, Santorum came within 8 votes of winning Iowa.
Unlike Mike Huckabee, who ran a classic insurgent, seat-of-the-pants campaign after his Iowa win in 2008, Santorum appears to have planned for the campaign after Iowa, and planned realistically. In addition, Santorum is deeper than Huckabee was in expertise and experience. Further, as a Pennsylvanian, he is a near neighbor to New Hampshire — hardly comparable to a southerner running up there. Santorum also has advantages among the candidates that Huckabee lacked. Bachmann is out of the race this morning. Perry went back in Texas. With Newt Gingrich going negative against Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, just as Romney pounded Gingrich in Iowa, I don’t see any reason why Santorum isn’t well-placed to win the first primary.
His main problem is that he has not passed the plausibility tests of what Mark Halperin called the Gang of 500, the media and political heavyweights candidates court before anyone votes. Santorum has never been regarded as serious by this group. National Review, only a couple months ago, referred to him as a “no-hoper.”
But the group of Americans who will determine which way the 2012 elections go, blue collar voters, don’t give a rip what the Gang of 500 thinks. In the dynamic of identity politics, in which people vote for the candidate who most represents their status and way of life, Santorum has the opportunity to walk away with blue collar voters. He lives where they live, and he has a family story that is compelling to them. When he says the word work, his inflection is their inflection.
Huckabee, Sarah Palin, and Bachmann have all demonstrated the power of this identification, but lacked the political seriousness and intellect to give it shape. They are creatures of cable: glib, not substantive. On the campaign trial, they seemed to believe that soundbites really would win out.
Santorum may stumble. He may have a secret like Herman Cain. More likely, he may not be able to create the structure of a national campaign quickly enough. If so, he will lose this opportunity. But I’ll go out on a limb: I think he’ll lock up the blue collar vote.
Predictions aside, the lesson I take from Iowa is that media dominance over society is an illusion.
Presidential campaigns prove every four years that it is street appeal and a solid game on the ground that puts a candidate over the top on election day. These two things have to be real. They cannot be produced through media, and the history of presidential campaigns is littered with candidates who’ve tried. To be sure, the two can be expressed through media, and must be. The campaign that best expresses the candidate’s street appeal through media and integrates its ground game with media will win. But no medium replaces shoe leather.
That is the ongoing relevance of Iowa and New Hampshire to American politics.
And this lesson is a healthy correction to the superficiality that congests our nation’s life. No business will survive without addition and subtraction actually revealing a profit. A volunteer organization cannot serve the community with a polished image. No church will build people up with Christianish entertainment, demographically driven activities, and happy slogans.
Down with marketing. Up with work.
Are We About To See an “Awakening?” [Yawn]
October 6th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
The term awakening is important to American evangelicals — and ought to become more important. It refers to periods of spiritual renewal, of which churches are in desperate need.
So I was not surprised to find the word associated with Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally, and the formation of his Black Robe Regiment. One of the regiment’s websites announces that it is “awakening the Christian community.” Another is more specific: “The time has come that we must now arise and awaken to the danger of this hyper-progressive agenda that so permeates every aspect of our political, legal, and educational systems.”
The term moves in mysterious ways, its wonders to perform. “Awakening” gets picked up by various Beck enthusiasts as a focus of their hopes.
Here is one pastor about the “evening of prayer and spiritual renewal” Beck hosted at the Kennedy Center on August 27th, the eve of the big rally: “I’m telling you tonight was like the beginning of a Revival for our country with Asians, Latinos, African-Americans and people from all walks of life singing praise songs and calling upon God to restore our Nation . . . .” The pastor concludes, “Tomorrow, I pray will begin the next great awakening in America.”
The next great awakening. There seems to be some confusion.
“Great awakening” is a phrase applied to two periods in American history. The First Great Awakening occurred in the 1740s, the Second from 1800 to roughly 1830.
Here’s the problem: Beck’s regiment is modeling its awakening not on those periods, but on the Revolutionary War period (1775-83). That is a generation after the First and about a generation before the Second Great Awakenings. No one classifies the Revolution as a period of spiritual revival. Quite the reverse.
Iain H. Murray, in his study Revival and Revivalism (Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), summarizes (p 74), “With the possible exception of Western Pennsylvania, there seem to have been no areas where there was general revival during the years of the War of Independence . . . . In most of the country there was evident spiritual decline as political and military events dominated public attention.”
Murray quotes an observation from Robert Semple, who was fourteen when the war was won in 1783. Semple said that with liberty came “leanness of soul” (p 76).
This chill to their religious affections might have subsided with the war, or perhaps sooner, if there had not been subsequent occurrences which tended to keep them down. The opening a free trade by peace served as a powerful bait to entrap professors who were in any great degree inclined to the pursuit of wealth. Nothing is more common than for the increase of riches to produce a decrease of piety. Speculators seldom make warm Christians. With some exceptions the declension was general throughout the State [of Virginia]. The love of many waxed cold. Some of the watchmen fell, others stumbled, and many slumbered at their posts.
Note that last sentence describing Virginian pastors. That would be the original Black Robe Regiment — falling, stumbling, slumbering.
The spiritual drought lasted so long, according to Semple (Murray, p 78), that it “induced many to fear that the times of refreshing would never come.”
At this moment in our nation’s life, pastors need to know their jobs. The surest way to freeze congregations in self-righteousness is to go soldiering in the populist militias. Churches are populated with sinners who have trampled the holiness of God, and whose only hope is that the Jesus Christ whose name they have claimed will recognize them on the last day.
I fear we are not on the edge of an awakening, but inhaling the fumes of stupefication.
Conservatives’ Rising Expectations
September 9th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
The generic Congressional polls now predict a Republican thumper in November, recalling the sweep of 1994. When the Republicans took the House and Senate that year, the spread in similar polls had reached 5 points. Today, the RCP average shows a Republican lead of 6.7 points. Last week, the Gallup poll found a record 10-point spread.
Even granting the prudent equivocations — that two months is a long time in an election cycle, that Republicans have not articulated a clear policy agenda, that the public still does not like them — it is hard to see how Democrats avoid disaster. Conservative ambitions for radical action are about to balloon.
So I blew the dust off the 40th anniversary issue of National Review, published December 11, 1995, a year into the Republican Congress. Has reality matched conservatives’ raised expectations from that time?
My tattered copy.
What I first noticed thumbing its pages was who had died since publication. William F. Buckley, still going strong then, and Ronald Reagan, who had announced his Alzheimer’s disease only a year before. Jack Kemp had not yet been nominated for vice president.
Even long careers are strangely short.
Then I noticed how many debates are still raging: health care, global warming, the federal debt. Next, how drastically media have changed: in one article, Neal Freeman wrote that “Young Media” were talk radio, cable television, and newsletters.
Then, I recalled the subject that had seized conservatives’ ambition in the flush of victory: reversing cultural decline.
David Gelernter wrote an essay called, “After Liberalism,” the very title of which captures what conservatives dreamed, namely that they were on the verge of delivering a fatal blow to the opposing ideology. But Gelernter was not triumphalist. He ended his essay describing the deteriorating lives of middle class children. Then he observed:
When it comes to family values, Republicans talk a good game and check their children at the door. Values Republicans are eager to show that they are Female-Friendly. Growth Republicans understand clearly that economic disaster would be the consequence were American mothers to walk off the job. We’d all be poorer. Standards of living would drop to what they were in (perhaps) 1965. And so the idea that rearing children and not generating wealth might conceivably be society’s first responsibility is orphaned, without a friend anywhere on the mainstream political spectrum.
Spot-on.
In another essay, Digby Anderson wrote of recovering the moral strength of Victorian society, a goal that became a preoccupation of many conservatives in the 1990s. Anderson wrote,
In the mid nineteenth century [the Victorians] inherited a society with significant crime, illegitimacy, and low moral standards. By the end of the century they had substantially reduced crime, halved illegitimacy, and produced a complex, powerful, and sophisticated moral order. . . . Virtue and been lost. Virtue was recovered.
This narrative, backed up by historical and social scientific research from thinkers like Gertrude Himmelfarb and Charles Murray, and amplified among evangelicals by Chuck Colson and others, drove such policies as welfare reform, enacted with Bill Clinton’s triangulating signature in 1996. Grabbing congressional majorities fueled a sense that conservatives could restore virtue to the culture by handing power back to ordinary Americans.
Problematic group, those ordinary Americans.
On the one hand, Richard Brookhiser wrote about promising trends among baby-boomers. There was a “revival of religious enthusiasm, amounting to a Fourth Awakening.” There was an increase in those who “teach their children around the kitchen table out of McGuffey’s Readers.” There was also a new interest in virtue itself, signaled by the success of Bill Bennett’s The Book of Virtues. Those were indeed striking trends then.
But by the end of the 1990s, pornography and gambling had been culturally mainstreamed, household debt was spiraling, rates of divorce had not significantly changed, and cohabitation outside of marriage was increasing. In 2006, Republican domination of Congress came to an end amid scandals that featured every kind of financial corruption and sexual perversion.
A thumping Republican victory this November will be a significant event. But politicians and their hangers-on are always too quick to believe their press. Political change does not so much alter as reflect culture. The 1994 victory reflected American culture quite accurately, in all its grim corruption.
I turn a page in this old National Review issue and see an ad for Newt Gingrich’s book, To Renew America. A fellow pastor loaned me a copy of it in 1997, telling me how much he admired Gingrich’s stands, how crucial it was for the moral stamina of the nation to follow his prescriptions. A few weeks later, that pastor was in prison for molesting a minor.
Political power is not enough to renew America. Not even close.
Glenn Beck’s Rally For Religion
September 1st, 2010 § 3 Comments
by Matthew Raley
Last Saturday’s headline at the New York Times pretty much said it all: “At Lincoln Memorial, a Call for Religious Rebirth.”
Glenn Beck aims to unite evangelicals and Mormons spiritually using generalized pietistic language to make America more religious. According to the Times: “’Something that is beyond man is happening,” Mr. Beck told the crowd, in what was part religious revival and part history lecture. ‘America today begins to turn back to God.’”
Several features of that statement strike me.
For starters, Beck does not say what is happening that is “beyond man.” Indeed, his second statement undermines that portentous claim: The nation’s repentance begins “today,” with Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally, powered by high celebrity wattage and stimulated by plenty of free media. The event, whatever it was, came entirely “from man,” and was not in any sense “beyond man.”
Further, Beck’s use of the idea of repentance is safely generalized. “America,” Beck says, the nation corporately, turns back to God. The populist implications are clear: we who already follow “God” have gathered, and those other people who do not follow “God” would do well to pay attention.
Even further, the repentance is vague because the “God” to whom “America” is turning is a squishy sort of being. Beck appeals to us to pray to this God on our knees in front of our children. This God drops giant sandbags on Beck’s head, apparently. But does this God forgive sinners? Did he give his Son in an atoning death to save them? Is it this God’s sole purpose to build an eternal kingdom for His Son that is categorically greater than America? Is this, in other words, the God who revealed himself to all in the Bible?
Or is this the God who invites us to be initiated into one secret teaching after another under the strict guidance of a prophet in Utah, whose revelations continue to add to the good but insufficient work of Jesus Christ? Is he the God of the gnostics?
Those devoted to mere religiosity won’t care. But those devoted to the Gospel should.
Ross Douthat in the Times nailed what went on at the rally with his usual perceptiveness.
Now more than ever, Americans love leaders who seem to validate their way of life. This spirit of self-affirmation was at work in evangelicals’ enduring support for Bush, in the enthusiasm for the Dean campaign among the young, secular and tech-savvy, and now in the devotion that Palin inspires among socially conservative women. The Obama campaign raised it to an art form, convincing voters that by merely supporting his candidacy, they were proving themselves cosmopolitan and young-at-heart, multicultural and hip.
Beck’s Mormonism blends in well with the lifestyle of religiosity that the rally sought to affirm, and the evangelicals he woos always seem to be desperate for someone to affirm them. The courtship has been ongoing and shrewd.
David Gibson at Politics Daily reported earlier in the summer on Beck’s commencement speech at Liberty University.
“I want you to know that the invitation to speak today is not meant as an endorsement of my faith,” he said, absolving Falwell — son of the late Jerry Falwell Sr., icon of the religious right and founder of Liberty, which he envisioned as a Baptist Notre Dame. “But I also want you to understand that my agreeing to speak here today is an endorsement of your faith.”
Big applause, understandably, and then a good follow-up, as Beck told his listeners that this was no time for division on the right over things like doctrine and dogma. “We may have differences, but we need to find those things that unite us.”
It’s possible, even likely, that the courtship is a two-way street. I can readily understand some evangelical leaders making the most of an opportunity to influence Beck toward a true understanding of the Gospel.
But why are they promoting his bid for national spiritual leadership? Having a man who has not professed faith in Christ alone be a commencement speaker to Christian graduates, to say the least, is a novel form of outreach. And forming a “black-robe regiment” of evangelical pastors to amplify populist pieties under Mormon generalship is not going to advance the Bible’s Gospel. Such efforts will blur it.
That does indeed sound like something “beyond man,” but not from the direction of heaven.
The Political Role of Churches
February 24th, 2010 § Leave a Comment
by Matthew Raley
The religious right asserts that America must be turned back to biblical values through legislation and judicial decisions. It assumes that correcting the laws will free a godly citizenry to restore American culture. Thus, today’s social conservatism tends to be defined by what politicians will do.
Over a series of posts (starting here), I have rejected all three points.
Start with the assumption that evangelical Americans are godly, and therefore have the capacity to restore the nation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evangelicals have shown little capacity even to restore their own churches, much less America.
If the assumption about a godly citizenry is mistaken, then the religious right’s whole strategy is flawed. Without citizens who actually follow Christ, the legislative and judicial changes sought by the religious right will not restore our culture.
Even further, what the religious right proposes is not conservatism.
Anglo-American traditionalism of the Burkean variety does not put up with abstract principles. Genuine social conservatism says, “The state must deal with the culture it actually governs, not the theoretical culture it desires.” The ethics and ways of the people rule the nation. This is not only the view of conservatives from Burke to Eliot, it is the basic view of the state taught in the Bible.
Conservatives know that healthy cultures change through strong mediatorial institutions, especially families and churches. Conservatives call them mediatorial because they stand between the individual and the government. These institutions pass on and enforce ethics. They nurture relationships that mold people through influence rather than punishment. If the state tries to change a culture by force — and the law is force — it will only twist people’s ways.
In this analysis, the ruinous effect of political liberalism has not been to impose sinful patterns on a citizenry that would never otherwise choose them, but to weaken the mediatorial institutions that, for evangelicals, pass on the Gospel. The pastor has been replaced by the therapist, the church by the welfare agency, and the family by the social worker.
I agree that our nation needs to return to the biblical worldview. But it will never do so until those who profess the name of Christ actually follow him, and follow him institutionally. If evangelicals want a political impact, they need to do what the founders of America envisioned: they need to govern themselves.
Therefore, I see two political goals for churches in American society.
1. Churches and families must campaign and vote for the preservation of their liberties. Aggressively, they should make the case that freedom of association is foundational to a healthy, peaceful society. No faction should be allowed to impose its principles on the consciences of others. The approach has complications. But if we base our arguments about specific issues on this principle, we will find broader agreement, and we will preserve our local spheres of influence.
2. Churches must not only grow, they must govern themselves with the Gospel. They should stop trying to be malls, and return to their natural mandate, both from the New Testament and from Western culture at large, of being strong mediatorial institutions. If churches return to the calling Christ has given them, a cultural and political impact will follow.
The religious right’s populist tactic of blaming elites for our cultural problems is tempting, but it is not conservatism. Conservative Christians must come to grips with the fact that the departure of the nation from a biblical worldview is not a failure of the federal government, but of self-government. If we govern ourselves once again, there can be a return of our culture to Christianity.
The Colossians 1.28 Plan, Concluded
February 10th, 2010 § 1 Comment
by Matthew Raley
The tired line on ministry is that it’s not our job to produce results, only to be faithful. Unfortunately, I hear this most often from people who agree with me theologically.
I am convinced that God alone produces spiritual life. I hold and teach the reformed understanding of salvation, that Jesus Christ has purchased a finished redemption for his people, and that he sovereignly works out this redemption in their lives. This includes opening our eyes to his truth and enabling us to believe him.
Life is God’s alone to give.
But some pastors in this doctrinal camp, when discussing the practice of ministry, misapply these truths. They’re too quick to explain a lack of spiritual growth in their churches as God’s problem, not theirs. Many failings of craft can be responsible for people not growing in Christ. If a pastor doesn’t make truths clear but masks them in technical language, people will not grow. If he purposefully opens the Bible to both mind and emotions, life will blossom in most.
The sovereignty of God should not be twisted into an excuse for inattentive, self-satisfied workmanship.
God has given congregations tasks to do. He declares that he will give spiritual life in Christ through specific methods, like preaching. Devoting ourselves to these tasks with fervency is at the heart of what I am calling the Colossians 1.28 plan. I am so crass as to call it a business plan: we can direct resources into this toil and expect a return on the investment, namely, maturity in Christ. We should be bold in this expectation because God has declared that he is in this business.
So, I have laid out five outcomes for which we should toil (here and here), sketching the nature of the resources that need to be directed to toward them. I believe that, without these outcomes, church life is mere words.
Here is the final outcome I see as essential:
6. Public integrity in spiritual governance.
Spiritual governance consists of the actions and systems by which elders help restore people from specific sins. Jesus teaches his process for restoring people in Matthew 18.10-35. The purpose of confronting a sinful action or pattern is to arrive at forgiveness and repentance. The purpose is not to punish (which is why I increasingly feel the common label “church discipline” is inaccurate).
When spiritual governance is effective, the average church member understands his or her responsibility to keep relationships clear of breaches, lies, and grudges, doing everything possible to give and seek forgiveness. In this atmosphere, there is an informal ethic that limits gossip. Individuals seek counsel how to resolve their conflicts respectfully. Personal conflicts, in the vast majority of cases, do not break out into public feuds.
I am not talking about theory. In ten years here at Orland, this is the ethic the congregation has demonstrated over and over. Our life together has never been without conflict. But we have seen continuous restoration.
This is long-term, constant, exhausting work. In Orland, it has the been fruit of many senior pastors striving against bitterness over many decades. I teach on this issue regularly, and the elders are constantly advising people about conflict resolution. The counseling and discipleship systems I described last week are essential.
Because churches have committed so many resources to entertainment, they have no time or energy left for this labor. They simply are not governing in the way Christ called them. Pastors are continually “putting out fires” rather than teaching people how to keep from starting them.
The outcome of governance has to be public integrity. Part of this integrity is the leadership’s record of discretion and achievement in helping people be restored to each other in Christ. Another part of it is simple justice. Known sins that go unaddressed, hasty judgments, inaccurate public statements, vendettas, and ignorance of Scriptural application will harm the leadership’s public integrity. The aim of governance to build a confidence, even amid many imperfections and mistakes, that leaders are going to initiate restoration in appropriate ways, at the right levels.
The word for this is trust. Without it, the whole spiritual life of the church degrades into mere words.
Here is the heart of what I have been saying over the past few months.
Local churches have been fooling themselves that they can accomplish God’s business by toiling in politics and entertainment. As a result of this confused planning, churches are closing. Let churches toil at God’s business again, and we will see amazing results.
A final thought about how this relates to genuine conservatism next week.
