I've intentionally stayed out of the discussion of the pastor in North Carolina who effectively excommunicated members of the congregation for their voting behavior. I"ve stayed out for several reasons. First, i've not been at all clear on what exactly happened -- reports have left me with enough of a fog factor that I don't want to do anyone an injustice.

But beyond that, I've had a second reason for staying silent. While I think that the man's actions are counterproductive in the contemporary world, I do not believe that they are wrong as a matter of principle. Quite bluntly, I believe that a church does have an obligation to discipline members who have strayed from its teachings, even if the misconduct is in the realm of political activity -- and i believe a fair reading of the First Amendment forbids the government from interfering in or punishing a church for doing so.

Before folks start tearing their hair out, i ask that you read this excerpt from Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., the president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

During the 2004 presidential election, leaders of the Roman Catholic Church debated whether Catholic candidates who support abortion rights and same-sex marriage should be denied Communion. There was no corresponding debate among Evangelicals. The virtual disappearance of church discipline among Evangelicals--a symptom of a larger loss of biblical ecclesiology--left many Christians simply scratching their heads. Now, the controversy in Waynesville, North Carolina emerges as a flashpoint of confusion. What should we think of this?

In the first place, we should quickly assert the autonomy of the Church as the Body of Christ. Though missiologically located within the secular world, the Church knows only one Sovereign--the Lord Jesus Christ. Yet, the church is located within a political context--a context it cannot deny. For most of U.S. history, this has not been an issue of difficulty for the church. This is no longer the case. At first blush, the actions of the East Waynesville Baptist Church appear to be out of bounds. A political judgment of this apparently partisan nature does not seem to be justified by the political context--at least not yet.

Honesty compels me to state that I could foresee a political context in which such a decision, made in extremis, could well be both justifiable and necessary. The church has faced this before. In the context of Nazi Germany, it was an unavoidable issue. Writing to Christians in France, Karl Barth lamented the sin of the German Christians who allowed the Nazi Party to assume power (through democratic elections, we should be reminded). Looking back to the political passivity of the German church, Barth reflected: "At the time and in Germany it implied a retreat of Christianity from responsibility in ecclesiastical and political spheres to the inner sphere of a religious attitude which, in order to maintain itself, no longer concerned itself with, or at least was not willing to fight and suffer for, the right form of the Church, let alone that of the State."

The right form of the church requires a common commitment to certain shared convictions. These commitments are irreducibly theological, but come with inevitable political consequences. Until recently, our domestic political debates have failed to reach a point of crisis with regard to these consequences, but crisis cannot be rejected as a possibility. In such cases, the church must maintain its witness and convictional commitments. A church should exercise discipline against a member who, while claiming to be a Christian, would vote for Adolf Hitler--or David Duke.

Now Mohler, like me, doesn't see the actions alleged in North Carolina as appropriate in today's context. But at the same time, he recognizes that a proper understanding of the nature of the Church mandates that this sort of action be done in the proper situation. Mojhler talks about voting for Hitler or David Duke -- I think of the excommunication of opponents of school desegregation by the Archbishop of New Orleans in the 1960s after they used their political offices and courtroom litigation to attempt to achieve a political result (school segregation) contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The acceptance of limits on speech on matters of faith and morals that intersect with politics cannot be accepted by a true Christian -- or a true believer in any other faith. Gvernment is not God.

Now I will concede that America is not a theocracy. I've yet to meet a Christian who wants it to be, despite the hysterical claims of outraged liberals any time a conservative Christian dares to exercise his or her rights as a citizen. The Church, however, IS AND MUST BE a theocracy by its very nature, no matter how much or how loudly the lukewarm may object. We may be obliged to accept the separation of church and state, but we must never give in to demands for the separation of church and church.

Posted by: Greg at 04:52 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 831 words, total size 5 kb.