In an early election year, when people’s thoughts turn to political controversy, what approach should pastors take: mobilize the congregation, speak only to the moral issues involved, ignore the whole potentially divisive mess?

Where do you go for guidelines? Why not Washington, D.C.? That’s where LEADERSHIP editors Jim Berkley and Marshall Shelley met four pastors who serve a politically minded community.

But for that matter, what community isn’t-at least to some degree? Political questions are inescapable. The question is, How do those who pitch their tents on the holy hill interact with the secular city? Are there right and wrong ways for pastors to lead congregations amid the political fray?

Gathered to speak on the matter were:

-Myron Augsburger, president of the Christian College Coalition and pastor of Washington Community Fellowship,

-H. Beecher Hicks, Jr., from Metropolitan Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.,

-Neil Jones, pastor of Columbia Baptist Church in suburban Falls Church, Virginia,

-John W. Yates II from The Falls Church (Episcopal).

Leadership: Politics is a subject that makes many pastors wary. Somehow it seems dirty.

Neil Jones: Politics is certainly not dirty in itself. We’re all political animals.

Leadership: How so?

Jones: It’s the language of a pluralistic society if we are going to get along.

Myron Augsburger: The word politics originally meant the science of life together in the city; it’s an admission that we do not live independent from one another, but our actions either enhance or limit the benefits for the whole.

H. Beecher Hicks, Jr.: It’s the systematic attempt to establish public policy.

Leadership: Does politics have much effect on your churches?

Hicks: The black tradition has never seen a serious dichotomy between religion and politics. We’re too affected by the political structure to believe our religion can be divorced from this reality. And we understand that as Christians, the necessity is laid upon us to speak prophetically to those structures that unfairly limit our freedom and participation within the society.

John W. Yates II: In Washington-area churches, politics is the bread and butter of a lot of our people-whether they work for a governmental agency or are “Beltway Bandits” who are with organizations that interact with the government.

I find most of these people to be thoughtful, hard-working, and public-minded. Most of them are working too hard and not resting enough. Laziness or crass materialism isn’t as much a problem as, perhaps, wanting too much power or influence, or deriving an unhealthy sense of accomplishment: “We’ve pulled off another victory!”

Leadership: How does this power orientation affect those in your churches?

Augsburger: In this town there’s a special emphasis on being number one. We have a bank that advertises itself as “the most powerful bank in the most powerful city in the most powerful nation in the world.” That’s a symbol of the mentality the church has to cope with in Washington.

When one of our men received a significant political position, what amazed him was the pecking order in terms of parking. A convenient parking place was a status symbol, and he couldn’t believe parking privileges were the frontal issue for a lot of his coworkers.

For us to preach the gospel of service, or that we are all equal in the church, is a radical proposition.

Jones: I had a congressman in regular attendance who sent word that if I would change my view on a particular issue, he and his wife would become members. I was feeling other pressure at that time because I hadn’t said a whole lot about the issue either way; my style is to open a larger umbrella that covers more people.

I wrote the congressman a personal note that said, “You and I hold different positions on important items, but that has nothing to do with our worshiping the Lord together. We need each other-iron sharpens iron-and I welcome the fact that you worship with us.” But he never did come back.

Yates: I haven’t seen as much of that. When we first came, ours was a rather traditional church. People got upset because I wasn’t Episcopalian enough; I was accused of being too narrow-minded. It’s funny, though, that once we got a reputation as a “turned-on” church, the people who are now upset with me say I’m not conservative enough.

Hicks: We have to say that although the flag should wave high, the cross has to stand higher.

Augsburger: We say we are neither right as conservatives nor left as humanists but advocates of the third way, the way of the kingdom of Christ. Interestingly, that doesn’t give the security some like. So we’ve lost some people. But our approach to political issues is more a matter of raising questions about how we can exercise our rights as persons to call both society and government to live up to the highest levels of morality and ethics.

Hicks: The political concerns of those of us who pastor in inner cities aren’t usually as global as they may be for those who are in suburbia. Our sermons and prayers seem to be more related to local issues, local pain and struggle.

Leadership: From the pulpit, how do you speak to political issues?

Hicks: In my understanding, there are two prophetic functions: to speak to the people on behalf of God, and then to speak publicly to God on behalf of the people. Both are necessary.

I’m trying to implore God in many instances to give us the strength to deal with the predicament in which we find ourselves, and at the same time to invoke his presence and power as we seek to alleviate that pain.

When I preach in our neighborhood, I talk more about violence in the street and drug abuse-localized issues of political importance-and not as often about the global issues such as what’s going on in Nicaragua or Afghanistan. For those who sit in our congregation, I’m more concerned about speaking to the issues that affect their lives on a day-to-day basis. If I were in Falls Church, I might be prone to preach more about nuclear disarmament because of the makeup of that congregation.

Augsburger: I applaud that. To speak about global issues to inner-city people with their problems and never speak to their issues is to fail them.

Leadership: What are some of the areas of local political concern?

Yates: Sex education is a big thing in Falls Church. I have five children in the public schools, so of course I’ve taken an interest. For several years I’ve sat on the parent advisory board and evaluated the curriculum every year. Recently a lot of criticism has been leveled at the schools and the people teaching these classes. People claim they’re encouraging promiscuity, easy abortion, and that sort of thing.

Personally, I see my role on this committee primarily as a parent, but a number of people recently have come to me as a clergyman, wanting to know what I think. I remind them that some of the teachers and school administrators are Christians, too.

One woman said to me the other day, “If you pull your children out of that program, because of who you are in the community, it will have tremendous impact.” That may be right, and I may pull my children out of portions of the program. Then again, I may not. But because I’m a clergyman from a respected church, what I do is being watched closely.

Leadership: What do you want to accomplish on that committee?

Yates: The principal asked me to be on a committee and said, “You are a Christian leader, but we appreciate your balance.” That’s perhaps my role-to add balance. When the style in which we confront these things becomes accusatory and vitriolic, we lose everything. But through working in the process, if I decide to pull my children, people will know it’s based on objective reasons, not some sort of fanaticism.

Raising issues is one of the ways pastors can be helpful. We can say, “Do you know this is going on in the community? Don’t you want to be involved, because if we’re not involved, people who aren’t Christians will set the policy for the community.”

Augsburger: There is such a thing as Christian presence in secular roles without trying to turn those roles into an evangelistic arm of the church. Often that has been the mistake.

When it comes to local political issues, drugs is the big one in the inner city. We’ve got to help young people find fulfillment and meaning so that in their boredom they don’t become prey to drug pushers. We’re working with Young Life, and we have a number of youth groups meeting in our church basement regularly.

But divorce, low literacy, and lack of work are all part of the picture. You can’t just talk about drugs apart from the rest.

Hicks: The other week I heard a pastor tell of a member of his congregation who had discovered two automatic weapons and $40,000 in his son’s room under the mattress. We’re talking serious money that elementary and junior high students are making simply by pushing drugs. The kid is 14 years old!

Augsburger: And then we wonder why we have seventy-one homicides in seventy-four days!

Hicks: Something is happening in our society. I know I wouldn’t have been able to get into my house as a kid with two automatic weapons and $40,000.

Our society is so oriented toward conspicuous consumption. Kids have to have designer jeans and Nike tennis shoes. When you talk to a kid about being involved in the mayor’s summertime job program at minimum wage, he tells you, “You gotta be kidding! I can make a thousand bucks a day. Why should I go and work for the mayor?” And so drugs have become the political issue that affects the community, the school, the church, the home-whatever institution is in its way.

Leadership: What can a church do about it?

Jones: I don’t know what the role is, but I wish all the denominations would put their best minds together and come up with a strategy we all could use. That’s one issue we could unite on.

Hicks: They’d have to talk about something more than drugs. The real problem has to do with economic destitution.

Imagine you’re a 12-year-old kid who’s been told to support God, mother, and the American way-to work hard. Your mother says she doesn’t have enough money to pay the rent or buy food. So here’s a guy who comes along and says, “Look, if you’ll take this sack of white flour across the street, I’ll give you $100.” What do you do? It helps pay the rent and buy the food, but it’s not right. It will be destructive. It’s morally reprehensible. But to a kid whose family is at stake and who sees no other way to survive, it becomes the only means to maintain any kind of personal dignity. The drug problem has tentacles that reach into the heart of society.

Augsburger: In the suburbs, white, affluent parents can hardly believe their kids are on drugs, and it happens because of boredom, wanting a thrill. But if the churches of the city could get together and help the people holistically and not just attack the drugs, that would be a major political step.

Leadership: In a city where power is the medium of exchange and problems abound, what political role does the church play?

Augsburger: We try to avoid merging church and state as though the two institutions can join hands, and we also try to avoid having the church dictate to the state. But that doesn’t mean our concept of separation of church and state removes the Christian citizen from being articulate about his or her convictions. We don’t draw a vertical line between church and state; the line is horizontal, with the community of disciples operating at a higher level under the will of Christ.

I’m against the church’s trying to use pressure, so I can’t get excited about traditional lobbying. I don’t want the congressman or senator to put me in the same category as the lobbyist. I want to be able to sit down and talk with him on his ground and hear his questions and views with respect. The more light we shine on an issue, the better.

Hicks: For many of us in the black community, our impact is felt simply by sheer numbers. In Washington, for instance, the churches represent a considerable portion of the electorate. The poll-and-pew combination means that any politician who hopes to be elected will likely come by and chat with pastors every once in a while, simply because he knows the number of people pastors influence.

Recently a newsman told me, “I understand that when the mayor does something wrong, he knows he’d better come around so you can get him straightened out.”

I said, “No, that’s not the case. The point is that from time to time we have a chat.” And that’s really all it is-just a chat.

Leadership: What do you offer the politician when you “chat”?

Hicks: I try to offer him fair, consistent, and ethical counsel. I certainly don’t try to pressure him with a voting bloc. In the eleven years I’ve been in my church, I’ve never said one word to the congregation about how they should vote. But I don’t think there has ever been a time when they didn’t know where I stood.

Leadership: How do they know?

Hicks: A pastor’s viewpoint somehow seeps through everything he says and does. They know where I am. To say it would be redundant.

Augsburger: Working from an inner-city context has changed some of my thinking. From my prior background, for instance, when I heard the administration talking about the private sector’s doing a lot of things instead of the government, I would have applauded that. But from the inner city, I say to the administration, “Just a minute! You’re a government of the people, by the people, and for the people-all the people. Don’t you go dumping your responsibility on the churches. We’ve got enough to do. You have a responsibility for those poor people.” I’m not sure I would have felt that way ten years ago.

Jones: That’s interesting, because from my suburban perspective, I took another tack. When Reagan said churches ought to be doing more, I thought, We’re an upper-middle-class church not doing much socially. So I started praying in church, “Lord, thank you for Mr. Reagan’s pronouncement about the church’s needing to get busy in this community. May it motivate us to see what’s wrong in our community and do something about it.” It did, and we moved toward a series of social ministries like providing furniture and clothes and food for those homeless on the steam grates. And that, in turn, gives us a chance to pray, “Lord, help the President and the nation to see how many of these people there are and what we ought to do.”

Leadership: How specific do you get in your political statements?

Augsburger: Last Sunday when I preached from Ephesians 2-“He is our peace who has made both one”-I spoke to militarization and what’s happening to America and the world because of it. I also referred to the military budget and what could be done with the same money in terms of human rights and world needs. I addressed the matter of Israel, standing under God’s judgment for what they are doing to the Arab community.

I believe the church is called to be prophetic and speak to issues like that. And I am frankly more comfortable dealing with issues for which you have moral and theological guidance than to say who I think people should vote for in the next election. As a pastor, I should be nonpartisan but speak to the issues.

Jones: I think I’m a better spokesman on social issues than I am on political issues, but sometimes I feel I have to be prophetic whether I want to be or not.

Leadership: For instance?

Jones: Abortion. Prayer in school. When issues like these come up in government, a lot of times I will mention them in the pastoral prayer. I use dichotomies-praying for people on both sides of the issue and asking for wisdom. People usually know where I stand, but when I pray using the dichotomies, I’m at least giving the benefit of the doubt to somebody on the opposite side. I might word a prayer: “Lord, bless those who lead us in the fight to end abortion, and please guide those who are trying to find a way to preserve the dignity of the mother.”

Hicks: Some issues are blatantly political, and others are sociopolitical with moral implications. So when I talk about hunger and homelessness, I’m talking about a social problem, but it also has political meaning. I would do myself a disservice if I made too broad a distinction between the political and the social without realizing their interrelatedness.

It’s political when I talk about drug abuse, because what’s happening on our streets must be dealt with politically. It’s a political issue, a social issue, an economic issue, and a moral issue, and so to that extent, our definition of politics is as broad as it was when we began: it is something that affects the whole of life. So when I start talking about drug abuse and homelessness and illiteracy and hunger, I see them as socio-political, and all these issues must be dealt with from the pulpit.

Yates: Much of a particular pastor’s stance toward political issues has to do with personality and background. I have some preacher friends who have a much greater sense of the prophetic and others who have much more of a sense of the pastoral in their preaching. So while none of us should just preach out of our personalities-we’ve got to reach into Scripture-our personalities and training have a lot to do with how we preach political issues. By temperament I’m much more pastoral and evangelistic. I have to struggle to be interested in political issues.

Augsburger: There’s a danger to avoid here at either extreme. The one extreme is to make the pastoral too private and individualistic and not wrestle with the critical issues of the times. The other extreme is to become so concerned about the political that we fail people who need spiritual renewal.

Yates: I see this church in which I now serve, in a sense, as a shelter, and when people come to worship, I want it to be a place of refuge and encouragement. I know the purpose of preaching is to “comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable,” and I try to keep that in mind. But every Sunday I’ve got people in church who’ve been beating their brains out on political issues all week. Second, I’ve got people who are much more knowledgeable about the intricacies of the political issues than I will ever be. But they’ve had little opportunity to step back and think about the biblical-ethical perspective on it.

So I’m comfortable talking about ethical principles and how they address social problems. But whenever I’ve tried to speak on something like whether Congress should pass this bill or that, a host of people point out to me how little I really know about the particular issue, and usually they’re right. So I don’t want to shy away from these issues, but at the same time I want to speak about what I know and not misguide people about things I don’t know.

Augsburger: John, I feel the same way. But by the same token, I once spoke in chapel at the Pentagon and dialogued with some of those people. All I did was confront them with the question, “What difference does it make in your work if you take Jesus seriously?” I didn’t have to answer the question. They can do it for themselves better than I can. But I wanted to encourage them to keep raising the question in their minds.

Hicks: I can’t remember the last time I spoke to a particular bill or resolution. What I do is creatively look at a passage of Scripture in terms of what it said then and almost leave it to the individual to be able to determine what it says in regard to the kind of decisions on your desk right now.

Yates: I’m preaching a series of seven sermons on that section around Matthew 6:33-“Seek ye first the kingdom of God.” That passage takes us into all sorts of things at the heart of society-money, materialism, and worry about the future. The other day I said, “I’ve been tempted to take Matthew 6:33 and apply it to public policy, but I’m not going to do that. I’m going to try to tell you what it means in our lives and our families and our church, and then I want you to apply it further to your job: what it means to make Christ King not only in your life, but also in the lives of others.”

One guy came up after church and said, “I appreciate that. We’ll take care of the public policy; you keep telling us to seek the kingdom and apply what we know.” He wasn’t being patronizing. He simply wanted me to challenge him with the principle and encourage him to apply it out where he works.

Leadership: How do you handle issues you know will be controversial in your congregation?

Augsburger: I try to develop respect for pluralism. Often I state it’s more important that we see together than that we see alike. We don’t expect everybody to see eye to eye.

Yates: There are many ways to address an issue. You can do it through letters to the congregation, Sunday bulletins, classes you teach. I feel the pulpit is the most sacred of all those places, so I’m most careful about what I say there. In a classroom situation, I feel much more freedom to say, “I know you all may not agree with me, but here’s how I feel.” I would rarely do that in the pulpit.

If I’m going to say something about nuclear disarmament or star wars, I’m not going to preach it unless I feel absolutely certain about every word.

Hicks: Why?

Yates: Because when you are preaching out of the Scriptures, people look at you as an authority speaking on behalf of God, and that’s a great responsibility. I don’t think they feel that way if I’m teaching a class. However, if you feel certain a political ramification of a biblical principle is correct, then you can say that from the pulpit.

Hicks: I believe there must be a purity to the gospel message. At the same time, I have such great freedom to speak to political issues from my pulpit. The preacher in the black tradition has great latitude. The preacher is the prophetic spokesperson, and people come to hear what that word may be.

Augsburger: When we talk about being prophetic about political issues, it’s helpful to start at the proper end. People want to start at the wrong end of a question like war and peace. They ask, “What do you do if you are up against a totalitarian tyrant?”

From my gospel standpoint, I have to start at the other end and ask, “How do we build a society of people so in relationship with God and one another that you don’t get to that stage?” The fact that we’ve got forty-some wars around the world right now indicates that just applying more military equipment is no answer. That’s why the gospel is a radical answer.

I support the importance of preaching as exegesis of the Word. But let me add, application can go beyond a personal, private level. For example, preaching from Matthew 5 on turning the other cheek, I might say, “The Christian strategy in operation is that your behavior doesn’t have to be determined by the way somebody treats you. You can operate on a higher principle. And it works not only personally, but also in international relations. America pays Russia too high a compliment if we let Russia’s behavior determine ours.”

I don’t go on to analyze it, but I feel if I don’t drop in that kind of comment, I’m not really applying the Word to the larger issues of life. I have such a jealousy for the authority of Scripture that I don’t want to put it in a little box.

Leadership: Do you try to get people involved in political issues?

Jones: When we get them involved in ministry and they start teaching English as a second language or dealing with somebody who has been evicted onto the street, they begin to get sensitized to issues.

Hicks: But how about teaching English as a first language! That’s what we find ourselves doing. Our literacy classes teach people to read and write to be able to function in our society. I know of a local school with four hundred students, and only ten have grade point averages beyond C! We’re about to lose a generation in our own back yard.

So we’re doing a lot to match children with adults in our church-kind of a Christian big brothers and big sisters approach. One of the big sisters is a divorcee with no children, and she has the child of one of the neighborhood prostitutes. There is no heat or electricity in this child’s house, and yet she now has an A average. We intend to save her before she is lost into the system. For us to be political is to serve as the first line of salvation for these folks who are going to be lost unless we do something.

Leadership: How would you handle someone’s trying to use your congregation for political purposes, such as a member’s placing a candidate’s fliers on the windshields of cars in the church parking lot?

Jones: I’d discourage it. I just don’t think it’s appropriate to use the congregation as a captive audience. The practice seems manipulative. It implies the church’s endorsement.

If somebody came off the streets and just did it once, I’d probably ignore it and trust our people to understand. But if it became a standing practice and it began to look like we condoned it, I might make an offhand announcement at the end of the service that if they find pamphlets on their windshields, we didn’t put them there. And then I’d let it go at that.

Hicks: If it were confined to the parking lot and my ushers weren’t out there putting them under the windshield wipers, I wouldn’t have a problem. But if it’s my ushers, I’ve got a problem. (Laughter)

I see myself as a gatekeeper, and that means I’m going to have control over anything that comes inside the gate. As long as you stay outside the gate, I believe you have certain inalienable rights to do what you want. Actually, most people have been polite enough to ask if they can distribute literature, but I say no.

Leadership: What reason do you give them?

Hicks: I don’t have to give a reason.

Leadership: There are 250,000 clergy in the country who wish they could say that. (Laughter)

Hicks: I tell them that’s just not what we’re about. People come to the church for something else-for healing, for answers. They don’t want to be bombarded by that which raises greater anxiety.

Yates: In other parking lots, people are always getting things on their windshields, so I wouldn’t worry about it. But when people want to distribute things in church, I say no unless it’s an in-house announcement.

Leadership: Have you paid a price for your involvement in political issues?

Jones: We had a man from seminary do his sabbatical here who was in the forefront of the peace movement. We brought him unapologetically because he’s a fine Christian man. We let him teach; we had him preach. Then one of our normally supportive generals tangled with him, and we had to find a way out of that. Yes, I’ve paid some prices, but I’m still around. Isn’t that part of living?

Yates: People leave your church. They cut their pledges. They talk about you behind your back. I’ve probably suffered more, however, over churchmanship issues than over political ones. And I certainly haven’t paid any big prices. I haven’t lost a meal.

Leadership: Is the cost of political involvement perhaps overrated? Are pastors more cautious than they need to be?

Jones: You have to remember that you’re talking to survivors here who have “successful operations.” The one who is not experiencing success in other areas may speak out and find himself or herself a handy scapegoat.

Yates: If people are determined to hit the pastor with something, a political fracas is as convenient as anything.

Augsburger: I know there are people in my congregation who differ with me, but we have worked to foster openness and the right to an opinion. So I haven’t really suffered from that.

I have suffered, however, outside my congregation. In over thirty-six years of ministry, I’ve worked with a broad spectrum of people and have been open about my opinions. Because of that, I had to bow out of negotiations for a position with a national evangelical institution simply because of too much politicizing over our differences by some of the board members. I’ve had meetings canceled because some persons were uncomfortable that I wouldn’t lay down the “party line” they wanted. You can suffer for your involvement.

But I must say the suffering is actually minimal. If you’re clear in your statements, I find most thinking people respect your integrity even if they don’t exactly agree with you.

Leadership: Have you ever regretted not speaking out?

Jones: Yes. If I had understood civil rights in the sixties as I do now, I would have said and done many things differently. I’m very much a victim of my culture.

Augsburger: I regret I wasn’t at Selma. At the time it seemed too much hassle and expense to go. I had my own agenda. Now-I’d be there.

The issue is discernment-when to say something, when to wait and not speak. I’ve probably erred as often on the side of speaking too early. There are times that you may believe something strongly, but it would be casting pearls to swine, as Jesus said, to say it when the emotional climate or the nature of the dialogue isn’t open to it.

Recently I didn’t speak out on the Title IX civil rights issue that Congress was reviewing, and I got phone calls from as far away as Oregon, as well as from the congregation, asking, “Why aren’t we hearing more from you about this?” Because I’m in Washington, they thought I ought to have a word for them. “If the Moral Majority is right about this being so terrible, why aren’t you speaking to it?”

My problem is the way the issue was set up. I couldn’t go along with the opposition on their grounds. That’s where you often get caught. Sometimes those who want you to join their side make it look as though Christians aren’t interested in human rights or whatever. Rather than communicating that we really do want equality and fairness in a pluralistic society, they approach it by saying something like, “If this bill goes through, you’ve got to hire a homosexual as an assistant pastor.” I’d like to turn it around and say, “We as a church want to respect others, and in turn we want that same respect for our practices and beliefs.”

Leadership: What’s your final word to pastors as they face the question of participation in the political process?

Yates: My message would be: Listen to what’s going on in your community, and encourage your people to listen, too. Be alert and thoughtful. Pray and seek God’s guidance about any possible way you can be a witness for Christ in the midst of it.

Hicks: I’d want to say there is still a man on the Jericho road, and we’re not good Samaritans as long as we’re simply binding wounds and paying for ointment. We’re only good Samaritans when we leave the inn and go back down the road to deal with whatever it was that caused the pain to begin with.

Christian political action involves more than providing the hospital and the bandages and the soap. It’s only when we become participants in those processes-whether political or social or economic-that bring to a halt the assault on the road of life that we really have caught the essence of Christianity.

Jones: I’d add: But don’t write off the need to get your hands dirty by engaging in some of the cleanup and basic activities.

The other thing I think needs to be said is this: the answer is in a relational community, not a narrow creedal box, be it theological or political.

Augsburger: Yes. We need to see all of life as a sacrament.

Copyright © 1988 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.