Ethics and Public Policy Center
About EPPC Contact EPPC Support EPPC My EPPC
  Find:    
Home News & Updates Conferences & Events Programs Publications Fellows & Scholars

Home  >  Programs  > 
Evangelicals in Civic Life
Home
About
News & Updates
Press Release
Browse by:
- Author
- Title
- Date
- Type
Conferences
Publications
Biographies
Links
"Fine-tuning the nuances" - Joel Belz's editorial
The difference between the church gathered and the church dispersed
By Joel Belz
Posted: Monday, July 1, 2002

ARTICLE
WORLD Magazine  (Asheville, NC)
Publication Date: July 8, 2002

  World, June 8, 2002
Fine-tuning the nuances

The difference between the church gathered and the church dispersed

Joel Belz, World Magazine, June 8, 2002

My pastor was about to announce a prayer vigil at the local abortion clinic the next Saturday morning, and to invite us to join him during that hour of sidewalk protest. But before saying a word, he pointedly left his pulpit, walked across the platform, and stepped down to where we were all sitting.

I'm sure some folks there that January morning didn't even notice the subtle symbolism. Some who did notice might have said it was much ado about nothing. But in the continuing debate over whether the evangelical church in America is being overly politicized, nuances do make a difference.

There weren't many nuances a couple of weeks ago when two spokesmen for opposite sides of that argument squared off for a semi-public debate of the issue. Syndicated columnist Cal Thomas picked up where he left off in his 1999 book Blinded by Might, where with co-author Ed Dobson he argued that the religious right is asking for nothing but trouble when it pretends it can change the soul of America through the political process. But from the other side, Focus on the Family vice president Tom Minnery shot back: "Try telling that to blacks in America. Maybe all racist hearts haven't been changed by the civil rights laws—but at least injustice has been reduced."

The vigorous debate was arranged by the Ethics and Public Policy Center of Washington, D.C., whose vice president Michael Cromartie credited a WORLD column last February with sparking the idea for such an exchange.

The discussion is important. Mr. Thomas has properly sounded two thoughtful warnings: The first is that evangelical Christians ought to be more skeptical about either the efficacy or the integrity of the political process. "We are so gullible," Mr. Thomas says repeatedly, "when we act as though the election of the right person as president, the winning of a majority in Congress, or the appointment of just one more conservative to the Supreme Court will bring in the kingdom of God."

Mr. Thomas's second warning is that local churches need to be more careful not to become precinct offices for the Republican Party. I totally agree that there is great danger in allowing anyone to confuse the biblical gospel with partisan politics. But here, as I said in this space last Feb. 23, Mr. Thomas is fuzzy in failing to distinguish between the institutional church (or what we might call the "church gathered" for worship on Sunday morning) and the people of that church (or what we might call the "church dispersed" for their salt-like activity in society through the rest of the week). If he limited his critique to some churches' tendency to focus on Sunday mornings more on conservative social issues than on teaching the broad scope of the Bible's teachings, his point would be sharper.

To my ears, Mr. Minnery effectively challenged Mr. Thomas on the first of the two points. Mr. Thomas is still chafing, Mr. Minnery suggested, at the embarrassments of his earlier identification in the 1980s with Moral Majority and groups like the Christian Coalition. But Focus on the Family and its current cohorts, Mr. Minnery asserted, are today neither beguiled by power in high places nor seeking to substitute political process for the work of God's Spirit. Mr. Minnery pointed out that Focus on the Family's president, James Dobson, is quite willing to be an outcast of the Republican establishment and that the group spends only 5 percent of its annual budget on political action.

Much more ambiguous is the debate over using pulpits to discuss issues that might easily be interpreted as either moral and ethical, on the one hand, or political, on the other. A number of Michigan pastors were offended several years ago, for example, when a mailing from Focus on the Family urged them to preach sermons against gambling during a campaign to approve state-operated casinos. Even more offensive to some was what they interpreted as public criticism from Focus on the Family when they didn't preach such sermons.

That disagreement focuses on the distinction between the "church gathered" and the "church dispersed." Just a short generation ago, conservative evangelicals tended to be on the other side of the argument. "It's OK for Christians to talk about racism and the war," they said then—"but don't preempt our pulpits for those discussions." Now that the issues are abortion, homosexuality, prayer in the schools, and support for Israel, some churches hear little else—even on Sunday mornings.

So I was thankful when my pastor left the platform for his announcement. It was an important symbol. And Mike Cromartie says the Ethics and Public Policy Center will sponsor still further discussions to help the rest of us fine-tune such important nuances.
The Quotable Cromartie
Recent clippings of VP and Senior Fellow. Michael Cromartie

On the new generation of evangelicals: "This new generation has the same convictions but without the edge. They may believe all the same things, but ... they've learned how to present themselves." (Washington Post, 3/6/04)

On politics and religion: Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, said that "too often, at least in religiously conservative communities ... there seems to be a concern that we must first of all get the whole culture converted to our theology before you can work for public good." Such a conversion is "not going to happen," he said, so that the question becomes: "How do you find a public grammar, a public language in order to work with people who actually agree with you on the policy but don't agree with you on the theology?" (Washington Post, 2/20/05)

On J. I. Packer's book Knowing God: "Conservative Methodists and Presbyterians and Baptists could all look at it and say, 'This sums it all up for us.'" (Time, 2/7/05)

Michael Cromartie: "The large evangelical populace in this country will cut President Bush a lot of slack. It's the self-appointed leaders in the evangelical movement who won't. I think most evangelicals are more tolerant, and understand political reality more, than the heads of organizations who try to speak for these groups." (The Bakersfield Californian, 11/12/2004)

On politics and religion: "Sure, you have a lot of progressive religious people and, politically, they are going to vote for Kerry. Your problem is that you have a small but significant cohort in the Democratic Party that is really anti-religious and doesn't want to bring religious values and norms into the public arena. That makes it difficult for people from a more moderate to conservative bent religiously to be around the party. They feel excluded and unwanted." (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 10/10/04)

On politics and religion: "Michael Cromartie, director of the evangelical studies project of the Washington-based Ethics and Public Policy Center, said the religious left is preaching to the liberal choir, not religious swing voters. 'They already have this [liberal] vote,' he said. 'This National Council of Churches crowd is not about to vote for Bush, anyway." (Washington Post, 9/4/04, p. B9)

On natural law:  "Michael Cromartie, who directs projects involving evangelicals at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, invoked thinkers like John Calvin and concepts like 'common grace,' all with impeccable REformation credentials. 'A proper appropriation of the natural law tradition,' Mr. Cromartie wrote, 'can provide a public grammar for making appeals in the public arena to people who hold diverse philosophical worldviews and presuppositions." (New York Times, 8/21/04, p. A15)

Michael Cromartie: "The debate evangelicals are having among themselves today is not whether Christians should be concerned for justice, which we should, but what role and how large a role government should have in creating that justice. ... The debate we now need to have is whether certain policies have created more justice for the marginalized, or have they made matters worse? Many eminent social sicentists think the latter." (World, July 3/10, 2004)

Michael Cromartie: "People don't want a President to think that every important decision has a stamp of God's approval and that God is always on his side. ... [Americans] want their Presidents to be pious but not self-righteously so. So there's a paradox, isn't there? A President has to seem to be relying on God's wisdom but not acting like all his decisions are God's decisions." (Time, 6/21/04) 


Mark Noll
What is an "Evangelical"?
A thoughtful look at a complicated notion

Mark Noll, professor at Wheaton College, delivered a lecture on "Understanding American Evangelicals" at EPPC's 2003 conference in Key West, Florida. He provides the history of evangelical movements, discusses the number of American evangelicals, and takes the measure of evangelical hymns. An elegant and eloquent presentation for those curious about what it means to be an evangelical. 


 The views expressed by EPPC scholars in their work are their individual views only and are not to be imputed to EPPC as an institution.     
© 1974 - 2008 Ethics and Public Policy Center
      Comments on the website or technical problems? E-mail webmaster@eppc.org