Being a Pastor and Speaking Out in Today’s Culture

Perhaps this article by Dr. Michael Milton, the chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary, will be of some benefit to Reformed brothers involved in politics:

http://michaelmilton.org/2012/08/17/being-a-pastor-and-speaking-out-in-todays-culture/

Dr. Milton is much more important than me. If "Two Kingdoms" people want to argue that the views of the chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary are not Reformed, that would make for an interesting debate. I have my own problems with RTS, but this article isn't one of them.

Key quote: "... if the matter is important enough for me to address in preaching or writing, I believe I am just being pastoral to God’s people. I cannot compartmentalize the Lordship of Christ to only one area of life. He is Lord of all. So, is it right that pastors should remain silent about important matters in society that are being debated in the public square because someone is trying to establish in our culture that there is no place in politics for religious beliefs or moral convictions that have been born out of a faith commitment? Because people (and fellow pastors) squirm when sin is exposed in politics or culture, does that mean we should refrain from preaching? No. It may mean just the opposite."

A pastor I know recently told me that he was criticized for being “too political.” He has heard such an indictment all his ministry, he said. Today he leads a major ministry in America and battles daily for the rights of pastors to speak so that believers can speak. Recently, he has preached of the evils of and disastrous consequences of same sex marriage and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” His prophetic word upsets the establishment. His voice is prophetic. His heart is pastoral. Can the two co exist?

I have heard the similar charges in my ministry through the years. I accept the critique. However, if the matter is important enough for me to address in preaching or writing, I believe I am just being pastoral to God’s people. I cannot compartmentalize the Lordship of Christ to only one area of life. He is Lord of all.

So, is it right that pastors should remain silent about important matters in society that are being debated in the public square because someone is trying to establish in our culture that there is no place in politics for religious beliefs or moral convictions that have been born out of a faith commitment? Because people (and fellow pastors)squirm when sin is exposed in politics or culture, does that mean we should refrain from preaching? No. It may mean just the opposite.

Is a pastor solely limited to sharing the Gospel to his flock on Sunday mornings? Or was the late Dr. John Stott right that one of our identities as Gospel preachers, in a faithful Biblical portrait of a pastor, is a “herald”? The pastor is not a prophet, yet he most certainly does carry a prophetic voice and speaks with Biblical authority to other Beast-like powers when there are souls at risk or the honor of Christ and His Church under siege.

I have an intuitive concern that the liberal professor who won’t let the young believer raise her hand in a state university and speak from her conviction is now trying to govern public discourse. Well, I am not governed by political correctness that has been born out of a liberal educational system or by the pressure of a liberal press but by the one and only true God. The public square is not the university professor’s classroom nor is it the TV news studio. This is my Father’s world. Therefore, I speak, and I speak publicly, as the Lord gives an open door, through media, because I am compelled by compassion for souls that may be victims of systems that will ultimately enslave them.

I believe that pastors must speak to our declining culture, whatever their pulpit. I am pastorally concerned that that there are dangerous idols masquerading under the banner of politics in this increasingly secularized culture. These heaven-rejected powers prefer that we keep quiet. But when the powers move beyond the Machiavellian machinations of politics to the advocacy of principles at odds with God’s Word we must call them out.

The prophets and church fathers of old spoke forth concerning the actions of governments, individuals yielding power, and the idols of culture. Our Lord Jesus did when he said of Herod “Go tell that Fox” (Luke 13:32), St. Paul did, the church fathers did, and the Reformers did. In the Twentieth Century I thank God that J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937) was not afraid to speak to the ungodliness in his culture (read Stephen Nichols‘ fine biography of Mechen). And what of Bonhoeffer opposing the idolatry of Statism and the ungodliness of the Church being subservient to National Socialism? How about Solzenitchen exposing the inhumanity of Soviet Communism and the sun human conditions of the gulag?? What about the preaching of Martin Luther King, Jr as he warned of the evil of a racism that had to be eradicated from our own culture? Today pastors like Ugandan Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi preach against the powers of darkness, expose evil in government, and even in churches in our own nation as missionaries to America, and warn people while compassionately inviting them to Christ. Why? Because pastors are like watchmen on the wall (Ezekiel 33) required by God to sometimes we must warn of coming danger, even if others cry “Off limits!” To do otherwise is to be disobedient to our calling. God says if there is harm to his people because the watchmen were silent they will have the blood of the people on their hands. This is a sobering warning to pastors and trumps any criticism of being “too political.”

(1) Pastors must represent no man but God and party but His Kingdom. We therefore refuse to be used as pawns by any political party. We are aware of Psalms 2 that the rulers of this world conspire against God and His Son. We study. We pray. We speak, therefore, when we must, on behalf of the truths of God’s Word to help people.

(2) Pastors must diagnose the presenting ill to discover the real issue beneath it. Only then do we speak. Diagnosis requires prayer, wisdom, courage, and the leading of the Lord. Speaking requires courage and counting the cost. If it is a real or potential spiritual harm coming from the presenting issues of culture or politics, then we must deliver the diagnosis and offer the cure in the Person of Jesus Christ and His Word. If I happen to yell “Warning!” and the demon under the cloak of culture is a straw-man then I have expended my pastoral capitol, perhaps compromising my ability to preach into real or more critical situations. But if it is not a straw-man, and instead an instrument of the “devil, the flesh or the world” that would further mar the image of God in man or further distance us from God, then woe to me if I speak not.

So we must preach, even when the culture labels our message “off limits.” We will live with that criticism because we are pastors and we follow One and His disciples who also were criticized (and crucified) for assuming an authority that challenged theirs.

(3) Pastors must pray for each situation that startles our shepherding instincts, and weigh whether a given issue is an assault on our conscience worth exposing. It is understood that some matters are just politics or a reflection of a sick culture, and a pathology more ably addressed by other men and women.

(4) Pastors must ground their preaching in God’s Word, the Bible. We have no authority apart from His Word. We must also always offer the way out through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To do less is to be embroiled in the political debate. But preaching with an conclusion that leads to freedom in Christ is above the storm, where it should be.

My pulpit (including this column) is not for sale to any political party. I care not a whit for using my position to promote any political agenda. I do care for souls. That is my job. And I will preach. That is my calling.

Jesus said that we need to be as wise as serpents and harmless as doves (Matthew 10:16). Thomas Watson, one the most pastoral of 17th century Puritans said of this passage in his Body of Divinity, “To understand worldly affairs is the wisdom of the serpent; yet to not neglect the soul is the innocence of the dove.”

Dangers exist on all sides for the pastor. But, who said the job would be easy? Yet to silence the pastor in any realm is to cause the Church to retreat into a secluded ghetto where we can no longer be salt and light in the world. And that cannot be. We are pastors. We are shepherds. We comfort the afflicted and on occasion may afflict the comfortable, as it is sometimes put. The ground of our ministry is love from a pure conscience. Let us not abandon our post as long as God gives us the strength to stand. Let us be silent no more. ____

Michael Milton, Ph.D. Is a Presbyterian (PCA) minister and Chancellor/CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary. He is also the James M. Baird Jr. Professor of Pastoral Theology. A US Army Reserve chaplain, singer/songwriter, author, and frequent preacher at churches and conferences around the world, Milton resides with wife and son in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he and his family enjoy classic movies, gardening, and nice country walks in the beautiful Carolina landscape.

Ping.

This article is by Michael Milton, a Presbyterian Church in America pastor and the chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary, defending Christians participating in politics. It seems like a useful argument against the “Radical Two Kingdoms” or R2K viewpoint.

I think most Freepers will agree with the main points of the article and it will be especially helpful to Calvinists who are having to fight “Radical Two Kingdoms” views in our churches.

There is one point, however — many of us won't like his citation of Martin Luther King. Please don't let that turn you off to the entire article.

Dr. Milton's point is not to defend King's views but rather to point out to liberals that they are very inconsistent in affirming King's right to participate in politics but opposing conservative pastors when they do the same. He also points out the role of a black African archbishop who has helped North American conservative Episcopalians being abused by their liberal white priests and bishops.

Let's just remember that PCA ministers in the South, due to their history of being the heirs of men like Dabney and Thornwell, need to be especially careful to make clear they are not racists.

When America was a Republic (as opposed to the now ever more powerful centralized autocracy) the local church was the center of the community and the community revolved around the Church. Charity came from the local church and not from Washington. Social Services were a church function and not a function of some bureaucrat 2500 miles away who dictates everything from some Ivory Tower. The church was not only relevant to a community but essential to it.

Today local churches are politically irrelevant. They are no longer the source of social services or charity. Their temporal functions have been replaced by food stamps and section 8 housing vouchers paid by faceless taxpayers who have no money left for charity after the government robs them of their incomes.

There was a time when there was no thought of 2 kingdoms because there was only one. The local church was where the temporal needs of a community and the spiritual needs were all met in one place.

The bigger the government the smaller the individual and the more irrelevant the church becomes. Churches that want to be relevant to their communities must work to decentralize government and then voluntarily pick up the slack when government charities and services are necessarily cut.

I would not say the PCA is all good or the PC(USA) is all bad.

Short answer on why:

While there are still evangelicals in the PC(USA), their numbers are declining as the denomination gets worse and worse. On the other hand, there certainly are problematic people in the PCA. That is not an attack, but rather is what we should expect. Total depravity means the best churches are still mixtures of good and evil.

Longer answer:

The PCA tolerates some important theological errors and isn't always very confessionally Reformed, but the PC(USA) actively embraces evil and long ago abandoned any pretext of holding its minsters to the confessions it claims to still affirm.

This is in large matter a question of context. It's also due to the fact that the PCA has more members than every other conservative Presbyterian and Reformed denomination in the United States, combined. Big tents tend to attract people who avoid attention that would be inevitable in smaller denominations.

The PCA is the main secession group that left the PC(US), the old Southern Presbyterian denomination, before the Northern and Southern Presbyterians reunited about three decades ago to form the PC(USA). It is clearly an evangelical denomination and some of its churches may be better described as fundamentalist, and my problems with the PCA have to do with the secondary issue of whether it is consistently Reformed.

Here is what I don’t understand about Reformed Churches. They are supposed to subscribe to the Westminster Confession yet they tolerate obvious theological and eccumenical errors to the point where churches like PCUSA can effectively turn their back on the bible and Christ and preach doctrines of demons and stay within the fellowship of what is supposed to be a reformed organization.

Is there no central authority to ensure doctrinal compliance?

I come from a new tradition church (Calvary Chapel) in which just about anyone with the desire and commitment to Christ can become a pastor even without any theological training. They have a concrete doctrinal statement that is adhered to religiously by the pastors or they are stripped of their commission and their churches are decertified.

Quite Frankly I personally do not qualify for a pastoral position with Calvary Chapel because I drink wine and I am much more Reformed than they would probably tolerate. Yet I know that if I go to a Calvary Chapel church anywhere in the world, I will get the same doctrinal and biblical teaching from the pulpit, be it in Christ’s Church New Zealand or Moscow Russia. That gives me comfort and assurance.

What is it about the Presbyterian Church model that allows for such divergence of teaching that I can’t be assured when I go to a Presbyterian Church in a strange city that I will not be preached doctrines of demons? Is there some ecclesiastical control organization that can strip these renegade congregations from the body?

Thank you for the ping. I hope it is not unintentional, since I am Catholic.

The thesis of this article is axiomatic to a Catholic. Of course, each Christian believer has a mission to educate and convert the world around him; social conventions and speech laws such as political correctness or separation of church and state are mere obstacles that government place on us. These restrictions are anti-Christian and illegitimate in the eye of God.

let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven (Mt 5:16)

[26] Therefore fear them not. For nothing is covered that shall not be revealed: nor hid, that shall not be known. [27] That which I tell you in the dark, speak ye in the light: and that which you hear in the ear, preach ye upon the housetops. [28] And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell. [29] Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father. [30] But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. [31] Fear not therefore: better are you than many sparrows. [32] Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. [33] But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. [34] Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword. [35] For I came to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. [35] I came to set a man at variance: Not that this was the end or design of the coming of our Saviour; but that his coming and his doctrine would have this effect, by reason of the obstinate resistance that many would make, and of their persecuting all such as should adhere to him. [36] And a man's enemies shall be they of his own household. (Mt 10)

We ought to obey God, rather than men (Acts 5:29)

Perhaps a Reformed pastor would think that the preaching based directly on the Bible is OK but preaching on the moral behavior in the controversies of the day, and on the desirability of laws are subject to a restriction? I believe the above quotes show that the subject matter of public preaching is (a) not restricted to matters purely religious but rather pertain to any "works"; (b) may be contrary to habits of men, even contrary to the national consensus; (c) may be held illegal by civil law.

Also, "Solzenitchen" should be Solzhenitsyn, to whom belongs this simple rule of life "One must live not upon a lie".

Good article and the point is that pastors specifically and Christians in general should not be silent. There is no such thing as a division between belief and life.

I was told by my church elders to be less controversial in my prayers for civil leaders. I asked God to grant favor on our nation and give us the situation in the future where we have the choice between the greater of two goods rather than the choice between the lesser of two evils, like when we are confronted with the choice between a man who by his actions has shown hostility to God's church and a man who is an enthusiastic proponent of a false gospel.

While none of the elders would disagree with the truth of my statement, there was concern about giving offense to visitors. Based on the stated concern, I'm willing to submit to their request (and it was a request, not an order). Personally, I think a couple of elders are doing some real soul-searching and would just as soon bury their heads in the sand rather than confront the dilemma that Mitt Romney should present to Bible-believing Christians. We are not being asked to vote for a follower of Baal but instead a high priest of Baal. Romney's politics alone should have been enough to drive conservatives (such as these men would profess to be) away but his advocacy of Mormonism takes this bad choice to a whole different level.

8 posted on Fri Aug 24 2012 00:47:27 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by P-Marlowe: “What is it about the Presbyterian Church model that allows for such divergence of teaching that I can’t be assured when I go to a Presbyterian Church in a strange city that I will not be preached doctrines of demons? Is there some ecclesiastical control organization that can strip these renegade congregations from the body?”

The short answer is that a Presbyterian denomination is only as good as the presbyteries — the regional groups of ruling elders and ministers.

Conservative Presbyterian denominations have presbyteries that will enforce the confessional standards and general assemblies or synods which will back them up. Moderate and liberal Presbyterian denominations got that way because presbyteries didn't want to be “too strict” by removing unqualified men, or thought the need for ministers was so great that they ordained men who should not have been ordained in the first place.

A much longer answer could be given, but that's the root of how liberalism gets into Presbyterian denominations.

While details differ, similar things could be said of many other denominations. A church with the name “Baptist” may differ radically depending on whether it is American Baptist or Southern Baptist or in the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship. A Nazarene congregation and a United Methodist congregation both share Wesleyan roots, but the denominations are radically different because of many years of difference in how and whether the rules get followed and enforced when they're not followed.

Every denomination has a system of teaching, supporting, and encouraging its own distinctives, and when necessary, enforcing them. Bad things happen when denominations don't follow their own rules.

Every denomination has a system of teaching, supporting, and encouraging its own distinctives, and when necessary, enforcing them. Bad things happen when denominations don't follow their own rules.

The reason why I asked those questions was because many years ago there was a website run by a former Calvary Chapel member who became a Presbyterian and he dedicated his life to trying to destroy the Calvary Chapel Ministry. He criticized the top down ecclesiastical model of Calvary Chapel which consisted of the Senior Pastor (who made all the doctrinal and other important biblical and spiritual decisions) supported by a board of directors (consisting of long time members of the congregation). He apparently thought that the biblical and therefore correct method of running a church was the method adopted by the Presbyterian Church.

But what you are telling me is that the Presbyterian method is only as good as the members and when the members collectively decide to follow doctrines of demons and start celebrating sins like homosexuality, that the Pastor must either join in the apostasy or the church can kick him out.

Seeing as how I can go to any Calvary Chapel in the world and be assured that I will receive the same doctrinal teachings and that I will not be greeted by homosexual pastors or liberal agnostic feel good theologians, I have to wonder which method really is the best for protecting a denomination from falling into apostasy and turning over the ministry to Satan.

Comments?

As a United Methodist elder, I can agree with your comments about Nazarene and Methodist. I could make some more detailed observations, but as a broad overview, your comments are correct.

However, let me add that there is a penchant for liberals to be successful in suborning hierarchies that have no final head/authority. There is no “head” of Methodism, but we have a hierarchy. Liberals have no problem keeping silent about their opinions until their numbers or their positions enables them to speak without fear of reprisal. That is similar to the suborning of the Presbyterian church.

So, independent local congregations and titular head denominations have been able to withstand the liberal onslaught. With titular head denominations, it is a matter of time before the head that is named is also liberal, even if a clandestine liberal.

Independent local congregations are immune to the extent that they stay faithful. Individual congregations can go wacko, but the denomination remains largely faithful.

Excellent article and very timely. While I'm not a preacher, this is something I often struggle with. Should I say something at the office when my boss makes an atheist comment or should I be silent? I know that saying something really won't make a difference but is this just rationalization of my own sinful behavior or is this simply not wishing to cast pearls before swines?

I see pastors as specially appointed by God to give the rest of us a swift kick in the pants to get going. I see our responsibility to support these people who give us these kicks. So, yes, it's very important that these men of God stand firm in their faith and we give them the support needed. These are our leaders that God has appointed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.