sbcIMPACT
Posted by David Rogers in Baptist Life

Five Reasons the SBC Should Almost Always Refrain from Making Political Statements in Their Resolutions

" .. a resolution that touched upon national immigration reform aroused a brief, but heated debate among opposing factions from the convention floor and continues to foster discussion in the blogosphere.
Guest Poster Chris Cooper is a PhD Student in the Church History program at Southern Seminary. He is a member of Clifton Baptist Church in Louisville, KY.

While unity and an encouraging focus upon ethnic diversity and church planting marked the 2011 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, a resolution that touched upon national immigration reform aroused a brief, but heated debate among opposing factions from the convention floor and continues to foster discussion in the blogosphere. Rather than rehash various arguments concerning how the convention should stand on immigration reform, I want to address a more foundational question. Should a convention of churches make political resolutions at all? Political resolutions couched in kingdom rhetoric have become commonplace at the Annual Meeting, although this has not always been the case historically. When two messengers attempted to lead the convention to pass temperance resolutions at the 1888 Annual Meeting, they were ruled out of order by convention president James P. Boyce because the question introduced was political and lay outside the proper bounds of a convention of churches.1 What follows is a list of five reasons why Southern Baptists should return to this policy and almost always refrain from making political statements in their resolutions.

First, God created and instituted (and thus legitimated) both government and church and reigns over these two spheres differently, has given these two institutions distinct roles, and has equipped them differently to fulfill those roles. God rules over the state as creator/sustainer and has given it a non-redemptive, coercive role in society. God rules over the church as redeemer and has given her a redemptive, non-coercive role. In other words, God has given to the church the keys of the kingdom to mediate salvation through the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the ordinances, and discipline and has granted the state the sword and the right and responsibility to punish evildoers, reward virtue, and promote the welfare of its inhabitants. For this reason, a church as an institution or a convention of churches speaking with one voice through resolutions does not bear the responsibility to make laws or to add their opinions concerning the implementation of laws needed or the reform of laws already made, although it may be appropriate for her to speak with a prophetic voice when governing authorities have clearly transgressed a biblical command through policy and precept. In this way, the church does have a responsibility to speak where Christ has spoken, even if it touches upon a political concern. However, politics are often too complicated, and rarely is an issue simple enough, for a convention of churches to take positions or make political statements. For instance, the Bible is clear on what an individual church should do concerning homosexuality. They should preach that it is a sin and come alongside those who desire to follow Christ and compassionately help them to continue on in the struggle of lifelong repentance towards God and faith in Christ. They should not accept into membership, and, if members, they should discipline, those who do not express a desire to follow Christ’s commands. But what about the nation as a whole? Should a church or a convention of churches demand that a federal marriage amendment be passed? Possibly, but wouldn’t that bind the conscience of a church member who believes all that the Bible says about homosexuality, but is against a federal marriage amendment because he/she does not believe the federal government should make such powerful decisions for individual states that have their own governing bodies elected by the people?

Second, Christ instituted the church and has given her instructions for government and mission by the Holy Spirit in the Word of God through positive commands and example. A church must therefore set up her government, conduct her worship, and construct her mission according to what Christ has commanded. Whatever Christ has commanded and said in His Word, she is to say. Where Christ is silent, she is silent. The mission that Christ has given His church is not to make laws or shape public policy through opinions, but to preach the gospel, make disciples, and plant churches. Therefore, the resolutions made by a convention of churches like the Southern Baptist Convention should address issues from the perspective of preachers and church planters, not from the perspective of policy makers.

Third, a church and her members are bound by what Christ has commanded in His Word through positive command and example. Therefore, church leaders and a voting congregation or a voting convention should not bind the consciences of church members or churches where Christ has not bound them. To encourage church members or a convention of churches to associate with lost people, have compassion for them, and share the gospel with them is to encourage them to do what Christ has commanded. To take a stand on a political step concerning immigration or any other issue that Christ does not mandate is to bind a church member or a church in a way that Christ does not and is a breech of Christian liberty. To call on the government to take a certain route that Christ does not mandate is to bind them as well, and it also causes the convention of churches to turn its focus away from the particular mission that Christ has given it.

Fourth, what is appropriate for an individual Christian to do or say in society is not the same as what is appropriate for the church to do or say. In other words, a biblical distinction exists between the church as an institution of Christ and individual church members. Individual Christians are citizens of both spheres. They are citizens of Christ’s church and the nation where they are citizens, and they take part in the voting and thus the legislation of both institutions. Therefore, it is appropriate and right for individual Christians to think through the best possible scenarios for them and the nation to love their neighbors and govern society. In fact, Christians should make the best neighbors, citizens, and politicians. Non-Christian citizens are made in the image of God, have the law written on their hearts, and are constrained to act properly by the civil government. These individuals have a general sense of right and wrong and often act benevolently in God’s common grace. However, they do not have a regenerate heart or the indwelling Holy Spirit, are at enmity with God, and often act from selfish ambition. Christian citizens, on the other hand, are made in the image of God, have the law written on their hearts, are in subjection to the governing authorities, and have a new heart, the Holy Spirit, and the Word of God. Therefore, individual Christians should be involved in politics and conversations concerning the reform of unjust laws and policies. However, a Christian should not call it a sin or pretend that he holds the only gospel approach to an issue when another Christian comes to a different conclusion on a political question upon which the Bible has not spoken definitively.
The resolution on immigration and reform presented by the resolutions committee represented in its entirety a well-thought out, biblically based position on immigration reform appropriate for an individual Christian to propagate, but not the position found in the Bible (one does not exist) and certainly not what the church should declare as a spiritual institution.

Finally, a church or a convention of churches has an eternally more important mission than the state and a wonderful message, a message that is powerful enough in and of itself to bring salvation without the church having to align herself with a particular political position or cause. She has the words of eternal life and the message of reconciliation with God. This message may seem irrelevant and out of touch to those who are perishing, but to those who believe, it is the power of salvation. Therefore, a convention of churches does not have to make resolutions on cultural hot button issues and national politics in order to be effective or to be faithful. A church and a convention of churches does not prove that they are faithful to the Lord’s Word concerning homosexuality by passing a resolution on federal policy, but, as stated above, they prove that they are faithful when they preach the gospel to unbelieving persons struggling with homosexual attraction and come alongside them to help them begin the lifelong struggle of repentance towards God and faith in Christ.

In a like manner, a convention of churches does not have to pass a resolution that takes a position concerning the future legal status of undocumented immigrants in order to validate their pledge to preach the gospel to undocumented immigrants and to act compassionately towards them.

It is my hope that Southern Baptists would consider these arguments and principles and some day in the not too distance future refrain from making political statements in their resolutions, especially since we as Southern Baptists expressed a desire for regional and ethnic diversity at this past convention. In the past, Southern Baptists have passed politically worded resolutions with little controversy, because people from the same age-group, region, and denominational background tend to see things concerning government from the same general perspective. However, if we are successful in reaching people of different regions, ethnicities, and age-groups, we are just as likely to alienate them from Southern Baptist life once they come in, if we continue to take unwarranted, official political positions rather than focus on cooperating to plant churches.
———————
1Joe L. Coker, Liquor in the Land of the Lost Cause: Southern White Evangelicals and the Prohibition Movement (Lexington, KY: The University of Kentucky Press), 95.

Source: http://sbcimpact.org/2011/06/29/five-re ... solutions/