While those siding with the left’s narrative of church and politics point to evidence that Americans have a general, theoretical preference for religious leaders to avoid politics,11 when the question becomes practical, few notice it in their own congregation, let alone find it bothersome. When the Pew Research Center asked Americans attending church services at least yearly about the partisanship of the clergy and other religious leaders in their own churches, 16% said they were mostly Republicans, 11% mostly Democrats, 27% said a mix of both, and 45% were unable to say.12 This is hardly evidence of the sort of politicized pulpits the left’s narrative of Christian politics would have one believe. 

In increasingly popular view among pastors and other Christian leaders accepts a secular scholarly narrative about Christian engagement in politics. This view holds that when Christians engage in partisan politics to advocate for public policy that conforms to their beliefs about what is good for the polity, they politicize religion in ways that undermine unity in the congregation and ultimately drive people to apostasy.1 Those who engage in partisan politics also risk their own souls, creating false idols that threaten to come between them and God.2 
There are likely several reasons why this view is en vogue. As we operate increasingly in what Aaron Renn calls the negative world, one which is increasingly hostile instead of positively inclined or even neutral towards Christianity, many pastors have sought shelter by advocating political neutrality to avoid conflict with the wider society – especially if that conflict threatens to divide their congregations. Some small number, surely, have taken this position to smuggle their own liberal politics into their churches so as not to be noticed by their laity.3 More commonly, however, is that, knowing no better, pastors simply accept this narrative on faith because it is repeated by “experts.” Drawing from a point raised by the sociologist Bryan Wilson regarding the clergy’s loss of status and purpose after scientific professions took over most of the myriad roles priests once served4, pastors feel compelled to adopt scholarly views unchallenged to retain what little respectability the modern world offers to have a chance of being effective in their compartmentalized roles. 
Unfortunately, many of the claims about politics to which pastors and other leaders assent are wrong. Repeating them, even if simply to maintain respectability fails to diagnose – and very likely hinders their ability to successfully address – the real problems facing churches today. Following the recommendations of pastors spreading these myths undermines rather than strengthens religious faith. 
Both Sides-ism
For as much as issues of concern to Christians may be voiced by politicians, American politics revolves around two formally secular political parties. This fact underlines an important truth to the critiques of Christian participation in politics: because these parties are ultimately focused on winning elections and holding office, American politics can become an idol in its own right. When secular political parties and politicians, for reasons of expediency, operate in ways that defy Scripture, Christians’ loyalties are tested, and many are tempted to side with their political loyalties over their Christian identity.5 
Out of an overabundance of caution, then, pastors have sought to distance themselves from politics and similarly encourage their parishioners to steer clear. In doing so, these pastors take a position that treats both sides as equally bad. This provides what appears to be a safe position – both from a hostile culture that grows less tolerant of its enemies by the day, as well as safe from having to wade into topics that would divide their congregations – from which they offer bland commentary aimed, however feebly executed, at preventing politics from displacing religion among the laity. 
Regardless of the degree to which they may be believed, such “both sides” arguments are simply unsupported. One recent book, The Great Dechurching, claims that the right is just as injurious to faith as the left – or worse. The authors claim that “among evangelicals, there is more danger of dechurching on the right than the left…we saw evangelicals dechurching on the political right at twice the frequency of those on the political left, almost catching up to the total percentage of those who have dechurched on the secular left” (p.31). 
The authors do not present direct evidence to support the claim that “there is more danger of dechurching on the right.” While they present a graph (from a separate work by the political scientist, Ryan Burge) as supporting evidence (p.32), this graph merely shows that, over time, more white Evangelicals who reported that they never attended at the time of the survey identify as Republicans – not that more Republicans have ceased attending than Democrats. It may be the case that among Evangelicals, there are more on the political right than the left who have dechurched. However, observing a greater “frequency” of conservatives dechurching is only possible because most white Evangelicals are politically conservative – implying that both sides are not equal. 
While the authors’ language gives the impression that both sides are (at least) equally deleterious to faith, the second part of the quotation above nonetheless admits that the left has been more likely to dechurch than the right. Claiming that conservatives are “almost catching up” still requires a great deal of faith from the reader, especially because a fairly clear, robust finding in the scholarly literature shows that during the period of The Great Dechurching, liberals have been significantly more likely to cease attending than conservatives.6 A similar finding shows that Democrats are more likely to quit attending than Republicans.7 As people become more liberal politically, they become less devout and less likely to retain their faith – while the reverse is also true.8 Both sides are not equally detrimental to faith, no matter how hard some pastors pretend. 
The Impact of the “Right’s” Culture-War Politics
At the same time that they claim “there is more danger of dechurching on the right,” the authors of The Great Dechurching also lay the decline in attendance of Christians on the left at the feet of ministers with conservative politics – or merely the conservative implications of their adherence to biblical teaching.9 So the argument goes, it is the right’s involvement with the culture war that has fueled much of the decline in church attendance and the rise of the religious “nones” since the start of the 1990s. In this telling, it was the right that initiated the culture war, which produced a backlash among liberals and Democrats who, so disgusted by this entanglement of religion and conservative Republican politics, disavowed their faith. The fact that conservatives and Republicans remain so much more religiously devout than liberals and Democrats serves as the proof, this story claims, that the weaponization of religion by conservative Republicans is to blame.10 
To believe this, however, requires that one ignore the fact that the secularization of society through politics has been driven by the left.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Russell St. John |
Friday, June 9, 2023
Direct, passionate, forthright speech need not include spite, anger, or character assassination. Even Robert’s Rules of Order understands this, allowing good men to differ strongly, and to speak strongly about their differences, so long as they address the measure and not the man.

Introduction
The past few years have witnessed an increasing number of accusations of “intemperate” speech on the floor of General Assembly. Often it seems as though the accused stands guilty of little more than expressing an opinion with which the accuser disagrees. Worse yet, a man suffers the accusation of intemperance simply for expressing his opinion as though he actually believes it, using strong words to convey strong convictions. But surely the bar of “intemperate” speech stands higher than this. Should not elders, who love both the flock and the Shepherd, speak with conviction? I want to suggest that in the courts of the Church, devout men ought to state strong convictions strongly, and nothing in our polity precludes men from so doing.
Governing Documents
Would it surprise you to learn that neither the Westminster Standards nor the Book of Church Order nor the Rules of Assembly Operation nor Robert’s Rule of Order use the word “intemperate?” Our BCO does, however, speak of “temperate” speech. BCO 45-5, which discusses Dissents, Protests, and Objections, states: “If a dissent, protest, or objection be couched in temperate language, and be respectful to the court, it shall be recorded.” Noah Webster defines “temperate” as that which is “moderate; not excessive,” or “[c]ool; calm; not marked with passion; not violent,” or “free from ardent passion.”[1] We might then surmise that intemperate speech employs excessive, hot, tempestuous, violent, or ardently passionate language. In other words, intemperate speech lacks self-control, the speaker having surrendered his lips to a flood of emotion over which his character has lost dominion.
But that’s not what we’ve seen on the floor of General Assembly. If anything, we delight in order, speaking with measured reserve, such that courtesy holds sway. And courtesy toward one another ought to mark our gatherings. Robert’s Rules Article 1, Section 7 on “Debate” states: “Speakers must address their remarks to the presiding officer, be courteous in their language and deportment, and avoid all personalities, never alluding to the officers or other members by name, where possible to avoid it, nor to the motives of members.”[2] In other words, a man should address the moderator, refrain from naming other men, avoid imputing motives, and show proper respect to his brothers. I tend to think we do that well.
But does “courteous” speech preclude the use of strong words flowing from strong convictions? By no means. When Robert’s Rules addresses principles for “Decorum in Debate” in Article 7, Section 43, it asserts: “It is not allowable to arraign the motives of a member, but the nature or consequences of a measure may be condemned in strong terms. It is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.”[3] Again, no speaker should assail a brother or impute to him ill motives. But when a speaker addresses an overture, a policy, or an idea, a point of theology, ecclesiology, or missiology, a report, a document, or some other “measure” properly before the floor, then he possesses every right to speak about it—even to condemn it—in “strong terms.”
Read More
[1] Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (New York, NY: S. Converse, 1828), no pagination. Republished in Facsimile by the Foundation for American Christian Education, 2004.
[2] Henry M. Robert, Robert’s Rules of Order Revised for Deliberative Assemblies (New York, NY: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1915), 39.
[3] Robert, Robert’s Rules, 180 [emphasis added].

Related Posts:

Jordan Peterson is a professor, a pretty decent professor. He may not be the greatest thinker currently alive in western civilization, but he doesn’t need to be. No professor does. He does what a professor should do: he interrogates assumptions, presents his ideas in a clear and cogent manner, and is a respectful and courteous listener to those with whom he disagrees. Being a good professor is more than enough.

I typically stay away from topical subjects. As a scholar of Metaphysical poetry, theology, and philosophy, the subjects that I usually write about—phenomenology, sophiology, mysticism, and poetics—are not of the kind that make it into the headlines. Nevertheless, I’ve been asked to write about what has come to be called “The Jordan Peterson Phenomenon.”
Peterson, a professor of psychology at the University of Toronto, first came to national attention in his native Canada in late 2016 because he balked at his country’s new legislation demanding people use “alternative pronouns” when referring to certain persons, usually transsexuals. Quite simply, Peterson refused to use these pronouns—“ze,” “zhe,” “zir,” and so forth (I’m not even sure how to pronounce them)—arguing further that terms like “gender identity” and “gender expression” are notoriously ill-defined, despite being used to bully opponents into submission. This was Peterson’s “mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore” moment.
At the time, I was glad he stood up to the government (and university) bullies. Good for him. Universities, of all places, should be places where free speech is respected and the marketplace of ideas encouraged. Agree or disagree with Peterson, it was certainly a discussion worth having. And still is. But universities in Canada it seems, much like many of their American counterparts, are far from being open spaces hospitable to the exploration of knowledge and the pursuit of truth.
In the meantime, Peterson has become a phenomenon. And bigly. He has 518k followers on Twitter, over 898k followers on Youtube, and a bestselling book, 12 Rules for Life. Not surprisingly, Peterson’s popularity has instigated much debate and critique (a good deal of it nasty) from the press as well as from his fellow academics. The academic criticism tends to be very snippy.
Read More