Wright or Wrong?

I’m sure that if you’ve been paying any attention at all to the recent political landscape you’ve seen the recent comments made from the pulpit by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Rev. Wright is the pastor and spiritual mentor of Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama. Much has been made of Senator Obama’s personal connection to Rev. Wright. The senator has had a 20 year personal relationship with this man, was married by him, and has had his children baptized by him. This of course raises many questions about senator Obama’s associations and the people he chooses to surround himself with. All politics aside though, I think that this raises an important question for the church to wrestle with. How politically active should the church be? More specifically, what is the political responsibility of the pastor with regard to the opinions he expresses in a Sunday sermon?
Whatever your political affiliation might be, it is important to recognize that there are indeed social and political implications to the gospel. Whenever the gospel is received there should be a natural response in the ordering of a person’s life and priorities. To deny this is really to deny the life changing power of the message. So, to what degree should a pastor engage in political rhetoric in his sermons?
I find this question extremely fascinating, as it is not only the proponents of liberal Christian theology that are involved in this sort of activity. Fundamentalists are also guilty of making sweeping generalizations and stereotypes in order to further a social agenda. Of course we must keep in mind that great movements throughout history have materialized as a result of the church’s sense of social responsibility ie. The abolitionist movement, women’s suffrage, civil rights movement etc. One of the key questions that must be asked is how Christ relates to culture. Is Christ (as H. Richard Niebuhr framed the question) in opposition to culture, in agreement with culture, above culture, or reforming culture? It is how the pastor understands this element of Christology which ultimately determines how he responds to political and social concerns.
We must also in answering this question maintain fidelity to the scriptures and to how the Bible frames ministerial responsibility. How did Paul for example view his ministry and his responsibility to communicate the gospel? I think the passage in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 is particularly telling:

“When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power.”

I think that this passage more than any other can help us understand the major emphasis of Paul’s ministry. Paul in his preaching, it seems, was more focused on communicating about the cross than he was about the culture. This passage betrays a fundamental understanding on the part of Paul, that the message of the cross in and of itself has the power to change lives. It would seem that the Apostle understood culture and even politics to reflect a collective of underlying presuppositions within society. So that a person’s social and political worldview is actually symptomatic of a deeper system of values which are distinctly “religious” in nature. The way in which Paul sought to be a change agent was in the communication of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus have inherent power to influence people at the most base level of their beings. When Jesus is placed squarely at the center of a person’s life, the most fundamental questions are answered. The gospel answers questions like: who am I? Why am I here? Where am I going? Etc. Paul didn’t seek to change a person’s political or cultural worldview as such. He understood that once the cross of Christ was introduced into a person’s life everything else would change. This is called the process of sanctification, when a person is daily brought more into conformity with Christ. That individual would have a better understanding of the broader context and how they fit within that context.
So should a pastor be involved in culture and in politics? I think that the short answer is, “yes”. I would certainly qualify that response by saying that his primary responsibility is to communicate the gospel and to strengthen believers, and then it is the responsibility of the church (the people of God) as a whole to be salt and light in the various spheres of influence according to their gifts. A pastor does not advance the Kingdom of God by railing on about real or perceived social ills. A minister’s effectiveness is limited by his willingness to be used of God to communicate the good news of salvation and hope in God’s grace.