Morality, Politics, and a Broken Heart

Written on Nov. 11, 2008 

It would appear that in many ways those who view themselves as fighting the battle for morality in America are losing ground. Although with the passage of Proposition 8 in California and similar measures in Florida and Arizona, homosexual marriage is banned for the present, the general trend in America, at least in matters of sexual morality, is towards greater and greater licentiousness. With the election of Barack Obama, and his stated intention to push forward the Freedom of Choice Act, the pro-life movement has undoubtedly been dealt a major blow for years to come. Whether or not there was ever any substance to the implied claim behind the name, the existence of a bona fide “moral majority” in America seems to be on the fast track to becoming a relic of the past. In a democratic system, the opinions of the majority rule. And as much as we might hate to admit it, the results of the recent election make it clear that the majority in America are not prepared to give those with a consistently biblical worldview a mandate to carry out their convictions through the legal system and governing institutions of our nation. 

In other areas, there are encouraging signs of moral and ethical advance. Although we are still clearly light-years away from totally obliterating the blight of racism from among us, the general tendency does seem to be toward equalization and reconciliation. I have personally been deeply impacted on the several occasions I have visited the National Civil Rights Museum on the premises of the old Lorraine Motel in downtown Memphis, where Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was brutally assassinated in 1968. The walk down the symbolic corridor of the history of civil rights is a living memorial to the fact that when people stand up for what is right and refuse to cave in to the pressures around them it is indeed possible to effect change for the better. I believe that in many ways the election of Barack Obama is, as it were, the crowning jewel on the long trail of struggles and accomplishments towards the goal of racial equality and justice. 

As Christians, however, we are called to be more than moral and ethical crusaders. As the Body of Christ, we are called to take upon ourselves the father heart of God for a corrupt, dying, and desperate world that has lost its way on the path of truth and justice. It is also true that we are called to take a prophetic stance toward the evil and unrighteousness we see around us, and that at times this may involve a righteous indignation similar to that shown by Jesus when He overturned the tables of the money-changers in the temple courts. But I believe there is one element that determines whether our words and actions in support of morality and ethical justice truly reflect the heart of God or not. And that element is a broken heart. 

In some ways, a moral and political agenda driven by a broken heart can be hard to distinguish from one that is not. On many occasions, the actual votes that are tallied may end up being the same on both accounts. But, deep down, at a root level, they are worlds apart. To illustrate, I believe we could well add another verse to the beginning of 1 Corinthians 13: If I have a 100% “moral report card” rating, and give all my time, all my efforts, and all my money to support all the right causes, but have not love—if I am not motivated at the core of my being by a humble, contrite spirit, and a broken heart before the Lord—I am nothing, and I gain nothing. 

In the world of politics, the key is expediency. In order to move your agenda forward, you must know how to form coalitions. You must be loyal to the party platform. You must know how to use the media and the power of persuasion. If given the chance, you must know how to “stick it” to your opponent. For us, as citizens of the Kingdom of God, I see a special danger in taking our cues from those in the public media who may share a commitment to certain planks of our moral agenda but who do not share our commitment to the lordship of Christ, and who are not motivated at the core of their being by a broken heart. 

In practical terms, how does this play out? I believe that the following questions may help us to sort a good bit of this out:

On the issue of abortion, what is it that truly drives us? Do we really and truly grieve the tragic loss of millions of innocent lives? Do we feel the pain of mothers and fathers who are deceived by the enemy into sacrificing the precious life of their unborn children? Are we sympathetic to the social and economic plight of many, which in one way or another plays into their deception?

On the issue of gay rights, do we really and truly “hate the sin and love the sinner”? Do we feel compassion for those who sense they did not choose to be the way they are (whether we agree with this assessment or not)? Are we really and truly broken-hearted for the children that might possibly suffer the negative consequences of being raised in a home without a healthy mother-and-father parenting team?

On the issue of racism and civil rights, are we truly moved by a desire for friendship, understanding, repentance, and reconciliation with those who are different than us? Do we feel the pain of those who have been systematically discriminated against and whose lot in life has been pre-determined to one degree or another by the color of their skin, their national or ethnic background, gender, or religious beliefs? 

On the issue of war, do we truly mourn the casualties—not only the deaths, but also the physical, psychological, social, and economic trauma—suffered on both sides of the conflict? Independently of what we feel are the best means to accomplish it, are we motivated more by a desire for freedom, justice, and protection of oppressed people around the world from the cruel hands of tyranny and terrorism than by a desire for vengeance and defense of our national pride?

On the issue of the economy and social welfare, do we really and truly desire a society in which the weak and helpless are taken care of with dignity and compassion? Independently of what we feel may be the best path to get there, do we honestly long for an economy that is able to provide a worthy job, a decent education, adequate housing, and basic health care for everyone? Do we want to see a system in place in which everyone who is physically and mentally able is encouraged to work productively with the hands and minds God has given them in order that they might have a healthy sense of well-being and accomplishment?

On the issue of the environment, does it sadden us to see God’s creation selfishly exploited for the unfettered advance of commercial interests? Do we really and truly take to heart the stewardship God has given us to care for the world around us as well as we possibly can?

On the issue of immigration, independently of what we think may be the best solution, do we feel compassion for the plight of those born and raised in contexts that do not allow them the same privileges and opportunities we enjoy as native-born Americans? Do we feel genuine sympathy for those who are doing the best they can to scrape together enough to provide for the basic needs of their family? Are we truly generous and big-hearted with the blessings God has showered upon us as a nation?

On the issue of crime, are we motivated by a sense of grief for the pain inflicted upon the victims, and the losses they suffer? Provided the rights and well-being of the victims are taken care of, do we also have a heart that desires the repentance, forgiveness, restitution and rehabilitation of those who have given in to the temptation of the devil and ended up committing criminal acts against their fellow man? 

In the end, we may never know for sure the political consequences of our actions and approach. It may well be that God Himself is working against our efforts for moral reform in the political arena with a view towards bringing His judgment upon America. However, none of that takes away from our responsibility to do what is right, and even more importantly, to do what we do with an attitude of humility and brokenness before God. It may well mean losing many more elections. For the captives of Judah in Babylon, God had determined a period of 70 years. Personally, I do not believe we have biblical warrant to expect true and lasting peace, justice, and morality on the earth until Jesus Himself comes back to establish His kingdom. But in the meantime, we do have a biblical command to be salt and light in the midst of this morally insipid and dark world in which we live.

It may just be that some of those who are put off by the smug, sarcastic, and arrogant attitude of some of the moralists around us will eventually be won over by a kinder and gentler approach, and a heart that really cares. I certainly hope so. But, then again, we can never be sure of that. After all, the same world that opposes us and our efforts for good ended up crucifying the One who embodied more than anyone who has ever lived a genuinely broken heart for the griefs and woes of fallen humanity.

The Title, Office, and Function of “Pastor”

Places in the Bible where church leaders are called “pastors”:

Ephesians 4:11-13 (ESV). “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

Ezekiel 34 also uses a form of the Hebrew verb ra’ah (“to shepherd”) to refer in a general sense to spiritual leaders in Israel.

Passages where the term “pastor/shepherd” is used as a verb:

1 Peter 5:1-4 (ESV). “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.”

John 21:16 (ESV). “He said to him a second time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’” 

Acts 20:28 (ESV). “Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.”

Many Bible scholars have pointed out that in Acts 20:28 the terms “overseer” and “pastor/shepherd” (used as a verb) are used to refer to the same person, and that in 1 Peter 5:1-4 the terms “elder,” “overseer” (as a verb), and “pastor” (as a verb) are all used to refer to the same person. Strictly speaking, the title of the person in this passage is “elder,” and two of the functions of this person are “overseeing” and “pastoring” (or “shepherding”).

Based on these observations, many Bible students (and I among them) have concluded that the terms “elder,” “overseer,” and “pastor” may be used interchangeably to refer to the same person. Of the three terms, “elder,” “overseer,” and “pastor,” the one that is least common in the Bible to refer to a church leader is the term “pastor.” In modern-day church life (at least in many circles), however, the term that is most widely used is the term “pastor.” This anomaly has created a good deal of confusion. Different churches and traditions sometimes use different terminology to refer to the same thing, and the same terminology to refer to different things.

To make things even more confusing, Ephesians 4:11, the only passage that appears to refer to church leaders as “pastors/shepherds” as a noun also links “pastors/shepherds” to the noun “teachers,” thus implying that they are two aspects of the same role.

All of this leads us to ask a few pointed questions: 

Is it biblically permissible for a woman to teach? I would say that it depends on the context. First Timothy 2:11-12 informs us that, according to Paul, it is not permitted for a woman to “teach or to exercise authority over a man.” Yet Colossians 3:16 generally enjoins all Christians to “teach and admonish one another in all wisdom.” Acts 18:26 informs us that both Aquila and his wife Priscilla “took [Apollos] aside and explained to him the way of God more accurately.”

What is the function of an overseer? First Timothy 3:1–7 not only lays out for us the qualifications for someone who occupies the office of overseer; it also tells us something of the function of those who occupy this office:

“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.”

‭‭

A few observations: The masculine pronoun is used exclusively here to refer to those who occupy the office of overseer. Also, one of the qualifications listed is that he must be “the husband of one wife.” I believe this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that for Paul the office of overseer was to be limited to qualified males. 

In addition, though the majority of the qualifications for overseers have to do with personal character, we also learn something here of the function of overseers. First, they are to be “able to teach.” And if they are required to be able to teach, it is a pretty safe assumption that at least part of their job description involved teaching. Next, they are to care for God’s church. The only other time the Greek word translated “take care of” here is used in the New Testament is in the parable of the Good Samaritan when the Samaritan took the beaten up man to the roadside inn/hospital and “took care of” him. The idea is that overseers have a special responsibility to look out for the welfare of the congregations in which they serve. Acts 20:28 (mentioned above) also says that overseers are to “care for the church of God,” though the Greek word in this case means “to shepherd” or “to pastor.”

This thought also calls to mind Hebrews 13:17a, which although not specifically using the terms “overseer,” “elder,” or “pastor,” appears to refer to those occupying that office: “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls, as those who will have to give an account.”

The parallel passage is Titus 1:5–9, in which Paul instructs his apostolic assistant Titus in Crete in much the same way he instructed his apostolic assistant Timothy with regard to his role in Ephesus: 

“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

‭‭

One of the first things to notice here is that Paul appears to use the terms “elder” and “overseer” interchangeably. He does not, however, use the term “pastor,” either as a noun or as a verb. Also, just as in 1 Timothy 3, he uses the masculine pronoun to refer to elders and overseers, and he stipulates that an elder should be “the husband of one wife.” Once again, in addition to various matters of personal character he is to be qualified to “give instruction in sound doctrine.”

From all the above, I think we can safely infer that among the functions of those occupying the office of “overseer/elder/pastor” are teaching and caring for others in a pastoral sense, similar to the way a shepherd takes care of sheep. What is not quite so clear, however, is the idea that only overseers/elders/pastors are to teach or to care for church members. They may well have a special official responsibility to do so. But others who do not also occupy the office of “overseer/elder/pastor” also sometimes teach and sometimes care for members pastorally.

All this begs the question of whether it is ever appropriate to refer to someone who does not occupy the office of “overseer/elder/pastor” and who exercises the ministry of caring for others in the church by the title “pastor.” I agree that in our current 21st-century church milieu, using the term “pastor” in that sense may give rise to a certain degree of confusion and misunderstanding. It is probably, therefore, unwise to do so. But I do not believe it is technically unbiblical or heterodox to do so. Therefore, in order to determine if a church that refers to women by the title “pastor” is doctrinally aberrant, it will be necessary first of all to determine whether they are using that term to refer to someone who occupies the biblical office of “overseer/elder/pastor” or not.

Christianity Is a Group Activity

In 2010, American Sociological Review published a groundbreaking study entitled “Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction,” carried out by Chaeyoon Lim of the University of Wisconsin, and Robert D. Putnam of Harvard University. According to Lim and Putnam, many previous studies indicate a statistical correspondence between religious belief and a general sense of well-being in life. However, up till then, it had been difficult to put a finger on the precise causes for this. As a result of their analysis of a 2006 telephone survey of a representative sample of 3,108 adults, though, they believe they successfully identified an important additional factor contributing toward this correspondence. 

According to Lim and Putnam, there is significant statistical evidence to point not merely to religious faith, in and of itself, as a primary cause of life satisfaction, but more specifically religious faith coupled with active involvement in a religious community, including especially a significant core of personal relationships with other members of the same community. Interestingly, they claim the evidence does not point toward a significant increase in life satisfaction as a result of religious faith practiced outside of the context of friendships within a religious community, nor as a result of close relationships maintained outside of a specifically religious community. It is only when these two factors are combined that there is a corresponding significant increase in life satisfaction. As they say at the conclusion of the study, “It is neither faith nor communities, per se, that are important, but communities of faith. For life satisfaction, praying together seems to be better than either bowling together or praying alone.” 

Before we get all excited, and look to this study as the foolproof way to convince people to become active in our church, however, it is important to point out, in the interest of honesty, that the results of the study do not point to a significant divergence of life satisfaction among the faithful of different religious communities. As Lim and Putnam observe, “For life satisfaction, what matters is how involved one is with a religious community, not whether that community is Baptist, Catholic, or Mormon.” It is also important to point out that it is not church attendance, in and of itself, that makes the difference, but rather friendships and relationships within a congregation. As a matter of fact, according to Lim and Putnam, “Our analysis also suggests that people who belong to a congregation but have no friends there are even less satisfied than individuals who do not attend religious services or who have no congregation. In short, ‘sitting alone in the pew’ does not enhance one’s life satisfaction.” 

It is also very interesting to note that, apart from significant involvement with a group of close friends in a religious community, “Strength of religious faith does not appear to be an important factor, either. People who believe in God or heaven with an absolute certainty do not differ significantly from those who have less certain views. Another interesting finding is that private religious practices, such as prayer and holding religious services at home, are not significantly related to life satisfaction. It is revealing that the collective experience of religion in a congregation is more closely linked to life satisfaction than are private practices and individual experiences of religion.” 

What does all this mean for us as committed Christians? First of all, I would say that a sociological study, no matter how scientific the methods used, or how accurate the results, is not a sufficiently reliable source upon which to base our beliefs or practice. For us, the only infallible guide of faith and practice is the Bible itself. Next, I would say that, according to the revelation we have received in the Word of God, happiness, in and of itself, is not the end-all of life, nor the sole criterion upon which to base our decisions. As my father, Adrian Rogers, said, “God is not so interested in making you happy and healthy as He is in making you holy.” However, there is a sense in which authentic biblical Christianity ought to be accompanied by a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction in life. As John Piper says, “God is most glorified in you when you are most satisfied in him.” Jesus said, “I came that they may have life and have it abundantly” (John 10:10). Joy and peace are both fruits of the Spirit. 

According to Lim and Putnam, the study does not measure happiness per se, but rather life satisfaction: “In general, ‘happiness’ tends to tap a short-term, transient assessment of mood, whereas ‘life satisfaction’ reflects more stable evaluations of personal well-being.” Thus, while neither happiness nor life satisfaction ought to be our ultimate aim in life, I think we are right to view life satisfaction, as measured by Lim and Putnam’s study, as a significant factor when evaluating spiritual health. Supposed “Christians” who are consistently dissatisfied with their lives are not a good testimony to the authenticity of their faith, and the type of “Christianity” that does not produce satisfied Christians is, at the very least, defective in some way or another. 

All this leads me to the following thesis: Authentic, healthy Christianity is a group activity—and not just an activity practiced in the context of any group, but more specifically, it is a small group activity, or at least, an activity in groups that facilitate close personal relationships and friendships. 

All this relates, at least in some respect, to the discussion about small churches and large churches. In small churches, it is harder to get lost in the shuffle. I am of the opinion, though, that it is entirely possible for large congregations, even mega-churches, to do a good job at facilitating the types of relationships that Lim and Putnam’s study indicates lead to greater satisfaction in life. But, in order to pull it off, they must be intentional and strategic about it. And dysfunctional small churches can also fumble the ball and do a poor job of creating an environment in which healthy relationships flourish. No matter the size of the church, though, it is crucial we do everything we can to see to it that no one falls through the cracks and goes through the motions of religion without the blessing of quality relationships with fellow believers. 

If we are honest, we must admit there is a tendency in American evangelical life to minimize the importance of group life. As Americans, in general, we live in a very individualistic society. More specifically, as American evangelicals, we put a big stress on such things as inviting Jesus to be our “personal Savior.” We teach the importance of having a “personal quiet time.” We preach the virtues of “personal evangelism.” 

While all of these emphases have a certain degree of validity, I believe it is important to not forget, at the same time, the biblical emphasis on community or koinonia. The Lord’s Prayer doesn’t say, “My Father, who art in heaven…” but “Our Father…” The one anothers of the New Testament are an integral part of what biblical Christianity is all about. I suppose that, at least in theory, it is possible to over-emphasize fellowship at the expense of other aspects of healthy church life, such as solid Bible teaching and discipleship. 

Actually, according to Lim and Putnam, the results of their study suggest “that congregational friendships have little effect on individuals who do not consider religion very important to their sense of self. By contrast, among individuals with strong religious identities, friendships in a congregation have a dramatic effect on life satisfaction.” In other words, at least as viewed from an evangelical Christian perspective, solid discipleship is also an important factor contributing to an overall sense of well-being in life. But a balanced package of Christian discipleship is only truly effective when it includes as integral parts the discipline of koinonia and the discipline of friendship.