This is an explanation of why as a pastor I am so overtly transparent about my politics.
It’s worth noting that mostly only clergy on the left get accused of this. Being too political, that is.
It’s because all other clergy can operate with the tacit cultural assumption they are on the right.
(you can assume the majority if not all clergy who are entirely quietist about their politics are on the right)
Being overtly political simply draws attention to the reality: at least in our context all of Christianity is perceived to be on the right.
and for good reason. Right-leaning (and now alt-right) Christianity is the majority and holds considerable political power.
So ask yourself: what happens if I disguise, dampen or sublimate my politics, what is the outcome? Is it a good one?
What happens if I try to articulate a religious “third” way that is neither left nor right? Is that actually a departure from partisan politics, or an acquiescence to it?
I believe it is acquiescing.
It’s certainly not properly political in the way of Jesus whose movement named him Lord” (and just so, a threat to Caesar).
—
However, this is the main reason I do the overt political: I prefer to be up front and transparent.
I’d rather you didn’t come to our church (or read this blog) for weeks or months and experience a squishy middle, only to some time later bump into something about what we believe you should have been able to know clearly, and up front.
I think it’s okay to let you know who I am. And you can let me know who you are.
And you don’t have to be me, but we will be best together if we each get to be transparent about who we each are.
—
Third, I think the rush to the faux middle by many clergy and churches is an active conceding to authoritarianism.
Most churches in our community you would be hard-pressed to discern whether they fear a return of Trump as an existential threat to democracy and vulnerable communities, or hope for him as a champion of their values.
And honestly if you can’t tell right away where they are on that spectrum, then you can actually assume they are pro-Trump, and thus Christian nationalist, and thus heretical and counter the way of Jesus.
That’s the point.
I’d like for you to be able to tell that the way of Jesus is for something, and against other things.
I’m in favor of clarity in the face of fascism.
If you don’t like that I publicly connect my faith to my politics, what does that say? Does it imply that somehow faith is beyond politics? And if faith is disconnected from politics, how is faith not disembodied and spiritualized?
Instead of debating WHETHER I should be political, you could try to explain to me why the political perspective of the left isn’t better for the poor, the minoritized, and all the other people Jesus aligned with?
There are better and worse ways to be on the Left. Shall we talk about those and implement some of them?
But thr “Christian” right has become a vacuous assertion of sheer will to power that fails at the basic test of neighbor love and human decency, and has no plan to mitigate climate change. In fact the right currently has no platform at all other than blind allegiance. It’s just “conservative” with no content other than pro-Trump.
Shouldn’t a pastor whose tradition repeatedly named Jesus as Lord, the way of Jesus as an anti-fascist counter to all other claimants to lordship be clearly, decidedly political, and in this climate, even partisan?
I believe so.
I’d be interested in hearing more about this thesis.
When your Parish Bulletin arrived in my inbox this morning I was amused to see that precisely when I was defending partisanship, you were championing Local Moderate Regime Elements. Great piece, by the way, I've never thought that long or hard about The Rolling Stones but I do love the Keith Richards biography (which begins in Arkansas, incidentally).
From what you've written here, the thematic I am striving against is what you call "strong incentives to de-polarize." I think, for the sake of the gospel, far less congregational leaders should cave to those incentives.