The Tempting of the Church in America

Thirty years ago, Robert Bork published his account of the rejection of his nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court under the title "The Tempting of America." Given the direction evident at the time, it hardly took a prophet to realize that Mr. Bork's jeremiad over the politicization of the court would come to pass. Nonetheless, one should not be stingy, and regardless of his other virtues or defects, Judge Bork was right about this: the court, at the hands of both liberals and Trump supporters, is today more widely regarded as a political than a legal institution. Such accrues to the nation's detriment.

These admittedlly old thoughts come to mind afresh upon reading about Albert Mohler's public declaration of his intent to vote for the aforementioned Trump in the upcoming election. Rev. Mohler, in fact, has declaimed the possibility that he will ever vote for a Democrat. For those who do not know, Dr. Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, long considered the flagship of Southern Baptist institutions, and it seems that he may be elected president at the next session of the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. Mohler also is associated with a parachurch group of some influence, The Gospel Coalition, among those commonly referred to as being "young, restless, and reformed."

Mohler's ringing endorsement will undoubtedly tickle the ears of those who support the president, and others will say he made a bad choice. While this blogger has his own views of that -- of note to what follows, those views are not being written here or elsewhere -- the debate over whether Mohler made the right choice veers away from a far more interesting discussion that merits attention, though it rarely receives it. That discussion centers around this:

Why would Albert Mohler, who is widely regarded as a representative of the church, need to express an electoral political preference at all?

Those responsible for politicizing the federal courts have viewed it as a matter of relevance, and those that continue to drag the church into American electoral politics do the same. However, it is not noted frequently enough that church ministers are ambassadors, not of any temporal earthly kingdom, but representing the inbreaking of the age that is coming. God's ambassadors announce the inbreaking of another, eternal kingdom as a pronouncement of judgment on earthly kingdoms which are necessarily time limited. While the inbreaking kingdom has things to say about judgment and mercy to the time limited ones, in fact, the inbreaking kingdom moves among its citizens across geographic borders and includes persons of every people and tribe and nation. The ultimate message is that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself and is followed by a command: be reconciled to God.

Again, in the course of declaring God's word regarding justice and mercy in the present age, there are things to be said addressing political matters. That said, the church is most relevant when it understands it belongs neither to the left or the right, but to the age that is coming, the one that is both here and not yet here in its fullness. The interest in relevance through temporal political power is a temptation, and those ministers who embrace it are guilty of dereliction of duty before the King whose glory shall have no end.