ken wilson online

I came home from London to see a feature article in the Ann Arbor Observer on the Vineyard Church of Ann Arbor.  The writer, Jim Leonard, is a well known and highly regarded writer here in Ann Arbor and I found him thoughtful, curious, and conscientious.  His article captured so much of what we’re trying to do here in Ann Arbor.  Plus which, he mentioned the fact that I wear socks with my sandals, so this may be the tipping point when my fashion innovation really takes off.  There was one incorrect quote that I’ll be able to correct in the next issue of the Observer and it was on a sensitive topic.

I was quoted as saying that I wanted the church to be politically liberal and that most of the members of Vineyard were.  NOT SO!  It was probably in the part of the conversation with the writer where I explained what I’ve said a thousand times, that our mission as a church is to “humbly bear the transforming presence of Jesus into the heart of the Ann Arbor area” and that Ann Arbor, in particular, leans politically liberal, secular, concerned for the environment, etc., whereas evangelical churches like Vineyard  have tended to be successful in communities that were suburban, mono-ethnic, and culturally and politically conservative.  I was conveying the need for our church to make a clear distinction between American political conservative philosophy and the gospel–that they are not, as I’ve said many times, the same.

The reason I know I didn’t say what I was quoted as saying is that 1) It isn’t so (in a recent anonymous online survey there was a wide diversity of personal political views expressed–roughly a third conservative, a third liberal or progressive and a third moderate, but don’t quote me on that–just my recall!); 2) I don’t want the church to be identified with any one political party or point of view because as a matter of biblical conviction, I believe the people of God are meant to have a prophetic voice in the public square, and we can’t do that if we are simply aligned with any one of the  current political powers.

The solution to the current blurring of the boundaries between “evangelical” and “conservative” or “republican” isn’t to fall off the other side of the horse and attempt to identify “evangelical” with “liberal” or “democratic.”

This is a fairly subtle point that needs unpacking.  There are certainly individual members of the church who are very convinced political conservatives or liberals. Some of my best friends, in fact.   But even those who feel very comfortable with those labels also understand that as Christians our highest loyalty is to Jesus and his kingdom, and that this supercedes our loyalty to any nation or political party.

To maintain a prophetic voice in the public square–as a church, speaking in the corporate sense–means that we have to be able to sort even our strongly held convictions through the grid of faithfulness to Jesus and his kingdom.  More often than not, a single political party, which by definition is not explicitly committed to Jesus and his kingdom, simply won’t stumble on to that perspective.  There will always be some daylight between any given political platform and the perspective of Jesus, if only for the sheer fact that “my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

(The Roman Catholic bishops and hierarchy for example, a very conservative body as a whole, has sharp disagreements with American Conservatism on issues like the death penalty, the advisability of the war in Iraq, and a critique of capitalism as well as socialism.)

Because Vineyard is part of the wider American evangelical movement, I’ve had to make it clear that there is a difference between American conservative political philosophy and the gospel.   I remember one time saying simply, “Evangelical does not mean Republican.” On that basis alone, I received an angry email from an Evangelical Republican who thought I was speaking heresy.

If we were part of a different church body that leaned in the opposite direction, or if the dominant Christian voice in the body politic leaned in the other direction,  I’d have to make the opposite point: that there is a difference between liberal political philosophy and the gospel.  But at this time in history, that portion of the church in America is so weak, and has so little voice in the public square compared to the evangelical voice, that it’s simply not been necessary to the same extent.

I think for this reason, people who don’t know me well, tend to assume that I’m  more politically liberal than I actually am.

And this is where it’s tough to be a pastor in the current highly polarized political climate.  One has to be careful not to be misunderstood, and it’s darn near impossible not to be.

For example, the mere fact that I’ve been a proponent of reclaiming our biblical heritage of environmental stewardship means that some who view that as a “non-conservative” or “liberal” cause, assume that it aligns me with the liberal political perspective.  The only way to reassure people with this concern, would be to share any alignment I might have with a politically conservative viewpoint, which then gets me into territory that I think compromises my identity as a pastor, not a political advocate.   The fact is, I’m a mixed bag politically. I have sharp disagreements with both political parties and I don’t feel everyone in my church needs to know what those disagreements are.

I hope you can appreciate the difficulty of pastoring in the current highly polarized political and religious climate.

Which brings me to my final point: why I couldn’t have, wouldn’t have, and didn’t say what I was quoted as saying.  My darling wife Nancy wouldn’t have tolerated me saying such a thing.  Let the reader understand.

But having focused on the misquote in the article, I hasten to add that it was an honest mistake on the writer’s part.  And that I was nothing but impressed by the job the writer did in interviewing me and others who are part of the church,  visiting the homeless ministry on Friday night, attending church on more than one occasion to get the feel of the place; you really can’t ask for more from a journalist and the piece was engagingly and compellingly written.

Except, of course, for the part about my “goofy laugh.”

This entry was posted on Wednesday, April 30th, 2008 at 8:57 am and is filed under beyond conservative evangelical. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.