• Christian Politics and the False Dichotomy of Sacred and Secular

    April 3, 2006

    I recently read an article in which Andy Stanley, the pastor of noted megachurch, North Point Community Church, was asked what about his leadership was distinctly spiritual. His reply, “Nothing. There’s nothing distinctly spiritual. I think a big problem in the church has been the dichotomy between spirituality and leadership.”

    A friend from Fuller, Sam Andress has already made some helpful comments about this article and Stanley’s comment, but I wanted to to expand a bit further.

    I have a strong desire to hold to two, seemingly opposing truths. The first is that the call of the Church is first and foremost to be an embodiment of the Kingdom and reign of God. As such it embodies an alternative way of seeing, thinking, living, and acting from that of the world. Another way to say this is that the Church has its own politics – a politics which is God-centered and marked by the way of Jesus in terms of his life, ministry, death, and resurrection. This kind of politics is not and cannot be adopted by a world which does not share a Christian worldview (let alone, for the moment, the empowerment of the Holy Spirit).

    The second truth to which I hold is that the dichotomy between sacred and secular, church and world, spiritual and unspiritual is a false one. This is a dichotomy which was created by Constantine in the 4th century with the rise of Christendom and the identification of Christianity and the State. It was further entrenched in our culture in and through the Enlightenment which nearly deified the individual and the idea of individual autonomy.

    The reason I am able to hold these seemingly mutually exclusive truth claims is because I believe with my friend Sam that, “… all creation is spiritual!” The problem is that the world fails to recognize this and, sadly, the Church fails to live in the reality of it. Our great aim seems to be to get people out of the world and into the Church. The problem with that is the great aim of God seems to be getting the Church out into the world.

    The Church is a distinct community from the world, but not a reclusive or sectarian one. The Church, both gathered and scattered, serves a God who has done away with distinctiveness with regard to people and place. The curtain of the temple has been torn in two perhaps not merely to invite all people in, but to demonstrate God’s (and therefore His people’s) movement out into the world. The Church indeed is a contrast society, but the purpose of it being such is that it might call a lost and dying world to participate in the saving activity of God.

    I’m sure Andy Stanley was commnenting out of a belief (which I share) that all truth is God’s truth and therefore it is at least possible that ledership principles can be gleaned from the world and adopted into the church. And to an extent he may be right. On the other hand, I wonder what the Church has to offer he world with regard to leadership. Off the cuff I would note that the kind of leadership exemplified by Jesus was marked by servanthood, humility, and self-sacrifice. I find it hard to believe that these are leadership virtues which will ever emerge out of a world beset by sin. Even worse, if they did, they would merely be pragmatic methods by which to achieve desired results. This is greatly different from Chistian leadership which is to be shaped, not pragmatically, but eschatologically. The point is, for Christian leaders, it is not “what works,” but what is fitting given the end toward which the narrative of God’s mission in the world (as is primarily held out to us in Scripture) is moving that ought to inform how (and why) we lead at all.

    But here’s my final point. The reason I disagree with Andy Stanley on a fundamental level is that the Church’s character and nature, of which leadership is a part, is to be derived from the character and nature of God. That is to say, theology precedes doctrine. This tactic cannot be shared by the world. It is in fact this very difference which distinguishes Church from world. The Church derives its identity from the God is Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jesus. The world derives its identity from anything but.

    Secular leaders and leadership principles, implemented correctly, have been proven to grow coprorations to enormous size and help them function extremely well. To the extent then that our desires are to grow big churches which function like well-oiled machines we should continue this practice. If, on the other hand, we believe that the Church is that community of people who are called to embody the Kingdom and reign of God as we serve God as the salt of the earth and the light of the world, we may want instead to take our cues from the God in whose mission we are joining and whose future we are hoping.

    Related Posts with Thumbnails
    • Share/Bookmark

    Posted in: church, culture, leadership

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Recent Comments

  • Gina Tamburro said...

    1

    Nice blog! I enjoyed it.

    04/4/06 1:30 PM | Comment Link

  • Joshua said...

    2

    I worry a bit about saying something like: “There is no difference between sacred and secular.” There is a huge difference, that I know you are aware of. There can be mixtures of the sacred and the profance. (I.E. the cross.) but these things are reformed, and sanctified by the sacred. They are not sacred in and of themselves, they are glorified by the beauty of God. There is a vast chasm separating the sacred and the secular. However, this chasm is crossable. The danger that we face when we distinguish the sacred from the secular is the developement of a false sense of security with the sacred. The “sacred” world is not always a safe place. And the “secular” world is not always a dangerous place. (I’m thinking now of music, movies, magazines… etc…) Sacred music, sacred church, sacred movies, these things are not inherintly “safe” places for us. These things can just as easily lie to us as their “secular” counterparts.

    To sum up a rambling comment: there are two worlds, the sacred and the secular. However, those lines are not always as easily drawn as we might like to think. Fortunately, all this means is that we have to continue being critical students of the world around us. And we have to continue spreading the sacred around.

    04/5/06 7:25 PM | Comment Link

  • jrrozko said...

    3

    Maybe we have a semantic issue. Indeed, what I meant to say was that I do not believe in the two worlds of sacred and secular. If these worlds existed how would we know the difference? The easiest way to see this is in the common example of music. What makes some music sacred and other music secular? The label the group signs with, the confession of a majority of the members of the band, the content of the songs? There are obviously flaws with all three ways. Or, to go back to the issue of leadership – is someone a Christian/sacred leader because he/she prays before making decisions or becasue he/she goes about her task in a Christian/sacred environment?

    This is why I call it a false dichotomy. Instead, I would propose approaching issues such as music, leadership, community, architecture, politics, books, etc., not as either sacred or secular (a side to be on), but in terms of whether or not they are God-honoring or life-giving (a scale on which to move). Granted, this does not necessarily solve the problem of subjectivity, but neither does the first method and at least this way we’re more open minded to God working in unexpected places and in unexpected ways. Yes, the black and white version of JR continues to die a torturous death!

    04/6/06 12:27 AM | Comment Link

  • Joshua said...

    4

    Well, I agree. We should be on terms with whether or not issues are God-honoring or life-giving (what does life-giving mean anyway?). But this assumes exactly what you are claiming does not exist… namely the difference between the sacred and the secular. The sacred thing is that which is God-honoring. The secular thing is that which is not God-honoring. So, it appears as though we agree that there actually is a difference between the sacred and the secular, and we agree that this difference does not obey the labels we place on larger conglomerations. Just because we claim that politics is secular does not mean it has no element of the sacred. And just because we claim that Christian movement is sacred does not mean it contains no elements of the secular. What we conclude then is not that there is no difference between the sacred and the secular, but rather, that the sacred and the secular are both very different things, and the world around us is a moxy bag of both. It is our job to find the sacred in everything, and to make the secular, more sacred.

    Is that what we’re getting at? Or am I putting words in your mouth? (I think this is a classic example of two people saying the same thing, but being stuck on phrasing it in different ways.)

    04/7/06 1:12 PM | Comment Link

  • Sam Andress said...

    5

    very nice post J.R.! You encapsulate a very; Hauerwasian-Newbiginian-Guderish-Wrightian, not to mention biblcial theo-missio-ecclesi-ology:).

    peace.

    04/9/06 1:02 AM | Comment Link

  • lifeasmission » Let Me Try Again said...

    6

    [...] Posted by jrrozko on 12 Apr 2006 at 05:39 am | Tagged as: decisions, church, blogging, music, culture A few days ago I posted something about, among other things, the false dichotomy of sacred and secular.  After my friend Josh made some helpful observations, I thought it might be beneficial to try and clarify what I was after.  [...]

    04/12/06 5:40 AM | Comment Link

  • lifeasmission » Let Me Try Again said...

    7

    [...] Posted by jrrozko on 12 Apr 2006 at 05:57 am | Tagged as: decisions, church, blogging, music, culture A few days ago I posted something about, among other things, the false dichotomy of sacred and secular. After my friend Josh made some helpful observations, I thought it might be beneficial to try and clarify what I was after. [...]

    04/12/06 6:09 AM | Comment Link

Leave A Comment

Mail (will not be published) (required)