"Social-Justice" Evangelical Pastors: An Evaluation

I don't know about you but most weeks my news feed is quite predictable.  The stories change but the responses from the left-leaning, political wing of evangelicalism and the (social) "Gospel" Coalition are unsurprising. 

The big story that garnered all the media coverage last week was "Did our (presumed racist) Commander in Chief call corrupt, third world nations and/or impoverished people" a 4-letter word?"  When this story broke it quickly became "the same song, different tune."  In short, a pattern of rush to judgment, pro "social-justice," pro "illegal immigration" fueled commentary  pieces from evangelical leaders- such as Russell Moore and Thabiti Anyabwile- and from evangelical ministries such as "Desiring God: and "the Gospel Coalition"- has become par for the course.  More on this in a moment.

Back in 2016 the Tim Keller-led Gospel Coalition failed to convince enough professing evangelicals that it was unwise and/or unbiblical to vote against the pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, pro-globalization agenda of Hillary Clinton.  As the polarizing presidential election of 2016 played out many evangelical "Never-Trumpers" warned Christian voters that "the Donald" was a liar, a narcissist, a sexist, and that he would run the country as a "closet Democrat" anyways.  "He's only telling socially-conservative voters that he will protect your religious liberties because he wants to win."  "He'll appoint a liberal-leaning Supreme Court justice" (which was perhaps the most important issue on the 2016 ballot).   Plus, "if you vote for Trump/Pence, for any reason, it will ruin our Christian testimony in the world," etc.

For a number of reasons Donald J. Trump was NOT our first, second, or third choice during the Republican primary.  However, my wife and I agreed with the collective wisdom of Robert Gagnon, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul and voted against the far-left, anti-religious freedom, hyper-Feminist candidate Hillary Clinton.  Despite Trump's loose tongue and his unsavory personal baggage it was an easy decision to vote for Trump/Pence (when the only viable alternative was Clinton/Kaine).  After 8 years of far-left governance we came to see exactly what President Obama meant when he talked about"fundamentally transforming" our nation.  If nothing else, Andrea and I hoped to prevent the pro-SCOTUS Clinton/Kaine ticket from winning the White House/Supreme Court-but now I digress.

After his unexpected victory, Trump kept many of his campaign promises to "the religious right," such as appointing Judge Neil Gorsuch as a Supreme Court nominee (in addition to appointing many other social conservatives to key leadership positions).

Lucado, Trump, "Evangelicals" and the 2016 Election

Photo Credit: http://www.christianitytoday.com/

An earlier post provided a brief overview  of Homespun Gospel: The Triumph of Sentimentality in Contemporary American Evangelicalism.   This new book demonstrates how Max Lucado, Rick Warren, and Joel Osteen have been leading advocates of a hyper-sentimental gospel that has been widely accepted by a large number of religious consumers.   I'll showcase more of the highlights of Homespun Gospel in future articles.

Today's post is devoted to Lucado, Trump, Evangelicals and the 2016 Election (if nothing else consider my 10 takeaways at the conclusion of this article).

What spurred me on to write today's post?  I decided to write this article after I saw how many Christians reposted a "Anti-Trump" blog article written by Pastor Max Lucado.  In the past two months I have never read more critical pieces of a Republican candidate written by conservative and/or Christian authors.  In a follow up interview "America's Pastor"said that he does not normally inject politics into his pastoral ministry.  Lucado noted that "I don’t even put a candidate’s bumper sticker on my car. People don’t attend church to hear my views on a presidential candidate."

Though I do not agree with Lucado's theology on a number of points, (or his philosophy of ministry- see Homespun Gospel), I think his default position on politics and the pulpit is wise.  The centrality of Christ, the gospel, and the core doctrines of Scripture can be unintentionally eclipsed when Christian preachers become political commentators on Sunday morning instead of 'mouthpieces' of God (to use the language of 1 Peter 4:10).   Having said that, if a cultural/political issue is addressed in the Scriptures, the man of God (2 Tim. 2:15) should faithfully communicate God's position on X, Y, or Z (Acts 20:27-35).  (Examples include: the sacredness of life (at conception), God's view of marriage, gender, and human sexuality, a theology of work in relation to welfare, the role of government, the sinfulness of racism and genuine bigotry, etc).

If a minister of the gospel decides to address a controversial, hot-topic issue from the pulpit (such as race relations and the police, the Ferguson riots, social justice, immigration, Israel, welfare and poverty, gender equality, Roe vs. Wade, SCOTUS, etc) they must be very careful to not read their personal opinions into the inspired Text.  If your pastor says, "This is heaven's perspective on such and such" you better be certain that his finger is pointing to a book, chapter, and verse AND that he is rightly interpreting the true meaning of Holy Scripture (Phil Johnson recently called out brother Thabiti Anyabwile for this very thing- see Against Mission Drift).  Over the years, many errors and half-truths have been propagated from American pulpits (often times unknowingly).

So why did "America's Pastor" post an public article that was critical of Donald Trump (the current front-runner of the Republican party)?