Not in It to Win It: Why Choosing Sides Sidelines The Church

by Andy Stanley

The Didache, a first-century Christian handbook, states, “You shall not . . . kill that which is born.”

Classical philosophers considered mercy and pity to be character defects, contrary to justice. Not until Jesus did that attitude change.

We associate repent with turning away from something evil. Jesus was inviting his first-century audience to turn away from what, until that moment, was considered self-evident. Throughout his ministry, Jesus invited his audience to set aside their preconceived notions about the Father, one another, and the world in general. He invited them to something better. Something liberating.

nation-changing was never part of his agenda.

“As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

How we treat, talk about, respond to, and care for one another is the identifying mark of a genuine Jesus follower. Not what we believe. Nobody knows and nobody is better off because of what we believe. Doing makes the difference. Doing changed the world.

If the Tiber reaches the walls, if the Nile does not rise to the fields, if the sky does not move or the earth does, if there is famine, if there is plague, they cry at once, “The Christians to the lions!”

During these clandestine early-morning meetings, they would sing. Why sing? They had very little, if any, written literature. Hymns were the primary means by which Christian theology was rehearsed and remembered.

Apparently, second-century Jesus followers were actually . . . following Jesus. It didn’t hurt that the apostle Paul directly addressed believers’ conduct among unbelievers. Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life: You should mind your own business and work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders.31

. . . especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms.32 I love that. Let’s do that again. Let’s make Christianity contagious again.

the sum and substance of their fault or error is that they are accustomed to meet on a fixed day and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so.35

We should take an oath to be model citizens. Model employers and employees. Faithful husbands and wives. In the words of the apostle Paul, we should live lives that win the respect of outsiders.

When the Jesus movement was fueled and informed by his new-covenant command, it was neither pathetic nor weak. It was unprecedented. It was unstoppable. It was notable and noticeable. It was, well, it was pretty much everything we collectively have ceased to be. It was what we must become once again. Doing so will not require political alignment or a new political movement. It will require something far more demanding. It will require us to step back onto the original foundation of our faith. It will require us to embrace the new-covenant ethic Jesus introduced and illustrated. It will require us to love one another. Not in our hearts. It will require us to love one another on both sides of the political aisle with our words and with our deeds, with our social media posts, our responses, our resources, and our sermons. It will require us to stop sizing people up and writing them off because of their political views. To do anything less is to declare through our actions that we are greater than our Master. We’ve protested and boycotted. We’ve posted and tweeted. We’ve called people out. We’ve called people names. We’ve stereotyped. Shamed. Blamed. We’ve taken sides. We’ve politicized our churches.

We know it’s possible for Christians to disagree politically. But is it possible for us to disagree politically without disrupting our unity? Jesus thought so. But it won’t be easy. Here’s one reason why: fundamental attribution error. Whether you’ve heard of it or not, you’ve certainly experienced it. Fundamental attribution error describes our tendency to attribute people’s behavior to their character, while attributing our behavior to our circumstances. When your coworker, who you don’t really like, is late to a meeting, you assume he’s disorganized, lacks a strong work ethic, and is probably not all that concerned about the success of your team. After all, how hard is it to be on time? But when you’re late? When you’re late, it is 100 percent circumstantial. Traffic. Crisis at home. You may go so far as to assume your reputation as a responsible employee is so airtight that you don’t even need to explain your late arrival. Your associates will assume it’s the result of circumstances beyond your control.

“The corrupt Democrats.” “The mindless Republicans.” “Clearly, something is wrong with these people. How can they say that? How can they support her? How could they vote for him?” Thanks to fundamental attribution error, we know the answer to those questions. It’s because Democrats are godless socialists and Republicans are ignorant racists. The Democrats want to flood the nation with illegals, and Republicans are only concerned about preserving their wealth. The political views held by those on the other side don’t have anything to do with how they grew up, where they grew up, who they grew up around, or what they experienced along the way. They aren’t responding to circumstances and experiences. They have a character problem.

Fundamental attribution error divides us. It divides us with a lie. Justin Giboney, political strategist and founder of the AND Campaign, explains: “One ugly reality about hating your political opponents is that you start off hating their vices and end up hating their virtues as well. In your contempt, you begin to believe that everything about them is wrong, even their insights and practices that could improve you.”3 Mature, emotionally intelligent, curious, empathetic people don’t fall for it. Jesus followers shouldn’t fall for it either.

Are you willing to follow Jesus if doing so requires you to reject portions of your party’s platform?

When we were children, we were encouraged to accept Jesus as our Savior, not our king. It was enough to believe.

Do you pray for anybody on the other side of the political aisle? Pray for. Not at. Not against. The Greek term is ὑπέρ. It means on behalf of. Do you pray on their behalf?

“If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?”8 Even Democrats do that! Republicans do that! Middle schoolers do that!

As long as we’re content to be believers rather than doers, we will be divided.

If someone’s political views make their feet too dirty for you to wash, you can be sure your politics are informing and deforming your faith.

We cannot accomplish the will of God without unity because unity is the will of God. God’s will for you is that you become one in purpose with me.

The enemy of the church is not the other political party. The enemy of the church is division.

Your party will win or lose based on voter turnout on a given Tuesday in November. The church will win or lose—our communities will win or lose—based on our response to Jesus’s new-covenant command and our refusal to let anything or anyone divide us.

Fortunately, the varying streams of our faith are no longer literally at war with one another as was the case in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Division from UMC

Our struggle is not against flesh and blood.1 Paul was convinced our actual struggle isn’t against other people but against schemes of the devil.2 Apparently, one of the devil’s favorite schemes is to confuse us as to whom our struggle is truly against.

Q: Who needs shadows when the reality has come? A: People who prefer shadows.

Bad church experiences are almost always related to somebody taking a stand that leaves them standing on someone.

But as brilliant and ahead of its time as it was, it was God’s covenant or contract with ancient Israel. Not you. Not me. Not only was the Sinai covenant, as it is sometimes referred to, created for the benefit of a specific group of people, it was created for a specific time frame as well. God’s Sinai covenant with Israel was temporary. Important, strategic, divinely ordained, but temporary. It was a means to an end. In Christ, it came to an end.

As his followers, we have no business retrofitting his current kingdom values, posture, language, and approach to persuasion with the values, posture, and language he came to replace. When we attempt to shore up our Christianity with Old Testament win-lose, conquer-and-vanquish language, we do just that. Beginning with Abraham. God went to work fashioning a nation from dirt. That required a specific set of tools.

If the God of the Hebrews was going to establish a nation for himself, he would have to wade into the fray and play by the rules of the day.

He didn't address digital watches, Microwave ovens, the internet... or criminals who force their ways into home and terrorize and kill families simply to steal.

Attempts to civilize the terms, conditions, and outcomes of the old covenant and its associated narratives undermine the credibility of the text and the credibility of the church. Worse, doing so diminishes the extent to which God went to redeem and rescue the world from sin.

By old-covenant, kingdoms-of-this-world standards, Jesus lost. By new-covenant, kingdom-of-God standards, he won.

Reaching back into old-covenant warfare narratives or ahead into end-time imagery undermines the message of Jesus for our time and conflicts with the posture and tone he modeled and commanded us to emulate.

He was coming back . . . but not in passive, turn-the-other-cheek, shepherd-martyr mode. Hell no. Actually, hell yes. He was coming back with a sword in his mouth, an iron scepter in his hand, fire in his eyes, and the wrath of God on his breath. I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war.13 General Jesus.

Seven hundred years later, Pope Urban II promised the remission of all sin for anyone participating in a military campaign to liberate the Holy Land from Muslim infidels. Don’t rush by that. The pope, successor to Saint Peter, initiated a military campaign. Not to liberate people from sin. To liberate real estate from sinners.

If Jesus chooses to wage a literal war against his human enemies at a future date, that’s up to him. That’s Jesus’s business.

What Jesus commanded us to do is our business. We should mind our own business. We should get back to business. We should look for feet to wash, not a war to fight.

Saul of Tarsus was a warrior. God’s warrior. He was in it to win it. Then he met Jesus. Then he wrote a series of letters that shaped Western civilization.

There were no actual prisons in the first century. The Greek term translated prison in our English Bible refers to any place a prisoner was held—often a hole in the ground. Not a concrete-lined hole with drainage. Just a hole in the ground. Dark, damp, bug-infested, human-feces-saturated. No drainage. No meal plan. When they ran out of holes, they doubled up.

Jesus followers in Damascus and Jerusalem were terrified to go near him. Of course they were. He had led the inquisition. He was the persecutor in chief. He had blood on his hands—the blood of their friends and family members. Luke describes it this way: When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple.13

fearing a trap

If, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!17

Weaponizing Christianity was impossible.

They were what they were because of when they were written and for whom they were written.

The Judaizers weren’t conducting evangelism crusades. They were there to convince Jesus-following gentiles to become Jewish in order to become “fully Christian.” They were arguing for a blend of old and new. Included in their message was an invitation for gentile Jesus followers to come forward and be . . . not baptized . . . but circumcised! Paul wasn’t having it.

Christ will be of no value to you at all. Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.22

As Peter learned from his encounter with Cornelius, as James affirmed at the Jerusalem Council, and as Jesus announced in his mountain message, the old and new covenants are not compatible. They’re not blendable. They’re sequential.

He continues: As for those agitators . . .25 Which agitators? The ones encouraging Jesus followers to smuggle old-covenant obligations and practices into their new-covenant Christianity. As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!26 That’s sanctified Paul talking. Imagine what he was like before Jesus recruited him!

God’s covenant with ancient Israel had an expiration date.