I couldn't resist bringing up this current event.
It is all over the news the last few days about a certain presidential candidate and his affiliation with his pastor and that pastor's inflammatory remarks from the pulpit.
Let us side step the politics (this is not that blog)--what are your thoughts on how this sort of rhetoric affects our ability to effectively communicate the Gospel in America?
Further, is it a good idea to compare a candidate to Christ in an effort to sway voters?
Aside from politics, what other issues does this raise for us as ministers and preachers, if any?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I must say from the start that I come at this from a really humbled position. I won't even pretend to understand what it is like to be a person of color or even seemingly downgrade the hardships that come with being a person of color in America. I think we have come a long way and that hopefully by the end of my life it will no longer be an issue.
For those who do not know the specifics of Pastor Wrights message I think it's important to give it.
"We've got more black men in prison than there are in college," he began. "Racism is alive and well. Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run. No black man will ever be considered for president, no matter how hard you run Jesse [Jackson] and no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."
"America is still the No. 1 killer in the world. . . . We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns, and the training of professional killers . . . We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children while trying to get public opinion turned against Castro and Ghadhafi . . . We put [Nelson] Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there. We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God."
"We started the AIDS virus . . . We are only able to maintain our level of living by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty. . . ."
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America.
“No! No No!
“God damn America … for killing innocent people.
“God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans.
“God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.”
http://online.wsj.com/
I gave the link for the article I pulled the quotes from and you can read the context. Either way, this man has constantly and continuously represented a section of the black social gospel that is unabashedly pro-black and anti-white. He recently stated that Jesus was a black man and that he was oppressed by the white folks (Italians) as well. This man continues to state ridiculous and incredulous things but the Christian community is awfully quiet on it! I can't imagine if Pat Robertson said some of these things! It would be universal condemnation! Instead: *insert crickets*
It seems to me that Pastor Wright continues to focus on Jesus' humanity but there is very little about His divinity. Jesus was persecuted, neglected, and killed but He never dispised those who did the things to Him. In fact I remember Him stating from the cross: "Father, Forgive them. They know not what they do." Now I didn't actually pull this from my own head but from Thabiti Anyabwile who recently wrote an article entitled: "The decline of the African American Theology"
http://www.boundless.org/2005/articles/
Anyabwile main point is: "some depictions of Jesus set the affections of the would-be worshipper on "things below" and "not things above." Does the fact that Jesus was born a Jew during the Roman occupation of Israel really warrant identifying Him as "black" in the sense that Black Theology prescribes? While Jesus was a Jew, and Jerusalem was controlled by the Roman Empire, Jesus never acted in a way that suggested a political liberation for his contemporaries — to the consternation and disappointment of many would-be followers of his time and ours (John 6:14-71).""
Does this mean then that we neglect the obvious truths of what all peoples of color face in the United States or for that matter throughout the world? No, of course not. This is where I fall back to MLK Jr. and his amazing "Letter from a Birmingham Jail". Luther didn't ignore the problem and he condemned those who did. He also however did not advocate hatred and preaching hate about white folks. He stated it as follows: "I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self-respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously closed on advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best-known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil.""
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/
I think I'll leave it at that~
Wow Matt. You were really swinging in your wheelhouse there. I enjoyed your comments.
Shannon, there is no way we are going to be able to stay away from the political angle. Sorry.
I think politicizing religion has been one of the worst things that has happened to our faith since.......Constantine.
It is amazing to think Christian faith has been manipulated by politicians to manage and control the masses since the 350’s or so. I'm not sure we have evolved must past the same motives at work then than what we see at work today. The use of fear and the desire for power have always been complimentary bedfellows for those in authority whether in the church hierarchy or the political arena.
There is a thin line between the power of the state and the power of God. We know God's omnipotence provides for leaders to rule. We see that God has seen fit to empower both the good and bad leaders over the centuries. It is easy to see why men and women who speak regularly in a pulpit in an attempt to explain the things of God to congregations and impart Godly wisdom to their flocks would find it difficult to remain silent on certain issues or candidates. I think I like Jesus' stance on this. The Kingdom of God is not made up of such things. Jesus makes it clear his way is not our way. His authority and ethics are too often in direct conflict with the powers of this world. So working in the system to change the system for Jesus was not an option. In my mind, for us to try to do so is just counterproductive and futile. And we are just bad at it as a church.
I know what that opinion may say too many politically minded people from the Dr. Dobson crowd who think part of their evangelical responsibility is not only to be a good Christian but to be equally a good American. For many years I think those characterizations were able to live in fairly harmonious attachment. I love and benefit from this country too. We have been a shining light to the rest of the world for many years. In some ways America has had the opportunity to represent significant parts of the very nature of God just as the Israelites were tasked in the Old Testament. In many ways we still represent much of what is good in the world. However we have allowed the dialog about who and what we are about as a nation to fall so far into the dirt it is increasingly difficult to find, much less explain, our values as a nation to successive generations much less foreign nations. Thinking tax relief, health care programs, immigration reform, green initiatives or focus on national security is equal to or somehow in lock step with the directives Jesus laid out on the sermon on the mount requires using a different hermeneutic than I can justifiably employ.
Before you start thinking I'm a west coast, tree hugging, baby killing, liberal, think again. I'm not. But neither am I a mindless, knee-jerking, gay bashing, right wing fundamentalist conservative bigoted hate monger either. I’m just trying to be a follower of Jesus. More than anything else, in the year I've been attending church here in SPringfield, I’d enjoy hearing a sermon from the pulpit about Jesus once in a while. I don't want to hear a sermon about Hillary, Barak or John. And I don't want my kids to hear about a “tree hugger” Jesus. Nor do I want a “Rambo” Jesus portrayed either. I’d like my children to hear from someone other than their parents about the Jesus which Matthew, Mark, Luke and John knew. I would like religious political action committees from both sides of the isle to recognize how little Jesus discussed the social structures of his day and how much he focused on the individual hearts of those within the society. Therefore I believe churches need to be focused exclusively on making disciples of Jesus and teaching the things he commanded. That means being committed first to helping people understand what God requires of them as citizens of the Kingdom of God first and foremost. It is then not the business of the church to produce better Democrats or Republicans.
Was I appalled to hear such rancor coming from a pulpit by Obama's pastor? Sure. ( It was also humorous how ridiculous he looked.) But I was equally appalled when Carl Rove, Bush's national policy advisor, actually strategized to put gay marriage initiatives on state ballots in 2004. Knowing he could light a fire under the right wing conservative evangelical base, he intentionally and specifically set out to instill fear in people's hearts. Rove knew if he could mobilize the evangelical wing of the party to get out and vote, while in the voting booth, conservatives would also likely elect party line Republicans to congress. Has the church become a pawn? You bet. Do we deserve to be taken advantage of? Yep. We are just that gullible. We got the gentle as a dove part down. Just not the wise as a serpent part. Even after all these years. That's even more sickening. I leave with a great quote: (I think it’s great.)
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favorable presumption that they did not wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way against holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility.
ALL POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT AND ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTLY.
Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority."
Letter to Mandell Creighton (April 3, 1887)
Time for a new question. This is going to take us down a rabbit hole.
brother bell and gary you are both awesome communicators but I fear this could get messy.
If we did a top ten "no no's" for preaching this would be close to if not at the top of the list. I think this guy went over the top.
Haddon Robinson says it well in his preaching book Biblical Preaching(Baker Academic, 2001):
"Those in the pulpit face the pressing temptation to deliver some message other than that of the Scriptures - a political system (either right-wing or left-wing), a theory of economics, a new religious philosophy, old religious slogans, or a trend in psychology....Yet when they fail to preach the Scriptures, they abandon their authority. No longer do they confront their hearers with a word from God..." (20).
It based on what Matt has put forth as what the person said then I think he may have abandoned the gospel for his own political agenda.
Why would any person want God to damn anything or anyone (except evil and the evil one)?
The struggle is how to preach prophetically without politicizing the gospel (like the prophets of old such as Amos or Micah)? Obviously there are political implications of the gospel but that is not the same as politicizing the gospel.
The issues addressed should not just center on race issues but also issues of over all social justice for the poor and oppressed, the disenfranchised. I believe we are called to preach against these things but not in the manner of the preacher we are talking about.
Aimee Semple McPherson once said, we should not be preaching the social gospel but rather the social implications of the gospel.
So how do we do this?
But preaching the gospel without an opinion (whether expressed or latent) about economics, politics, philosophy, etc., is preaching a historical gospel. And even then, all of these things factor into a preacher's understanding of history. Let's not say that we have no biases or opinions. Admit them and be genuine. How can we really relate to an audience and teach good practical theology when we cover up our biases?
I want pastors who can explain to an audience their thought processes. I want to know where my pastor stands on social and political issues. What ideas, including but not limited to scripture, inform his opinions? If I disagree more than agree with him, I am free to find another church. The fear of treading into politics/praxis has left the church timid and gunshy. The church is meant to be an agent of reform in society. Instead, right now, the church is simply relegated to the role of providing for people's "spiritual needs."
Tiresias,
I appreciate your opinion.
Can you justify your point... "The church is meant to be an agent of reform in society." ...with New Testament Scripture? I assume from your post you are using the term "church" to describe the body of Christ as opposed to the religious institution. I'm interested to hear where you are coming from on that issue.
The other question I have would be to drill down a little on what you consider 'reform in society.' Is that individual reform or corporate reform? If you are proposing the church should be involved in corporate reform, what do you see in the New Testament from either Jesus or the epistles that delineates what reform should look like within broader societies or nation-states?
Look forward to your reply. Thanks.
gary,
The church is called to be salt and light. Turning the other cheek and walking another mile are two of Jesus' examples of social reform. True Christians have a knowledge and way of life that runs counter to the reasoning that stems from our sinful nature.
Examples of social reform throughout Christian history include ending slavery, efforts to stop genocide/war, stopping sex trafficking, increased hospitals/medical care, and personal compassionate financial help to the needy.
All of these endeavors involved individual believers as well as corporate action. Abolitionists were individuals driven by biblical principles to work together to achieve a desired result.
The issues do not always have to be controversial. A more current example involves adoption. James tells us that the church should care for widows and orphans. Why, then, aren't our churches doing more to surface families who would be good candidates for adopting and caring for the fatherless? Can't our churches help identify unnecessary red tape in our adoption processes so that our agencies can place children into homes faster?
The main point is that the church must be theologically correct, politically active, and socially aware. We must be active in word and deed.
tiresias,
All good points. But none of them represent the mandates given to the church scripturally. Jesus was talking to individuals when discussing salt and light. Corporate saltiness is really not the point Jesus was trying to make in my opinion.
This is my point: All of the societal reforms you mentioned are good things that if accomplished would benefit society. But they were not corporate decisions or positions the church enforced on culture.
"Abolitionists were individuals driven by biblical principles to work together to achieve a desired result." No. Thankfully abolition started and was largely maintained by individuals. Wilberforce, John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, all individuals, all disciples of Jesus, put in the right place at the right time. The church was never fully behind abolition. They were never working as a coalition. They were virtually alone in their convictions. They were absolutely salt and light. But they did not act as a political action committee. They were individual disciples of Christ with amazing courage and empowerment to do the task of the Kingdom. To the degree the church helped in the maturing of these revolutionaries, then it succeeded. There is no way, historically Christendom can take credit for the emancipation of slavery in the West. Not when you consider the heavy influence of both the southern and even mid-western denominational opposition.
"The main point is that the church must be theologically correct, politically active, and socially aware. We must be active in word and deed."
I disagree, the church should not focus on being politically active. Rather the church should be focused on equipping saints like Wilberforce, Adams and Lincoln for the work of their ministry. We can't do both well. What I fear has happened is we have failed largely at both as you recognize in the adoption and Foster parent crisis.
I don't know all the issues involved in this discussion, but I do thank those who have posted so far for the information they've offered. It does bother me that a pastor would give a lifetime achievement award to an outspoken anti-Semite and also blame the government leadership for 9/11 and so on. It's one thing to preach Scriptural, theological truths that have cogent exigetical strength. It's quite another to talk about racism and other issues in contemporary America without serious consideration of the biblical witness, which is what it appears some church leaders in this discussion engage in.
IMO, it probably doesn't do anyone any good to say either "God bless America," or "God damn America." Honestly, I doubt if our spirituality should be so patriotic and nationalistic. Shouldn't it be global? Multinational and multiracial? On that not, if I'm going to preach from the Bible and honestly grapply theologically with contemporary issues (which is a good thing) then I'm going to do so prayerfully and carefully. Our agenda shouldn't to be unduly lift up or tear down any particular political player or system. It should be the transformation of socio-political activity through spiritual awakening and Christian love.
gary,
On second thought, I don't think we should expect much from Christians, either individually or corporately. All I ask is that people go to church, tithe, and enjoy the show. All we need is popcorn and nachos in the sanctuary and we'll be set for our Sunday church matinée. Don't worry about accomplishing anything. Just sit back and let someone else do it. (I hope you sense the sarcasm.) :)
You contradict yourself when you state: "the church should not focus on being politically active. Rather the church should be focused on equipping saints like Wilberforce, Adams and Lincoln for the work of their ministry. We can't do both well."
The work of the ministry for Wilberforce, Adams, and Lincoln was political. How can the church, which is simply more than one individual Christian working together for the same purpose, work to equip believers for politics when it isn't supposed to be involved in politics?
My point is, our churches, individual Christians, and every other social group in our society are always involved in politics, whether we realize it or not. When we choose not to vote or be a part of politics, we cede our rights to others who choose for us. Sometimes those choices are okay, sometimes they are devastating.
We must be involved, individually and corporately, in everything going on around us at all times. People are more cynical now than at almost any time in recent American history. We must show them Christlike love through action. Sermons and words are irrelevant to almost all non-Christians I meet.
I am glad the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the guts to stand up in front of his congregation and speak his mind on pertinent issues. I disagree with much of his assessment on those issues and would choose not to attend his church. Nor would I encourage others to do so. But at least I know he stands for something, which is more than what most American churches are willing to do.
Oh, for the good old days when pastors preached from the pulpit to American colonists that overthrowing British tyranny was a fine course of action! They took a position, and history is better off for it.
With each passing week, the church in America becomes increasingly irrelevant. Let's have a bold message and a plan for action and prove the nay-sayers wrong.
Tiresias,
I understand where you are coming from. And I realize the temptation to make the church a political force for positive political and social reform. There is just this one thing: I can't find it exemplified in scripture. That was the impetus of my last post when I asked you to justify your position scripturally. Coming up with a beneficial social agenda that would for all intents and purposes "create a more perfect union" doesn't rise to the level of a scriptural mandate for the Church. Sorry. I disagree with your presupposition. I think people have every right to organize whatever group they want to tackle any political issue. Just don't convolute it with the purposes of the Church.
I don't think I do contradict myself. Wilberforce, Lincoln, Adams and others, before, during and after the civil war, did NOT have the support of the Church. History reveals the Church was very, very, late in coming to the emancipation platform. In fact as a whole the church didn't get there until nearly 100 years later in the 1960's after the civil rights legislation. Again, another initiative not led by the Church.
I again disagree on your point about Wright. In my opinion he displayed something every preacher should be wary of. Wright seems to be admired for the strength of his convictions. To never be in doubt, yet at the same time profoundly inaccurate, is a great travesty for a man claiming to speak God's Word. It is not enough to be certain. We have to rightly divide God’s word. Where we can’t, we say so.
I agree to disagree. Thanks for the dialog.
nathaniel, your comment about Christianity being transnational or global instead of patriotic is on the money. I have a hard time finding Jesus or anyone else in scripture towing the party line for their particular government. Granted, those in scripture were almost always the oppressed ones (because of their Christianity). Isn't Paul's "reform" (i know that this is probably too harsh of a word) of the church in Jerusalem ample evidence for the global implication of the Kingdom of God?
As to the tete-a-tete between gary and tiresias:
The background issue that you seem to be discussing is the nature of the church itself. Is it
1."Christendom" (a term that I associate with the state-backed/state-backing religiosity of Europe in the Middle Ages that continued through colonial expansion into the "lands of the godless heathens" right into the US of today with its campaign to create a "christian" nation)
or 2. the gathering together of believers (a sort of "the kingdom of God is here") that operates in a much different way than the kingdoms of this world?
Call me an idealist, but I suggest it is very much the latter (2), and that the former (1) is a bastardization of the transformational power of the church mutated into a tool to be abused by whoever can harness it. The Christendom of (1) has nothing to do with Christ. It is as heretical as pluralism, because the head of that "church" (and hope of salvation) is not the risen Christ.
A skill of public speaking is essential for preachers in and outside church.It might be still effective to tell social gospel to
some people in the USA. The way of speaking might be old fashioned however, the rhetoric still has a great appeal to some church such as some churches focusing on church growth. We often could hear that preachers said "Dream" and "Vision" by faith in their church. It is depend on people whether they are swayed or not by political candidate. (Actually, I heard someone said a political candidate was anointed in the TV) I can not take up the method of public speaking from them,and also can not criticize people who compares candidate to Christ.
Timothy:
Well said.(written)
I think your characterization of Christendom is on the money. I would further add that some of our mega churches, even those who stay away from overt political issues, demonstrate the kind of power mongering you describe. In so doing they blacken the image of the Bride of Christ. In my experience the power used to harness the "church" you describe can be found in the numerous volumes of "leadership" books and journals that proceed from the hands of Maxwell, Rainer, Blanchard and even Hybels. The CEO as pastor concept is both absent and incomprehensible to the New Testament.
Post a Comment