Last Sunday (10/7/12) was for many folks, “Pulpit FreedomSunday.” The purpose of this concocted day was to argue that a pastor should be
able to endorse a political candidate from the pulpit despite tax laws stating
otherwise. There are so many things I could say about this but I have not the
time or space. I’ll try to keep my ramblings somewhat focused.
First, stop whining. A pastor can say whatever he or she
wants from the pulpit as long as he or she is clear that there are going to be repercussions.
If you say the walls need to be painted purple during your sermon, you will
face some pushback. If you endorse a candidate from the pulpit you may also
face pushback. One might be from a more powerful group than the other but you
will face pushback (can you guess which group would be more powerful?). So say
whatever you want. Curse, make farting noises, and do bad impressions of Marlon
Brando as the Godfather, just realize that there are consequences to everything
you do.
That is a pragmatic response. Here is a theological
response.
As a pastor you are not free to say anything you want. It is
not because of the laws of the State but because of your calling. When one is
claiming to be called to preach there is an assumption that God is a part of
that calling. God is calling you to fulfill a specific role within the
community. When the community endorses that role the community is giving the
pastor a certain amount of power and responsibility to speak from the pulpit.
Loosely stated, the act of preaching (speaking from the
pulpit) is an act of connecting the experience of the people with the presence
of God via scripture. A sermon may be considered to be a sacramental act (calm
down Baptists, I didn’t say it is a sacrament). Ideally something happens via
preaching where God is encountered. If you aren’t sure about this go and preach
a really crappy sermon and then notice that people still find an encounter with
God. It wasn’t you, it was God. This doesn’t give you license to preach crap,
but hopefully helps us realize that something is happening when we preach.
What this means is that when you are ordained you are not
free to say whatever you want from the pulpit. You are accepting the call, the
relational place within the community, to do your best to connect people with God.
The pulpit is a place where we connect with God, not a place where we endorse
mundane things such as political candidates.
Away from the pulpit say what you want (understanding that
you still have a responsibility to the people of your congregation via your
relationality with the people). In the pulpit accept the reality that you are
not free but instead called to preach. It takes a heaping lot of humble pie to
accept that responsibility and that call, and those pastors who feel it is so
very important to endorse a political candidate from the pulpit seem to have
passed on any size slice of that pie.
If you really need to endorse a political candidate because
you get off on manipulating and controlling the thoughts and ideas of people
who have placed their trust in you, or you are on some kind of power trip, or
you like playing the victim to big bad government then I humbly suggest that
you reconsider your call to ministry.
I must be serious because for a blog titled “theosnob” two
uses of the word “humble” is no small thing.
4 comments:
Excellent column, Jonathan. Indeed, sacramental is not a word that rolls easily off Baptist lips, but if we do believe in the reality of the sacramental, and I believe we do, the proclamation of the Word may be, as P.T. Forsyth (rifting Luther) said, the primary sacrament. And if the apostle Paul was right (I think he was ;-) then God is pleased to take the foolish words of the preacher and inhabit them so they become God's Word. An awesome thought.
When I lay hands on a ordinand these days I remind them that they are, to quote St. Paul, "servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries." And learning to be a servant and a steward is more than saying whatever they want from the pulpit.
Believe it or not, before 1800, many Baptists freely used "sacrament" as most protestants did. It maybe helpful to use the term "sacramentarianism" (sacraments are symbols, not automatically efficacious for salvation).
Daniel Turner, an 18th c. Baptist minister in Abingdon, England, wrote, "That there be some, one or more in every particular church, invested with official power, is necessary, and of divine appointment, for the due administration of the word and sacraments; the maintaining due order in the church, and due execution of the laws of Christ" (Daniel Turner, A Compendium of Social Religion of the Nature and Constitution of Christian Churches, 2nd ed. Bristol: W. Pine, 1778, 49-50). The notion of the "sacraments" was however closer to Calvin than Thomas.
Curtis and Alan,
Thanks for the comments. There is a lot about ordination and call that Baptists need to embrace without loosing the idea of the priesthood of the believers.
Alan - I was aware of the use of the word "sacrament" showing, I think, the Anglican influence on the nascent movement.
I am wary of using the term "sacramentarianism" or sacramental and hope that people understand that I am referring to symbols and not something more. John Colwell gives a good overview of the idea of a sacrament and the connection to an oath in his work "Promise and Presence." Beyond that, in the larger Christian community the word "sacrament" does suggest something greater than symbols, and the folks in the Baptist pews (many from other high liturgical traditions) will hear it as such. Thus I am wary towards using such a word.
I suppose I could lean towards Calvin's understanding of sacraments, especially around the Lord's Supper, but need to do more work in this area.
Dang, you folks make me think about my responses - no fair!
Post a Comment