This Easter Sunday, the holiest day of the Christian calendar, many pastors will start their sermons about the Resurrection of Jesus and weave in a pointed message about racism and bigotry, and the need to rise above them.
Some pastors began to rethink their sermons on Tuesday, when Senator Barack Obama gave a speech about race, seeking to calm a furor that had erupted over explosive excerpts of sermons by his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.
The controversy drove the nation to the unpatrolled intersection of race and religion, and as many pastors prepared for their Easter message they said they felt compelled to talk about it. Their congregants were writing and e-mailing them: some wanted to share their emotional reactions to Mr. Obama’s speech; others asked how Mr. Wright, the minister, could utter such inflammatory things from the pulpit.
Some ministers interviewed over the last several days said they would wait until after Easter to preach on it all, because Easter and headlines do not mix. But others said there was no better moment than Easter, when sanctuaries swelled with their biggest crowds of the year, and redemption was the dominant theme.
At Mount Ararat Baptist Church in Pittsburgh, the Rev. William H. Curtis said: “At the end of the day, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ makes it possible for even an African-American and a female to articulate the hopes and dreams of America, and do so with the hope of becoming president. Isn’t that wonderful?
I recommend reading Terry Mattingly’s comments on this article:
http://www.getreligion.org/?p=3312
wm.
Let’s talk about Jesus!! Tell me that old old story of Jesus and His Love. I got all the politics I wanted when I got home Sunday afternoon and read the newspaper.
It seems to me that for Obama his understanding of Jesus is inseparable from politics. This is not the same, though not entirely different from, N.T. Wright’s (a very different Wright from Obama’s pastor) idea that the Gospel must have a political demension. Both I believe are making the error of thinking that the kingdom of God can be constructed within the fallen framework of the kingdom of Man.
Chris,
The Kingdom of God cannot be constructed within the framework fo the Kingdom of Man – that is true. But the Kingdom of God will (or should) impact how we, who hail Jesus as our King, govern our societies and nations.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
We should talk about the kingdom of God and about the resurrection and redemption. Leave the political message out of the pulpit.
Having said that I would continue by observing that Obama is perhaps the most intellectually disingenuous politician I have ever observed, probably even surpassing Nixon. It is interesting to watch the dilemma he has created for himself and his party: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301400.html
Phil (#4) –
You are correct, but far too many people focus on the politics and not the “living out” part of the equation. Christianity is not about elections or governance, though one would hope that Christians could work for the election of devout believers to political office. We should also work toward the passage of just laws. But that is not our primary goal. That is why I was less than enthusiastic over Jerry Falwell’s resurrection of the “Moral Majority.” I always thought the emphasis was misplaced and somewhat misguided.
I believe that, ultimately, the Kingdom of Heaven is built one disciple at a time. Paul’s letter to the Philippians is an excellent view of what being a citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven actually means.
Phil, I may not disagree with you, but I wonder how you would define the way in which God’s kingdom should impact how we, as citizens of that kingdom, should “govern” in another kingdom built upon the use of force to create and maintain a semblance of peace and order. It seems to me that disagreements about how to do this would fall much more into the domain of political philosophy than of theology.
How might we distinguish the reforms of Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect from the Nuclear Feeze movement, or the fight against abortion from the fight against the death penalty or the fight for gun control? How should the Kingdom of God impact these issues? I’m not sure there is an obvious answer.
[blockquote] the unpatrolled intersection of race and religion [/blockquote] A marvelous metaphor. Good writing.
[size=2][color=red][url=http://resurrectioncommunitypersonal.blogspot.com/]The Rabbit[/url][/color][color=gray].[/color][/size]
I can’t imagine why a preacher should hijack Easter with a sermon on racism or any other -ism. I’d probably walk out to stretch my legs until such a “sermon” was finished. My rector preached a wonderful sermon on the importance of the Resurrection, keeping the focus of the day where it appropriately should be.
#8
You’re right. Nice turn of phrase.
But the Kingdom of God will (or should) impact how we, who hail Jesus as our King, govern our societies and nations.
Does “govern our societies and nations” mean: force morality (no drugs, sex, blasphemy) upon non-Christians? All the time knowing, as Paul told us, that law is not salvific. If only we allowed people their God-given freedom–yes, the freedom to sin–and instead learned to persuade them of their need of a savior, rather than forcing a little victorian goodness down their throats with the barrel of the Government gun. God didn’t make a mistake when he allowed Adam and Eve to pick fruit off the tree in the Garden of Eden.
God didn’t make a mistake when he allowed Adam and Eve to pick fruit off the tree in the Garden of Eden.
Even though God told them not to do so beforhand and then punished them severely after they did so? One could read your sentence as an endorsement of freedom as an absolute, and as a denial of the need of human societies to impose morality. Anarchy is not very attractive when it becomes real, as opposed to theoretical, and is less preferred by most people to strong authoritarianism when it is, falsely, presented as the only alternative.
The real question is: how can a representative of the Gospel of peace also work against such anarchy by encouraging the enforcement of morality and civic order without compromising the nature of the Gospel? I just watched the movie Geronimo a while back, in which some Apaches who revolted against the agreement to remain on the reservation were hanged for treason. They were guilty of the “crime”, but the Army and the U.S. government were hardly innocent in what led up to the crime. And there on the gallows was a priest or minister of the Gospel, there ostensibly to offer a final chance for the condenmed to get right with God but it was hard not to see him as complicit with the established power putting these Indians to death. How then could the Gospel be preached after that to the Apaches watching the administration of “justice”?
Chris, God let’s us suffer the consequences of our actions; he doesn’t take away our freedom to act. The two shouldn’t be confused.
The Bible states unequivocally that “Thou shalt not steal.” Why do you think it is okay to steal someone’s freedom, while condemning people who steal property or lives. It’s unfortunate that you tag the poor anarchists with producing robbery and murder, while you justify the theft of freedom, which is really simply enslavement.
The sad news is that the people you propose to enslave (Gays, drug addicts, libertines) will soon be trying to enslave you. What you sow, you will reap. The justification of blasphemy laws work just as well to excuse hate crime laws. You take away their freedom to visit whores, and they will one day take from you your freedom to congregate and worship God. The irony, as Jesus foresaw, is that the mob you use to prevent adulteration, fornication, and intoxication, are guilty of those selfsame crimes, or worse. If you followed Jesus advice, we who are not sinless would have to drop our stones, and stick to protecting the widows and orphans, and transforming the world through evangelization. But that’s a whole lot harder to accomplish, because it involves inner change.
It’s also harder to protect widows and orphans when nobody gets arrested for robbery or fraud.
There are prudential arguments for and against Caesar prohibiting vice. But your particular argument on principle may go further than you may like.
JustinMartyr
I would suggest that morality is pretty constant from society to society – until the last 40 years or so. Read Lewis’ “The Abolition of Man” to see how the world’s religions agree more than they disagree on morality. I would suggest taht anti-blasphemy laws and laws that enforce Christianity or even prefer Christianity in a society would tend, over time, to weaken that society. Likewise, laws that are lax on morality tend to also weaken societies. A balance needs to be obtained between legislating Christianity and not legislating any morality. The first is self-defeating and the second leads to chaos and the downfall of society (witness Rome, Europe today, Greece, and even the USA in recent years). I submit that we, as a society, should and do legislate morality. What are the laws against theft, murder, and driving while intoxicated if not legislating morality? Now, where that balance lies will differ with each person, but the aggregate should be reflected in the laws of society. As a Christian, I would prefer for all people to be subjects of King Jesus. But as an U.S. Citizen, I also do not want to force anyone to espouse any faith or lack of faith. But as a citizen and as a Christian, I want our society to be just and moral. Of course, this can be acheived by voting for me, Phil Snyder, as Benevolent Dictator in 2008 :). A just society and a moral society will not be acheived this side of the Eschaton. But that does not relieve us of the requirement to work for less unjust and more moral societies.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
God let’s us suffer the consequences of our actions; he doesn’t take away our freedom to act.
Of course, justinmartyr (an inapt pseudonym given the irrationality of your argument). And that is exactly what most governments do, even when they are robbing us of various freedoms. I am free to murder my neighbor. I am free to steal and destroy property, to make bomb threats in an airport or pass counterfeit currency at the spuermarket. But the government establishes that, if they catch me doing these things, there will be penalties. It is my own responce in anticipation of such penalties which would really restrict my freedom and keep me from doing them (if I did not already restrict myself by my own conscience). The threat of consequences is how order is maintained in civilized wordly societies. I wonder if you noticed how God established such legal consequences for murder and theft and blasphemy.
The question is not whether we shall restrict freedom or not. No society can survive if it does not restrict, by threat of civil consequences, the freedom of a race inclined toward sin and selfishness. The real question is how much freedom should be restricted and on what basis.
Irrational rants such as you responded with hardly advance the argument.
Phil Snyder, and indirectly to justinmartyr, ironic that I recently re-read Abolition Of Man and also just this morning came across a note I made to myself while reading the book, paraphrasing a CS Lewis thought. Coincidence? Nah. Well anyway here is the note I made:
Adopting the Chinese word TAO – Conscience of humanity, Absolute Truth
The wish to abandon traditional morality is often linked with what is supposed to be a new, “realistic†or “rational†or “basic†set of values.
Regardless of one’s belief or disbelief, if we are to have values at all we must accept the ultimate platitudes of Practical Reason as having absolute validity. Any attempt to reintroduce lower values on a more “realistic†basis is domed.
A person cannot reject the concept of values altogether, decide for themselves what mankind is to be like, be master over self and choose their own destiny. But one cannot debunk traditional values and then claim there are still some “real†values.
I do think we should do some legislation of morality; but we should also reduce harm. I don’t believe, for example, that there is a “slippery slope” or in “moral hazards” to helping people.
for example, I think that the government should legislate helping the poor. To me this is a moral issue: and people will voluntarily give less than what is required (that’s human sin!). I also think that we should regulate greed and envy. Of course, we’ve gotten away from that….
John,
True, we’ve gotten away from the concept of envy. We have turned the old vice of envy to the new virtue of “fairness.” The US Government does encourage charity and helping the poor through the tax code. Monies given to charities are tax deductible. I would like to see time donated to programs that help the poor (such as homeless shelters, food banks, free/reduced care clinics, education programs, etc.) also be deducted from your taxes at a median or average rate – say take a $10 donation for every hour of service donated and documented to recognized charities. Things like serving at Church for Sunday services would not count, but helping the Church serve meals at a homeless shelter would.
Likewise, we should penalize having children out of wedlock and divorce. Both of these have serious negative consequences to the children and to society as a whole. I’m not sure how you would punish envy and greed. That sounds too much like a thought crime.
What do you think?
YBIC,
Phil Snyder