In this edition, we will talk about politics from the pulpit. Our simplified definition of politics is that it can be a set of convenient concepts, ideas, principles, or schemes, designed to influence people to think positively about particular ideas. Politics is status-driven (Gusfield, 1963). This statecraft can create social dominance, depending on how a particular group motivates and attracts others to believe in their principles. The more successful a group is in attracting people, the more they feel driven. This positive-shift inspires them to do more of the same. Sometimes they succeed and other times they fail. However, contrary to what many believe about those who practice this statecraft, politicians make important decisions that affect everyone. They are astute and prudent in their craft, but they also make convenient decisions. Let us take a closer look at an analogy.
A Congresswoman/man may introduce legislation that is popular to her/his constituent. If the legislation becomes law, some citizens and residents may become praiseworthy of that Congresswoman/man while others may not be as praiseworthy. However, since the legislation is the law of the land, it means that citizens and residents must abide by that law. Those who oppose the law in other parts of the country, however, may petition their Congresswoman/man to introduce new legislation to scrap the current law.
Many of these citizens and residents are people of Faith, and the law may affect them like it does everyone else. They may see the law as counterintuitive to their beliefs. Conversely, other members of that same faith community may want the law preserved. The clergyperson then finds her/himself in a quandary because she/he is leading one faith community with a different political stance, each wanting to solidify their position. She/he may feel compelled to address the social concerns. Perhaps she/he has been silenced about the issue, but now has an opportunity to speak under the pretext that she/he is giving a balanced voice to the situation. She/he may be perceived as preaching or speaking politics from the pulpit. The truth is, the clergyperson, those who agreed with the law and those who disagreed with the law, are all speaking from their perspective frame of reference.
The argument is the clergyperson is called by God to be a prophetic witness with the ability to speak truth to power (Proverbs 14:25; Isaiah 43:10; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15). She/he is called to engage in the practical application of scripture so that it is relevant to daily life. Since political decisions affect everyone, including Faith communities, one might argue that it is prudent for the clergyperson to use her/his platform to address issues that affect her/his members. Is it not true that their influence on their congregation is just as important as the politicians'? Is it not true that in as much as politicians support and argue for their constituents, the clergyperson should have similar responsibilities to argue for and support her/his members? Are they not both speaking from their frame of reference?
When a clergyperson speaks politics from the pulpit, is it a convenient means to convey his/her position? You decide! A clergyperson who openly endorses a political party of choice is perceived as being too political. Churchgoers and politicians vary on this issue. Some argue for and against religious freedom. We believe that each argument is based on a frame of reference. Some may argue that it is situational ethics and convenience. Others may argue that the chronicity of discrepancy is not adequately addressed in our national discourse and so we shift the blame from politicians to clergy and vice versa. This leads to duplicitous behaviors, which points to a deeper divide. One observer asked, “is it time to employ a “greater moral compass?” Another said, “Is it time to demand both spiritual and moral leadership at a time when people are being killed while attending to ordinary daily life?” Yet another observer asked, “Is it politics to offer a prophetic word from the pulpit about daily atrocities?” We invite you to think about these concerns and where we are as a people. Should we think about people's frames of reference before we make value judgments or not?
We will take a break next week to speak about Easter. But in our final edition of this series, we will discuss alcohol.
Blessings to you!
Charles
