Being a good, reasonably well behaved kind of minister person, I try to allow my Deacons to have a say in the themes I use for preaching, though most of the time no one says anything. My request to respond to the recent local elections has elicited thrice the usual response rate (three!) of which one in particular elevated my blood pressure with its claim that church services should never be used as 'political platforms.' No? It's a funny old gospel we preach then!
I was miffed, more than a little, by the inference that I might take a party political stance or that I might say something that would contravene the incitement laws (not quite sure what they are called, but I'm sure any Imam could tell you). But more, I was troubled by the implication that church should be a nicey nicey place where we talk about nice gentle Jesus who is preparing a lovely buffet in heaven for nice people like us. Sorry, I'm being stroppy, not fair when the person cannot defend themself.
The key 'text' of my sermon next Sunday is "all that is needed for evil to triumph is for decent people to do nothing" and I will use as examples the Confessing Church in Germany, good old overworked William Wilberforce and the Mandela/Tutu work in South Africa as examples of Christians who did see the Gospel as powerful and church as a very political platform.
The famous misquote of Martin Neimoller's poem (the version that includes Jews) seems to epitomise the consequences of doing nothing, of being apolitical.
Next Sunday I will ask people to do something political - on 'Not for Sale Sunday' I will ask them to fill in a BMS postcard lobbying the Albanian Embassy on the issue of human trafficking. I hope that people will see how gospel and action - political action - can go hand in hand, and that church is anything but a nice place to escape the realities of a broken world. I will also invite them to heed the words of Jesus and Paul to pray for (not about or against) those in authority.
And maybe I won't feel quite so much like ranting afterwards!
Comments
Hey I'm with you. Recently attended a meeting where it was indicated that we could not talk about issues such a 'Trident' because they are divisive but we were happy to allow someone to represent us at a service where we apologised for our part in the slave trade. Hello! This is mad. I am quite happy to confess the failing of our past but not happy to take decisions in the present that guarantee that all we will be able to do in the future is also apologise for our failure to stand up and do something. The irony of apologising for past failures while not being willing to take present responsibility stinks of hypocricy amd suggests that our apologies are empty. Thanks, now that i have ranted I also feel better.