This morning I attended my local Anglican church. Our Lay Reader Emeritus gave the sermon and a prayer. In the prayer she spoke about the need for God's love in places like Ukraine, China and Cameroon and referencing the evil of Herod spoke about the evil of modern dictators and despots like Putin. She also listed "Rightwing Benjamin Netanyahu' as amongst these. I was quite shocked by this and it has troubled me all day. I am fairly new to this Church so I feel a little out of place rasing my concerns, and yet I can't seem to let it go. The vicar wasn't there today and the entire service was taken by lay preachers. Should I speak to the vicar about my concerns?
'Go out into all the world...' 'Who has put down the mighty...' It's in Jesus telling the leaders of his day how vile they were; it's in John castigating Herod for his evil. It's in the slaughter of the innocents. It's in needing to flee from danger posted by a tyrant. It's in Jesus' harsh condemnation of 'whitewashed sepulchres' and John's 'generation of vipers'. It's in Putin using the Russian Church the exact same way - to whitewash crimes. It's in preaching on the issues of the day that are affecting people who do also need God's love. How could anything be more relevent than bringing down warmongering tyrants and spreading the Gospel, the real one, to people - not this fake Russian politicised garbage that Constantinople rejected in 2018.
Glad you made it to church! Yes, I absolutely encourage you to have a sit-down chat with the vicar. It is most appropriate. I have been in the Anglican Church for a bit more than 4 years. At the conclusion of the first service, our rector (as he was shaking my hand) welcomed me to the church and said he'd be glad to get together during the week for a chat if I wished. I took him up on that offer and it was most beneficial. I was able to find out what he is like, which way his theology leans (same as mine), which way his politics leans (same as mine), and even what kind of beer he likes (Guinness, which I avoid ). I was able to express my thoughts and concerns, too, and he was able to address the concerns in a tactful, Bible-based way. It was most reassuring. But if it had been very much otherwise, I would have known right away not to invest time in that particular parish but to seek another (I'm fortunate to have 3 other Anglican churches and several Episcopal churches within close proximity in this metro area). I think you would be well served by getting to know your vicar, and you certainly should feel free to express your concern about today's sermon. His response will tell you much about whether you'd feel comfortable sitting under his sermons week after week.
There are notable differences. Jesus could be absolutely certain about who was sinning and what those sins were. We humans see imperfectly and can err, so any Christians (especially those whom God has called to teach) must be very careful about who they condemn with their words. Moreover, Jesus talked about the local people, particularly the self-serving local religious leaders, not those political leaders who were a long way off (Caesar was a really sinful dude, but when did Jesus ever castigate him?). It's fine for a minister of the gospel to use real-world examples to illustrate a spiritual point or a Bible principle, but condemning leaders in distant nations when one does not know all the facts and (lacking omniscience) cannot possibly present a fully balanced view of events is completely inappropriate. The Lay Reader was judging individuals rather than specific sins, and the Bible tells us not to do that. In my parish, if a deacon or a lay reader gives a sermon, I'm reasonably sure the rector has looked at it in advance and approved it. If such a one gave a sermon that included the sort of condemnations that Robert heard, regardless which side of the conflict or political spectrum the sermon took, it would be the absolute last time that person would get to speak, and the rector would probably spend the next 2-3 Sundays providing corrective sermons.
I sympathize with your situation. This is a good example of why I have always believed that ministers should steer clear of politics. A talk with the rector or vicar to share your concerns sounds like a reasonable first step, to find out if what you experienced was an aberration, or is what you can expect in the future.
I'm sorry? What more evidence do you need that Putin is a psychopathic despot bent on bringing a country into his new Russian empire and destroying it? And whilst we may not see Jesus doing it, John, whom He followed and who is a Saint, was literally beheaded for calling Herod out. This is exactly what the reader was doing - calling out a modern 'king' for engaging in unspeakable evil. Again, what more evidence do we need of Xi Jinping's horrific crimes in China against just about everyone at this point? The genocide of Uyghur Muslims, the compromised Churches, the locking of people in their homes during lockdowns for them to starve to death? What more facts do you want, exactly, about either of these psychopaths? And why shouldn't we bring attention to the trillions of people affected by them? To the threat they pose to innocents? This isn't politics this is the Social Gospel and it's perfectly relevent. "Pure and undefiled religion before God the Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained from the world." From the 1970s Bishops' Synod (yes I know), From this document https://www.cctwincities.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Justicia-in-Mundo.pdf under Pope Paul VI. "Listening to the cry of those who suffer violence and are oppressed by unjust systems and structures, and hearing the appeal of a world that by its perversity contradicts the plan of its Creator, we have shared our awareness of the Church's vocation to be present in the heart of the world by proclaiming the Good News to the poor, freedom to the oppressed, and joy to the afflicted."
I don't need any evidence at all to know that a competent minister of the Gospel does not get into specifics about this leader or that leader. Therein lies the problem. But if you really like the Social "Gospel" (not that it's good news) , you'd like Pope Francis and would feel at home in a great many RC churches.
Err yes but... The Social Gospel is a social movement within Protestantism that aims to apply Christian ethics to social problems, especially issues of social justice such as economic inequality, poverty, alcoholism, crime, racial tensions, slums, unclean environment, child labor, lack of unionization, poor schools, and the dangers of war. It was most prominent in the early-20th-century United States and Canada. Theologically, the Social Gospelers sought to put into practice the Lord's Prayer (Matthew 6:10): "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven".[1] The Social Gospel affected much of Protestant America. The Presbyterians described their goals in 1910 by proclaiming: The great ends of the church are the proclamation of the gospel for the salvation of humankind; the shelter, nurture, and spiritual fellowship of the children of God; the maintenance of divine worship; the preservation of truth; the promotion of social righteousness; and the exhibition of the Kingdom of Heaven to the world.[6] What is wrong with this and how is this 'not good news' or not Gospel based?
The problem is, striving against injustice and seeing to the temporal needs of those around us is a job for the laity, but the job of the clergy is to see to people's spiritual needs.
The description of what is traditionally understood as the founding of the diaconate explicitly includes the duty of serving the temporal needs of the members of the community who could not adequately take care of themselves (cf. Acts 6:1-6), i.e., it is not reserved or restricted to the laity. It is thus not clear, at least not to me, that appeals to the ‘Social Gospel’, or to the social/moral character of the Gospel, can be so easily dismissed.
God rejects the sacrifices and offerings and other such things of priests who have not seen to social justice. This is recorded in Isaiah 1 where God rejects their Sabbaths and New Moons etc. because the priests are not doing these things: Wash yourselves. Cleanse yourselves. Remove your evil deeds from my sight. Stop doing evil. Learn to do good. Pursue justice. Correct the oppressor. Defend the rights of the fatherless. Plead the widow’s cause. These issues run through the Bible like oil. Clergy aren't in some bizarre category that have nothing to do with the world around them. This along with the strong communitarian ethic in the NT where priests clearly exercise pastoral care as well.
Maybe you're nitpicking because I wasn't specific enough. Yes, you're right, an ordained minister can help provide for temporal needs of people, BUT we we have been talking in this thread about people preaching from the pulpit. Those are two different things entirely. Look in the Bible at passages that tell of the Apostles addressing gatherings. Show me one instance -- just one! -- where an Apostle makes his message all about social justice. I don't know of any. The Apostles may have done good things temporally, like taking an offering from one church and getting it to another church in need. But they were instructed by our Lord to be fishers of men, not soldiers of society. They preached Christ crucified and Christ resurrected. I think this lay reader "sneaked one by" his vicar, at least temporarily. If the vicar has any wisdom, he will administer firm correction.
Ok, but it is not merely a matter of an ordained minister “helping” with such things: doing so was the explicit purpose of the diaconal order as such, at least originally. So, the notion that the division of labor within the Church is for the clergy to attend to spiritual needs while the laity attend to temporal ones, seems artificial.
The challenge here is not that the Gospel is political, but that the Gospel has political ramifications. How are we to understand the Gospel approach to matters like the invasion of Ukraine, or the abolition of a woman's opportunity in education in Afghanistan? If the Church, Christians, Clergy, Laity and the Gospel must be silent on these issues, then you ask that the Church abandon its prophetic voice, which is something I believe we must not do. The key principle in this must be that faith informs politics, and not, politics informs faith. The Ukraine issue becomes very multi-faceted when you look at what was happening in the Orthodox Churches in the run-up, including Patriarch Bartholomew granting autocephalous status to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, something which triggered an almighty row between Patriarch Kyril and Patriarch Bartholomew.
Well said. I think there is a fine line between directly addressing areas of intrinsic concern - poverty, war, disease, etc., which clergy indeed ought to do ideally - without being overtly partisan. I have seem some clergy achieve this balance consistently and exceptionally well, without erring on either side, so it’s hardly impossible. On the other hand, it takes a significant amount of discretion, discipline, and innate talent to do this, and I would personally prefer clergy who only indirectly addressed such things, rather than those who don’t even try to achieve the balance mentioned above (the latter of which one unfortunately often sees in evangelicalism), if those were the only two choices.
I've read that Patriarch Kyril, of the infamous disappearing watch fame, informs me that I can gain salvation by dying for Russia in their conflict with Ukraine.
I wonder if he ever donated that watch to assist the poor in his Church, since he was apparently so embarrassed by it…
No one has said that Christians, laity, "must be silent on these issues." However, the pastoral ministry is not called to divisiveness, is it? Preaching that this or that person is evil, or that one party to a war is evil while implying that the other party is not, is inherently divisive and wrong. In the original post of this thread, we hear of someone preaching from the pulpit (thankfully not a priest) about specific political figures (Putin, Netanhayu) and apparently saying that they are evil despots. This is highly divisive and totally inappropriate, as well as arguably unBiblical ("Judge not, lest ye be judged"). Quite frankly, I am extremely disappointed to see Christians jumping to the defense of such preaching. If that is what the members of this forum really think is appropriate subject matter from an Anglican pulpit, I am given pause to wonder whether I really fit in around here.