Sometimes, I hate pastors. Okay, that’s maybe a little bit harsh. I am a pastor, and in my work, I’ve met some of the most brilliant, humble and spiritual people. I’ve been introduced to colleagues who can create an atmosphere of hope, speak about faith matters in both plain and profound terms, and give a good name to the profession and their church, all the while going through very trying and stressful situations. I know lots of great priests and pastors. However, none of them get interviewed on the radio.
The archbishop of Canterburry, Rowan Williams, visited Canada recently, and his visit got people talking about the Anglican church in Canada’s response to the issue of homosexuality. With hot button issues like this, people are always on edge. Many people on either side of the debate seem to be very easily set off. While it is annoying to hear people at either extreme of the debate rant about how wrong the other side is, and the personal attacks that go with it, it is equally annoying to hear them empowered by stupid comments that start these arguments. By this point in the debate, don’t we know the obvious arguments people on the other side will make?
Personally, I feel that both absolute inclusion and absolute exclusion are insufficient responses for the institutional church. I believe that people on both sides of the debate are well-meaning, devoted people. It is easy for the pro-inclusion crowd to sound reasonable, especially on our left-leaning radio stations. While their statements may sound rational and intellectual the regular audience, I cringe. Not because I disagree with them (sometimes I do, sometimes I don’t), but because these pastors make irresponsible statements about the Bible. Pastors and others need to remember that when they are speaking about the Bible on the radio or TV, their audience includes Biblical literalists as well as the general public.
I expect people who write letters to the editor to speak recklessly, but it really ticks me off when pastors take the argument down unnecessary and predictable paths. If a pastor wants to talk about ethics or congregational life, that’s fine, they can say what they want, but speaking about the Bible carries with it a greater sense of responsibility. Many try so hard to avoid making it sound like a collection of fairy tales that they make it sound merely like a random collection of writings from archaic times. The other extreme is claim absolute understanding of God and the world because of one’s seemingly flawless interpretation of scriptures that were handed down by God on stone tablets in King James Version English.
On this particular radio program, a pastor said something like “the Bible was written by men in a different time who didn’t have the knowledge that we have now.” That may work as a intellectual statement, but in a theologically loaded debate, nothing could be stupider. It affirms for the opponents of Christianity that the Bible isn’t worth reading, let alone modeling one’s life after, and it affirms to the biblical literalists that the pro-inclusionists don’t take the Bible seriously. With that statement, he made himself, as a pastor, irrelevant to both sides; he is written off by one side for not being religious enough, and is written off by the other side for being religious at all.
It may not be easy to engage the text as a sacred document while sounding rational to a liberal audience, but that is what is required. If the “left” keeps making statements that imply infallibility of scripture, the “right” will keeping making the same arguments, and the discussion gets nowhere. This isn’t a matter of pandering to the annoying repetitive side, it’s a matter of neither side engaging the other, and it’s irresponsible.
