The recent controversy that has erupted over President-Elect Obama’s decision to invite Rev.  Rick Warren to give the invocation at his Inauguration points to ongoing issues each preacher must confront concerning the role of the preacher in commenting on public policy, all part of the larger matter of the relationship between proclaiming one’s religious faith and translating that faith into specific political proposals on local, state and national issues.  Whatever one thinks of Rev.  Warren’s positions, it is clear that he is very comfortable taking them and that he sees his role as a preacher as finding ways to articulate how one’s faith needs to move to concrete political actions.   While I differ with his stand on same sex marriage, I find that Rev.  Warren’s unwillingness to compartmentalize Christian faith from political decision making both reasonable and laudable.   I believe that he has raised consciousness among Christians on issues of climate change, help for AIDS victims, and the needs of those in the underdeveloped world.  {quotes}The question before preachers on the local level, not quite so noticeable on the national stage as he, is how one preaches about the preponderance of political issues that may arise during one’s pulpit tenure in a way that both contributes to our society’s attempts to solve problems while remaining faithful to the work of the preacher in preaching the Gospel.{/quotes}   It strikes me that the Christian preacher does have a role to play in helping one’s  hearers confront such topical issues as war, terrorism, economic crisis, stem cell research, abortion, and human rights.  Nonetheless, it is most certainly a task fraught with danger and difficulty, one that requires considerable caution before plunging in full force, though plunge I think one must!There are two ways in which preachers have often handled questions of this relationship that strike me as less than sufficient.  It is my sense that many of us have experienced these approaches either in our own preaching or in our experience as individuals who have been in the pews listening to sermons.  The first instance is the preacher who avoids any homiletic approach which puts him or her in the position of taking a controversial political stand.  This usually includes the clergyperson who makes general positive comments about such lofty ideals as peace or love or justice, but who shies away from spelling out what those words mean in concrete terms.   The second and opposite example is the preacher who is  comfortable with suggesting public policy and whose sermons might even offer detailed analyses of whatever policy issues are the topic of the sermon.  In its most extreme form, this sermon is heavy with quotes from economic studies and government reports and very light on Jesus!

In my view, the deficiency in the first is the reinforcement from the pulpit that the Christian faith does not require us to act in the social and political realms.  An easy avoidance of that which is controversial may bring with it the unintended consequence of dulling  moral passion in the listener and of enabling others to view the church experience as simply ‘sanctuary’ from the worries and problems of the world, including the public problems their nation must confront.  While some might argue that this approach is preferable to the overt politicking in which some church leaders engage, often spurred on by their denominational leadership, there remains the constant danger of irrelevance — the unsettling acceptance of a notion that faith is really more about feeling good about life, both this one and the one after, and that improving the material lot of others, while commendable, is ultimately of less importance than this narrowly defined Gospel of salvation.

In the second instance, the preacher runs the risk of having the message sound like a political party platform plank rather than a sermon based on the Gospel.  Sermons mired in detailed economic and sociological analysis, especially from clergy not trained in those areas, can readily strike those in the pews as simply “idealistic, pie in the sky” exhortations, not terribly grounded in the reality of everyday life.  These kinds of sermons may end up being dismissed and not taken particularly seriously because they fail the evangelical test — coming across as less Gospel and more public policy.  These kinds of sermons are often devoid of a clear spiritual basis, and as public policy statements, they pale in comparison to those issued by individuals more expert in their fields than the local preacher.

In my view, however, there is a third path in preaching about these issues that confront our nation.  It is the path by which the preacher is attuned to the clear moral issues of the time and place in which the preacher lives and is willing to take stands on those issues in ways which draws primarily on the biblical and theological analyses of the issue and is actively engaged in the process of inviting dialogue and conversation within the congregation on this particular issue.  This approach recognizes that the preacher has something to offer in terms of shedding light on the issue, something the economist or political scientist may not.  The preacher offers expertise in biblical and theological study.  At the same time by bringing his or her immersion in the wisdom and guidance of the Gospel to bear on difficult, topical issues; the preacher demonstrates firm belief that the Gospel is relevant at all times and in all situations and is not something to be relegated to just church life or purely church issues.

In the process of leading conversation and dialogue, the preacher conveys something else as well.  In so doing, the preacher makes clear that living out the Gospel and putting it into practice can be a very complicated matter, one in which there are often conflicting interpretations and solutions.  While I am a preacher who freely admits to a preference for what may be described as “liberal” political policy, I also have to admit honestly that there are different ways to carry out the biblical injunction to care for the poor and the needy and to wage peace.  The gospel message cannot be encapsulated in a political position paper written by me.

On the parish level, I strive to use this two-pronged approach as often as a real “controversial” issue comes up.  I think most recently of the ongoing debate over marriage equality and not so long ago, of the battle here in Connecticut over the death penalty.

Believing as I do that hearers of the Word need to hear a detailed exploration of a topical issue from a solid biblical and theological perspective, I try to preach a straightforward sermon on the subject alluding to information from a variety of sources but stressing theological analysis.  I seek to follow this up with opportunities for conversation in adult education forums, dialogue sermon time, and through the creative use of an on-line blogging site that I established to keep our interactive, two-way homiletic conversations growing.  The end result, I hope, is that believers can see one another less as opponents on different sides of particular debates and more as what we are — believers in Jesus, seeking to apply what Jesus taught to the complexity of everyday life and the contemporary issues that confront us daily.  This approach, I trust, may help local pastors as controversies erupt.  I would anticipate that a dialogical, relational homiletic would help congregations both encounter God’s Word and grow in mutual respect as fellow believers.