An Irresponsible Statement From the Pastoral Office

On August 16, Reverend Steven Anderson, the pastor of Faithful Word Baptist Church, an “old-fashioned, independent, fundamental, King James only, separated Baptist church” in Tempe Arizona informed his congregation that he is praying for the death of President Barack Obama. Anderson stated the he prays that Obama “dies and goes to hell.” He went on to say, “If you want to know how I’d like to see Obama die, I’d like him to die of natural causes. I don’t want him to be a martyr, we don’t need another holiday. I’d like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer.” He not only mentioned it in his sermon, but has posted that sermon on his web site.

I do not know Anderson, but his statements alarm me on several levels. While I will not judge his spiritual standing, I do judge such statements as lunacy, irresponsible and most unbecoming of a man in his position. While we could be tempted to dismiss Anderson as a very rare case, he is not. Over the course of the last twenty years a good number of fundamentalist and evangelicals leaders, ministers and laity who have and continue to demonize those who do not think like them.

The roots of such thinking stem back to the early 1980s to Jerry Falwell’s defunct and failed “Moral Majority”. Falwell rightly encouraged the faith community to be engaged in the political sphere and to make decisions on voting not by party but by faith measures. It is the latter where the failed legacy of the Moral Majority’s continues to linger. Instead of encouraging people to make decisions in a balanced way on a wide host of issues and values they made at the time four issues exclusive measures, a) reversal of Rowe v. Wade, b) fighting the passage of the ERA – legislation that recognized the equality of women both in the home, law courts and work-place, c) fighting passage civil-rights laws, and d) standing firm against any laws that recognize gays as having and civil protection in the work-place or from prosecution. Since, the religious right has kept to a very narrow agenda and has increasingly become an extension of the right wing of the Republican party.

As for Anderson, let me deal with the cancer statement first. Anderson has implied that brain cancer is a divine judgment and rightly fitting those who are destined to hell. No doubt about it cancer is a curse but it is a curse that falls upon the just and the unjust. To imply that those who have cancer are under some sort of divine judgment is preaching a gospel that is not found in the Bible and but is a false man-made gospel.

Rather than starting with the Word and allowing it to speak and shape his mind, it is clear from these few statements that like all too many other’s on the far right that Anderson starts with a political position and belief system and then uses carefully selected Bible passages to justify his preconceived bias while dismissing others that would not support such a view. In other words he is an extreme Republican who happens to be a Christian and uses the church and the Bible to support his political views.

What is most alarming is not his views, but the context and venue in which they are uttered. As a citizen of the United States he is free to hold any view he so desires whether they are grounded in truth or not. Also he is free to express them freely to the cheers or jeers of the listener.

I take issue with Anderson as these comments are spoken from the office of pastor and in the venue of worship. Credible seminaries carefully remind their students that what one says from the pulpit and in the context of the pastoral office must done thoughtfully. They remind their students that the listener views their words as a divine message more than merely the opinion of a man or woman. Such views are taken seriously by their congregants and some will accept them uncritically. A thoughtless personal opinion the pastor sees as “just my opinion” is viewed as a divine opinion by the listener. The pastor therefore must be guarded in his opinion and is advised to be cautious in uttering them within the contexts of a sermon, prayer, worship, pastoral counseling, or pastoral pronouncements. Anderson either was never taught this wise instruction or he has ignored this fundamental pastoral teaching.

As mentioned, as a citizen he has a right to speak these things. If he said them apart from the pastoral role and worship I would have no issue as such other than to say that I would disagree. But to state these things as part of worship or in the formal context of fulfillign the pastoral role is another issue.

That said, many other evangelical and fundamentalist leaders likewise ignore the wisdom of their thoughtful teachers. Too many start with a political agenda, speak on that agenda while using faith statements to justify their position, without most in their congregations realizing that they minister has misused his office and Scripture to push a political agenda. What is also disturbing is that many pastors do not realize that they are starting with an external manmade agenda and labeling it as God’s agenda.

The response from the religious community at large when a religious leader utters such statements is disappointing. Instead of their supervisors and peers speaking out in various ways against such thinking, they remain silent, and thereby tacitly indicate that such an utterance is acceptable. Since Anderson is an independent fundamentalist separate Baptist, he has no supervisors or peer system to hold him accountable. It is up to the church and individuals at large to speak out against such statements, statements that harm civil discourse as well as the church body as a whole in the eyes of the world at large.

Liberty University and Student Democrats

On May 15th Liberty University in Lynchburg Virginia withdrew its recognition of the student organized Liberty University Democratic Club. The Dean of Students’ e-mail stated that recognition was withdrawn because “The candidates this club supports uphold the platform and implement it. The candidates supported are directly contrary to the mission of Liberty University…..The Democratic Party platform is contrary to the mission of Liberty University and Christian doctrine.”

Liberty University president Jerry Falwell Jr. stated on the weekend “That the club still has the right to exist,” but the club cannot use the university’s name or receive funding. Further, the club is limited as to where they can meet, and are not able to advertise meetings on campus or distribute its literature to students.

Though Dean Hine says the college is “in no way attempting to stifle free speech” the college functionally is not allowing the Democrats to function on the same level as the Republicans.
Falwell has stated, “Parents and students support the University because they believe in the distinctly Christian identity and mission. Liberty University is pro-life and believes that marriage between one man and one woman provides the best environment for children.”

Liberty officials have noted that they have had a wave of complaints from donors, parents and trustees about the club. Instead of noting that a quality institute of higher education is a crucible for the free exchange and debate of views, and defending the same, the leadership marginalized the club.

Such marginalization of contrary views is not surprising given its point of view and mission. Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr. often proudly proclaimed that Liberty was to be the “Harvard of the right.” An official brochure says the university has a “strong commitment to political conservatism, total rejection of socialism, and the firm support for American’s economic system of free enterprise.” In other words, LU is founded upon a vision of Christianity that is more grounded in the American cultural unabashed and unregulated free enterprise than it is in the understanding of eternal biblical principles. The Bible does not sanction any single economic system or government system, or even a social structure. Yet Falwell has founded a university to teach and support a particular cultural system and justify it in the garb of religious language.

Contrary to what it claims, Liberty does stifle free speech. Faculty who disagree with its narrow teachings are soon without a position. A faculty member who holds that global warming is taking place, or who hints that he/she does not hold to the young earth seven literal twenty-four hour creation story will find their position at LU at risk. Such a posture means students are not being educated by professors who have seriously examined and considered diverse views. Faculty are teaching from safe ground and with an approved set of teachings (hmmmm...sounds similar to what took place in the Soviet Union and Germany from 1933 to 1945, China since 1948, etc.).

A faculty member who voted for Obama, if their secret was discovered, could find that they are asked to leave the university. If the Democrat students were to put together a petition or have a public meeting outside the authorized classroom, such students are at risk of receiving 12 reprimands (demerits) and a $50 fine for participating in an unauthorized activity.

Irrespective of its statements to the contrary, LU has functionally stated that a person who is a Democrat and votes for Democrat candidates is not a faithful Christian…at least faithful a per their definition of what it means to be a Christian.

Liberty says that they are tolerant, yet they have student and faculty policies that contradict such claims. A university is a place for educating the mind, for arguing for and against a host of issues, a place to freely exchange and debate ideas in the search for truth. To allow the debate and free exchange of ideas on an equal footing does not mean that the university agrees with or promotes a particular set of views. It allows its students and faculty to sift thoughtfully and come to a more informed view. Liberty had the opportunity to be tolerant and embrace the free exchange of ideas, but instead they withdraw authorization for the students to have Democrat club on campus. Instead they by their actions they have undermined the fundamental founding principle of the United States, freedom of speech and exchange of ideas, and the ability to organize politically.

Love the Sinner Does Not Apply to Gays

“Love the sinner but hate the sin” as been an evangelical mantra for generations. Preachers point to Jesus as an example of living this out. Jesus ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, both of whom were the lowest of sinners in his culture.

When it comes to the issue of homosexuality I question if this is true. One senior Salvation Army officer said to me back in 2002 that in many ways the evangelical church, including many Salvationists (officers and soldiers) treat homosexuals as the modern lepers. I agreed then and still do so. Jerry Falwell blaming homosexuals for the 9-11 attacks is an example of how homosexuals are viewed as the escape goats for society’s problems. Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore in tossing his evangelical rage far and wide has proclaimed homosexuality to be “abhorrent, immoral, detestable…and a crime against nature.”

Dr. James Kennedy, another major evangelical leader, has stated about gays in the military, “would you want your son, daughter, or grandchild sharing a shower, foxhole, or blood with a homosexual?” Dr. Kennedy’s statement along with Moore, Falwell’s and hundreds of other evangelical leaders are similar to the racist statements made about Jews, African Americans, Latinos, Italians, etc. Such fear mongering statements were unacceptable back in the past about ethnic groups, they are unacceptable today.

Loving the sinner but not the sin is not practiced by the evangelical church when it comes to gays. Family Research Council’s posture and admonition against church-gay community dialogue is outrageous and shameful. The Family Research Council has more to do with resisting dialogue and acceptance of gays in society than with building of strong families. Their definition of family is narrow, a married man and woman with children who all go to church every Sunday.

Gays are all around us. We marginalize them and those within the church live in fear of being discovered. While at Asbury College four guys I knew were gay, three of whom were Salvationists. One of the four was in the elementary education program and when it became known to the administration he was gay he was not allowed to do his student-teacher practicum. He was thereby shamefully forced to transfer to a secular school.

The evangelical church by enlarge talk of gays as if they have some sort of contagious disease that can be cured once and for all with the conversation prescription. Such a view is naive and is out of keeping with research that indicates for many gay men and women there may be a genetic and a biochemical basis. Regardless of what Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council claims, such research and evidence is not questionable science. Dobson and his friends at the Family Research Council are like the Church during the 1400s in denying that the world was round. They clung to their understanding of the Bible rather than wondering if their interpretation of various passages was sound. Eventually when ships traveled around the world the evidence was so solid that they changed their interpretation.

According to the Barna group 91% of non-Christians between the ages of 16-30 believe that Christians are “anti-homosexuals” and are confused as their meanness towards homosexuals is out of keeping what non-Christians understand about the teachings of Jesus. I agree with these young non-Christians. Fortunately for the church a rapidly growing number of the Christians in the same age group are coming to the same conclusion.