Unchurched people will have more respect for our public statements if we’re not just talking about a problem but actually doing something about it.
— Ed Dobson
A few years ago, I found myself having to rethink how I was to speak on controversial issues. A defining moment came after I appeared on Phil Donahue’s television show in New York City. We were discussing a boy who had been denied membership in the Boy Scouts; he had refused to pledge allegiance to God, claiming he was an atheist.
I thrive on such confrontations. As a member of the Moral Majority, I had written the organization’s platform. I had been invited to receptions at the White House, met privately with the Vice President at his residence, and accompanied Jerry Falwell to meetings with foreign heads of state. The Donahue show provided yet another opportunity to engage in spirited, no-holds-barred discussion over moral issues.
The show went well. Afterward, with a strong sense of accomplishment, I hurried through the airport to catch my plane. Rushing down a concourse, I bumped into an older pastor whom I had known for many years.
“Where have you been?” he asked. With satisfaction, I told him about my television appearance. He didn’t seem impressed. He rubbed his chin for a moment and then said, “Ed, you were called to preach the Bible, weren’t you?”
“Of course,” I replied.
“Then what are you doing here?” he said. “These talk shows are a waste of your time. They’ve diverted you from your primary calling. In my opinion, you’re casting your pearls in the wrong place.”
As I boarded the plane, I was unable to shake his comment. Nor could I shake it in the weeks and months that followed. For the next year my wife and I prayed over the direction of our lives.
The moment of truth came after the ptl scandal, when I was offered the presidency of ptl. That same day Calvary Church in Grand Rapids, Michigan, asked me to become their senior pastor.
That evening I went to my office and stayed the entire night to search my soul and seek God’s leading. In the morning, it was clear what I should do. I accepted the call to Calvary Church in Grand Rapids.
I understood my primary call was not to address controversial moral and social issues in the media but to preach and teach the Scriptures and win people to Christ. I have never regretted that decision.
But I found I couldn’t get away from controversial issues. We live in a controversial world that regularly touches the life of the church. In counseling, in church policies and practices, and in the pulpit, I am regularly called upon to address social and moral issues.
Now what? I knew how to do it on Donahue, but how was I to tackle these issues as pastor of a church?
Let the Bible Do the Talking
After the 1992 presidential election, I received a letter from a person alarmed at the political turn of events. “Pastor, the nation is in jeopardy,” the letter said. “Yet you have been strangely silent on the issues threatening our society. Unless you stand up and lead this church in opposition to the new administration’s policies, you will be partly to blame for the demise of our nation.”
I called the individual and said, “I appreciate your zeal. If God leads you to take an active role in opposing political policies that threaten our moral foundation as a nation, that’s terrific. But God hasn’t led me to get involved on that level. I’m a pastor. I’m committed to evangelism.”
I’ve learned that if I connect my ministry to a particular political party or adopt a protest mode, I immediately polarize people. I lose my opportunity to build bridges to groups who oppose my political positions. It becomes almost impossible for them to hear the gospel from me. I forfeit the ultimate mission of the church: preaching the Good News and making disciples of all nations.
I also told this man, “Furthermore, I’m committed to preaching the Bible. In our weekly pilgrimage through the Bible, when I come to Scriptures that speak to the issues that concern you, I will address them honestly and forcefully — and biblically.”
That’s the first principle, then, in tackling controversy as a pastor: let the Bible do the talking.
That means that I try systematically to preach through the Scriptures, rather than jumping from hot topic to hot topic in response to the evening news. This allows me to ground my teaching in the major themes of Scripture, so that when a controversial issue comes up in the text, people have a solid context from which to understand it. This also allows me to cover plenty of controversial topics, for the Bible is full of them!
This also means that when I do speak on a troubling issue, I do so exegetically, trying my best to found my views in biblical teaching. This grounds the issue in something larger than my own political agenda. And that not only gives me an objective basis on which to talk with others, it forces people to deal with the issue, and not just with me.
I once preached on abstinence and the use of alcohol in the Bible, and I ended up angering many in the congregation. I said that I personally practice abstinence. I offered seven compelling reasons why I believe every Christian should abstain from alcohol. Yet, to be honest with Scripture, I had to say there is great liberty for the Christian in this area. The Bible condemns only the abuse, not the use, of alcohol.
The next day a woman called. “Do you realize that every time a drunk driver kills a child in this area it will be your fault?” she said.
“Did you listen to the entire series?”
“Yes.”
“Then tell me, at what point did I misinterpret the Bible?”
“That’s not the issue,” she retorted. “You are in a leadership position, and you have given people in our church permission to drink!”
“Wait a minute!” I insisted. “Tell me where I was wrong in teaching what the Bible teaches. If you can, I will get up next Sunday morning, admit my mistake, and apologize to the congregation.”
Because her argument was with Scripture, I could compel her to think more deeply about the subject. Me she could just dismiss.
One temptation in preaching on contemporary controversy is to swagger — to get a little arrogant and assume your personal views are Scripture’s views. Keeping the focus on the Bible has one other advantage: it keeps me humble.
I inherited my self-skepticism from my father. Just before I went off to college (to a school known for its dogmatism), he put his arm around me and said, “Ed, don’t believe anything they tell you down there unless they can prove it from the Bible.”
I’ve tried to teach my congregation the same principle. During a sermon I sometimes say, “Remember, folks, I’m fallible. Don’t believe anything I tell you. You have a responsibility to judge from the Scriptures what I say. I can misread or misinterpret the Scriptures. So don’t put your faith in me; put it in the Bible.”
That attitude helps me not to speak for God when the Scriptures don’t specifically speak to certain issues. For instance, I consider it the height of presumption to announce that aids is the judgment of God on the homosexual community. I am comfortable saying that if we sow to the flesh, we will reap corruption. That’s far different from declaring that a specific virus is God’s specific judgment on a specific group of people. Is aids also God’s judgment on hemophiliacs, individuals who contract the virus through a blood transfusion or children born to a parent with aids?
The Gracious Prophet
Though I want to speak the truth, even about subjects that make us uncomfortable, I always want to be loving. That means a couple of things.
First, I don’t blast people from the pulpit. For example, several members in our church are deeply concerned over the sex education curriculum in Grand Rapids schools. Some would undoubtedly like me to take aim on the public school system.
I opted for a positive approach. My wife visited the local schools and read the sex education curriculum for herself. She discovered to her surprise that the woman responsible for choosing the materials is a member of our church! If I had succumbed to the temptation to take a cheap shot at the school system, I would have wounded one of our own.
I would have also alienated the school superintendent, the assistant superintendent, and the hundred or so public school teachers who attend my church and attempt each week to be a witness for Christ in the public schools.
Heavy-handed preaching is also a mistake when it comes to the issue of abortion. Despite my firm opposition to the practice, I realize people are listening who have gone through that tragedy. Words cannot convey their painful emotions and memories. That’s why I never address the topic without also explaining God’s love, forgiveness, and grace.
Second, speaking to controversy in love means learning to find the middle ground where I can speak my convictions without trampling on others’ convictions.
The church I now serve has historically been tolerant on the issue of baptism by immersion: in order to become a member of our church, you don’t have to have been immersed. The problem, though, is that I believe immersion baptism is the proper prerequisite to joining the church!
How did the church and I settle that difference when I came on board? I agreed not to speak judgmentally about members who had not been immersed. In turn, the church granted me the authority to preach my convictions on this matter.
Finally, being a gracious prophet means sometimes being a little creative, even having fun while addressing serious issues.
One Saturday evening in our outreach service, we addressed a delicate issue: racism in the church. We introduced the topic with a skit about an older church member who volunteered to call on visitors. That night the man could not find his glasses, and his eyesight was so poor he did not realize that his first call was to a black family.
The visit went well, and he invited the family to his home for a meal. Just before he left, he discovered his glasses in his coat pocket. When he put them on, he was shocked to discover who he had just invited to dinner.
In a good-natured way, the black father chided him about the stereotypes some whites have of blacks. Underneath the humor was a serious message. Afterwards I spoke about racism in the church. At the end of the sermon, a black pastor from the community and I answered questions from the audience.
A local Catholic college had sent their minority-affairs staff adviser and members of the student minority council to the service. The next day they published a complimentary editorial in the school newspaper. In effect they said, “This is the first time we’ve seen a white church deal with the problem of racism in an honest way.”
We could deal with it honestly because we had a little fun along the way. That to me is a gracious and effective way to talk about tough themes.
Strategies for Church Change
Sometimes I’ve determined that I not only must speak about an issue but also that the church needs to act on it. That requires both grace and wisdom. Here are three things I keep in mind as I enter this risky process.
• Start at the top. Several years ago, I was struck by how Christ reached out and touched lepers, and I asked myself, Who are the modern-day lepers in our society? I concluded it was likely those suffering with aids.
Not long after that, I led to Christ a man with the disease. He was gay and had grown up in our church. Following his decision to receive Christ, I met with him for lunch on a regular basis. I tried to visit him in the hospital whenever he was admitted. A genuine friendship developed.
One evening I brought another person with aids to the church board to tell his story. It was a pivotal experience in our church life. That night aids became something other than a stigmatized and feared disease; it became a person to be loved and accepted. It’s hard to maintain stereotypes and prejudice when you see how God can change a life.
My friend was a new creation in Christ, but he still had aids, and the board was forced to deal with the issue. We made two decisions: (1) to formulate a policy regarding aids in the church, and (2) to formulate a strategy to extend love to those suffering from aids. We would not wait for those with the hiv virus to come to us; we would go looking for them.
When a church moves into a controversial area such as aids, it must do so on solid footing. Church leaders must support it.
• Follow a defensible process. I try to follow an orderly process that can be defended once it’s completed.
For a year and a half, our elder board reviewed our congregation’s position on women in ministry. We spent considerable time studying the Scriptures, reviewing the literature on the topic, and discussing it on a board level. The board also met with a group of women who favored the ordination of women, a position different from the church’s historical stance, and refined its stance based on their responses. At the end of that sixteen-month process, I stood before the congregation to preach on what became the most emotionally charged issue I had ever dealt with.
I made it clear these were not my views alone; they were the views of the entire leadership body. I acknowledged that at best, our position on women was a conviction, not a biblical absolute. Then I outlined for the congregation the process we had followed and finally shared the final conclusion of our study: we believed the New Testament supported multiple, male, godly church leaders.
Furthermore I said that, though portions of Scripture suggested women elders might have been present in the early church, the biblical evidence simply wasn’t compelling enough to adopt that position.
I also said that churches that elect women elders or call women as pastors are not unbiblical. In fact, I admitted that we never could explain to our satisfaction the difference between women teaching an adult Bible class downstairs and standing in the pulpit upstairs.
“I’m glad the women mentioned in the Scriptures lived in biblical times,” I said. “If they were alive in our churches today, they wouldn’t have been allowed to do half the things they did.”
Though we haven’t come down in favor of the ordination of women, today three females are members of our professional ministry staff.
Still, some said we went too far, others said we didn’t go far enough. Changes of that magnitude take time, so I let the congregation know that some policies would change immediately, while others would be phased in over a year or two.
Because we followed an orderly, thoroughly defensible process, we were able to alter our stand on an important issue and still maintain basic congregational unity.
Handling Public Conflict
Even though I no longer seek open confrontation with our culture over moral and social issues, there are times when conflict comes my way. When it does, I follow three rules.
• Love thy protesters. Peter said we can silence the foolishness of ignorant people by our good behavior. Sadly, we sometimes have the right position on an issue but lack the right spirit and demeanor.
Our church was sorely put to the test in this regard. One Sunday morning, protesters showed up outside our door, marching up and down our sidewalks denouncing the church and the Bible.
I walked outside and met with the protesters. I invited them inside for coffee and asked them to join us for our worship service.
“We’ll come inside if you offer us equal time,” they said.
“Our worship service does not operate by the Fairness Doctrine,” I replied. “We can’t offer equal time. But if you wish to come and listen, I’ll be happy to meet with you after the service and answer any questions.”
They refused.
Several of our people, though, had honked and yelled at the protesters on their way into the service. So at the beginning of the service, I gently corrected them. I said, “This morning I met with the picketers and asked them to join us in worship. They refused. Isn’t it wonderful that in America we have the freedom to walk up and down in front of a church and protest?”
I saw a few individuals put their heads down. Afterwards several admitted to me that they had responded poorly to the unwanted visitors.
• Media: Handle with care. In my years with the Moral Majority, I discovered the enticement the media can have on a person. Seeing your name and words in the papers or seeing your face on television is seductive. Yet the results of high-level exposure are complicated, and the media can so easily ridicule your convictions so as to make you look like an idiot.
To help you avoid the wrong type of publicity, I offer the following three suggestions.
First, resist the urge to provide the media with a sound bite. Reporters are always looking for a good story. They’re out to find a fighting rooster who will get the feathers flying. Don’t play that role; in the long run, it will hurt you and your cause.
Second, if you do choose to respond to the media, offer a wellworded, written statement. Period. Don’t say anything beyond that, and grant an interview only if absolutely necessary. By all means, don’t make generalizations. Preface your remarks by saying, “In my opinion,” to avoid lawsuits. And stay away from attacking people on a personal level.
Third, remember that most of us pastors are not political experts. That’s why we should stay out of most political issues. When a decision is made in Washington that sends reporters scurrying to your door for a comment, leave the door shut. In most cases, I don’t return phone calls to newspapers.
On the other hand, if you do want to open the door to the media, show them firsthand the positive things you are doing to make a difference in people’s lives: Thanksgiving dinners for people with aids, disaster-relief efforts, shelter for the homeless.
• Keep your books open. This is more of a prerequisite than a response to public criticism. If your finances are not open and clean when a public controversy arises, the media will surely begin to sniff around. Even if they find everything above board, the suspicion and questions they raise can make the church look bad.
To forestall all that, annually we publish financial statements and make them available to the public. We even print staff salaries. Full disclosure is one of the surest marks of integrity and accountability.
Actions Speak Louder Than Sermons
I’ve found that the most effective means of confronting controversial moral and social issues is to make these ministry opportunities. Unchurched people will have more respect for our public statements if we’re not just talking about a problem but actually doing something about it.
Every time Mother Teresa visits the United States, she waxes eloquent on the evils of abortion, yet the press doesn’t ridicule or dismiss her. Why? Because of her compassionate ministry to India’s suffering. Compassion, far more than confrontation, impresses Christian and non-Christian alike.
So, when I’m asked about our stand on abortion, I explain not just our convictions but what we are doing about the problem. We are educating our junior and senior high young people how to deal with their sexuality. By encouraging abstinence and delayed gratification, we are helping them avoid having to make a decision whether or not to abort a child. In addition we support a women’s center in the city; we help women carry their babies to term and to decide whether to keep them or put them up for adoption. We offer women a genuine alternative to abortion.
That not only impresses people, it opens doors for evangelism.
I once received a call from a local leader of Planned Parenthood who had heard about our involvement in finding housing for those dying of aids. “I don’t know what’s happening in your church,” she said, “but everywhere I go I meet people who have been helped by your people. Whatever you’re doing, keep doing it.”
That phone call opened dialogue with someone in the “other camp.” I oppose Planned Parenthood’s stance on such issues as abortion and sexual ethics, but I had a brief opportunity to talk with one of their people one on one. And we talked not only about abortion and sexual ethics, but also about Jesus Christ — the ultimate controversial “issue,” the one who makes the difference in all the issues we face.
Copyright ©1994 by Christianity Today
