Pastors as Priests and Prophets: Bishop Budde's Challenge to Trump

Send us a text

Navigating the roles of pastor as both priest and prophet presents a unique dynamic within church ministry. Our panel, all pulpit preachers, explores the complexities of speaking truth to power, particularly in light of recent events surrounding Bishop Budde's remarks at the National Prayer Service. Through this discussion, we examine the balance of comfort and challenge within the pulpit, the role of civic religion, and the importance of building relationships within the congregation.

• Discussion on the dual role of pastors as both priest and prophet 
• Examination of Bishop Mary Ann Budde's sermon and its implications 
• Reactions to addressing public officials in worship settings 
• The importance of relationship-building for effective ministry 
• Encouraging empathy in the congregation amidst divisive socio-political issues 
• Reflections on unity, mercy, and the pastor's calling

The views expressed on Church Potluck are solely those of the participants and do not represent any organization.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Okay, we are recording.
Welcome everyone to ChurchPotluck, where we are serving up
a smorgasbord of Christiancuriosity.
I'm your host, dale McConkie,sociology professor and United

(00:21):
Methodist pastor, and we gotsome Methodists around the table
.
We Methodists, we like a goodchurch potluck.
Yes, yes, yes, we do.
Well, there are two keys to areally good church potluck.
Well, how about?
I shouldn't exclude ourAnglican brothers?

Speaker 2 (00:31):
Oh, that's okay.
That's okay.
Are y'all church potluck folksas?

Speaker 1 (00:39):
well, are you potluck folks we?

Speaker 2 (00:40):
eat together.
So I don't know.
Definitely All right, I likethe luck and potluck myself,
because what are you going toget?

Speaker 1 (00:46):
Yeah, exactly, exactly.
Well, for our purposes, thereare two keys to a good church
potluck We've got plenty ofvariety and engaging
conversation, and that's exactlywhat we are trying to do here
on Church Potluck sitting downwith friends and sharing our
ideas on a variety of topicsfrom a variety of academic
disciplines and a variety ofChristian traditions.
And today we've got somethingthat has been fascinating to me

(01:11):
my whole life, even before I wasa pastor, but especially being
a pastor now the concept ofpastors as priests and prophets.
It's a tension inherent inministry.
Are pastors called to nurtureand care for their congregations
, offering reassurance andstability, like priests, or are
they called to challenge,disrupt and speak hard truths,
like prophets?

(01:31):
Can they be both?
This dynamic was recentlyhighlighted when Bishop Mary Ann
Buddy, during the NationalPrayer Service, directly urged
President Trump to show mercytowards marginalized communities
, a move that sparkedsignificant controversy.
So let's explore the calling ofthe pulpit, where pastors must
speak both words of comfort andwords of conviction.

(01:52):
And I'm excited today We've gota very interesting panel,
because I think this is thefirst time we've ever had a
panel completely full of pulpitpastors.
So yeah, we'll give an applausefor that right off the bat here
.

Speaker 3 (02:03):
So yeah, Just like we hear every Sunday.
That's just the game.

Speaker 2 (02:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 1 (02:09):
I actually one time very early on at my ministry at
Mount Tabor came down after thechoir head sang and they always
applaud the choir.
And I say, you always applaudthe choir, but I never get an
applause after my sermon and soI was just doing it to be funny
and then I got applause.
After that that one sermon Igot applause.

Speaker 4 (02:28):
That's why I always sing in the choir too.

Speaker 1 (02:35):
Oh, so I get the affirmation that way, very
nicely.
Well, let's introduce ourguests, and we'll do it in order
of seniority, so we'll startoff with the Reverend, dr John
Parker.
Yay, thank you for being here,john, and tell us about yourself
.

Speaker 2 (02:45):
I am a professor here at Berry College of Bible and
Theology.
I've been here since 2013.
I am also an Anglican priest inthe ACNA.

Speaker 1 (02:56):
What's the ACNA?

Speaker 4 (02:56):
for those ACNA.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
Anglican Church of North America.
Sorry, and I have been the last, just almost three years.
Have been a church planter hereas well.
I've been on church staffsbefore other churches, but
currently that's my pastoralcare and preaching
responsibilities.

Speaker 1 (03:13):
Great, and it's been a while since you've been on the
podcast, so thank you forcoming back.
Very happy to be here.
Thank you Excellent, excellent,excellent.
We give you another applause,thanks.
And our next guest she has donea podcast, but I have been very
derelict in my duties and havenot published that one yet.
This one was going to come outbefore that one, and so it'll be
a new voice to all of youlistening, reverend Dr Valerie

(03:35):
Lohner.

Speaker 3 (03:37):
Thanks for having me back.
I am the pastor of Rome FirstUnited Methodist Church.
I'm a Bay Area grad.
I'm glad to be back.

Speaker 1 (03:44):
Yes, and you've been there for a little over a year,
correct?

Speaker 3 (03:47):
About 18 months.

Speaker 1 (03:47):
yes, Okay, great, wonderful to have you.
Just keep the applause coming.
Have a great day.
And on her maiden voyage hereon Church Potluck, we have the
Reverend Karen Kageyama.
How close did I get?
Perfect, all right, karen.
How are you doing?

Speaker 4 (04:04):
I'm well, thank you.
Thanks for having me.
I've listened to this podcast,so it's fun to be on it.
Yay, I don't have to listen toit.
I am Karen Kageyama.

Speaker 1 (04:13):
Some of our guests don't want to listen to it.

Speaker 4 (04:16):
Well, yes, and I'm the Director of Pastoral Care
for Wesley Woods Senior Living,which is affiliated with the
United Methodist Church here inNorth Georgia, and I've spent
about 30-something years inministry, as a church pastor, a
campus minister and now thiswork in pastoral care, so I'm
glad to be here.

Speaker 1 (04:35):
Excellent, Well, wonderful to have all of you.
Like I said, I'm very excitedabout our panel today, but since
, John, it's been a while sinceyou've been we've got some new
folks.
I thought we would start offright off the bat with our game
show.

Speaker 2 (04:51):
Are there prizes?
That's really what I want toknow.

Speaker 1 (04:53):
The affirmation of doing a good job.
Oh, good, well, that's what Ialways work for anyway, isn't it
?
I can give you a grade.
I can give you a star.
Professors, we're always thegood students.
That's right.
I can give you a grade.
I can give you a star If youneed something.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
Professors, we're always the good students.

Speaker 1 (05:05):
That's right.
Well, today we are going toplay.
Never have I Ever.
All right, so this is in yourpulpit.
You didn't tell us this wedon't have anything to drink
after each one of these.

Speaker 3 (05:15):
This was not in my contract, that's right.

Speaker 1 (05:17):
So I'm going to say something about pulpit ministry
and you're going to have to sayif you've done it before, so
ever or never have I ever donethat before?
And we'll just go around thetable for each one of these when
I'm preaching.
Never have I ever worn jeans.

Speaker 2 (05:33):
Oh ever, I preach in jeans often, yeah, yeah.

Speaker 3 (05:36):
Yeah, I'm going to say never.
I don't think so.

Speaker 1 (05:39):
You don't think you have.

Speaker 4 (05:40):
I don't think so All right, I was a campus minister.
I wore jeans all the time.
That's right.

Speaker 1 (05:45):
Absolutely.
I was too.
Yeah, I was trying to thinkwhether I have or not, and
that's exactly what I said Imust have when I was here and
especially it was an eveningservice.

Speaker 4 (05:57):
as pastor at Berry College, I think I have a few
times in the church when we'vehad some more informal
experiences.

Speaker 1 (06:01):
Just very quickly go around.
Never have I ever worn shorts.

Speaker 2 (06:04):
I think on campus, yes, I've worn shorts, but not
in like a church pulpit, no.

Speaker 3 (06:12):
Okay, I'm going to go with never if I didn't wear the
jeans.

Speaker 4 (06:15):
So I've had the opportunity to be a camp pastor
with kids and, yes, I woreshorts for that.

Speaker 1 (06:21):
All right, good job Very quickly.
How often are we wearing robes?
This is not ever, ever, ever.
Are we robe people still.

Speaker 2 (06:27):
Yeah, we've.
Actually I've beenexperimenting with that in our
new church plant.
In my old church we always worerobes and now I'm just like
occasionally wear robes, likekeep them guessing, which is
another reason to wear the jeans.
You just throw the robe over it.
It doesn't matter what you have.

Speaker 3 (06:39):
There you go Both.
Actually, I have a contemporaryservice where it's just a
whatever and then bring out therobe for the traditional service
.

Speaker 1 (06:47):
So are you like Superman and put the robe on, or
are you taking it off?
I put it on, you put it on.
So it's the second service.
The second service is the robeservice.
So all right, next one.
Never have I ever preached formore than 40 minutes.

Speaker 2 (07:03):
Oh no, I've definitely preached for 40
minutes before, but again thatwas probably Just full
disclosure.

Speaker 1 (07:07):
I knew how John Parker was going to answer this
one.

Speaker 2 (07:09):
I always say, it takes me 10 minutes to say my
name.
So 40 minutes yeah, but I don'tnormally know?

Speaker 1 (07:14):
Yeah, you're in the same ballpark as me, as being
both a preacher and a pastor.
You're just going to use morewords than you need.

Speaker 3 (07:22):
Probably.
That's right.
Oh, that's a never.

Speaker 1 (07:24):
Never.

Speaker 4 (07:26):
Never.
I can't imagine that.

Speaker 1 (07:27):
No, when I was the pastor here at Berry College as
part of my chaplainresponsibilities, we had mostly
students, but we had one retiredmember who came regularly.
Her name was Rita Dickey.
Many of you probably know whoI'm talking about a very sweet
woman.
But I remember after theservice one time we were talking
about length of sermons andeverything I said.
I typically preach between 15and 20 minutes and Weta says yes

(07:55):
, dale, you normally preach 17to 19 minutes long, very precise
.

Speaker 4 (08:00):
Yes, that was.

Speaker 3 (08:02):
Weta Dickey.
She was a lovely lady but,always right on it.

Speaker 2 (08:06):
I'm a third-generation pastor.
My grandfather and father areboth pastors.
My grandfather used to talkabout the dean at his seminary,
starting his sermon saying Iwill be finished in 19 and a
half minutes.

Speaker 1 (08:18):
And he would always be on time.

Speaker 2 (08:19):
I can't imagine doing that, but he was always on time
.

Speaker 1 (08:22):
Very good, well done.
This is your reward there, john.

Speaker 2 (08:25):
Thank you, thank you, yeah, there you go All right.

Speaker 1 (08:28):
Never have I ever preached from Obadiah.

Speaker 2 (08:33):
Oh, that's really interesting.
I've definitely mentionedObadiah in a sermon.
I don't know if I've doneexegetical, but I'm an Old
Testament prof, so Obadiah issomewhere in my wheelhouse,
somewhere in my wheelhouse.

Speaker 4 (08:41):
I'm going to go with never yeah, is Obadiah in the
lectionary I looked it up.

Speaker 1 (08:45):
I have to give you a question?

Speaker 4 (08:47):
It is not, then I probably haven't preached to
Obadiah.

Speaker 1 (08:48):
So you're very much a lectionary preacher.

Speaker 4 (08:50):
Most of the time I've read Obadiah, at least once I
might have to go read it again24 verses or something that's
not an accomplishment, really,Karen.

Speaker 1 (09:00):
I can pronounce Obadiah there you go, all right.
So all right.
Well, very good job, let's doone more here.
Oh, I like this one.
We'll do two more here.

Speaker 2 (09:08):
Never have I ever cursed during a sermon, oh yeah,
don't tell my bishop, but yeah,yeah, I've dropped a word.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
Yeah, yeah, all right , depends on what you mean by
curse.
I think there's a range of themA cuss word, a swear word.

Speaker 2 (09:23):
I think yeah, probably at some point Okay.

Speaker 3 (09:26):
I'm going to say never Are we going to do
something I've actually done.

Speaker 4 (09:31):
What kind of preacher are you?

Speaker 1 (09:32):
I was going to say, I've never pictured you as the
overly cautious type here.

Speaker 3 (09:36):
Well, I've referred to it.
I've cussed many times out ofthe pulpit, is that?

Speaker 1 (09:41):
a count?
No, that's a little idea fromthe pulpit pulpit.

Speaker 4 (09:46):
Is that a joke?
No, that's a little idea fromthe pulpit.
Well, let's see, I'm notnaughty about Sweber but
occasionally with campusministry.

Speaker 1 (09:50):
yes, so you get all the checkboxes of campus
ministry.

Speaker 4 (09:53):
It was an appropriate illustration.
Let's just say that.

Speaker 2 (09:55):
Yeah, exactly yeah, that's what I was thinking about
.

Speaker 1 (09:58):
Excellent, all right, this will be the last one.
Never have I ever used arelative for a negative example
from the pulpit.

Speaker 2 (10:06):
Oh man, I would love to say never.
I hope it's true.
I don't know.
I definitely try not to.
Yeah, I don't know.
I always pick on myself for thenegative examples as much as
possible.

Speaker 3 (10:17):
I'll say never.
I don't think I have Okay we'regoing to come back to you.

Speaker 1 (10:19):
You're going to tell us something.
You have them from the pulpitwhen we're done.

Speaker 3 (10:23):
Most of them don't listen to my sermons, so that's
pretty good.

Speaker 4 (10:27):
I love my family?
No, absolutely not, huh.

Speaker 1 (10:30):
You're talking about how your congregation doesn't
listen to your sermons.
I have a retired pastor in mycongregation, Wayne Hopper.
He's a very funny guy and he'sgotten to an age where he sleeps
a decent amount, and so he veryoften sleeps during the sermon
and we tease him about it.
And he looked at me and saysyou have two choices.

(10:53):
I can either sleep during yoursermon or I can talk to you
about your sermon afterward.
You make the choice, so Ihaven't pushed it.
All right.
Well, thank you all for playing.
Never have I Ever.
All right, all right, well, nowthat we get to know you a little
bit, let's go ahead and talkabout what happened at the

(11:14):
National Prayer Service lastweek, where Reverend Marianne
Buddy gave a homily, a sermonabout the importance of unity
and, as far as I can tell, justright up the Christian
wheelhouse and everything thatshe said.
But then she took the final fewmoments of her message to
directly engage the president,and I spoke to him directly and

(11:37):
said please care formarginalized people, especially
those who are immigrants andthose who are LGBTQ people,
especially those who areimmigrants and those who are
LGBTQ, because they're fearfulright now.
And that was her message, andI'm just going to step back here
and let you exchange.
What did you think about this?
Just what?
Was this a good, appropriatething, or did you have qualms

(12:00):
about it?
And I'll just open the floorfor you all to dig in.

Speaker 3 (12:04):
Well, I'll jump in.
I think it was extremelyappropriate.
She's a pastor first andforemost and she's teaching.
The main teachings of Jesus areabout love, grace and mercy,
and she didn't rant and rave.
It was a very humble requestfor mercy for people who are
afraid, and that is in thewheelhouse of Jesus, and I think

(12:27):
that was very appropriate.
Worship is first and foremostabout God and she was
encouraging the president tofollow the ways of Jesus.

Speaker 2 (12:36):
Okay, I'll go with no , I think.
When I saw it I thought, well,at least the church is getting a
headline for once, and so wecan talk about that dynamic and
maybe what it takes to get aheadline in our culture.
But I immediately feltuncomfortable with singling out
a single individual in a sermon,even a public official, and I

(12:57):
strained for trying to think ofany example where a sermon
should be addressed to a singleindividual.
So that was the part that Ididn't mind.
The exhortation for mercy, butI think a tone of an example or
a parable we can come back tothis like the rhetorical
technique or we all togetherbecause the whole thing was

(13:20):
mercy, unity, and then to justsingle out a particular
individual.
I think sometimes we think weought to do single out a
particular individual.
I think sometimes we think youcould, we could, we ought to do
that with a government official,and I can understand where we
might get, we can talk aboutwhere we get that idea.
But I strained to think of anexample where that was
appropriate.
I feel like it actually endedand I think ultimately fruit of
it, I think it ended up doingthe exact opposite of what she
tried to do, which was to forgeunity.

(13:41):
I think my feed immediatelyblew up on both sides.
I had people like this wasgreat and people this was not
great, and so it dividedimmediately as a viral moment.
I thought.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
Well, you're checking off all the talking points I
wanted to address later on.

Speaker 2 (13:54):
Yeah well, yeah, first impressions, things to
talk about, just for the recordfor all of you out there.

Speaker 1 (13:59):
I had those ideas too .
Just wanted to talk about themlater on.

Speaker 4 (14:08):
But anyway, thank you .
Good job, john and Karen.
It's terrible to go thirdbecause I hear it and I'm like
oh wait, I thought I knew what Ithought.
Now I will say as a pastor in apulpit, I have never singled
out an individual in that way,other than often you might lift
somebody up in prayer orsomebody's going through
something that everybody in thecongregation is aware of.
We mention it.

Speaker 3 (14:25):
Yeah, fair.

Speaker 4 (14:25):
And sometimes a story if you've got permission.
But that kind of direct addressabout a particular issue, I
think obviously in a church wewould not do that.
I talked about this with a fewfriends and some of them said it
wasn't really a church serviceand I said, well, they said it
was a political event and Ithought, yeah, I guess I hadn't

(14:45):
thought about it that way.
But it's in that realm of whatwe think of as civic religion,
where this is a traditionalprayer service that is held the
day after the inauguration tosomehow bless the incoming
president and theiradministration, and I don't
think it's ever been necessarilya partisan thing.

(15:08):
It's held for Democrats andRepublicans alike.
I don't know how far back itgoes, and Washington National
Cathedral is the civic space ofreligion in Washington DC, so it
does have a different kind ofspace and tenor.
So I don't know.
I don't know that I was notuncomfortable with the content
of anything she said.

(15:28):
I felt like she was speakinggospel and I don't know that I
would have done it the way shedid it either, but she did and
she had courage in being able tospeak up like that.
I don't think she did itwithout thinking it through for
sure.

Speaker 2 (15:43):
Oh, you could see her like.
I mean, she read it all rightnow Before she said it, like she
knew this was going to be athing.

Speaker 4 (15:50):
Yeah, and my sense is there comes a time when
prophets take that risk ofcrossing a line where the word
that they have to offer and theopportunity to do it just
coincide and you do break yourown rules perhaps.

Speaker 1 (16:09):
Okay, valerie, you seem to be the most comfortable
with it, so would you want topush back a little bit on what
we just heard?

Speaker 3 (16:14):
I'll push back and say I too would not call
somebody out in a regular churchservice.
But I think we have to thinkabout this was not your normal
every Sunday kind of service.
This was a particular servicefor a new administration and
there is a difference, I think,in the Old Testament between the
prophet addressing the king orthe leader and a regular citizen

(16:38):
, and so we do have to speaktruth to power, and in this case
this person has extreme power.
The president always does nomatter who was in office and
imploring them to have mercy.
I just think it's a lotdifferent than if I had, from a
pulpit, on a regular Sunday,called out just someone out in
the congregation, which I wouldnever do in that way.

Speaker 4 (17:00):
And it was in response to specific actions
that had already and words thathad been said and actions that
had already been taken at thatpoint, because those executive
orders targeting those groups, Ithink or at least they had
indicated they were going tosign them.
If they hadn't, but I thinkthey'd already started signing
them.
So it wasn't just based onhearsay or what we think you

(17:22):
might do.
It was actually in response toparticular actions.
So I think in that way, there'san integrity around her words,
addressing something thatPresident Trump had already done
, I think that sorry.
No go ahead.

Speaker 2 (17:36):
No, yeah, I think that the point about the civic
religion is actually reallyimportant.
When I woke up this morningthinking about what we're going
to talk about, I thought this issuch a weird service, and I
don't want to presume to bebishop buddy, I don't want to
presume to be a bishop period.
I don't know what it's like.

Speaker 3 (17:51):
No, none of us want that, yeah right.

Speaker 2 (17:53):
So I really don't want to be judgy about this.
I think it's right for us toconsider.
And she took a risk and shefelt like she was following the
Lord in that and I can see whatshe was going for.
So I don't mean to be overlycritical, but it is a weird
service.
I was thinking what kind of aservice is this?
Is it a congregation whereyou've built up affection for

(18:15):
one another?
Is it a chance to preachpublicly?
You're also on TV.
There's all sorts of thesedifferent dynamics, public and
private, and I do wonder abouthow we construct these events
and what we're doing with them.
I thought what would StanleyHauerwas think, one of my
favorite United Methodist guys,like they probably have
something to say against eventhe presumption of civic
religion moment.

Speaker 1 (18:33):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (18:34):
But I do want to come back to the.
We can talk about it an hourlater.
But about the prophet kingthing in the Old Testament, that
dynamic, because I do thinkthat one comes to mind.
But actually I think there'smore nuance there that we might
could learn from in this moment.

Speaker 1 (18:46):
Well, before we get to the prophet king, let's just
take a moment to step back andmaybe some people in the
audience would not be terriblyfamiliar with this
priest-prophet distinction.
And just curious in your ownministries, what, in terms of do
you think of yourself more as apriest who's keeping the order
and affirming the congregationand holding things together and

(19:09):
keeping structure, or do youfind yourself being the prophet,
where you are speaking outagainst the current situation
and saying God is requiring usto change?
And I think both of those arethere right.
The comforting, pastoral roleand the prophetic, challenging
role are both part of thepastor's responsibility.
So what are some things thatyou do to balance that out, or

(19:30):
how do you see the balance inyour ministries?

Speaker 4 (19:33):
Well, I think was it Karl Barth that said to preach
with the Bible in one hand andthe newspaper in the other.
And that can be a strange placeto stand these days, because
now we have Facebook andInstagram and Snapchat.

Speaker 3 (19:44):
What is a newspaper?
Tiktok, yeah, exactly, whoknows?

Speaker 4 (19:47):
what a newspaper is.
I write for one, but yeah.
I don't know who reads it.
But no, there's a tension insome ways.
But I think that when you arethe pastor of a congregation of
people who have voluntarilyjoined in community together and
have given you a kind ofrespect and responsibility to be

(20:08):
their pastor, the tension easesbecause part of what they're
saying is we trust yourspiritual authority that comes
through leading us in worshipand through preaching and
teaching and all those things.
We don't always have to agreewith it, but we trust your
intention to lead us in that way.
And I think anybody who's aserious Christian wants to grow

(20:32):
in their faith, wants to notjust be mollycoddled but wants
to be challenged, wants to hearthis piece of scripture Seems
like it's saying this, but whatif it's saying this to us?
And wants to be engaged in thecommunity as a Christian and so
wants to think about some ofthese issues that come up for us
.
And I think good pastoring holdsall of that and weaves through

(20:57):
it.
And I often think of what isprophetic pastoral care.
So that part of my work of careis also prophetic.
It can't just be to comfortpeople and say, oh, you're okay,
because none of us are okay.
We're all struggling, we're alldealing with stuff.
How do we help suss that outand help people think as well as

(21:17):
do what they're supposed to doas Christians?

Speaker 1 (21:20):
That is a great answer, but all I could think of
while you're saying that is Iwanted to reward you for saying
mollycoddle.

Speaker 2 (21:25):
There you go.
I think what you said isawesome.
I think there is an impliedsocial.
That's probably what we'retalking about in this weird
situation because there'sapplied.
I don't know if Mike Baileyhere can tell me I'm using
social contract inappropriately.
But there's, a social contracthere of like the relationship,
like what we're here to do, andit is in this, in this national

(21:49):
event.
It's about yeah, they expectwords about unity, about coming
together across differenceagainst across the rancor of
politics.

Speaker 1 (21:57):
We're on Inauguration Day, let's put our differences
aside and come, and indeed thefirst three quarters was all
about that.
It's all about that.

Speaker 2 (22:03):
And I think that is one thing If we're going to have
a take a viral moment, and yeah, people should go listen to the
whole thing.
I was.
I was one of the Mark Clavierin England.
He was an old colleague of mineand he was saying everybody
should watch the whole thingbefore you start judging, which
always is a good word, I mean.
But anyway, the contract istogether in unity and how do we
do that?
I think there's a questionabout whether she actually

(22:24):
accomplished her goal by,particularly by naming the
president by name rather thanpresidents should encourage
mercy, for those who aremarginalized.
Just that kind of a line isdifferent Now.
I mean, I got the attentionthat, president Trump, I address
you, this is what you should do, but it looked like she was
dressing him down from thepulpit and that can seem she's

(22:46):
trying to humiliate him andthat's going to get a rise out
of people one way or the other.
Sorry, I may be drifting fromthe subject.

Speaker 1 (22:53):
I was just going to say let's get Valerie's points,
but then I want to come back tothat because that's come up a
couple times already.

Speaker 3 (22:59):
Well, balancing that role between priest and prophet
can be very difficult, but Ithink week to week in the pulpit
, many of us really have to leantoward that pastoral role.
You have to have relationshipwith people when you are leading
a congregation.
This service is very different.
It's not your typicalcongregation but week to week I
don't know anybody who wants tocome in every Sunday and hear

(23:22):
the words of Amos thrown at them.
So I think you really have toget some pastoral credit in the
bank, if you will, so that youcan be the prophet if you're
talking about a localcongregation.

Speaker 1 (23:31):
I think that's a great point.

Speaker 3 (23:33):
And from time to time I do speak more prophetically,
but I don't think you can dothat week to week.
I think your folks need to beencouraged as well.
But that's looking at the longview, and that's one thing about
this service it doesn't offerthat long view.
The long view for her becamewhat?
15 minutes, if even that long,and so that's where maybe part

(23:53):
of this struggle is.

Speaker 1 (23:55):
So you all have done a great job.
What was this service?
What is the goal of thisservice?
Right, Because if it is onlypriestly, if it's only affirming
, then it's there to affirm thepowers.
That be right and that shouldnot at least my view, that
should not be the role of thechurch, but probably that prayer
service has that.
It's right after inauguration.
It's praying for the president,but there's an affirmation

(24:16):
there, and I think that'sprobably how they have typically
rolled out with a goal towardour higher aspirations of who we
are as a country.

Speaker 2 (24:29):
I think there's a little bit of a false dichotomy
in here.
I think part of what we'retalking about in terms of the
long view is having theencouragement, but also the
people want to be reminded ofthe values and goals, and I
think the first thing that cameto my mind is my grandfather
used to always say lift them upwhen you're in the pulpit.
Lift them up.
They're beaten down all weeklong.
Make sure you lift them up, andso that always is in my first
mind.
And to end with somethingthat's lifting them up.

(24:50):
But prophets again, not to betoo Old Testament-y, but they
are not always just warning andjudgment is coming.
The judgment is coming becauseit's warning, because I love you
, because it's a warning becauseI love you, like that's, it's
the.
I actually think there's anissue on these Jeremy ads that
we go on in politics where wegrab prophetic language both on

(25:12):
the left and the right.
We'll have the judgment,warning language out there, but
not to say because it's about us, it's about us being together
in solidarity.
The warning and the because Ilove you, not that we have to
say I love you, but that's God'sreference, right?
Comfort you, my people, isaiah40, right that there's this I'm

(25:34):
warning you because I care aboutyou.
That comes together and I thinka lot of us probably in the
pulpit are that warning andcomfort come together at the
same time.
So I think we have to becareful not to just have the
warning or to say that'sprophetic, because actually
prophetic is actually both bothwarning and comfort all the way
through.

Speaker 1 (25:54):
Good point.

Speaker 4 (25:54):
Very good point, Well , and in the Old Testament.
Not that I'm an Old Testamentscholar, but the prophets… Well,
you've never preached fromObadiah, so… I have preached
from Zephaniah though.
Oh, I have preached fromZephaniah though.
Oh.
Sometimes the prophet isspeaking to powerful people, and
then sometimes the prophet isjust speaking to the people of

(26:15):
Israel and addressing them forthe wrongs they have done, and
again it couched in thatlanguage of love because you are
my children, because I createdyou, because I led you out of
the wilderness, you must, and soit's this calling back to who
you're supposed to be and whoyou were created to be, which,
again, is pastoral as well asprophetic, and that's why I

(26:37):
think it's a tension, but itdoesn't really.
They're not opposites, they gotogether beautifully, and I
think if we hold that tensionand hold the kind of
interweaving, it works.

Speaker 1 (26:49):
That's a good point that I need to hold in mind.
So thank you.
That kind of leads into, John,what you were trying to say a
little bit earlier about therelationship between the pastor
and the king.
So did you want to saysomething about that?

Speaker 2 (27:01):
Well, I'll just say I struggled to come up with a
reference in scripture where aprophet prophesied to a king and
a public prophecy.
So we have encounters betweenprophets and kings that are
individual, that where they.
You have Jeremiah withZechariah, you have Samuel and
Saul, you have Nathan and David,as a classic.

(27:24):
These are all within the court,they're not at the temple,
they're not out in public.
Even just mentioning a king byname in a prophecy is actually
extremely rare.
So I actually wonder if thegenre of preaching, speaking
truth to power in public oraddressing a particular
individual in public is actuallya misnomer.
An interesting example of thismisnomer that I found was

(27:47):
actually the first churchexample I thought of was John
Chrysostom is famous forpreaching to Empress Eudoxia for
and calling her out.
Sorry, this is like a nerdalert there you go.
Something like that was coming.
My students would like that inclass.
But that was the first person Ithought of, like, oh, and

(28:09):
didn't he preach to her?
Didn't he preach to herspecifically and tell her that
she was wrong?
And I'm there, was thisactually?
I have a picture, a photo of anold 19th century painting
that's very dramatic.
It's a great picture of thispriest, chrysostom, like
pointing up at empress eudoxiaand telling her off.
And then I dug on it and foundout that actually never happened
, like he actually all he saidwas like an illusion and a
reference to what he said.

(28:31):
Something like to this day,herodias calls for the head on a
platter, which was an illusion,to like her calling for him to
be.
But it was just an illusion.
So I wonder if we're actuallyusing the techniques of rhetoric
with power that are actuallyeffective.
With power, the ones that areeffective is when you, like
Nathan with David, that actuallytry to get them to see.

(28:52):
Jesus spoke in parables, oftenright, he often talked in ways
that made them, that caught themoff guard, caught them sideways
.
I think if you go straight atsomeone in power, are you really
going to get them to give uptheir power.
I wonder if we actually need tobe more creative.
Again, I don't want to.
It's easy to saysecond-guessing bishop buddy but
it made me think about theseexamples and challenged me to

(29:14):
think okay, maybe I need to bemore creative.
And gosh, it's so hard as apulpit preacher to be creative.
It takes so much energy tothink of those things.
I'm not as genius as Jesus indoing it, so I'm not trying to
high and mighty, but I think itwas something I learned from
preparing for this podcast and Iwanted to get that out there.

Speaker 3 (29:30):
When I think about the Old Testament prophets,
particularly with Nathan andDavid.
They've got a longstandingrelationship right.
There are multiple we assumethere are multiple occasions
when they and he has a formalresponsibility as court prophet.
Yeah, yeah, so they weretalking about people who have at
least seen each other or beentogether in the same room
multiple times, and so I thinkabout Bishop Buddy.

(29:51):
When was her other opportunity?
This is not the same kind ofrelationship.
So I also think about it as theprophet taking the opportunity
that she had to preach a word ofmercy, and I saw her speaking
very humbly.
I know other people have notinterpreted it in the same way.

Speaker 1 (30:10):
It's hard to imagine how she could have said it more
humbly other than if she's goingto address the president
directly.
Yes, it was about as humble astatement as you could have made
.
I guess you could argue thatAnyway.

Speaker 2 (30:31):
Yeah, I think we can have some other about that it
was definitely intended to begentle.

Speaker 3 (30:33):
I think was the intention, whether it succeeded.

Speaker 2 (30:34):
I think is another question.

Speaker 3 (30:35):
Yeah, and this service was a prayer service for
a new administration.
It was for his administration.
So to me it's a very rare and,like you said, it's a weird
service in terms of everythingthat's happening and what it's
about, but the relationship isjust not the same, as we're
talking about Nathan and Davidand I just think she took the

(30:57):
opportunity she had.

Speaker 1 (30:58):
Well, what would you say to the person who would
argue that because she didn'thave that relationship with the
president, she wasn't really inthe position to make that kind
of proclamation toward him?

Speaker 3 (31:10):
That's where I go with the preaching truth to
power, because there are manypastors who are very much
supportive of the policies ofmass deportations and some other
policies that President Trumphas.
She looks at things verydifferently and if someone has
to speak truth to power onoccasion and to be asking for

(31:31):
mercy was not a radical requestshe really didn't advocate for
anything, any specific policy,except for mercy toward a couple
of groups of people.
Karen, you want to?

Speaker 4 (31:42):
Well, I wonder, and you can't know somebody's
motivation, but part of the workof a prophet is to speak on
behalf of those whose voices arenot heard.
Yes, to speak on behalf ofthose who don't have power,
because you're the intermediarybetween the powerful and the
powerless.
Sometimes, and perhaps, andmaybe some of the folks who are

(32:05):
part of those groups that shenamed and others that just feel
powerless had a bit of a voicethat day.
I think I agree with John.
I don't know that itaccomplished.
I don't know what she wanted toaccomplish with it.
I don't know that we can know.
Did it accomplish unity?
Probably not, but I don't knowthat anything would accomplish
unity in a day in a worshipservice anything at this point.

(32:26):
I'm not sure Jesus coming backwould accomplish unity for all
of us, but I do.
If I look at it from thatperspective, from the ground up,
from underneath, then there isthis voice that is saying
something on behalf of thosewhose voices are being silenced
and whose people are beingthought of as less than silenced
and who, as people, are beingthought of as less than, and if
she speaks on their behalf, thenthat's a pretty prophetic

(32:49):
stance to take.

Speaker 2 (32:54):
I guess I wonder if there's not we haven't moved
into.
She talked about earlier in thesermon outrage industrial
complex, which I thought wasthat wasn't her original phrase
but it's a good one to rememberthat we are in this outrage age.

Speaker 1 (33:01):
By the way, she cited a sociologist for that term.
There you go.
So yeah, that cited asociologist for that term.
There you go.
Citation.

Speaker 2 (33:09):
Sociologist We've been seen.

Speaker 1 (33:12):
Someone sees me.
I suspect that's probably thefirst time the word sociologist
has ever been used at a prayerservice.

Speaker 4 (33:16):
So we should take what we can get.
I've used it in a sermon.

Speaker 2 (33:21):
But I guess when we're in an outrage culture, I
think one of the things I'venoticed is that people feel like
we've started to really valuenot only value, but have a moral
mandate on speaking up.
We've put really a lot ofintention on words and if you
don't speak up about everysingle thing that's wrong out
there in the world, then youaren't, you're allowing the

(33:42):
power of people to get away withit, you're complicit in it, and
I don't think Jesus lived thatway.
He did not run around alwaysoutraged at everything.
And there is a maybe I'mthinking about my students who
just feel like they need to beoutraged all the time in order
to be in the moral right and Iwondered if that actually

(34:03):
trickled into what she was doingand whether we as pastors and
preachers actually have tofigure out different ways to
diffuse that a little bit.
I think again, I think shetried, but you could just ask a
question Are we effectivelycoming together in unity if we
are making people afraid fortheir sexual identity, if we are
making people afraid who areworking really hard in the world

(34:26):
?
Are we accomplishing our goalof unity as an administration?
I think any administrationshould be thinking about the
effect that it has on the least,the lost and the lonely.
That kind of rhetoric is a lotless pointed.
It may not get a viral moment,but at least if it poses, it
puts us all in the same categoryof how should we do this as a
country rather than oh, I've hadto speak up and make my point.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
Trevor Burrus Ballard .
Do you think it would have beenas powerful had she made that?
A call for all of us to bethinking about the fear that
immigrants, that we all need tobe showing mercy in this moment
we all need to be, rather thandirecting it at one particular
person?
I'll buy it the most powerfulperson and the one who's, from
her perspective, fomenting thefear.

Speaker 3 (35:13):
Yeah, I don't know that it would have been as
effective, because it would havebeen, I think, about the last
time I pressure washed mydriveway and you have the choice
of using the big spray, whichis light but doesn't do a whole
lot, and then you can use thatreally pointed stream and it may
not go far but it will get thedirt out, if you know what I'm

(35:33):
saying.
And again, I think she did itvery humbly, but I think it
needed to be addressed to, inthis case, the king, if you will
.
And you're right about, we seemto be angry all the time and we
can't live that way, and Idon't.
To me she didn't come across asangry, but I also remember,
you're right, jesus didn't runaround speaking that way all the

(35:53):
time, but he did at one pointflip some tables and I wonder if
that was her way of humblyapproaching that and trying to
flip tables.
I don't know, I'm not.
I wasn't in that moment, I don'tknow what had gone through her
mind, but there's always abalance.
It comes back to that rolebetween the priest and the
prophet.
I grew up in a tradition whereI heard a lot of pastors banging

(36:14):
on the pulpit every Sunday andbasically trying to scare the
hell out of me every Sunday, andso that's what attracted me
when I came back to my faith offinding grace.
There is a balance betweenthose things of encouraging
people but also lifting them up,but also encouraging them to
live out some of the hardersayings of Jesus and certainly

(36:35):
being merciful, if we get rightdown to it, can be quite
controversial in some ways.

Speaker 2 (36:40):
I think it's an important question about what's
rhetorically powerful, and I waswondering about what would
Jesus say in that moment.
I think that's a good questionfor a pastor to ask Lord, was
there something that you wouldsay in this moment?
And the example that came to mymind was Luke 13, where they
say hey, didn't you hear abouthow Pilate mixed the blood of
some Galileans with theirsacrifice?
Outrage, aren't you going to beoutraged?

(37:01):
And Jesus says do you thinkyou're going to get away with
anything less?
So the pressure, what was thepressure hose moment?
The shock value of thatstatement was actually directed
back at our own hearts to say weare the guilty, all of us are
the, or maybe all of them.
Not himself, but, like I thinkChristianity is extremely

(37:23):
forceful about our own guilt.
It's incredibly powerful aboutour own guilt and our own need
for forgiveness, and it's aboutforgiving one another for our
guilt, but it's powerful aboutguilt.
So I wonder if there's asharpness that could be said but
pushes in the direction of ourguilt, rather than I'm better

(37:44):
than you or you're not doingwhat it should be.
And again, she said that, but Ithink it came across.

Speaker 1 (37:50):
Let me turn the tables a little bit and say
would we have felt the same wayhad it been a conservative,
prophetic voice on an issue?
So, for example, it's not aperfect apples to apples
comparison, but 20 years agoMother Teresa was invited to a
national prayer breakfast, notthe inauguration prayer service,
but a year later PresidentClinton had only been president

(38:13):
for a year and Mother Teresa wasthe invited keynote preacher
for that message.
And here's one of the thingsthat she said during her message
I feel that the greatestdestroyer of peace today is
abortion, because it is a waragainst the child, a direct
killing of the innocent child,murder by the mother herself.

(38:35):
And if we accept that a mothercan kill even her own child, how
can we tell other people not tokill one another?
Not gentle, Can we tell otherpeople not to kill one another?
Not gentle, not directed at thepresident, but the president
and first lady and the vicepresident all sitting very close
, by very harsh words.

(38:55):
Would we have been comfortablewith that message being preached
at the National Prayer Service?

Speaker 2 (39:02):
Yes, I think that's exactly the right way to do it.
Again, I'm coming from aperspective of.
I remember I was in Londonstudying with an old, eminent
churchman named John Stott, andJohn Stott looked at us and he
said I just want you youngpeople to know that.
And he said a great Britishaccent which I won't read to you
.
He said I never quote someonefrom a sermon, even like talking

(39:25):
about ideas.
I don't use their name unlessI've met them personally.
And then this goes back to yourother point.
Otherwise, I talk about theirideas and so it's important for
us to debate ideas, and so Ithink it's great to debate ideas
and to put ideas out there, andI think that's an appropriate
question and pose.

Speaker 1 (39:43):
So I think she did fine because she didn't use a
name, so she put focuses onissue and asks so yeah, so, as
long as she was, the words weremuch more harsh and in the way
she did it, but because itwasn't specifically directed to
the president, you thoughtthat's inbounds and I think
she's gained.

Speaker 2 (39:58):
She's working on moral reasoning, asking about
how we moralize it.
Maybe I'm a little, I don'tknow.
I'd love to hear another way tothink about it.
But, karen and Valerie, what doyou think about that?

Speaker 4 (40:08):
Well, I think that if we're going to allow one
messenger to have the privilegeof saying something directly,
then it has to go both ways.
I think the question is in bothcases is the real intent to
make somebody uncomfortable?
Because you see a problem andyou see the person or persons

(40:33):
who have the power to dosomething about it and you want
to put that pressure hose onthem and poke them a little bit,
not in a mean way, but in a waythat it's like.
This is my one opportunity tobring this up and again.
I see Mother Teresa veryfaithfully speaking on behalf of
what she perceives are innocent, powerless, voiceless babies,

(40:58):
that she's trying to be thevoice, the prophetic voice for
them when she feels that otherpeople weren't.
But she's also Mother Teresa.
Everybody knew who she was.
Everybody respected her.
If you didn't agree with her,it's an interesting-.

Speaker 1 (41:10):
So that's interesting .
That's a really interestingpoint.
Who'd ever heard?

Speaker 4 (41:12):
of Bishop Buddy outside the Episcopal Church,
perhaps in Washington DC.

Speaker 1 (41:16):
That's an insightful point, because she didn't have
like a personal relationshipwith people, but there was some
kind of contextual relationshipthat people had with Mother.

Speaker 4 (41:23):
Teresa.
She had a certain amount ofauthority she did and she had a
certain amount of power.
Out of that, she was a verypowerful moral figure in the
world already.

Speaker 1 (41:30):
That's a very interesting point Bishop Buddy
is.

Speaker 4 (41:33):
She's not a nobody.
She won't be news three weeksfrom now.
She's a faithful servant of Godwith deep power in who she has
been as that.
But in the world scheme, in thenational scheme, she doesn't
hold that kind of moralauthority, which is probably why
we're having this conversationExactly.

Speaker 3 (41:54):
I agree with Karen that if you're going to allow
one side of an issue to speak,this isn't about promoting one
way of thinking about the world.
When you invite someone tospeak and you're aware in Mother
Teresa's case, they would haveknown, kind of, what her stances
are.
But I also think there is adistinction between a prayer

(42:15):
breakfast and a prayer service,and that's just something to
explore as well.
A prayer breakfast is a lotdifferent than a service where
you've had some other element ofworship, and worship is always
about God, it's not about theindividual and promoting the
ways of God.
So to me there's also somedifference in that.

Speaker 1 (42:35):
Yeah, I like that.
I like that this might begetting a little on the
political side rather than thetheological side, but do you
want to hear the differentresponses that President Trump
had to Buddy's remarks and howPresident Clinton responded to
Mother Teresa's run?
And again, this might have todo with the power imbalance
between Mother Teresa and BishopBuddy, but so President Clinton
said this was through the pressagent, not Clinton himself.

(42:57):
But President Clinton saidPresident Clinton has the
greatest respect for MotherTeresa's work and for her
absolute integrity in statingher positions, even if he does
not share all of those positions.

Speaker 4 (43:09):
So just very it was a good presidential statement.

Speaker 1 (43:12):
There you go.
Thank you for putting the wordsin my mouth.
It was also respectful Exactly.
Yeah, this is.
I think this is PresidentTrump's own words.
Yes, I'm pretty sure shebrought her church into the
world of politics in a veryungracious way.
He wrote on Truth Social.
She was nasty in tone and notcompelling or smart.
She failed to mention the largenumber of illegal immigrants

(43:35):
that came into our country andkilled people.
Many were deposited from jailsand mental institutions.
It is a giant crime wave that'staken and it goes on just to
talk about all the so not quiteas gracious as President
Clinton's remarks.
How are we Long pause?

Speaker 2 (43:54):
Well, I think it's a very different political moment.
There's so many differentvoices.

Speaker 1 (43:58):
It's not a Well, just the fact that it was Trump
posting on true social, thesocial media it shows how
different the world is comparedto a press secretary.
It's an outrage response.

Speaker 4 (44:07):
You talked about the kind of politics of outrage or
outrage of politics.
But the thing that I'm in, oneof the things I'm interested in
it was something you said, john,about did she accomplish what
she set out to do?
And she talked about unity verybeautifully.
I didn't listen to it.
I read the script of her sermonand very beautifully, very
poignantly, and I thoughtgraciously and throughout the

(44:30):
sermon I think even her lastwords were gracious.
I did not find them ungracious.
But then did she undercut thefirst part of the sermon by
directly speaking to thepresident?
I'm not sure it wouldn't haveundercut it, even if she hadn't
spoken directly to him, if shehad said it in general, because
she listed the groups that hadbeen affected by the executive

(44:54):
orders most recently.
So even if she hadn't directedit directly at him, I'm not sure
that he would have still heardit as directed at him and taken
the same tack.
But the question I think becomesfor me sometimes if you're
trying to accomplish a goal byhow you preach, be careful that
you don't let your moralrighteousness get in the way of

(45:17):
the persuasive power of thepulpit.
So you have to meet peoplewhere they are, and if they're
on this other side of the dividejust preaching Adam doesn't
really ever get them to opentheir ears.
Jesus went around saying youhave ears to listen up, and the
prophets did too, and I thinkthere's a subtlety and a way of

(45:42):
asking questions that Jesus wasso good at and telling the
parables that gets people tolike stop and pause and think,
oh, I hadn't thought about itthat way.
And when you can get thatopening in somebody's mind and
in their heart, then you canbegin to ask more questions and
that, to me, is a really that'sanother work of prophetic

(46:02):
preaching and pastoral care andall those things.
That might be a smarterstrategy.

Speaker 2 (46:08):
I think that's really well said and I think it really
requires empathy.
That's a good one Like to thinkabout.
I wished again.
I really sitting on a podcast,like telling a bishop what she
should do.

Speaker 4 (46:21):
And we're not doing that, please.

Speaker 2 (46:23):
But when I think about the words that valerie and
I are okay I think about howI'll say I think trump calling
her nasty as an odd ad hominemattack that is is not
presidential, it's not worthy ofthe office.
So there's a lot of ways inwhich his rhetoric is is
divisive and and maybe it's goodfor political gain, but I'm not

(46:45):
trying to defend that in anyway.

Speaker 4 (46:47):
He also reserves it mostly for women.

Speaker 2 (46:49):
There's definitely something to that for sure.
So I don't want to like, but Iguess when I, she starts to
assume that she tries to callhim on hypocrisy.
Right, you say that God hassaved you as a gracious God has
saved your life, okay, so thenby all means have mercy, was
what she said, right?
But she presumes that he's notthinking any merciful thoughts

(47:12):
at all.
Persuade people, you might say.
You may disagree about how.
Whether we agree or disagreeabout trans-identifying children
, we all can agree that theyshould not be scared for their
lives.
So let's think about how ourpolicies impact.
That's too wordy, but somethinglike that where you're trying

(47:33):
to think about that's aprofessor who has 50 minutes to
explain the point.
She's in the cathedral.
She's gotta like come up with away to but there's a way there
are.
She's dealing with verysensitive issues that are.
She talked earlier aboutpresuppositions and the way we
think about the world and havingdifferent ideas about the world
.
She needs to display that is mypoint like she needs to display

(47:55):
that we can.
You can conceive of what's ofLGBT community one way, and I
can conceive a different way,but we can come together for the
protection of people, somethinglike that.
Or you can think that you'reworried about your workers who
are losing their jobs.
What was the substance of whathe was trying to get?
Or about crime?
Those are things that we canall be concerned about.
But are what about these folkswho are, who are doing the work

(48:18):
in our society?
Trying to bring the actualpartisan debate into the
statement is what I'm trying tosay, and in the pulpit I often
try to do this.
I try to think, okay, who'sgoing to disagree with me?
What are they going to think?
How do I articulate theirposition as a steel man position
in a way that maybe is evenbetter than they've been able to
say it themselves?
Again, but how do I put thesteel man position and then show

(48:40):
another side and then call forthe morality out of it.
I guess that's what I'm tryingto get at and that requires a
lot of empathy, and I think shemaybe missed the mark on that in
terms of how to really thinkabout maybe not Trump, but like,
maybe, the people in my feedwho, like I, don't like Trump,
but they're.
They're particular issues thatI'm really concerned about that
she seemed to be ignorant of andthat's where it created this

(49:03):
kind of division.
She wasn't ignorant of them,but she didn't seem to
acknowledge that there was agenuine debate about some of
these.

Speaker 4 (49:08):
Yeah, I was listening to something on the radio and
it was talking about how do wefind empathy for people who
voted differently from us andwho see things very differently,
and yet we have there arethings we really still have in
common and how do we find ourway to that place in order to
open up the other spaces.
And this is where I thinkstorytelling is so powerful,

(49:31):
because if you tell the story ofa transgender person, people
will at least acknowledgehumanity in somebody they might,
and you can create the hooksthat are common to all of us
when you tell the story aboutsomebody that is different from
just driving in.
I was listening and they weretalking about a couple who are

(49:55):
part of the DACA community andhave been here this is the only
country they've ever known andhe's a computer software
engineer and she's a teacher andthey've just had a little baby
and their lives are beingupended.
And yet they're just asAmerican.
They had no accent, they spokeperfect English and even if they
didn't, it wouldn't matter tome.
But it was like, okay, this isjust tugs at your heartstring,

(50:16):
but it's a real, they're realpeople behind the issues.
And how do we like on all thedifferent sides.
Remember, we're not justtalking about ideas and issues.
We're talking about people whoare our neighbors, people who
might one day be president ofthe United States, you never
know.
So it's just, I think, tryingto dial up, especially as

(50:38):
pastors, we can't tell a goodstory to open somebody's ears.
We're not very good preachers.

Speaker 1 (50:44):
Well, that seems like a very nice affirming,
encouraging and challengingplace for us to finish up.
Is there anything that didn'tget said that needs to be said?
Valerie, we haven't heard fromyou in a little bit.
You want to have the last word.

Speaker 3 (50:55):
Oh goodness, I think empathy is one of the most
underrated virtues.
It has become difficult to see.
I see what you mean by that.

Speaker 2 (51:07):
I feel very affirmed.

Speaker 3 (51:12):
I also hear the sincerity dripping from your
voice, but I think it's verychallenging because we've become
so mired in our way and ourside, or whatever we have spoken
so much about.
Well, here's what I think,here's how it ought to be that
we're often not listening toothers and that's one of the
great debates of our time iswhat is right, what is wrong,

(51:35):
but we're not taking time tolisten to other people.
And sometimes in the sermonicmoment, that might be a time
someone might listen for just amoment, but as preachers, we
also have to take that time,both before the sermon and after
, to listen and to continue toevaluate ourselves in the moment
.

Speaker 2 (51:55):
Very nice.

Speaker 1 (51:56):
But now all I can think about, as nicely as that
was said is that I can onlythink of sermonic.
Sounds too close to demonicDale you have a weird brain.

Speaker 2 (52:06):
That's what came, anyway, sorry, I say that with
all empathy.

Speaker 1 (52:10):
Well, thank you all very much.
I really enjoyed that.
I'm pressing the wrong buttonshere.
We'll see if that gets editedout or not, but I do want to
thank you all very much.
I really enjoyed thisconversation and I didn't get
into my own journey but with mycalling to ministry, with my
sociology having a prophetickind of topics that we cover,

(52:31):
but my calling being very much achaplain, which is, I think,
much more on the priestly sideof things typically, that this
is something that I have thoughtabout many times, as I'm sure
we all have.
But just where does one use andhow does one use the prophetic
voice?
So this has been a helpfulconversation to me.
So thank you all very much and Iwant to thank our audience for

(52:51):
sitting around the table with ustoday and I hope that we have
provided you with some food forthought and we've given you
something to chew on.
But we aren't done yet.
After we finish up the musichere, we're going to have some
leftovers for you to enjoy, someadditional thoughts that we
share with one another after wewrap up.
So feel free to continuelistening and, if you have a
chance, we're getting startedbacking up doing the podcast

(53:12):
regularly.
Give us a shout, a comment or arating, on whatever platform
you get the podcast from.
We really appreciate hearingfrom you, and until we gather
around the table next time thishas been Church Potluck, and
thank you for listening We'llplay the music again here.
All right, thank you all verymuch.
That was really good.

(53:33):
You've only done it once beforeand you all just seemed as
natural as could be.
That was good, and, and, john,you too always, but I just think
you're more seasoned at it, soyeah sorry, I talk a lot.
It was all good it's all good,it's all good, so, but you
definitely previous podcast too.

(53:55):
I just love to see your passion.
Whatever we're talking talkingabout, you dive feet first into
it to whatever the topic is.

Speaker 4 (54:02):
My kids say I'm too intense.
Is there a Bible?
And then there's an iPad.

Speaker 2 (54:06):
What did I not bring as one of my deans used to say
the bigger the stack you walkinto the classroom with, the
less confident you are aboutwhat you're about to say.
So this just shows myinsecurity.
That's all that's going onthere.

Speaker 1 (54:19):
That's a small stack compared to some other times
that he came, when we talkedabout the coronation of the king
and the religious emblems ofJohn.

Speaker 2 (54:27):
I brought my grandmother's coronation books.
That was so fun.
It was my one chance to getthem off the shelf.
Man.

Speaker 1 (54:34):
What you said about confidence based on the number
of books.
My dad had to do hisengineering test and I was too
young to really appreciate this.
But my mom got so freaked outbecause he went in with like his
little briefcase and peoplewere bringing like dollies of
books in to the exam forreferences.
You could bring whatever youwanted for references and she
was like freaking out that.
But he had his confidence, hehad his.

Speaker 4 (54:56):
My older daughter went to Georgia Tech and they
had these tests where they couldbring a 3x5 card and they could
write anything on it.
They wanted double-sided.
She learned to write so small.
Micro-writing I just need toget all these equations on there
so I don't have to rememberthem.

Speaker 1 (55:13):
I've noticed that students will take this on the
iPad and they'll take my slides.
I don't have a lot of contenton my slides.
I've got basically talkingpoints and then they expand the
slide so it's massively big andthey can write all these
detailed notes in very greatdetail.
So that's very smart, not quitea three by five card, so they
could get infinite space almost.

Speaker 2 (55:35):
So what are we doing with leftovers?
What are we doing?

Speaker 1 (55:37):
Just talking about anything.
Usually we debrief and talkabout, like, for example,
Valerie, you said that youactually did bring this up
during your sermon.
You mentioned it directly.

Speaker 3 (55:46):
I did and just it's funny, I planned a series a
couple of months ago called theChallenge of the Gospel and the
tagline is there's something tooffend everyone and really, when
you get into the teachings ofJesus, they're hard.
Talk about forgiving yourenemies.
Well, they're enemies for areason, so loving your enemies
and all that, but I usedelectionary text.

Speaker 1 (56:08):
Which is very right on point.

Speaker 3 (56:10):
Yeah, it just happened to be Jesus quoting
from Isaiah I've come to bringgood news to the poor and going
on from there and it really didfit in nicely.
And I did talk about the needfor mercy and the need also to
make sure that we're worshipingGod, and I got into the thing of
the division we haveexperienced.
We're looking at everythingfirst through a political lens

(56:33):
these days versus lookingthrough it through a gospel lens
.

Speaker 2 (56:37):
Yeah, that's really true.

Speaker 3 (56:38):
And I've pretty bluntly said, when we do that, I
said, we're practicing idolatry.
We are worshiping our politicalparties and our political
figures, and that's not justtrue on one side, it's true
across the board and that isidolatry.
And so he was encouraging mycongregation.
We have to see everythingthrough the lens of the gospel
first, not politics first, andthen oh yeah, here's Jesus.

Speaker 4 (57:03):
Do you ever get accused?
I would get accused sometimesof being political and I said,
well, no, I'm just saying whatJesus said.
It's not.
I'm really not coming at itfrom a political standpoint I
don't belong to a politicalparty, anyways but this is what
I'm reading in the text and, yes, I'm addressing what's going on
in our lives and in the world,but I'm really coming at it from

(57:24):
a God.
And there's this real kind ofdistrust sometimes because I
think other people are seeing itthrough a political lens first
and can't identify that youmight actually see it
differently.

Speaker 3 (57:36):
And that's why I had to approach it that way.
We're talking about theteachings of Jesus, but people
do see everything politicallyrather than looking at it
through the lens of the gospel,and that's a hard switch to get
people to make.
I think the message was verywell received at my congregation
.
I did actually get applause Atthe end of the contemporary

(57:57):
service.
I did, I did actually getapplause.

Speaker 1 (57:58):
Did you really At the end of the?

Speaker 3 (57:58):
contemporary service I did.
I was very surprised and takenaback by that.

Speaker 1 (58:03):
Now, did you mention Buddy's sermon?
Did you reference that directly?
What I ended up doing is I hada little point in my sermon that
would I got in the pulpit as Iwas finishing up the preparation
for it.
I decided that people are goingto hear that as political and

(58:26):
they're going to hear that in away that might jar them from
everything else that I've saidAlmost what you were saying
about Buddy's sermon itself,john, so I opted not to.
So I think it was Buddyadjacent, but I didn't answer it
directly.

Speaker 3 (58:41):
I went head on with it.

Speaker 1 (58:43):
I think everyone was pretty aware of what I would
have been talking about, and Ithink in your congregation, as
opposed to my more rural, moremoderate congregation, I think
it would have been.
It makes sense, is what I'mtrying to say In your context
too.
I've done that.

Speaker 3 (58:56):
Yeah, I think it fit the context.
Well, yeah, to have done that.

Speaker 2 (58:57):
Yeah, I think it fit the context well, yeah, I think
the point about trying to getpeople to think theologically,
gospel-oriented, biblically,rather than spiritually, not
just politically, is really good.
I do feel like we're in anover-political age, although I
think maybe the language thatI've and I think Bishop Buddy
did this.
She talked about not beingpartisan, because I think Jesus

(59:18):
is political right and that inthe sense of the polis and how
we're not to get too academic.

Speaker 1 (59:24):
But we're in a.
We don't want to do this duringthe I know.

Speaker 2 (59:28):
We're in a.
We are people who are trying tofigure out how to live together
.
We actually need help withbeing political.
We don't need to be morepartisan, and I guess that's
part of what I was trying to getat.
In the main thing was justsaying how do we name some of
the things that were overlypartisan about things we all
care about?
How do we draw people to thesame common values that we
actually care about?

(59:48):
I think you were making thatsame point.

Speaker 4 (59:50):
Well, I think people assume we don't have anything in
common anymore.
And I'm like okay, if you sayare you against this particular
like?
Let's just take, for example,the ACA People would say, oh
yeah, I'm against that.

Speaker 2 (01:00:08):
Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, yes.

Speaker 4 (01:00:10):
Yeah, the Affordable Care Act.
But if you had but they wouldpull out just aspects of it
without naming it and peoplewould say, oh yeah, I want my
children to be able to stay onmy insurance.
Oh yeah, I don't believe inpreexisting conditions, I don't.
So it's like okay, so weactually agree on this content.
It's just the politics of howit came about have gotten in the

(01:00:31):
way of your being willing tomoment going viral is that it
finally put a moral voice overthe partisan and the political.

Speaker 2 (01:00:49):
I think we as Americans have a hard time not
letting the political and thepartisan being the ultimate
authority where everybody,that's all we talk about and
there's nothing over that.
There's no critique of thatfrom outside.
Partisans they're just, and inEngland, where I did my doctoral
work, and you have the House ofLords, the Archbishop of
Canterbury always has a voice,he can always get on the front
page, he can make an issue, hecan make a speech in the House
of Lords and there's this sortof whether it works or not, it

(01:01:11):
has this kind of you can make amoral argument, which I think is
what Mother Teresa was tryingto do make a moral argument in
the context of the political.
It's not all political.
There's this moral frame and Ido think the National Cathedral
prayer service is a moment wherewe still have some remnant of
that.
I actually worry, now that thishas happened, that that will

(01:01:31):
disappear, that the EpiscopalChurch will be viewed as too
political, too one-sided.
It won't be respected as aplace where that can happen.
We didn't talk about that in themain, but I worry about that
because I just think, as anAmerican society, how do we have
any moral voice?
And again, we struggle morewith the question of multi-faith

(01:01:53):
.
England has its own version ofthat multi-faith environment
that they've navigated, I think,effectively, even if it's
grounded in Christian tradition.
But they have a way of doingthat.
We're always fumbling around,for are we Christian, not
Christian and all the multiplefaiths?
But just to be able to have amoral voice over the political,
I think is so worthwhile for usas a country to just talk that
way, talk morally and not justtalk politically.

Speaker 1 (01:02:13):
And that goes back to what you said, valerie.
I'm going to be chewing on that.
Just if our congregation isputting everything through a
political filter, no matter whatwe say, we run the risk of them
hearing it in political ways.
I think that's an importantpoint.

Speaker 3 (01:02:29):
It becomes, I think, offensive to the pastor for
someone to try to say that's apolitical word and I want to say
no, that's the word of God andI really shouldn't say offensive
to the pastor.
It's offensive to God Becausethat's where we come from.
That moral voice is thechurch's lane.
There are things that arecertainly addressed through

(01:02:49):
political means, but it's verymuch within what the church is
called to do, what the pastorspecifically is called to do.

Speaker 2 (01:02:57):
And there's no ambiguity on welcoming the
stranger and caring for them.
We can have debates about thelegality and how to manage that,
but to welcome the stranger andto have a due process of care
and concern for all people andtheir dignity in the middle of
that, like there's no crosscurrents about that or

(01:03:19):
protecting people's lives, theseare things that are core.
There's no crosswind.
I do sometimes like I'm an OldTestament guy, right.
So when I get into Exodus orDeuteronomy, it's always about
protecting the sojourner andit's students.
All go into the Exodus and talkabout living as immigrants in
the land and Egypt.
There's just that, that, such astrong theme and someone that's

(01:03:41):
touched us.
We're worried about economicsand the dollar, but are we
worried about people and hostingpeople and how we care for
people?
Even if we do Obama deported alot of people even if we end up
deporting people, how do we dothat with dignity and respect
and say we've got to go throughthe proper channels?
There's a way to do that.
That right.
There's a way to just have thismoral commitment to people's

(01:04:02):
and to hospitality.

Speaker 3 (01:04:03):
It's a stranger absolutely and I think we also
have.
We've set up just two polaropposites.
Well, if you don't agree withthis, then you must think this,
and it'll be the extreme at theother end yeah, shrill voices
yeah, and you're right, noteveryone can live here.
There are people who are badactors, who should not be
allowed to come, but the vastmajority of people who have come

(01:04:26):
are not falling into thatcategory, and so that's where
we've got to have somewhere inthe middle, where we have an
effective method to screen outthe folks who intend harm, but
also a path for those who canreally contribute great things
to our country.
That's really the middle groundthat we've got to find, and we
do want to treat people withdignity and respect and love our

(01:04:48):
neighbor.
I think I read that somewhere.

Speaker 2 (01:04:54):
Humor is an effective tool.
That was good yeah, we didn'ttalk about that in preaching.

Speaker 3 (01:04:58):
We have a whole podcast Humor and sarcasm
Exactly.

Speaker 1 (01:05:01):
Well, we'll wrap up, but I have one more question for
John.
Oh dear, Are you an OldTestament guy?

Speaker 3 (01:05:07):
How many times did I say that.

Speaker 4 (01:05:10):
How much of your preaching comes from the Old
Testament?

Speaker 2 (01:05:12):
Not shockingly little actually, yeah.

Speaker 1 (01:05:15):
So great Well, thank you all.