Skip to main content

To Post or Not to Post - One Pastor's Social Media Dilemma

For the past many weeks, I have posted things "privately" to my Facebook account, so that only I can see them. On occasion, I have placed security settings on other posts so that only my wife, Jennifer, can see what I'm thinking. This helped me feel like I was getting things off my chest, without stirring up unnecessary controversy among my friends.
I have been conflicted because a number of people I love and respect feel I would do better to refrain from posting anything "political," given that I have returned to the position of pastor at a church that people of many different political persuasions call home. Other people I love and respect - including many from that same church - have thanked me for speaking out, and have encouraged me to continue.*
As I browse my private posts of these last few weeks, I see a pattern: I have refrained from commenting about matters of policy and political opinion, and have instead commented on those occasions where I have perceived politics and morality to intersect.
That's why I decided to post publicly today about the latest revelations about the emails of Donald Trump Jr. It is not just "bad politics," but it is deeply immoral, to seek advantage in an election campaign by inviting dirt on your opponent from a hostile foreign power. I will leave to others (special prosecutors and the like) to decide whether it is illegal, whether it is treasonous, and so on.
The emails released by Mr. Trump Jr. - and released only because the NY Times was about to publish them anyway - betray a character that is sleazy, corrupt, immoral. They betray a character, in short, that is un-Christian, and so I believe it falls within my purview as a religious leader to comment on them.
Were this a "break in character," and an exception to the rule, I might be inclined to give Mr. Trump Jr. a pass. But, unfortunately, this lack of moral compass is entirely consistent with everything else we know about him and his family. They are not a family I want my children to look up to, and they are not a family I want people who call me "pastor" to look up to, either.
Were the White House occupied by someone with whom I disagree on politics, I believe I would follow the counsel of those who have challenged me to refrain from posting to social media about these matters. But, since the White House is occupied by a man (and, it would seem, a family) who possess none of the qualities that I value in my own religious faith, I will continue to post from time to time.
I welcome your comments about how I am trying to navigate these tricky waters. If this post provokes a helpful conversation about what it means to be a responsible religious leader in politically-conflicted times, I will look forward to the conversation. If all this post does is evoke name-calling and hostility and animosity, I will delete it.
I am wishing each of you grace and peace as you follow your own callings ...

_____

*Like most large, predominantly white, mainline congregations, the First United Methodist Church of San Diego is filled with wonderful people, and they are scattered across the ideological spectrum.   The edges of the spectrum are probably under-represented - Berniecrats and Ted Cruz supporters are in a distinct minority - but plenty of congregants would consider themselves loyal members of their respective political parties.  I am working entirely off intuition, but I would conjecture that our congregation's voters split 60-40 in favor of Hillary Clinton in last year's Presidential election, which would make them entirely representative of the San Diego electorate.  I suspect most - whether Democrat or Republican - would have preferred that their party had put forth a different candidate, and in this, too, they would not be so different from most Americans.  

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

THE HUBRIS OF INCLUSION: Thoughts on the Future of the United Methodist Church

The United Methodist Church was born in a specific time and place, in the mid-twentieth century in the United States of America. Protestant denominations were ascendant, and with them a brand of "ecumenism" that would only decades later be recognized by those who championed it as culturally bound to the white "mainline." Mergers were all the buzz, including the one that created the UMC in 1968, and Methodists embraced their new denomination as partial fulfillment of a dream of "Christian unity." As the historian Robert Handy noted in his wonderful little 1971 book,  A Christian America: Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities , leaders of the new denomination thought of it as "a kind of unofficial national church." Because they sat at the midpoint of mainline American Protestantism in so many respects -- ecclesial, theological, liturgical -- it was easy for them to assume that as all churches became one, pretty much everyone else would eventua...
3 comments
Read more

Methodism's Many Pasts and Futures

From the time the brothers John and Charles Wesley first convened a "holy club" of friends at Oxford University in 1729, Methodists have declared theirs a pursuit of “holiness” or “Christian perfection.”  For early Methodists, the pursuit of Christian perfection led inevitably to disagreements about what it meant to live a holy life.   As early as  1741 the Wesleys distanced themselves from their closest collaborator, George Whitefield, over his Calvinist teachings.  And while Wesley proclaimed himself to possess "a catholic spirit," his practices - not least, his own refusal to conform to the conventions of Anglican parish ministry - were widely perceived by his contemporaries to be divisive or even "schismatic." Methodism on the other side of the Atlantic retained this same spirit, which should come as little surprise since it was born in an act of separation - in 1784,  Wesley consecrated Thomas Coke as Superintendent, setting in motion the cre...
2 comments
Read more

On the 40th Anniversary of Friendship Park

Imagine the First Lady of the United States punching a hole in the fence on the U.S.-Mexico border.   Imagine her publicly lamenting that there was a border fence at all. In fact this scenario doesn’t need to be imagined … because it happened forty years ago right here in San Diego County.   The date was August 18, 1971 and the location was “Friendship Park,” the small cement plaza on the U.S.-Mexico border, at the southwest-most corner of the continental United States. The First Lady was Pat Nixon, who had been a prominent champion of our state’s public parks when her husband Richard Nixon was Governor of California, before being elected President of the United States.    She came to Friendship Park to inaugurate the surrounding area as California’s Border Field State Park.    After planting a tree as part of the inauguration ceremony, Mrs. Nixon approached the large stone monument which sits at the heart of Friendship Park.   The monument commemo...
Post a Comment
Read more