Royal Privileges

I don’t know whether or not the Reverend Chan Chandler is a name within in your consciousness. He is the former pastor of the East Waynesville Baptist Church in Waynesville, North Carolina. He ended up in the national media spotlight when he resigned from his parish in May 2005 following six months of turmoil in his congregation. That turmoil began when in late October 2004, just a few days before the presidential election, Rev. Chandler said this in his Sunday sermon. “But the question then comes in the Baptist Church, ‘How do I vote?’ Let me just say this right now, if you vote for John Kerry this year you need to repent or resign. You have been holding back God’s church way too long.” He added, “And I know I may get in trouble for saying that, but just pour it on.”[1]

Pour it on indeed. What upset Chandler was Senator Kerry’s pro-choice viewpoint on abortion — which is not what we are going to talk about today — and eventually 9 church members were voted out of the congregation because they would not agree with Chandler’s approach. That upset things even more and the pastor resigned, saying that pastors should not be the cause of dissension in a church and staying would only cause more hurt for himself and his family.

I will come back to Chan Chandler a little later in this sermon. I mention it at the beginning to help set the context not only for today’s sermon but for my summer preaching in general.

Last winter when I began to think about my sermons this summer, I realized that with vacation and study leave taking me away several Sundays, it would be difficult to have a sustained sermonic theme throughout the summer, especially since there would not be a colleague here to carry on that theme when I was away. So I decided that on the Sundays when I do preach, my scripture texts would be from the Psalms.

Most preachers including this one don’t preach from the Psalms very often. Before today I have preached 128 sermons here at PCIS and only 3 of those were based on a psalm, and two of those three didn’t deal with the psalm very directly. We use psalms all the time in prayers, liturgies, and songs but not very often as the basis for preaching.

I’m not sure why. One reason may be that all the psalms are poetry and that makes them harder to interpret. Not only are they poetry but they are liturgical poetry (and here I need to remind you of a little Old Testament history). The psalter — an alternate word for the Book of Psalms — is a hymnbook really, sometimes called the hymnbook of the second temple. The first temple, the one built by King David’s son Solomon in the tenth century before Christ, endured until the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem in 586 bc. Not only were the city and temple destroyed but the Jews were taken into exile. When they returned a couple of generations later, the second temple was built, like before only considerably less grand.[2] Centuries later that temple was expanded by Herod the Great, work that was completed about 15 years before Jesus was born.[3] So our Lord saw the second temple as it was remodeled by Herod. That temple was destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 ad and the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem is all that remains today.

The Psalms as we have them were collected during the centuries of that second temple[4] as a collection of liturgical poetry, a hymnbook. Of course, hymns are great for worship and singing. But they are hard to preach on, partly because it is often difficult if not impossible to determine the historical context of hymns in general and psalms in particular. So it is hard to tell the story behind a particular psalm.

A further difficulty arises because there are different kinds of psalms. Broadly speaking there are at least six categories.[5]

• Laments: cries for help by either an individual or the community of faith. This is the most numerous category; at least 40 psalms are laments.

• Royal psalms: songs originally related to the kings of Israel (the northern kingdom) or Judah (the southern kingdom).

• Liturgies: all psalms were used in worship in the temple but some have very specific liturgical functions.

So preaching from the psalms is a challenge because each of these categories requires somewhat different means of interpretation.

But the biggest difficulty about preaching from the psalms, to use the words of Walter Brueggemann, perhaps the greatest living Old Testament scholar, is that the Psalms “are relentlessly Jewish in their mode of expression and in their faith claims.”[6] Plainly put, the psalms are not Christian. They were written hundreds of years before Jesus was born in completely different historical and religious contexts. Christians use the psalms, of course, but as Brueggemann points out, we often abuse them, read them in highly selective ways, and avoid the parts we don’t like, especially the vengeful parts. We spiritualize them and glibly read Christ backwards into the psalms to pretty much make them say anything we want.

These are some of the issues I hope to deal with this summer. We begin today with Psalm 20, a royal psalm[7] that for the most part seems to suggest that Israel’s king will be victorious in battle because God is on the king’s side. In other words, today’s psalm sounds a bit like political propaganda, the kind of thing that Chan Chandler and many others both liberal and conservative would be likely to say. Let’s see what sense we can make of it for ourselves.

The Lord answer you in the day of trouble!
The name of the God of Jacob protect you!

May he remember all your offerings,
and regard with favor your burnt sacrifices.

May we shout for joy over your victory,
and in the name of our God set up our banners.

Now I know that the Lord will help his anointed;
he will answer him from his holy heaven
with mighty victories by his right hand.

Some take pride in chariots, and some in horses,
but our pride is in the name of the Lord our God.

Let us work our way into this text with a very pointed question. Is Psalm 20 just an ancient example of purely partisan propaganda,[8] the kind of thing that gives support to the Chan Chandlers of this world? It is certainly possible to read it that way. When you have verses like verse 6 — “Now I know that the Lord will help his anointed [the king]; he will answer him from his holy heaven with mighty victories by his right hand” — and verses 8-9 — “They [the king’s enemies] will collapse and fall, but we shall rise and stand upright. Give victory to the king, O Lord; answer us when we call” — it is hard not to read it as political commentary. God is on the side of our king and God will give our king victory in battle. That means we are right and we are going to win because God is on our side. Should we read the text that way? Many do.

One of the problems is context. Obviously the psalm was about an ancient king of Israel or Judah. But it’s very tempting to translate it into our own political system and that is the kind of partisanship we have everywhere today — television, newspapers and magazines, Internet blogs, and talk radio. It’s in the Congress and legislative bodies. It is in the courts and in church meetings. The talk isn’t always directly theological but it is always purely partisan. “We are right! And if you disagree, not only are you wrong but you are stupid and blind and evil.” And when the conversation is specifically theological, it comes out as, “We are right and God is on our side. Too bad about you. You’re going to hell.” Of course, I exaggerate a bit but not much. Does the text give warrant to such thinking and talking?

We may live in particularly partisan times but the arguments go way back, even before any of us. As a boy I remember my mom and dad arguing angrily about Eisenhower vs. Stevenson. This would have been in 1956. Four years later they argued about Kennedy vs. Nixon and four years after that about Johnson vs. Goldwater. I was away at college during Nixon vs. Humphrey. So I don’t know if the argued about that. My dad was pretty sick by that point. He died before Nixon vs. McGovern came along. But my brothers and sisters carry on the argument: Carter vs. Ford, Reagan vs. Carter, Reagan vs. Mondale, Bush, Sr. vs. Dukakis, Clinton vs. Bush, Sr., Clinton vs. Dole, Bush vs. Gore, Bush vs. Kerry. Like my family, we could probably have a good argument right here about which of these presidents or would-be presidents was God’s choice. And how do we know? Does it just come down to “I’m right and you’re wrong and God is obviously on my side”?

This may surprise you but in a profound way I stand with the Reverend Chan Chandler. I think what he said was dumb but not because he was partisan against Kerry and for Bush. He would have been just as dumb, as others were, to be partisan against Bush and for Kerry. But I stand with him in this way. Whenever someone stands in a pulpit to preach — or wherever we stand when we preach — there is only one banner of loyalty unfurled above us. It is not an American banner or a Republican banner or a Democrat banner. It is not a racial banner or a gender banner or a capitalist banner. It is not a Presbyterian or Baptist banner nor the ensign of any church. The only banner of loyalty for a preacher is the banner of Jesus Christ. If Chan Chandler believed what he needed to say was from the Lord Jesus Christ, he needed to say it regardless of the consequences. I stand with him in that.

You need to know, if you don’t already, that I take what I say when I’m preaching that seriously. When I’m preaching I am preaching the Word of the Lord. Now, I will defend with all of my being your right to disagree with what I say as sisters and brothers in Christ. But if you disagree with me, it cannot be because I sound too conservative or too liberal or too moderate or too anything. It can only be because you believe that I have misheard the Lord or because you have heard him more clearly. What we do in worship is not a game or the meeting of religious club where a speaker gives a little pep talk each week. No, this is where we come to offer ourselves in Jesus’ name to Almighty God and to hear God speak to us. Worship can often be great fun but it is always that serious.

So how do we know when it is God’s Word? That’s the question for Chan Chandler and Bill McIvor and for all of us, and there is a clue in the text. It is the verse that saves Psalm 20 from being just partisan propaganda. Verse 7 says, “Some take pride in chariots, and some in horses, but our pride is in the name of the Lord our God.” In the ancient world, chariots and horses were the most lethal and feared weapons of war, as frightening as tanks, fighter planes, and laser-guided smart bombs are today. While the psalm declares that God will give victory to the king, it implies that victory doesn’t come from the weapons that the king has at his disposal. Victory comes only from the power of God’s name. All pride is unfounded unless it is in the name of the Lord for the Lord’s name is more powerful than all of the engines of war combined.

This challenges every partisanship. Our pride, or as some translations put it, our trust,[9] can only stand in the name of God. Remember what the third commandment says about God’s name? “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.” (Exodus 20.7a, KJV) Claim God’s name for the Democrat party? Be careful. Claim God’s name for the Republican party? Be careful. Claim God’s name for moderates or independents or this or that cause, even this or that church? Be careful. It’s so easy to take the name of the Lord in vain because God’s way is not our way and all too often we don’t trust God’s way.

Do we trust God’s name more than military power? Psalm 20 says that’s where our pride should be, not in the engines of war. Or let’s take it out of the political realm and just talk about personal trust. Jesus said, “Do not worry, saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’ … indeed your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” (Matthew 6.31-33) I don’t do that really and I’m guessing you don’t either. We trust our salaries, not God. We trust or 401k plans, our Social Security, our pension, our health plan, not God.

Do we take God at his word and truly live according to God’s way in the world? Mostly we don’t and Psalm 20 calls us to live under God’s name, to live not according to our will but according to God’s will. “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done.”

Now you may respond, “Okay, Bill, I hear you. But Rev. Chandler was concerned about abortion. That is a huge problem and even beyond that are there not other critically important moral, political, and economic questions that have to be decided?” Yes, of course, and we work to do the right thing. We pray that God will show us even the way to do the impossible to end the scourge of AIDS and bring peace to the Middle East. We will do what we can and even more than we think possible. And along the way we will argue and debate and vote and work and seek to do God’s will.[10]

And one more thing which is, I believe, the Lord’s Word today and always. Along the way, even when we disagree, we will not beat each other up. For while we work and argue and debate and vote and do what we can, the person next to us may see things differently. But God’s name claims us and we are not the judge of others.

Friends, this is why we come to church week after week after week for all of our lives. Belonging to God isn’t a simple little thing that we can get with a few lessons. It is the challenge of a lifetime and while Psalm 20 may be in part about the royal privileges of one of Israel’s ancient kings, it is mostly about the royal privilege we have under God’s mercy to learn of the Lord’s way, meeting God’s love with our praise.

[1] Shaila Dewan, “Political Split Leaves a Church Sadder and Grayer,” online, www.NYTimes.com, Internet, 16 May 2005. The turmoil prompted a variety of responses, as reported by The Baltimore Sun on May 8, 2005. George Bullard, associate executive director-treasurer for the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, told the Asheville Citizen-Times that a pastor has every right to disallow membership if a church’s bylaws allow for the pastor to establish criteria for membership. “Membership is a local church issue,” he said. “It is not something the state convention would enter into.” The head of the North Carolina Democratic Party criticized Chandler on Friday, saying he jeopardized his church’s tax-free status by openly supporting a candidate for president. “If these reports are true, this minister is not only acting extremely inappropriately by injecting partisan politics into a house of worship, but he is also potentially breaking the law,” Chairman Jerry Meek said.

[2] The second temple was completed by 515 bc. See 1 Maccabees 1.22, 4.48-51.

[3] Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogan, eds., The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 731-734.

[4] J. Clinton McCann, Jr., “The Book of Psalms,” The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. XI (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000) 662. “The Hebrew psalter may have taken final form in the fourth to third centuries bce, as many scholars suggest; however, the manuscript evidence from Qumran complicates this conclusion, since it suggests the fluidity of Books IV-V into the second century bce or beyond. But even if the psalter did not take final form until the first century ce, its shape can still be understood as a response to the exile in the sense of an ongoing theological crisis. This crisis called for new understandings of God and of human faithfulness to God. The shape of the psalter indicates that its editors intended the psalms to participate in the theological dialogue that resulted in new perspectives on both divine and human sovereignty and suffering.”

[5] Different scholars have often modified his classifications but still follow to some degree the categories as first described by German scholar Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932). Metzger, 626-629.

[6] Walter Brueggemann, Praying the Psalms (Winona, MN: Saint Mary’s Press, 1993) 43.

[7] The royal psalms are usually identified as psalms 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 72, 89, 110, and 132. They concern a variety of issues relating to worship and to the role of the king, important because the king embodies the well-being of the people as well as God’s rule and sovereign claim upon the world. Walter J. Harrelson, ed., The New Interpreter’s Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2003) 767.

[8] McCann, 756.

[9] Psalm 20.7: “Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the Lord our God.” (New International Version); “Some people trust the power of chariots or horses, but we trust you, Lord God.” (Contemporary English Version and New Living Translation).

[10] This is what Barth gets at with his typical wordiness about the ”witness of the community.” “[It is] the declaration of the Gospel.… The point is that alongside and over against everything else that takes place in the world the witness of the community also occurs, that what God says in the Gospel concerning what He has done and does and is for man is accepted, answered and proclaimed by certain men. It is not in the power of the community to produce or even to reproduce the divine historical fact. Nor is it in its power to disclose it. It lives itself by the fact that God has created and reveals it, that He is actively and eloquently present in it. Yet it does lie in its power, in the power which it is given, to receive with human ear and heart and reason the Gospel which has this divine historical fact as its content, and to declare it with the human means at its disposal, thus introducing the human historical fact which corresponds to it and setting alongside and over against everything else which takes place in the world. It has the power ‘in the name of our God to set up our banners’ (Ps. 20.5), to establish a sign, to say powerfully or weakly, but at any rate in the light, what Jesus has said to it in darkness, to proclaim skillfully or unskillfully, but at any rate openly on the housetops, what it has heard in the ear (Mt. 10.27) — a task which in itself, as a human movement, is no other, neither easier nor more difficult, than what other men and human groups are always doing in a different sense and for a different purpose. Its ministry is to make this indicatory movement as well or badly as it can.” Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. IV, 3, 2, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1962) 844.