Prophets question the party line. They are therefore, it seems to me, at best tolerated, and when they head back into the hills there is a collective sigh of relief. Like you I know there are exceptions few and far between.

In Christ
Mike L

I know this is a pastors convention and all, but why must prophets also be pulpit ministers?

It seems that by insisting all the gifts be somehow represented in the pulpit we lose the insights of the people in front of the pulpit. Being a pulpit minister requires a certain set of skills, and these skills may be exausting to many people with real prophetic gifts.

Either they are forced to do a lot of things which don't match their gifts, or they are always passed over when it comes time for promotion, because as Mike notes prophets are often at best tolerated which isn't exactly a good trait for interviews.

Rather than insisting each prophet gets his pulpit it seems ministers should learn how to let go some of their own control and allow the voices of the prophets already in their communities to help shape the direction of the church.

The problem is there really is the expection that pastors have to also be the prophets. But, that's not what we read in Ephesians 4:11, where "some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers". These are different people in the same community, not the same person with different hats.

I don't think we need more ministers. We need more people ministering. And we need pastors who let go their own power and control within their congregations to encourage and promote the prophets among us. That is giving the ministry to the Spirit.

The problem with Campolo's rebuke is that he confuses the pulpit for a political soapbox. His rebuke should be for the churches who have neglected the Word of God. I think where you have the word of God taught faithfully and boldly, not the watered down junk that is being taught in some churches, then you will see the people of God living out the Gospel and making and impact for Christ in their communities.

The comment about Campolo's political stance is well-taken. He, more than most, politicizes the pulpit. It needs to be said that it's not always for ill - most of the time he's trying to make biblical points that some if not most have no courage to address, much less argue for forcefully. However, legislating Right-Wing or Left-Wing social issues will not bring "the Kingdom of the Heavens," which is already "at hand" through Jesus (Willard).

Mark J hit the proverbial nail on the head. The Preached Word addresses the issues that Campolo wishes the church would take up. May we have the kind of courage it takes to stand up and declare the whole counsel of God, the Good News for the whole person and, indeed, for our society.

Bravo to Campolo for being a prophetic voice and not just calling us to that. Even if I might disagree with some methodology, he is still someone needed in the Body's conversation.

You say that pastors are called to be both priests and prophets. That's an opinion that I disagree with.

The Americhurch pastor (of the evangelical type) is called (by the church) to oftentimes placate his (and it is always his, never her) audience because that is mainly what we want. To divert from this and to offend, or challenge, or threaten the status quo directly impacts the giving dollar. And we all know that budgets are vitally important to the evangelical Americhurch (especially in larger churches - see line item "Salaries").

Listen, I know I am being tough on the American evangelical pastor. Many wonder why the office of pastor even exists since it is simply a spiritual gift, mentioned in the plural form in Scripture. But let's not go round and round about that....that's the system we have...it really isn't the pastors fault, he is oftentimes doing what he is being asked to do. And he continues to do so, as Campolo suggests, out of fear.

So what's the point?

The point is this.... I think churches (and by that I mean the people that attend the institution) should have the cajones to find a pastor to shepherd them (and not expect that pastor to be the CEO). Let him fulfill his calling. And seriously, we need to admit pastors that not all of you are really called to be true shepherds. Let's not confuse the love of teaching on Sunday mornings with the love of shepherding.

Then, the pastor/shepherd should have the internal strength to allow his pulpit to be used occassionally by the prophets among them to come down from the hillside and challenge, inspire and invoke that community of believers (and the leaders themselves).

All of that, and lots more, falls under the heading of "Risk More". Campolo is right... we need to "risk more". I know I do.

Some reflective, and perhaps risky questions that I hope may be about things that last...

Skye wrote(or, I'm assuming that Skye wrote this as a reflection on what Tony Campolo said):

We seem to push the prophets out of our pulpits and into academia, the conference circuit, or publishing. Where are the “in the pulpit” pastors who are confronting and shaping the church with their prophetic imaginations?

1) Who is pushing the prophets out of congregational leadership? Discomforted congregational leaders? The inability of the "prophet" to connect well with the motives of people other than to stir up anger? The inability or unwillingness of the prophet or the congregation to organize well to put some of the good prophetic intention into meaningful action? Structures external to congregations (in some more connectional systems, for example) that intervene to "rescue" prophets from congregations (or congregations from prophets!) where congregations or prophets complain about their relationships?

2) Is part of our problem that pastors are "in the pulpit" in the first place? What is the pulpit? Does the pulpit, as furniture in worship space, enable or block the connection between the living Word of God and the assembly through the proclamation offered by the pastor? (Note: early Christian worship spaces didn't have a pulpit at all-- the basic furnishing would have been table (for celebrating communion), a chair for the presider, and maybe a font/pool if the gathering place were too far from or not built over a body of moving water).

3) If pastors are "in the pulpit" are they "stuck there" or "hiding behind it" or using it as a "platform" to comfort and/or rile up the congregation? Or is the congregation putting the pastor there to defend themselves from the full responsibility for the embodiment of the message the pastor may convey? Why do pastors stand above us and behind large furniture as opposed to among us?

4) If they stand among us, with us, not lording it over us, but being a "human bridge" to the God who meets us all at Font and Table and in the Scripture read among us... what might that communicate differently than if they're "in the pulpit?"

5) Did prophets have pulpits? (Priests didn't-- rabbis in orthodox synagogues generally still don't). Or did they act as a "human bridge" as well, offering themselves vulnerably to the Word of God and to the people to whom they delivered that word?

6) So is part of the problem of a lack of prophetic imagination in pastors that we put pastors in pulpits-- either literally or in our minds' eye-- rather than letting or expecting them to stand among us as a human bridge for us to the Word and expectations and grace of the Triune God revealed in Jesus Christ, whom we know as Prophet, Priest and King?

Peace in Christ,

Taylor Burton-Edwards

Mark wrote:

The problem with Campolo's rebuke is that he confuses the pulpit for a political soapbox. His rebuke should be for the churches who have neglected the Word of God.

How are "issues like poverty, education, war, government sponsored torture, and economic injustice" not part of the Word of God? Have you never read Luke 4:18-19 or Isaiah 58 or Matthew 5:38-48? I think what Tony is trying to do is not to bring politics into the pulpit, but to reclaim gospel issues from the politicians.

These points aren't new, he made them very well in his 1986 book Who Swithced the Price Tags.

Mike Clawson-- As one who has spent much of his life promoting personal piety at the expense of a more wholistic approach to the gospel, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't always see eye to eye with Tony but I admire his call to address social concerns in a more direct way. At times that means taking a political stand. As Iraq totters on the brink of civil war, I think we as Americans need to reflect on our role in fomenting this violence. Furthermore, we as evangelicals need to think about why we're not more public in expressing our concerns about the war in its initial stages. Is it because we were unwilling to risk criticism ?

Preacher, prophet, teacher, administrator, or pew-warmer for that matter are all included under the over-arching banner of Christianity. Christ called us all, and expects all of us to be willing to risk everything, including life itself to uphold our faith and life in Him. The scary question is whether the level of my fear is comensurate with my lack of faith.

Paul tells us in Romans that for those who practice faith in Jesus (stepping into the unknown with trust in God for the outcome) the Holy Spirt will live within us to lead and convict in our lives. If we have a problem saying things or acting the way we should, maybe our real need is more faith. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of the Lord. There can be no substitute for that connection being first and foremost.

"What is the hard truth we need to be prophetically declaring? Campolo... rebuked evangelical church leaders for being silent on issues like poverty, education, war, government sponsored torture, and economic injustice."

Speaking as a layman, let me tell you I have walked out on more than one preacher who has delivered the social(ist) gospel on a Sunday morning. Campolo's gospel is not the Gospel at all. Listen guys. Don't fall into the trap of putting the cart before the horse.

No one changes from the outside-in. And the body of Christ does not change as a community. The Holy Spirit changes people one by one.

I look for one thing from the pulpit: expository teaching-the truth of God's Word one line at a time. Anything else is doing a disservice to God and those in attendance. But I have been studying the Word for 25 years. A new (or non) Christian will have a harder time discerning, which makes it that much more important that pastors stick strictly to the Word. The outcome in terms of people's behavior will take care of itself.

For all of Campolo's talk about how conservative politics has hijacked the church, I have heard many more liberal political sermons than I ever have conservative, especially from mainline denominations.

You guys need to stop analyzing methods and get back to studying the Bible.

In response to the person who said that:

"No one changes from the outside-in. And the body of Christ does not change as a community. The Holy Spirit changes people one by one."

You are clearly coming down with an either/or response to an issue that is certainly both/and. Jesus certainly addressed both social injustice as well as the heart of the individual.

You say you are so intent on us getting back to preaching the Bible and yet you seem to have a rather "edited" understanding of what it preaches about.

How you can read your Bible and miss the overwhelming degree to which it speaks firmly about social justice issues is beyond me.

I think that while we need to continue to read and preach the Bible, we also need to be aware of our underlying hermeneutics.

The unfortunate thing is that often people who carry a more "conservative" tag seem to deny the fact that their hermeneutical biases (as is the case with all of us) seriously skews the way we read the Bible.

Your Bible interpretation is much more subjective than you realize.

I suppose that if I had said that from the pulpit that you would have walked out on me by now.

This has indeed been Tony's soapbox for a long time and for good reason. He has earned it. Campolo spends a lot of time behind pulpits around the world, but he has spent even more time initiating missions to developing countries and deteriorating urban landscapes here in the US.

To say that Tony does not preach the Gospel is to render the Gospel as something antithetical to the life and teachings of Jesus. I've never read one of his books that was not built around both sound scriptural exegesis and his own application of the Word in his life.

What Tony is implying is that pastors too-often have the "buck-stops-at-the-pulpit" mentality. Their congregants tend to view the Sunday sermon as the end all of the church's mission. IE: The congregation brings people to the church; the Word is preached; peope get saved. While this admittedly is a simplification, it nonetheless is tantamount to a typical church scenario these days. Of course, most of the church goers have heard the Gospel thousands of times and are either saved or immune to it. When the Gospel is reduced to mere words; when the commands to meet the needs of the poor and oppressed, to clothe the naked and feed the hungry, to visit the imprisoned, to lay down our lives for our brothers and sisters are ignored, the church grows stagnant; evangelism becomes an empty shirt.

What Tony is looking for is pastors who are willing to lead their churches by example. True leaders are able to forge a prophetic vision for their congregants. They are willing to implement that vision, if only at first by getting their hands dirty as the church stands by and watches.

I believe that pastors who are unwilling to take risks, who are unwilling to initiate outreaches to their communities,who are unwilling to ask God what 3rd world country he want his church to get involved with and then go there himself, will never lead a congregation to significantly follow in kind.

When I began my ministry I was such a short-sighted pastor. I believed that all I had to do is preach the Word and that that was an end in itself. Frustrated and discouraged, I left the ministry for many years. It wasn't until I had a vision and was already involved in 3rd world missions, and was already reaching out to my community, helping those in need and leading many to Jesus, that I realized I was ready to fulfill my calling as a pastor. Those years away from the pastorate were the most valuable years of my life as far as pastoring is concerned. Being out there in the midst of the battle, I developed the prophetic vision, as well as the faith necessary to take the risks regardless of the consequences. God has been my supply and I have no regrets.

No, I don't agree verbatim with everything Tony Campolo has to say, but he has inspired and influenced me greatly. His heart is in the right place and equally important, he has been the hands and feet of Jesus to some of the most desperate people in the world. He has transformed lives, not just given them words. People like Tony lead as many people to Christ by example as they do from their actual ministry. He has been a good and faithful servant, and a better example than most of us can ever hope to be. He is a true prophet.

For those who prefer only exegetical preaching, I wonder how I might go about preaching Matthew 25:31-46? Or maybe Isaiah 1:10-17?

Somehow I think that those who've studied the Bible for so long and think Campolo is entirely offtrack have skipped some of the good bits the Bible has to offer.

There's more to preaching the Bible than saying Word alot. One really has to get into what the Word actually says, and it says a significant amount about helping the poor, defending those in need, and fighting for justice. If you think such a message is missing the mark don't blame Campolo, blame the Word itself. It's all in there.

Richard, methinks you may have walked out on Jesus himself if you walk out on preachers who talk about such things.

I think this is a great dialogue--all of it. I hope those connected with Churchs will point Youth and Young Adults to this blog. Better to be reading this than doing some of the other things we do on computers...

Richard Miller ..You said that preachers should stick to the Word and that you look for those who preach the Bible one line at a time. With your apparent respect for the Word and commitment to thoroughness, one would think that at some time in your study you would have come across the same issues Tony Campolo raises. One would have to be very selective not to.

If nothing else, at least Tony Campolo is consistent. I would dare say that one of the first things any of us heard Tony preach was his 'It's Friday But Sunday's Coming' sermon. Who could ever believe something like Easter would occur following a day like Good Friday? But isn't that exactly the role of a prophet - bringing to our hearing 'hard things' that are so outrageous they could only possibly come from an extravagantly loving God who refuses to give up on us?

To those who missed my point as I suspected you would:

You're putting the cart before the horse. People do not change from the outside-in. If you see "the church" or a particular person who claims Christ ignoring their responsibility to "give to the least of these," how can you possibly assume that that person is really saved? And if you browbeat anyone into changing their behavior, regardless of what the external issue is, and that person has not come to saving faith, what have you accomplished?

The Holy Spirit alone will change people and lead them to acts of charity, etc. But first must come individual repentance. It is human nature to wishfully think that a person who is known for philanthropy is a Christian. But do I really need to remind you that our good works are evidence of salvation and not the thing that saves us?

Read Barna's statistics. The American Church is crawling with people who are self-deceived into thinking that they are saved. That's not my opinion. That's straight out of Barna's surveys.

If you are in the pulpit and frustrated because you see little in terms of action from the congregation, you had better get back to the straight Gospel because you are preaching to the lost. Just be thankful that God has given you that opportunity.

One other thing that I hope this blog will explore fully is that Campolo's message smacks of guilt manipulation. To focus on helping the poor is one thing but to do so by seeking to create a resentment of "the rich" (whoever THEY are) is a violation of the tenth commandment. "Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's..." To lead others into a sin in order to accomplish some social purpose is a special kind of sin in itself.

It's hard to preach all the gospel without being labeled as a "Right Rebublication" or a "Liberal Democrat". That's the risk we have to take. But always we must speak from the heart of the shepherd and that the people know you love them and are deeply concerned about the hurts and joys that are ever before them in the days of their lives.

So what makes Barna or you the judge of who is saved and who is not? As far as I know that knowledge was not entrusted to me or any other human being. Only God knows, and it's not my business to find out. My only concern is to love God, love others and make disciples.

And as for guilt, funny how evangelicals will out of one side of their mouth complain that people don't talk about sin and guilt enough anymore in our society; and yet when someone like Campolo brings up sins that they themselves are guilty of (like greed, materialism, and a lack of compassion for the poor) all of a sudden they accuse him of focusing too much on guilt. It seems like we're only interested in talking about guilt when it's someone else's sins we're pointing out (e.g. those homosexuals, those pro-choicers, those "liberals").

So Richard Miller, following your logic I must now assume that most of the people Peter, Paul, James, John etc. wrote to in their epistles were lost. Also, while it's true the Holy Spirit brings about change, does He not use powerful and challenging messages to accomplish that ? Did the messages of Amos, Micah, and Malachi have elements of guilt manipulation? And I'm really trying to figure out how in the world Tony Campolo ends up being placed in a special category of sinners.

This post should not be taken as an attack on anyone here. If it seems a tad impassioned, that's because it is a topic I care deeply about. But, there is no offense intended against anyone. I have been on both sides of this argument in my day and I seek only to impart my 2 cents worth of hindsight for all to ponder. Right or wrong, it represents the conclusions I have come to thus far in my service to the Lord and his people.

Initiating ministries that feed and educate the poor as Campolo does is hardly guilt manipulation. What is he supposed to do--sit in his Christian-made rocking chair and discuss the aspects of salvation the rest of his days like most everyone else while 64,000 people a day starve to death? The knowledge of the Kingdom to which God has imparted to Dr. Campolo is knowledge that God says he will be held accountable for. His commitment to the faith leaves him with little choice but to put that knowledge to action.

If the church as a whole spent as much energy on eradicating poverty, injustice and oppression as it does building its towers of Babel and demonizing each other, we would largely fix what's wrong with the world. And the witness of such charity and compassion would draw more people to Christianity than every other gimmick and church growth agenda combined.

Jesus broke the cycle of evil by loving even his enemies. Evil is empowered by retaliation and is disarmed by compassion. There is no greater risk than to love. It killed Jesus and it continues to kill those who are committed to following in his footsteps. But in the end, it is ironically the only way that will lead to life.

We spend far too much time making enemies in the name of Jesus than we do loving them in His name. Tony is compelled to believe that it is time to say no to status quo preaching. He is convinced that certain elements of our faith have hi-jacked the true message of Jesus and have replaced Jesus himself with a conservative Republican warrior god who goes by the same name. He is calling pastors to take a bold, prophetic stand against the yeast of the Pharisees.

I am decidedly more right-leaning than Tony, but I am with him on this one. Western theology has gotten WAY out of balance.

Look, the problems we are facing in church leadership are no one's fault per se. We're all together in this struggle to maintain a relevant, yet Christ-centered witness in these confusing times. But, I simply believe that we must be willing to admit that there is a problem; admit that we have drifted from our commission, and that we have, perhaps unconsciously, clung to the traditions of the elders while failing to apply the teaching of Jesus in ways that actively confront the challenges of the new millenium.

Adding the latter to our preaching and mission is what gives it the prophetic balance which Tony speaks of. I pray that we would all be humble and bold enough to lead God's people out of the quagmire of materialism and narcissism to which we have been sinking. I pray that God will rise up the prophets among us.

Richard, If you "suspected" that people would misunderstand your post, why didn't you clarify it to begin with?

Tony's preaching can only give you a guilt trip if you have something to feel guilty about. Are you and your church already out there serving the poor and fighting injustice? Then you should have no reason to feel guilty when Tony reminds us of our responsibilities to the poor and the oppressed.

Sometimes guilt is a healthy warning sign that something is wrong.