You build a house of worship for one reason – to promote worship. All else that happens in a house of worship (be it mosque, church, synagogue, or temple) is secondary. The primary function of a church is to disseminate the word of Christ.
Reverend Mickler agreed to let an activity based on a secondary function of his church (Ecumenalism, in the form of a baccalaureate ceremony) take place in his church provided that the primary function was not corrupted. He felt that letting a Jew speak was corrupting the primary function (which is disseminating the word of Christ). Like it or not, whatever the rabbi would say on the pulpit is a tacit endorsement of following a relgion that does not accept Christ as Lord. Reverend Mickler felt that this warranted a veto. I think this debate would have been more interesting if a Catholic or a Mormon would have been rejected, as they accept the teachings of Christ.
I don’t want to overcompare or touch any hot-button issues here, nor do I want to make this thread an all-out debate on the legitimacy of religion. I do feel obliged to add two things (as an agnostic, and as the OPer)
Religion is another of the us-versus-them institutions that humanity seems to cling to. Christians are united in worship of a God which includes Christ. Much of the purpose of religion is lost when bridges are built to people who don’t accept the central tenet – you lose much of the us-versus-them thing. Glossing over the differences between two religions somewhat negates the necessity to follow one of them strictly.
While Christ promoted tolerance, Judaism doesn’t accept Christ. To make an extreme analogy, this is basically like letting a Holocaust denier speak about the nature of comapssion on the bimah of a synagogue. I believe that for a devout Christian, they don’t see rabbi or community leader – they see (even if only subconsciously) a Christ-denier. They see someone condemned to hell for eternity because he is misguided. I believe Reverend Mickler thought that to allow a misguided damned person to speak from his pulpit gave undue endorsement to the misguided damned views.
Anyway, I am not shocked by this. I think the Reverend could of handled this far better, but I don’t think he is overtly anti-Jewish. Remember, he was fine with the rabbi speaking, just not from the pulpit. For him, the pulpit is special. I, like many others, fail to see discrimination here.
Maybe. Or maybe it is 3 AM and I have had 3 pints of beer before posting.
If this was his real position, he could have arranged to place a podium just below the pulpit and mentioned privately to the organizers that the pulpit was reserved for preaching the Gospel. The rabbi would have shown up, been pointed to the podium, and no one would have been the wiser.
It also takes reading through several different news stories to find the “pulpit” reference casually mentioned. (That aspect may have gotten larger play in local, non-electronic news stories, but it does not stand out, here.)
The student organizer also mentioned that Mickler’s public stance was different than the position he held in the meeting with the organizers where he put the kibosh on the rabbi’s speaking.
I doubt that this is a case of rabid anti-Jewish hatred or persecution, but it is certainly an example of narrow-minded reactions based on a preconceived world view.
The rabbi was not asked to speak at the service because he was a nice guy, he was asked to speak as a representative of his religion. His religion is diametrically opposed to the central theme of the minister’s religion. What he speaks about is not the issue.
Last fall, I attended a football game at the local ACC (Atlantic Coast Conference) school. I won’t mention its name, but its initials are Clemson University.
As is tradition, an invocation was delivered before the game over the PA system. On this day, the invocation was delivered by a local rabbi.
After he finished, the neanderthal behind me said “I can’t believe they let a goddamned hebe give the prayer.”
As a resident of Cobb county I am familiar with Rabbi Lebow, I wonder if the ministers problem is less with the Rabbi’s calling and more with his activism, Stephen Lebow is know around Atlanta as a leader in sexual freedom, religious and racism issues. The minister might be afraid of those views coming in his sanctary and the pulpit thing is rationalizing. Being anything but a fundie republican in Cobb county is a very lonely thing.
You’re probably on the mark. I’m a recovering fundie. Walked away from the Southen Baptists twenty years ago. I’m a member of an evangelical Lutheran church now because they welcome everone regardless of sexual orientation, marital status or gender. I think Rabbi Lebow would be welcome to speak at my church any time.