Access & Accountability
The text of Rev. Dr. Lisa Davison’s final sermon at LTS Chapel, April 28, 2009.
Scripture: Lev 10:1-11
- Local pastor, at the center of a mortgage fraud investigation, arrested.
- Former clergy arrested in connection with spouse’s death.
- Local minister, whom authorities have called a major figure in a sophisticated auto-theft ring, arrested on more charges.
- Church leader indicted on counts of running a criminal syndicate, sexual conduct with a minor and sexual abuse.
- Two denominational executives convicted of fraud and racketeering after over 11,000 investors lost more than $550 million.
- Pastor pleads guilty to embezzling over $700,000 from former church in exchange for prosecutors dropping three counts of income-tax evasion and two counts of transferring stolen church money across state lines.
These are only a few of the headlines found among the over 47,000 hits you get by Googling the phrase, “clergy misconduct”. Researchers of this topic know that there are many more incidents that are, as yet, unreported, and may never come to light. While all of these actions are unacceptable, immoral, they are portrayed as being even more egregious because they were committed by religious leaders. Why, we might ask? After all, clergy are no better or worse than anyone else. Why are they treated differently? No matter whether one’s tradition has a high or low view of ordination, in the public eye, those who are identified as being called by God to ministry are held to a different level of accountability. This is what it means to answer God’s call with “Here I am. Send me.” While such expectations may seem unfair, it is this same respect for the clergy that causes otherwise non-religious people to want an ordained minister to perform their wedding rather than their friend who got ordained online for $25. This respect is what allows you entrance into the ICU when even a family member is not allowed to visit, and what causes complete strangers to feel the presence of God simply because you stand with them by the bed and witness the death of their loved one. Because of the trust and authority others grant them, ministers are given access to people’s lives in very intimate ways. Accountability is the cost of this access.
Clergy misconduct is not a modern phenomenon; it just gets more notice today with instantaneous, live-streaming, global media. The story of Nadab and Abihu shows that over 2 millennia ago, the ancient Israelite community recognized that the actions of religious leaders could have harmful, life-altering effects. Of course, this report of clergy misconduct is not found on the front page or on Google news. No, it is buried in the very last place anyone would look – the book of Leviticus. The story of the newly ordained priests’ demise, found in Lev 10, is, to use the language of Phyllis Trible a “text of terror”. It is an extremely troubling story, especially for those studying to be leaders of today’s faith communities. Is this what happens to those who accept the calling of ministry?
While we may be tempted to focus on the violent and rash actions of God, and they are a big part of what makes this text difficult, we must remember that this story is not to be taken literally, anymore than we believe Jonah spent time in the belly of a whale. Much like the Jonah fable, Leviticus 10:1-11 uses elements of the extreme and unbelievable to emphasize its non-historicity. This story was intended as a lesson to the two groups represented in the text: the religious leadership and the community of faith. And, as part of the canon, it has something to teach us about the expectations of religious leaders. It is our responsibility to do the necessary work in order to see what meaning, or meanings, we might wrest from the text.
A good place to seek an answer is in a question: “In the world of the story, what did Nadab & Abihu do to deserve such a cruel fate?” From the time of the earliest Jewish interpretation of Torah, great efforts have been taken to explain the deaths of Nadab & Abihu. The rabbinic tradition has produced a list of at least 13 possible answers. They range from the basic idea that these 2 priests fell prey to the over zealousness of the newly ordained and tried immediately to change the communities’ worship practices, to the more ridiculous notion that they were not wearing the proper attire. Due to the prohibition against drinking before entering the Tabernacle, found in v 9, Nadab and Abihu have been accused of imbibing too much wine and being intoxicated when they made their offering to the LORD. I guess that would certainly explain their extreme combustibility! While these answers may not provide a satisfying cause for their deaths, they do offer some wisdom for those preparing to serve as well as those already engaged in ministry. It is good advice to newly minted seminary graduates to show some restraint in their zeal to change the church, to refrain from something like removing the American flag from the sanctuary on your first Sunday. Former LTS professor and Dean, Dr. Tony Dunnavant used to tell students that indeed being properly attired is an important part of ministry. And I am quite certain that we would all agree that coming to worship drunk as skunk is behavior unbefitting the office of minister.
When the text is viewed through the exegetical lenses of literary, canonical, and ideological criticism and with inspiration from the Rabbis, other more intriguing, and dare I say more theological, lessons may be learned about what was wrong with Nadab & Abihu’s offering. This passage comes at the conclusion of Israel’s dedication of their new worship space, the Tabernacle or Tent of Meeting, as well as the ordination of their first priests. For 8 days, the whole community had celebrated these gifts from God. It was a glorious and awe-inspiring occasion. Never had the sense of community been stronger. The sacredness was palpable, described by the biblical writers as the people actually witnessing the Holy fire of God, after the priests – Aaron, and his sons Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar – had completed the necessary sacrifices. After receiving a blessing from Moses and Aaron, the people bowed before God in worship.
It is on the heels of such an emotionally-charged, mountain-top experience, that Nadab and Abihu make their offensive offering of fire. According to the biblical text, there are 2 things obviously wrong with their efforts. First, they offered “unholy” fire, and second, God had not commanded them to make this offering. The latter mistake is perhaps the easier to understand. Worship, and indeed all of life for Israel, was understood to be governed by God. There was a time and place for everything, and part of good leadership was a sense of timing, something that Nadab and Abihu seemed to lack.
The nature of the fire they offered is a bit more puzzling. What made their act of worship “unholy” or, as others have translated the Hebrew word zarah, “unacceptable or alien”. Michelle Wasserman has suggested that the reason their offering was alien or as she puts it “alienating” was due to the way they offered it. Nadab and Abihu went into the Tabernacle, to a place reserved only for the priests, and thus separated themselves from the community. Sequestered safely away from the people, Nadab and Abihu could indulge in their own private passion for God. There was no one to hold them accountable for their role of empowering the people to be holy as the LORD their God was holy. Authentic religious leadership takes place within the context of community. Ministry cutoff from the lifeline of the people of God is dangerous; it is deadly.
Perhaps Nadab and Abihu’s offering was “unacceptable” because they lacked the proper humility befitting those who are called to stand in the Presence of the LORD. They saw their priestly role as making them better than the laity. This all-consuming sense of privilege caused them to think that they were exempt from communal norms. It led them to believe that they could cross boundaries that had been established by God in order to protect God’s honor and to protect the community from leaders who saw themselves as beyond reproach. This attitude would have made their act of worship hollow and self-promoting rather than focused on God and concerned with the needs of the congregation. Their ego became an obstacle that had to be removed so as nothing would block the people’s access to God.
Could Nadab & Abihu’s offering have been considered “unholy” because of what their actions taught the people about the nature of God. Did their religious service reflect a vengeful, petty, and violent God, and not the LORD who is described throughout the First Testament as “gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love” (Ps 145:8)? Did their worship distort or diminish God in the eyes of the people? As those who had been granted the ability to draw near to the Divine Presence, priests were in positions of great influence, which they could use to both glorify the name of God as well as desecrate it. In the eyes of the community, priests were transformed, made tamae, by their contact with the Holy, and they were held to a higher standard than the rest of the people. Nadab and Abihu took such a change in status too lightly. They did not properly distinguish between the sacred and the common. By failing to acknowledge the authority granted to them, they put both themselves and the community at risk.
From priest to pastor to minister, all who answer the call to religious leadership are heirs to the story of Nadab & Abihu. Ministry is an offering that we make to God and on behalf of God’s people. While all persons of faith are challenged to love God, and to love their neighbors as themselves, those who are called out from among the community for ordained leadership take on the accountability that comes with this vocation. Clergy willfully accept the responsibility placed on them as one who stands before the people as leader, preacher, and teacher. Ministry is a covenant one makes with God and with the community. It is an offering of your life, not as the teacher with all the answers or the perfect example of how to be faithful, but rather as the called leader who is willing to lay bare your own faith journey and offer to accompany others on theirs.
While our faith ancestors were very clear about what was expected of their religious leaders, 21st century Christianity, especially the Protestant church, and in particular my own denomination of the CC (DOC) struggle with what to require of ordained clergy. The current trend seems to be leading to a lowering of expectations for ministers, but is that the path we really want to take? Is all we expect of our clergy that they assume a proper attitude in worship, be appropriately dressed, and not show-up drunk to work? Or do we want ministers who have benefitted from a theological education and supervised field placement, who can and will apply their learning in ways that help people think critically about the role of faith in their lives and empower them to be authentic to who God has called them to be? Perhaps the ways you serve the church today reflect the choice you’ve already made? It’s about access and accountability.