I introduced part one with a story of a fictional character, a pastor, Pastor John Peterson. Pastor John announced to his congregation that he was willing to step-down as their senior pastor because of a variety of complaints he received of which three of them pertained to how he conducts a sermon. Until now who Pastor John is, his personality, his mannerisms, his style of teaching, etc. was not important; however for our thesis today, who the man, John Peterson is, is important for context. Pastor John is a boisterous fellow and (rightly or wrongly) he give his opinions directly and without apology. This has had been received by a few of his church members as confrontative and those members made it clear that they don't like being confronted. Therefore their request was for him to change his mannerisms in how he conducts a sermon; to stop being so physically confrontative and become more personable. In his style of teaching he ought to be less loud as he tends to raise and lower his voice to vocally highlight points he wishes to make. He has been asked to offer his points as suggestions rather than commandments as not everyone believes as he does; for one example is he tells his audience that everyone should not support same-sex marriage; instead of offering up that position as a suggestion, he offers it up as a 'finger-in-your-face commandment', and so forth. These were not amendments that he was willing make as doing so is asking him to essentially not be himself, but be what everyone else wants him to be. As a result Pastor John opened his sermon with a five minute staring contest with his audience to illustrate that everything he seemed to do, things he says, things he does and things he teaches offends someone so he ought to just stand still and not say or do anything. And the irony would be if he did make those changes he would disappoint those who liked his original approach; so he can't win.
However is Pastor John right in not bending to the will of his audience? Doesn't Scripture teach to not be an obstacle for the Gospel, (cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19)? If prancing on the stage, using a sharp-tone and using aggressive hand gestures makes people feel confronted does that not warrant compromise and change? A mark of a good preacher is the ability to find the fine line between being informing and being a dictator. To put it simply it is the difference is between being a teacher and being a bully. If a preacher always comes across as dictating then that is an issue that he or she aught to change. However if they are merely addressing an issue and the recipient feels confronted then that is not the preacher's burden to bare.
It is the job of the preacher to be a person of comfort. However the preacher's job also requires from time to time to be confrontational. 1 Peter 3:15 states: "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and [respect.]" The greek word rendered 'respect' - φόβος[ii] (phobos) - connotes reverence or a respect that is spun from fear of an authority. So we are to be ready to give our answer with a fear of the authority that God (cf. Proverbs. 9:10) and the our mandate as Christians namely represent God has over us.
The word gentleness - πραΰς (praÿtēs) - connotes mildness of disposition or gentleness of spirit[iii]. So we are to always be ready to represent what Scripture says with a gentle spirit but with the respect of the authority of God and his word. Moreover, respect in Western culture can be understood to mean that that someone and something is important and thus it and they should be treated in the appropriate way[iv]. It stands to reason then that since Christ figured that his creation was important enough to rectify the damage that we humans did to it via sin (cf. Romans 5:12) we should respect him by believing that his creation is important. To have respect for the people we minister to we aught not to disrespect them by dishonesty and wasting their time with beating around the political bush. If something needs to be said - say it! To not tell someone the truth because of fear of hurting their feelings is not respecting them as an omission of truth is parallel to a positive lie. It also is a judgement call on their response; how do you know how someone who you meet on the street will respond? Passing a judgement on someone that is has no grounding in evidence is also a disrespectful.
However what if the Christian knows how the other will respond? Or based on how a person or a group of people have received the Gospel message in the past the Christian believes that it is a safe call to assume that they will receive it with the same hostility. That is still making an assumption as the past doesn't always forecast the future. However lets wave our hands in the air causing a porthole to a possible future to open up. What do we see in this possible future after telling someone (a friend, a co-worker, a stranger on the street) some hard truth about reality, (e.g. homosexuality is a perversion, Jesus Christ is God in the flesh [cf. John 1:14], etc.)? Hurt feelings. So what? Here is a trustworthy saying:
Nobody has the right to hurt my feelings, however I don't have the right to not have my feelings hurt.
To put it simply, nobody has the right to be cruel. However Christians in particular have the *obligation* to tell the truth. Sometimes confrontation will bruise egos; but sometimes egos need to be bruised; however let the truth bruise the ego, not the beholder of the truth.
In conclusion it would be wrong for Pastor John to change his demeanour as doing so will cause him to loose an un-winable battle; as, as stated above, no matter how he behaves or how he talks or what he teaches on he is going to upset someone. However changing his demeanour so much so to discontinue confrontation is a violation of his pastoral obligations; as it is his job to guide and teach his congregation the truth of Scripture and from Scripture (cf. 2 Timothy 3:16).
___________________
[i] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/politically%20correct - accessed July 14, 2014
[ii] - http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G5401&t=NIV - accessed July 20, 2014
[iii] - https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4240&t=NIV - accessed July 20, 2014
[iv] - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/respect - accessed July 21, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment