I have noticed, on the Internet and elsewhere, that when a pastor says something angular, the kind of thing that provokes questions and/or consternation, a very common stock response emerges. That response is that such behavior is “not very pastoral.”
Such a response initially seems to be thoughtful and wise, concerned for unity and love, and zealous for harmony. Whatever we do, let us not ruffle the feathers of the doves of Zion. The only problem with it is that it flies in the face of an important aspect of what the Bible tells pastors to do. There are unruly people out there, vain people, deceivers, and somebody was assigned to shut them up (Titus 1:10-11). The first adage that comes to mind is that scriptural pastors are called to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable. This is called multitasking.
On the one hand, Paul says that with the Thessalonians, he was exceedingly tender. He was like a nursing mother with her baby (1 Thess. 2:7). On the other hand, when dealing with Cretans, Paul tells Titus to whack them on the mazzard, and not too gently either (Titus 1:13). Examples of both patterns could certainly be multiplied.
Now here is the trick. When an ungodly pastor abuses his flock, a tragedy that happens far too often, the bleating is terrible to hear (Ezek. 34:2). And when a godly pastor pulls a sheepskin off the back of a wolf, the bleating is even worse. We are not to judge these things by the sound effects.
Nor are we to judge these things by whether we are successful in building consensus. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, He did it with a bunch of people watching. Lazarus had been dead for four days and had begun to decompose. The stone was rolled away, Jesus summoned Lazarus back from the dead, and out he came. The crowd outside, watching all this, then . . . divided (John 11:45-46). Jesus failed, it would appear, to build consensus. This would be a bad thing if that had been His objective, but it wasn’t (Luke 12:51-53). Part of His objective was to identify those who would not persuaded even if they witnessed someone brought back from the dead.
Of course, we do not want to affirm the consequent. All cows have four legs, but not everything with four legs is a cow. All prophets irritate people, but not all irritating people are prophets. This is a trustworthy saying, but how are we to tell the difference? I will get there in a minute, so hold your horses.
Another indicator of “unpastoral” activity, as this objection is advanced, is that it should never be necessary to come back and explain. Again . . . the problem is the text. How many times did Jesus go inside the house, and have the twelve look at Him in consternation and say, “What was that about?” How many parables did He tell that got the Pharisees in a dither, with their robes pulled completely over their heads? Jesus taught in such a way that four short books were written to contain a summary of His teaching, with three of those books overlapping a great deal. And it has been two thousand years since that time, and we are still writing commentaries about it. Did He not make Himself clear?
So how do you tell the difference between a pastor who is just confusing, and a pastor whose forceful love of the truth reveals that the people have been drifting into confusion? There are many ways to approach this question, and so I will just mention three basic considerations.
First, outside the point of contention, what is the lifestyle character of the speaker and the listeners? What are the marriages like? What are the families like? Where is the joy? Where is the laughter? Where is the zeal for the Word of God? Where is the holy living? Where is the liberty? Where is the Chestertonian exuberance? Jesus tells us this explicitly. We are to judge teachers by the fruit of their lives (Matt. 7:20).
Second, what does the speaker actually say, and who is able to follow what he actually says? If he rebukes the metrosexual vibe, for example, and someone responds by dismissing him as saying that he is calling down judgment on everyone who didn’t play football in high school, this is what we might call a revealing misrepresentation. No, his rebuke was not aimed at the non-playing of defensive end. What he mentioned, actually, was the eye-liner, silk shirts, way too much hair product, soft lisp, and mincing gait. He doesn’t care about whether you were on the team. He does care about why you weren’t. Isaiah tells us this plainly. When godly teachers explain the truth, the ungodly can’t get it, and misrepresent it as some sort of sing-songy Sunday School legalism (Is. 28:13).
Third, when a rebuke or admonition is not understood, is there a widespread desire to have it explained? If a nut stands up on the subway and announces that he is Napoleon, along with a bunch of other stuff you don’t understand, does his confusion make you want to know more? When this kind of thing happens, it is very rare to hear demands from the passengers for further exposition. But when someone speaks with true moral authority, the result can be just as incomprehensible to everyone, but there are demands for further explanation. Some demand it because they want to know, and others demand it because they are looking for a way to trap that man in his words. But the demand is there somehow (John 3:4; John 6:41-43).
So then, resist calls for such “pastoral” pastors with every resource you have available. Whether consciously intended or not, this is actually a call for kept pastors, for domesticated pastors, for kennel-fed pastors, for yippy dog pastors, for pale pastel pastors, for pastors who graduated from Estrogen Seminary, where the most advanced techniques of chemical castration are available on the counter of the seminary bookstore. Such a travesty has obviously never been a good thing, but it is especially hazardous in our generation.
But surely it’s possible for a pastor’s behavior not to be very pastoral–for a pastor to be more interested in blacking eyes than comforting hearts and tenderly directing lives. How do the arguments in this post not just insulate pastors against that charge? Is it possible for someone to criticize a pastor for doing that, and be *right*?
However, if you changed that last paragraph to
Then, I’d agree. And thank you for defending me.
Matt, of course that is possible, as I indicated in the post. The point of discussion is not whether it is possible to veer left or veer right, but rather how can we tell if someone has done so.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but this sounds like an attempted answer to criticism that you or your fellow pastors have received (though without citing the people you’re disagreeing with). But then, though you admit that it is possible to be wrong, you do not engage the arguments that you and your friends are making the error you are charged with, and you conclude with a charge “Resist calls for such “pastoral” pastors with every resource you have available.” And a litany against people who call for pastoral pastors. … That is, this sounds like a dismissal of the charges without pondering… Read more »
But then, maybe there’s just a superficial similarity between the topic of this post and charges you have received, (for instance, from Pr. Matt Colvin on the Hiring Millennials post) and you really aren’t saying that people who think you and your friends are not always as pastoral as you should be, should be resisted, no matter how charitably they attempt to interact with you. If so, nevermind.
Matthew,
Without any evidence (and since you are dealing with an elder, an evidential threshold that is significant), why on earth would you surmise, assume and accuse? Starting off with “perhaps I am wrong” does not neutralize the statement or indemnify you for making it.
Pot, kettle, black.
I didn’t presume, or accuse. I explained why it’s a confusing post. It’s confusing because of how it sounds to me. What else do I have to go off but that? And, whatever he means to do, it does sound like an attempt to answer a charge. If he didn’t mean it that way, he can say that. Indeed, I specifically put up a second post explaining that the sound may be accidental. But if I don’t explain what I find confusing, and why I asked the questions I did in the first place, there can’t be any communication.
Or perhaps you were talking about my first comment? I probably should have said that surely an otherwise godly pastor can fail in this respect. But if so, and this post is correct, it’s very difficult to respond to him. The post ends with a charge for all of us (including that pastor) to resist the charge–which if he is heavy-handed, he will already be tempted to do–and so, in that respect, insulates the pastor. The post’s first criterion is the rest of the pastor’s life, but, the issue is, we’re asking about an otherwise faithful pastor, or, asking about… Read more »
Matthew,
“And, whatever he means to do, it does sound like an attempt to answer a charge.”
According to you. Because you infer that does not mean that is how it sounds. Read it as objectively as you can. Otherwise you begin to sound like Queen Gertrude (Hamlet, act III, scene II).
My typo, not Gertrude, but what she said.
RFB: I very clearly explained that that’s how it sounds to me,
And that I may be misreading.
I’m not sure how to make it clearer. I put up the post you object to as an attempt to communicate what I find confusing.
As to why I won’t cite evidence: Because I’m asking. I’m saying how it sounds to me, not saying what it is. If I were to say “this part [quote] sounds like a reference to this [link]” it would be an accusation, not a question.
When an ungodly pastor abuses his flock, a tragedy that happens far too often Is this a throwaway line? Beating a straw man? As in, there are some duds out there so I better acknowledge it. Or perhaps is it better to ask what constitutes abuse. And how much is ‘far too often.’ I’d agree once is technically too often, but then I refer back to a throwaway line. I must run in the wrong circles because I see very little, actually none, of what I would classify as abuse; tyrannical, browbeating, graceless, legalistic, hopeless. Now if abuse is classified… Read more »
Pastor Wilson. The reason I find you such a blessing is because you are such a straight shooter. — When I was a teenager in a “community church” –and before I took the Eric The Red route to the waterfront bar in Corinth–I had grown very disillusioned by the crap I was hearing from the pulpit. It was very ‘topical’ and ‘nice’ and ‘suburban’ but it had no meat to it. I specifically remember a Moody broadcast that ran for weeks covering the topic of ‘burnout’ which just happened to be the topical crisis of the material… Read more »
Matthew.
As a courtesy to the other posters on this site, could you please count to 5 comments by others before hijacking the thread with your accusations?
thanks.
What does the speaker actually say, and who is able to follow what he actually says?
… *Ahem*… anyone else feel that awkward sense of irony?
Timothy, I also appreciate Pastor Wilson’s wisdom, wit, and overall approach to weighty topics. I chuckled at your description: “smash-mouth evangelism”. Not sure if Pastor Wilson would agree with that description, but it’s certainly catchy! No doubt he can mix it up with the best of ’em, yet still show patience and kindness with sincere doubters. I also agree that we need less fluff, less polish, and less “politeness” in the Church. We need preachers who preach the Word, and who are effective at preaching the Word. And we need courageous preachers who aren’t afraid to speak the truth – even when it’s hard – and are unapologetic… Read more »
Matthew. — Pastor Wilson argues from and to Scripture [insert fancy Latin phrase for that here]. Your ripostes of accusation could be transformed into words that build up the Body Of Christ that participates in this forum if you would do the same. Doing that takes patient and careful work–hence my request for you to wait 5 comments before commenting. In that interim, you could build your responses using Scripture and help us understand what we are not seeing about our Lord that you so earnestly want us to see. — Now, to your latest missive. … Read more »
1 Thessalonians 5:14 comes to mind: “We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone” (NASB). It has been my observation that many shepherds know how to do only one of these things. The abusers know only how to admonish, rebuke, scold. For them, every parishioner is a nail to be bashed on the head. Other wolves might be chased away, but the sheep are bruised and bloodied. The pastel pastors know only patience with every sin (one suspects especially their own). For them, every parishioner is a soft, furry head to be… Read more »
Timothy, Timothy: I have now twice denied that I’m accusing him of anything. Please don’t keep saying I am–you’re calling me a liar. … Pr. Wilson said recently: This is the Pauline pattern. Here is credenda — things to believe. Then you have a key “therefore” and you move to agenda, things to do. I have a few little quibbles with this, but I think he’s more or less right, and has the strength of character that that’s how he writes too. He starts with things to believe, then moves to things to do. It’s not the “things to believe”… Read more »
Timothy, well said: “…abundant mercy towards and uncompromising fierceness protecting the Church.” And Valerie, I liked: “Other wolves snuggle right up, with the blood of the sheep dripping from their teeth.” This is why I said we need less fluff, less polish, and less “politeness” in the Church. Mere politeness isn’t going to effectively minister to the sheep. Nor is politeness going to effectively chase away the wolves (i.e. protect the flock). Ideally, we need a pastor/shepherd who is able to do both well. Yet pastors are flawed and imperfect, too. Thus, if we have to error on the side of caution,… Read more »
“Thus, if we have to error on the side of caution, I’d rather the shepherd protect his sheep from the wolves.”
Having experienced shepherds of both imbalances, I’d rather say that either one ought to disqualify a man from holding office. I don’t mean that he might never slip up in one direction or the other, but that either tendency, when pronounced and unforsaken, is as damaging as the other. The correction for sin is never a swerve to the ditch on the other side of the road, but repentance and grace to stay on the straight and narrow.
Mathew.
Please give arguments from Scripture that gives credence to your charges against Pastor Wilson. We have heard, and heard, and heard, and heard, and heard and heard (yes, really, we have heard) what Mathew has to say. We want to know what God has to say. Please pick one or two instances from Scripture that demonstrate the error of Pastor Wilson’s ways.
In case I did not make myself clear.
—————————-> FROM SCRIPTURE<———————————
thank you.
“Timothy, Timothy: I have now twice denied that I’m accusing him of anything. Please don’t keep saying I am–you’re calling me a liar.” — Matthew N. Petersen January 18, 2014 at 12:48 pm you do not engage the arguments that you and your friends are making the error you are charged with, and you conclude with a charge “Resist calls for such “pastoral” pastors with every resource you have available.” And a litany against people who call for pastoral pastors. — So, yes. You are either addled-brained, a liar or both. I think you are… Read more »
Timothy: You keep asking me to back up my charges from scripture. But to do that, they have to be charges. Which they aren’t. As I said last time, stop calling me a liar. I have three times denied they are charges.
I don’t have any idea why that passage accuses Pr. Wilson of anything. Does he not end with a charge to “resist calls for such “pastoral” pastors with every resource you have available.”? Does he engage with the arguments (which have been made but which I am not making) that he and his friends are currently erring? Is it that I pointed out that there are people that think he and his friends sometimes err, and that they have recently? Yet, to say that, you need to ignore my claim that “he and his friends are good Christians, and usually good pastors.”… Read more »
Matthew, you are quite confusing to follow (as others have noted quite often). Your very first statement in response to Pastor Wilson’s post was: “But surely it’s possible for a pastor’s behavior not to be very pastoral–for a pastor to be more interested in blacking eyes than comforting hearts and tenderly directing lives.” Thus, if you’re accusing Pastor Wilson of acting in such a way, then why not just come out and say it directly? You seem to make such statements and leave them hanging out there; yet you are quick to reply that you aren’t accusing anyone of anything. If… Read more »
Timothy: One more comment, then unless you take my posts at face value rather than trying to discover the esoteric content of my posts: “Matthew is gay”, will be the last. Perhaps the key you’re missing is that my comments should be taken at face value. I’m confused by the charge at the end of this post, and am asking a question about it. Nothing more. Why is it only one directional? How could we correct someone who is otherwise a good Christian and a good pastor of erring in that direction? If he listens to this post, what options… Read more »
(One more comment to Dan, who seems to be taking me at face value): Dan: The question regards Pr. Wilson’s exhortation at the end, and the means he gives for judging whether a pastor is guilty. The charge is entirely unidirectional, we are charged to resist calls for pastors to be “pastoral”, but not to resist pastors who are not (properly) pastoral. And the means given for us to judge explicitly rule out hearing exhortations directed at someone who is otherwise a good Christian, but just not a good pastor; or someone who is usually a good pastor, but isn’t… Read more »
Matthew, you are too confusing and you are trying to be too nuanced. Pastor Wilson staked out a clear argument immediately in his post: “Such a response initially seems to be thoughtful and wise, concerned for unity and love, and zealous for harmony. Whatever we do, let us not ruffle the feathers of the doves of Zion. The only problem with it is that it flies in the face of an important aspect of what the Bible tells pastors to do.” Then he goes on to explain what it is that pastors are supposed to do. His point is clearly… Read more »
Dan: The distinction between a proposition and an exhortation is too subtle for you? You must get really confused when someone tells you to take out the trash, and you take it as a mere statement of fact, with no action required. (Actually, I don’t think it’s too subtle to you at all, and you can pretty easily tell the difference. And that when someone tells you to take out the trash, you do so.) I don’t object to the propositional content of the post, I find the exhortation confusing.
Or is the trouble that you’re trying to force my comments to be “agree/disagree”? But I’m doing neither. I asking a question about something that confuses me.
Matthew: fair enough. Why do you find the exhortation confusing? And, what is the specific question you’re asking? Please be more pithy and to the point.
Why is it unidirectional? He’s seen both problems, why just exhort us to stand against one? And, using his criteria for judging, would it be possible to correct an otherwise good pastor for an error this time, or an otherwise good Christian for not being a good pastor?
Mathew. Looking at your January 19, 2014 at 12:23 pm post, you copied a quote and wrote:… ” So then, resist calls for such “pastoral” pastors with every resource you have available. If both are a real problem, and if he’s seen both (as he says at the top) then we should resist *both* calls for “pastoral” pastors–when the pastor is being pastoral–and calls for the pastor to be more hard-nosed, when the pastor is being hard nosed. But he only tells us to resist one. That confuses me. … ” It may be that you do… Read more »
Matthew, regarding your question: “He’s seen both problems, why just exhort us to stand against one?” The simple answer is that in this particular post, Pastor Wilson was trying to emphasize one of the problems, that’s why. Maybe another time he’ll place more emphasis on the first problem; whereas this time he was placing more emphasis on the second problem (i.e. the pastor protecting his sheep from the wolves). In order to win your approval, must he have placed “equal” emphasis on both problems in this particular post? I assume you’d allow him the freedom to write about what’s most pressing on… Read more »
Timothy: Read the passage you quoted again. I know scare quotes imply sarcasm. That’s why I said that Pr. Wilson is correct, and we should resist calls for pastoral pastors to be “pastoral”. The question is why he only tells that half of the story. … Dan: “I did that because I wanted to. Aren’t I free to do what I want.” is as thuggish an answer here as anywhere. No, he doesn’t have to “win” my approval, but surely it’s curious, and I’m free to ask why? No? … Especially since exhortations aren’t quite like propositional truth. For someone headed… Read more »
Matthew, my response to your last reply is “yikes”. I’m not sure how we got from my statement, “Maybe another time he’ll place more emphasis on the first problem; whereas this time he was placing more emphasis on the second problem” — to your statement, “I did that because I wanted to. Aren’t I free to do what I want, is as thuggish an answer here as anywhere.” Really? Are you kidding me? Then you stated, “So he thinks its good to help half them out, and send the other half to destruction?” Again, “yikes”. No, Matthew, I’m sure Pastor Wilson does… Read more »
Ok, here is a perfect opportunity for you to give an example from Scripture which will teach Pastor Wilson what you want him to learn. I am very eager to read it. Pastor Wilson gave us a lesson from Thessalonians. Your example is from which book(s) of the Bible?
And so we conclude with another claim that I’m simply lying–that in spite my repeated protestations, I’m not actually asking a question, I’m making an argument. Sigh. … As to your points: I’ve been asking why Pr. Wilson did a particular thing. You don’t have an answer, but rather than just saying “Oh, that’s an interesting question, I don’t have an answer” you tell me “The simple answer is that in this particular post, Pastor Wilson was trying to emphasize one of the problems, that’s why.” (Your quote conveniently left off the gloating “that’s why”.) Which is to give the non answer that… Read more »
Timothy: I can make neither heads nor tails of your comment, except as an accusation that when I said “hence the question” I didn’t really have a question, but wanted to “teach” Pr. Wilson something. (And if you’re looking for what I’m trying to teach him, no wonder you’re confused. I have no idea what I’m trying to teach him either. Or more accurately, I’m not trying to teach anything. I’m asking a question. Back off.)
Matthew.
I will not back off. Deal with it.
You wrote “The question is why he only tells that half of the story. ”
Ok, what IS the other half of the story? Do you not know?
Baka: Back off because you’re the only one fighting attacking and accusing. “Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth?” What is the other half?
But in exhortation form, not proposition form.
Timothy, this is why I decided t0 stop trying to reason with Matthew. As usual, Matthew claims he is not accusing Pastor Wilson of anything. Instead, he calls it “exhortation form”. Thus, in exhortation form, Pastor Wilson is apparently guilty of being “more interested in blacking eyes than comforting hearts”, of giving “thuggish” answers, and now, of being “an ungodly pastor who abuses his flock” (his reference to Ezekiel). But again, no one should think for a minute that Matthew is accusing Pastor Wilson of anything. How could they?
Dan,
Thank you, but it is important to me to understand what is really going on here. I do not see the Holy Spirit at work in Matthew. I sense evil.
Mathew, what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ?
Mathew, thank you for the compliment. I am honored to be the only one fighting, attacking and accusing you, for I sense that you are an evil man. I do not think that you are a Christian. Yes, I am baka. I am a fool for Christ. Your exhortation is that Pastor Wilson not make you bleat. But it is not really Pastor Wilson that makes you bleat is it? (he makes this clear in his post btw) it is the sword of the Word that makes you bleat. But it is not really a bleat is it?… Read more »
Obaka: Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once. After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
Dan: You and Timothy are the idiot mafiosa, not Pr. Wilson. I never called anything I did “exhortation form”. Get back to me when you can get beyond “see spot run.”
Mathew,
Thank you for the “O” to go with my ‘Baka”.
So, Christ is your Lord and Savior? You are saved?
I am a Christian, yes.