Rejected by the Pastor. open letter on Face Book

[revjohn]

The thread triggered a memory.

Or to be precise, the memory of another memory.

So . . . I went to where that should have been kept and presto. A kindly note from a colleague who informed me that he had preserved some words on mine I posted over at United Online a few years before WonderCafe.ca popped into being.

Preaching is...

"Not a metaphor. Preaching is a violent act. No noses are bloodied by a
sermon, no bones broken in its delivery (all that belongs to the response
afterwards), no rights violated and no damage done that is physically
obvious. Yet, it is a challenge to ideology and tradition.

It is a threat to complacency and comfort. It is the whip on the backside of
the moneylender and tables turned in the market place. Just because they are
words and ideas and they wage war in the heart and the mind does not make
them any less violent.

If the preaching is successful souls are taken captive into Christ, the
shackles and bonds of society are replaced with the yoke and burden of
Christianity. Ultimately Christianity is a numbers game, every lost sheep
will be found and an attempt will be made to bring them home. If you be bear
or lion hands will be laid upon you and you will be slain to get that lamb
back. No ifs, ands, or buts."

Which means I am aware of the risks any who climbs into a pulpit takes and the damage that can be done with a poorly chosen word at some moment in time.

Twice in my preaching career I have, all things considered, erred in some claim and twice members of my congregation have let me know very soon afterwards of the harm that I had done to them with my words.

Twice, armed with that information I have opened the following Sunday worship by noting my error and repenting of it. I believe that if my worship, particularly my sermon, errs and folk are injured as a result then I am obligated to attempt reconciliation in an equally public manner. More than twice I have had folk disagree with me. I generally have not found any actual reason to repent of that and when challenged on theological points I will push back. I have had one member accuse me of heresy and when I asked her, in the presence of the Session to demonstrate the heresy it came to pass that what had actually transpired was that I said something she disagreed with but nothing of Church doctrine was even remotely threatened.

Which is the long way to say I actually do care if I hurt someone's feelings. If I have hurt them unfairly then I believe that I am obligated to attempt a reconciliation. If they are hurt fairly I take no joy from that and I do not feel a necessity to repent. I never walk into a sermon thinking, I don't care if this hits too close to home for some and they are hurt by it. I understand it may happen, I do not plan for it to happen and I have a plan in the event that it does happen.

I do not know who the author of the blog is. Probably not that difficult to find out. And from there it is not likely that difficult to find out which Methodist Church AUMC is and from that find out who the Pastor is.

Am I going to snoop around to find out? Nope.

Not my path to walk and I am not even asked to accompany any on it. At best I am mere spectator and I have not seen all that could possibly see. That said, what I am seeing suggests that an immature clergy person is going to wreak havoc among a congregation. How that congregation responds will remain to be seen.

 

[Mendalla]

I don't know that this is the point that the family should leave their church. Sounds like they were supported by the congregation before the pastor came? Definitely worth the attempt to change one persons attitude.

Or, barring that, ensure his pastorate is a short one. That said, from what has been said about the UMC's attitude to LGBTQ upthread, they may be better off leaving the denomination in the long haul because there is no guarantee it won't happen again even if they did stick through this one.

 

[revsdd]

The thread triggered a memory.

Or to be precise, the memory of another memory.

So . . . I went to where that should have been kept and presto. A kindly note from a colleague who informed me that he had preserved some words on mine I posted over at United Online a few years before WonderCafe.ca popped into being.



Which means I am aware of the risks any who climbs into a pulpit takes and the damage that can be done with a poorly chosen word at some moment in time.

Twice in my preaching career I have, all things considered, erred in some claim and twice members of my congregation have let me know very soon afterwards of the harm that I had done to them with my words.

Twice, armed with that information I have opened the following Sunday worship by noting my error and repenting of it. I believe that if my worship, particularly my sermon, errs and folk are injured as a result then I am obligated to attempt reconciliation in an equally public manner. More than twice I have had folk disagree with me. I generally have not found any actual reason to repent of that and when challenged on theological points I will push back. I have had one member accuse me of heresy and when I asked her, in the presence of the Session to demonstrate the heresy it came to pass that what had actually transpired was that I said something she disagreed with but nothing of Church doctrine was even remotely threatened.

Which is the long way to say I actually do care if I hurt someone's feelings. If I have hurt them unfairly then I believe that I am obligated to attempt a reconciliation. If they are hurt fairly I take no joy from that and I do not feel a necessity to repent. I never walk into a sermon thinking, I don't care if this hits too close to home for some and they are hurt by it. I understand it may happen, I do not plan for it to happen and I have a plan in the event that it does happen.

I do not know who the author of the blog is. Probably not that difficult to find out. And from there it is not likely that difficult to find out which Methodist Church AUMC is and from that find out who the Pastor is.

Am I going to snoop around to find out? Nope.

Not my path to walk and I am not even asked to accompany any on it. At best I am mere spectator and I have not seen all that could possibly see. That said, what I am seeing suggests that an immature clergy person is going to wreak havoc among a congregation. How that congregation responds will remain to be seen.

I was with you until your second last sentence, which, if I were writing it, I'd rephrase as:

"... what I am seeing suggests that either an immature clergy person is going to wreak havoc among a congregation or that someone in the congregation took something the clergy person said the wrong way and flew off the handle about it before speaking to me about it."

 

[Waterfall]

Or, barring that, ensure his pastorate is a short one. That said, from what has been said about the UMC's attitude to LGBTQ upthread, they may be better off leaving the denomination in the long haul because there is no guarantee it won't happen again even if they did stick through this one.

Still I think it would be worth a face to face talk with the pastor and garner support from their friends at church.

 

[revsdd]

I did my doctoral degree through a United Methodist seminary, so came to know a bit about the UMC and have lots of people I know and am in touch with who are UMC pastors. In my experience, I'd categorize the United Methodist Church as predominantly "liberal" on the ground, but with a lot of "conservatives" in the episcopate. The presence of those bishops and the ease with which pastors can be moved (the UMC does not have a "call" system; appointments are made annually by the Bishop of the Conference - note, not by the Conference but by the bishop of the Conference) makes it risky for a local pastor to speak out against the position of the bishop.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Emphasis mine.

I wouldn't necessarily agree with that. Being counter-cultural can be quite a draw, and there will always be a minority of the population who don't agree with the prevailing trends of the culture. In fact, you could argue that "Christianity" was born and flourished because of its counter-cultural approach. In fact it became so successful that eventually it had to be co-opted by the culture so that what ended up was neither the original culture nor original Christianity, but a blend of sorts which even today we are slowly trying (on both sides) to disentangle ourselves from.

There's legit ways in which a religion can be "counter-cultural". I'm all about counter-culture when it comes to morality of some sorts (greed, adultery, sloth, etc.), and also about systemic mores, like economic/cultural/political systems that oppress or disenfranchise people.

Treating people, who by an accident of birth, are not straight and cis-gendered, isn't one of those things I think we can be "counter-cultural" about. In this case, culture is right, and much of the religious thought is wrong.

 

[revsdd]

There's legit ways in which a religion can be "counter-cultural". I'm all about counter-culture when it comes to morality of some sorts (greed, adultery, sloth, etc.), and also about systemic mores, like economic/cultural/political systems that oppress or disenfranchise people.

Treating people, who by an accident of birth, are not straight and cis-gendered, isn't one of those things I think we can be "counter-cultural" about. In this case, culture is right, and much of the religious thought is wrong.

You mean that you can't be counter-cultural about it. Neither can I. Neither can most people. That's why it's counter-cultural. We don't have to agree with the counter-culture. We can even be offended by it and oppose it vigorously. But it exists.

 

[unsafe]

Here is the thing -----

We don't know what the Minister preached ------this is a statement made by the person who was offended ------Judging the Minister before knowing what he preached is putting the cart before the horse -----this is judging without having the full story ----as revsdd points outs ----in post 23 ----

There is always 2 sides to every complaint ------this is what we humans like to do judge others before we know the whole story ------

While I believe is that Religion judges in it self with all it's rules and traditions ---we have to be aware ourselves that God's Love is for all people ---God loves all people with all their baggage --

Jesus died to free all, people from sin and death -----and Grace is not preached as it should be in my view -----

Religions set their own rules and Preaching standards----

Ministers are being allowed to enter their profession through humans means and that in itself is damaging to really applying the true meaning behind what God wants Preached and understood -----

Many People rejected Jesus and His teachings because they were offended by what He had to say -----and this is still going on today ----

Just because we take offence to what is preached doesn't mean the Minister didn't preach with Love and compassion --it just means we are feeling defensive to a subject that is close to us and it makes us fell uncomfortable -----so we take it the wrong way and retaliate ----

So until we have the whole story from both sides ----True Christ--ians should not be so quick to Judge -------in my opinion

 

[GeoFee]

Hi,

Many People rejected Jesus and His teachings because they were offended by what He had to say -----and this is still going on today ----

You have my agreement on this.

 

[GordW]

As a LLWL myself I often wonder about what churches look for when hiring pulpit supply.

How much is a visitor 'vetted' before being invited to preach?
I understand that the minister in the OP had recently been called to be the new clergy in this church - how closely was he vetted before being called?

If the pot refers (as it appears to) a United Methodist congregation the congregation may well hav3 had little to no input into the placement (same with the clergyperson). The UMC uses an appointment system through Bishps and District Superintendants, not a call system.

 

[Seeler]

If the pot refers (as it appears to) a United Methodist congregation the congregation may well hav3 had little to no input into the placement (same with the clergyperson). The UMC uses an appointment system through Bishps and District Superintendants, not a call system.

I think that is the way with the Catholic and maybe the Anglican church too.

 

[GordW]

I think that is the way with the Catholic and maybe the Anglican church too.

Roman Catholic for sure. Salvation Army as well. The Anglican Church in Canada is a bit of a hybrid system. True the Bishop appoints but there is also an interview process to allow the parish and the individual to give their input/approval.

 

[Luce NDs]

From the object's perspective is this an imposition and thus supporting the captive sense?

Thus the community drifts off without response ... appears commoner than one would suspect unless observing deeper ...

 

[Pinga]

Better to challenge in place, @Luce NDs
?

 

[BetteTheRed]

It makes me appreciate our more congregationalist roots and perspectives in the UCCan. I was part of the search committee that called our current minister and I found it a very thoughtful and fascinating process. We got a VERY good fit for our congregation, I think, and continue to think, 8 years out.

I'm not sure what would happen if a minister were called with whom I could not personally get along. The minister is one piece of the puzzle that is a congregation, but it is an important one, particularly in the long term. A healthy congregation can survive a poor, or poor-ish, interim minister.

 

[Mendalla]

When I served on a search in the UCCan (late eighties, so a different process than what you have now), I can't say that I was totally happy personally with who we found in the end. He was rather more conservative socially that I could support (and, indeed, Dad and I opposed both his position and how he handled the 1988 debate in our church) in the long haul. However, he was, for the most part, right for that church at that time and even I had to concede that. It wasn't a hard evangelical congregation or anything, but definitely had a conservative lean to it. And he was a good preacher and administrator.

I was pretty much gone a couple years later anyway when I moved to Hamilton on my first career job, returning the odd Sunday I was at my parents' place and for my wedding (he officiated). IOW, it was changing location rather than him that made me leave that church. And, really, if I had remained in Waterloo Region, I still might have left but, again, not because of him but because of my own theological drift away from the Christian mainstream.

 

[Jon71]

I have the impression that the Methodist Church is a work in progress. I'm betting that in not too many years it'll be an affirming denomination, but it might be bumpy getting there.

 

[revsdd]

So in some totally unrelated reading I was doing this morning, I came across the letter again. The original version seems to have identified the church and where it was located. I won't do that, because the blogger seems to have chosen to edit the blog so that the church is identified only as AUMC. Fair enough. But since I discovered the name of the church - and because we've speculated a bit about the pastor's background - I googled the church's website and will report back that he is, in fact, only very recently appointed to the congregation, but he's not "new to ministry" nor is he especially young. The webpage says he recently retired from the military after being a chaplain for 21 years and has gone back to pastoral ministry. No "sermon" page though. I'd have loved to have watched or read the sermon in question. But with 21 years of military life behind him I could see him being a bit hard-edged as he adjusts to pastoral ministry and perhaps being blunt to the point of offensive to people who aren't used to that environment.

Just thought you might find that an interesting bit of background.

 

[Mendalla]

Yeah, it came across my FB yesterday because of someone or other commenting on it. Didn't pay much attention since I'd already seen it through here.