Reminders to Pastors

So the last post I penned has been far and away my most popular blog to date, logging over a thousand reads in the first 24hrs and just when I thought it was winding down, it experienced another upswing. It had me thinking, though, that if a blog on what to do when you don't like your pastor could become so popular and resonate so quickly with so many, it likely means there are a lot of dispirited pastors who have experienced strained relationships in their churches. This post then, is meant to be for pastors then, especially with struggles of ministry in mind. So below are some things I remind myself or have learned during the hardest days I've experienced in my short years of ministry.

1. Bank pastoral trust wisely. In one of my first blog posts I discussed keeping the flag in the sanctuary. In there I described the idea of pastoral trust as a bank account. Basically, certain things you do in ministry with/for people will store up for you pastoral trust - which is basically trust that you are spiritually nourishing, which is important because other things in ministry are not easy to face with people, and that will use some of your pastoral trust. It may seem a crude and overly economic interpretation of ministry, but the principle I would not quickly discard. Recognizing the dynamics of pastoral trust will help one time ones actions and assess when you can be most helpful or when trying will be a detriment to ones ministry. I'm not saying you can't do anything without pastoral trust, just that you should recognize how much harder it is to accomplish. Understand that some things do change over time. I think this principle is most helpful if you regularly use up pastoral trust. If you are very direct, or constantly trying to make significant changes within parish life, you are going to be using a lot of pastoral trust. It means to be effective is not just good planning, it's good ministering. It means understanding why you sometimes are up against a wall in your ministry plans. This is helpful not only for the pastor who overdraws, but who never takes withdrawals. If you struggle with things about individuals or your church as a whole but am very timid to address them, this may be what you need to know to believe you can. Last year in my churches another pastor from another parish and myself proposed a major plan that would have instilled a massive shift in my parish's life. We didn't have to do it (like faithfulness to Jesus Christ was not on the line), but there were a lot of practical and Christian reasons to do it. But it was a terrifying endeavor to propose. It was the knowledge that I had some pastoral trust that helped embolden me to make the proposal (which almost, but didn't quite pass). In the tension, I was able to ride my pastoral trust a bit to let people consider and not outright reject it. There is one more element, and that is understanding that not all parishes or parishioners give pastoral trust equally. Understanding history is important here. For example, churches that are used to a lot of pastoral transition don't give as much pastoral trust (especially in relation to long term issues), because they don't trust you will be around long. A church that had a bitter fight over frequency of communion will require more pastoral trust if you seek to change communion wafers to communion loafs. And also, how you address issues impacts how much pastoral trust you withdrawal/deposit.
2. Minister with patience. Patience is important in relation to pastoral trust. But it is important in general. One thing I struggle with most is when I forget to regard with patience the work of God in the people. Here I particularly commend to you three passages of scripture:
   1 Corinthians 3:7-8 - So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth. The one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose, and each will receive wages according to the labor of each.
   Isaiah 55:10-11 -  For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven,
       and do not return there until they have watered the earth,
   making it bring forth and sprout,
       giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,
    so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
       it shall not return to me empty,
   but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
       and succeed in the thing for which I sent it.
   2 Peter 3:9 -  The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.
   The Corinthians passage is most important for me in such times. To remember that as a pastor you only see often part of the work. For some I am but planting a seed, for others watering, and many times I won't know or see the full fruit of the labor. In fact, I am often seeing the labor of pastors before me, and God willing my successors will see the fruits of mine. It is important to remember when the people seem frustratingly slow in their "spiritual growth". When we remember that we may only be a part of the means by which God creates and sustains faith, sometimes maybe all we're doing is tilling soil for the seed, but we are nonetheless doing something, or more specifically, God is doing something! Remember the Isaiah promise that God's word will not return empty, and so even if you have yet to see the fruit, God gives the growth and his word has promised to go out and do just that, you can trust that when you are despairing that you accomplish nothing. Lastly I also leave the reading from Peter, which reminds us to be patient in such work. God is not slow to his promise, he even delays his return because of his patience in giving growth because he wills none to perish. Every day Christ has not returned, is another day he has granted for this work to continue in these people. 
3. Beware of Complexes. We often talk about the Messiah complex, in which we begin to put upon our shoulders what properly belongs on Jesus'. You are not the one who saves anyone, and this is not a glory seeking business, so don't get caught up in being a glory seeking success story of overcoming each person's personal struggle. Do that and you will burn out, bear undo disappointment, and move the focus of your ministry off of Jesus Christ. Even the one who sees themselves as having to get people to see Jesus put so much upon themselves they actually lose sight of Christ themselves. And like Peter who lost sight in the storm, you will sink. But there is a second complex we are equally vulnerable to and is much harder to wrestle with; I call it the martyr complex. This happens when we identify every opposition to our ministry as opposition to the gospel. When I lack humility, I idolize my own ministry. Not every rejection of your sermon, teachings, or style is because the people stone prophets. Sometimes it is our own fault. I think especially here in the western world, where martyrdom texts and words about persecution are most easily identified not with violence but with non-physical hostility it is difficult to sometimes discern when the hostility is truly to the Gospel and truly to our own work. None of us is too good to be exempt from righteous hostility. And one thing I know, even a Gospel-filled sermon can be done differently or dare I say better. When things are not going well, complexes creep up on us. We put too much of the struggles on ourselves (Messiah) or we put none of them on us, seeing ourselves as only righteous victims (Martyr).
4. Understand the burden of the office. What I mean here (since many pastors will ask "which burden") is particularly to understand what it is to be set apart by your title. It means you are perpetually "on duty", your personal and professional life are one and the same, it means people around you in the community will respond to you negatively or positively simply because you are a pastor. I've walked into a small town bar on a Friday night in my clerical, some were totally uncomfortable by my presence, others were delighted and opened up quite a bit about their own spiritual life. But my office alone dictated that whole experience, and all I wanted was to stop on the way home from a long day of work for a beer. Other burdens of the office is that people in the church judge you by it. That is, as "pastor" you are judged not just for who you are, but who "pastor" is to them (whether by some ideal or by the previous pastor). As one pastor noted to me when I first started out, "Some people will not like you simply because you aren't their last pastor. And some will like you because your not the last pastor." And that is so true. And it is hard to remember that many judge me as pastor, not as simply me. And sometimes we need to understand that, to be reminded that people who don't like us in ministry often actually aren't doing so personally (even though we inevitably take it personally). Then of course there is the added burden of not just you, but your family being all under the same umbrella of your job. And no matter how unfair that seems, this reminder is not about saying every element of being set aside is right, but to understand that it happens. Because understanding helps us handle ourselves well, and battle sometimes its frustration. When you understand why someone does something frustrating for example, it is easier to still be compassionate toward them and not let that frustration dominate your relationship. 
5. Have compassion on the parish. This flows straight from the last. Understanding the dynamics of the relationship you have with parishioners and community members helps offset the frustrations that can arise from those dynamics. And that is important because compassion is important. Here I will though especially stress compassion in the literal sense; co-passion - a companion in suffering. Suffer with your church. Where I need this reminder most is when frustrated, or something in the parish life did not play out how I'd like it to (and perhaps I made an effort to direct it differently that failed). In those times the inclination is to simply deny them. This is when "they" language becomes the great temptation. "They did this" "They did that" "They did not listen to me". It's an effort to absolve ourselves and villainize. You are part of your parish, and even in its greatest struggles, even when you tried to steer it elsewhere, you two are in the mission together. The moment I first knew I would accept the call to my parish was when I defended them before others, spoke protectively of them, even in things I was not too big on. I remember that still, and sometimes have to remind myself to come to their aid. Some may fight me on this analogy, but think of it like children, you really want the best for them and even when they disappoint you and go against you it doesn't divorce your sympathy from them, and in any way you can you will defend them and still support them. Sometimes you can't, and sometimes there is still admitting their mistake, but you are still going to suffer with them if you can through their mistake. As a pastor it is easy to not want to suffer with them. And so remember to love them enough not only to lead them in the right, but to not abandon them when they have strayed. Instead, be a faithful, loving, and compassionate witness wherever they go. And remember, loving compassion is more than just being right and telling them when they are wrong, for you can be faithful in doctrine and short on love. Just read Revelation 2:2-5 where a church committed to the right belief is absent of their love. 
6. Be a servant. When I was in college, I remember being taken by the description Pope Gregory the Great gave his job: servant of the servants of Christ. You are the servant of God's servants. And it is always good to remember that, because as a leader who is given power it is easy to forget it. When I was on internship someone noted to me once what it meant to see the intern pastor shoveling snow. To this individual they said it was a humble thing to see. That wasn't my intent in doing so, my intent was making sure no one slips coming into church. But it taught me something I have told myself throughout ministry: there is no job in church I'm "too good" for. There are jobs I prefer not to do, there are jobs others can do, and in fact because it is important to include others I encourage them to do. But when it comes down to it, I remind myself when the need is there to also be willing to help. Extend that now to outside the parish when I visit. People are regularly at my service, wanting to serve me. And I imagine for many pastors this is the case. Remember who we are: we're servants God, and servants of the servants of Christ. 
7. Take your job seriously. This does not mean you can't have any fun. Those who know me know that I am humorous (or at least try to be) and often very joyful. But the idea is to say that what we do really does matter. I think this is one of the things Bonhoeffer brings out in Cost of Discipleship, he saw the Evangelical Church as not treating its ministry as if it matters. Now some of his ideas I take issue with, but he's right that it is no small thing to baptize someone into Christ and a life of Christian discipleship. Along with the firm reminder that God is working in frustrating ministry is also the reminder then that what we deal with (even in frustrating times) matters, because when disheartened it can be easy to neglect giving our ministry the care it deserves. But salvation, redemption, and renewal are things this world needs.
   Think of Paul's words in Romans 10:13-14
   
    13 For, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”
   14 But how are they to call on one in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in one of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone to proclaim him? 
   It is a scary thing to think of what my neglect in ministry means for others. This is a warning, but it is also a comfort. We need to be reminded sometimes that our work is meaningful. After the funeral for her father, a pastor I know once said she was reminded of how important what we do is when she was the one in grief being preached to. Someone prayed for me this week, and the shivers and feeling that courses through your veins and runs down your spine when you hear another person hold you in prayer, it reminds me how important a thing that is to do for another. Despair and hardship in ministry is worth encountering because this stuff matters. It matters enough that Jesus would die to secure this Gospel and it matters enough that the Holy Spirit was poured out to seal it in our hearts and empower the proclaiming of this message with the grace of Jesus. And if we want people to care about this ministry, we'd best care about it too. It's unfair to expect a congregation to be invested in, partners in, and partakers of a ministry we don't even show as important.
8. Remember Article VIII. Some non-Lutherans won't understand especially what this is a reference to, maybe some Lutherans are wondering too. It refers to Article VIII of the Augsburg Confession. Now this might seem the odd one to focus on, since Lutheran theology is by and large centered on Article IV, the article of justification by faith. And I certainly hope pastors are remembering that, since it is key to understanding and preaching the Gospel of free grace. But here I am referring to the article that has calmed me when the church is in a troubled state: the article on the Nature of the Church. What I remind myself from here is the line "in this life many false Christians, hypocrites, and even open sinners remain among the godly..." This sentence is important because we struggle with the church when it seems so not like the church. But the church isn't the church because we do what is right, and in fact as a Lutheran we say confessionally that there always has been and in this life always will be wicked people in the church. Remember that, because it means as pastors we will run into them, deal with them, suffer from them. And the more there are or the more they are in leadership, the harder that is to face and the more tempting it is to abandon the church or even declare it isn't a church. But don't say that. Where the Gospel is at work among believers, there is the Church. And the presence of others and their work does not simply undo that. Jesus was effective in his ministry even in the face of opposition then, and still is today. Bad leadership cannot stop him where his word is active. In fact, Article VIII reminds us that even when we are the wicked ones the church is still truly the church and God's grace is still being shared: "the sacraments are efficacious even if the priests who administer them are wicked men". And so when things seem very unChristian, don't let that discourage you. When I was a teen, my faith flourished and grew in a congregation that was dealing with some horrible discord. And I was well aware of it too, serving on the board of elders at 17. I knew more than most in the parish, yet God was still very much at work there. It has been a blessing to remember how much God can do with a church even when it is divided. Remember Paul calls the the horribly divided Corinthians saints and says they were "sanctified" (1 Cor 1:2).
9. Stay faithful to your office. From these last two flows this one. If what we do actually matters, even when the church is horribly flawed we are to remain faithful even when we see unfaithfulness. The Augsburg Confession one article earlier declared the Church was "the assembly of all believers among whom the Gospel is preached in its purity and the holy sacraments are administered according to the Gospel." This definition reminds us why we take what we do seriously. The working of Christ and his means of grace are the foundation for the Church. If you're like me, you might have a tendency to be a people pleaser, and therefore face the constant temptation to not be faithful to the Gospel when it is hard or unpopular. You face the temptation to put the scriptures in more desirable light, or to defend God's actions. But you are called to preach the word, and have been set apart because preaching does that. I also know, that our job sometimes is not as closely monitored as others. It is a difficult balance between doing too much and too little, and people don't always know how much time you put into things (they may think you put little in when you spend all day on something, they may think you've been hard at work on that sermon that you put little time into). And when we meet unfaithful activity, we want to play their game. Yet we are following after Jesus Christ, who did not betray his mission in the face of difficulty. Or as Paul put it in 2 Timothy "if we are faithless, he remains faithful, for he cannot deny himself." Let this be not only our creed but our own job description. I also go back to my ordination vows. I took to reading more scripture this year, because I promised to be diligent in my study of scripture and I was too often only caring about the passages that were being preached on. Remember to look at precisely what has been asked of you as a pastor, and be willing to correct yourself to be more faithful to that endeavor. 
10. Be a sheep too. For this last one, I turn to former Swedish Bishop Bo Giertz, who reminds us the Seelsorger (soul shepherd) needs soul care too. In his essay "How the Seelsorger Cares for His Own Soul" he makes these points:
    a: Even the Seelsorger Has an Old Adam. "Just as the Old Adam does not die in Baptism, so he survives ordination also. If he gets some time to himself, he can get along wonderfully well in the cassock." Take seriously your own sin, because our depth of religiousness makes us susceptible to masking sin instead of subduing and crucifying it. I multiply my problems when I forget this.
    b: Even the Seelsorger Needs God's Word. "There are pastors whose Bibles are noticeably little used. The pericopes are diligently used, but not the Bible. In such a case, one can seriously suspect that the Word applies to others but that the priest for his own part thinks that "he can do without it."...But he must also read the Bible as a common parishioner, for his own upbuilding, for rebuking, for reparation, and for fostering righteousness, in order to express the matter as Paul does when he warns Timothy to hold fast to the Holy Scriptures he has known since childhood." How true is this? I spoke just above how I fell into this very failure, and still it is easy to hear the scripture first for sermon, second for me. All the struggles talked about here remind me again how important it is to read for my spiritual care too.
    c: Even the Seelsorger Needs to Be Converted.  This one might make some uncomfortable or quick to dismiss (especially in America where the occupation is a bit different than it was with Giertz and the state church), but even still we shouldn't discount this. "There is a very great possibility that he will entrench his heart behind theological excuses. He may shun Free Church-type awakening techniques and un-Lutheran pietism and avoid asking the questions, "Am I rightly converted to God? Have I a part in my Savior?" And to Giertz the term conversion I think is also much greater than in our modern American Evangelical usage, where it means making a decision for Jesus or identifying with the Christian faith. That to Giertz is more like awakening. Conversion is faith in its fullest sense, and he speaks elsewhere of "daily conversion" much like Luther's catechism talks of "daily dying". To constantly be living by faith even when leading others into faith. When dealing with church problems and other spiritual crises, we must not neglect our own spiritual crisis.
    d: Even a Seelsorger Needs the Support of an External Order. We need external, devotional practices and not to carry everything simply in our hearts, head, or wherever else we think we keep our worship and devotion of God. And we need to keep to them lest we skip them. "As a matter of fact, he needs much resoluteness to hold fast to a particular order for his devotion and follow through with it despite all difficulties. Otherwise, hurry and haste come to choke out Word and prayer from his life. First, the many worries and obligations encroach upon the devotions. Then the priest thinks about his approaching sermon, about the troublesome letter he must write, on all the telephone conversations he can't forget." As I write this I had to pause, and step away. I had put off this morning prayers to prepare for a meeting with the intention of praying afterward. Did I? So easy it is to let the rush of ministry upset the routine of spiritual discipline. One of the reasons I instituted midweek morning prayer at my church was for this very reason. I knew I (and suspected many others) too easily neglected prayer. And so I established a simple order of morning prayer with a devotion. We keep a copy of it on the website so those at work can pause to pray too. And even when weeks go by with no one coming into church to join me I won't get rid of it because it is as much for me as for my members.
    e: Even a Seelsorger Needs Holy Communion. "Does it need to be said that the pastor need Holy Communion?...There are cases where it needs to be said." While I imagine you probably partake with your congregation in communion, here the reminder is it is just as important that we do so. And I think the reminder is a good one, because as the presider/distributer one has less time in devotion when partaking. But as Giertz says, "I have the experience that one is blessed by it, even when the external circumstances have been unusually hasty and pressing. Just as one is blessed by prayer and the reading of God's Word even when one cannot do it in such a peace and tranquility as one would have desired." Being on this end of communion, which puts our whole process of preparation and participation quite differently than when we get to sit in the pew does not change the grace offered and therefore the eternal significance there is every time we partake.
    f: Even a Seelsorger Has Need of Confession. This is something protestants as a whole have mournfully neglected. There is a night-day difference between silent and verbal confession. And I assure you, while you may confess to God alone (you don't need the pastor) there is a major difference of doing it before someone else. And listening to absolution is greatly different than absolving yourself. "He shares [in needing confession] all the same reasons as laymen. He needs it to help him become clear about his own standing before God...He needs it very particularly when he has lost his own peace in some other trap that the soul's enemy set before him." Find someone - pastor, spouse, bishop - someone who you trust your confession to and who will administer the words of grace back unto you. Don't let your burdens remain bound or get by on the semi-freedom of your own "knowledge" of forgiveness. Seek the assurances we provide within our fellowship.
    g: Even a Seelsorger Has a Merciful Savior, Who Never Fails to Forgive. "It is dangerous for a priest to forget that he needs forgiveness. It is even more dangerous for him to forget that he can receive forgiveness and that he has it on account of Jesus." We place so great a burden, are reminded constantly of God's great demands, can easily feel like a failure when our church does not grow or change, and if the statistics say anything - most of us battle depression in some form (I do at times). The burnout rate you face is fierce and I blame no one who ever has left the ministry. We are targets of spiritual warfare, poverty, and exhaustion. Therefore as we speak the message for others, let us not go on forgetting it is ours too by grace. We need to know we are not just shepherds of the sheep God has entrusted to us (1 Peter 5:1-2), we are sheep in the care of the Good Shepherd. 

What a way to end this blog. Though long, it is ended with the joyful word of God's grace. Therefore, I close to you with these words from Giertz (also written regarding the last point):

Serve the Lord with joy. This is not the least important for the priest, who here on earth stands in the forecourts of heaven, placed by the door through which he continually distributes heaven's gifts to his congregation. For this reason, he can always be joyful in the Lord, not because of himself, not because of his congregation, not over great successes, but because of his Lord, because of the great Savior who does not fail to forgive and who lets every day be a new day of grace.

When You Don't Like Your Pastor

from www.myownlittlereality.com

So here is some pastoral counsel on what to do if you don't like your pastor. Of course, if I'm your pastor that you don't like, you probably won't like what I have to say, but don't let that stop you from reading this too. But mainly this blog is dedicated to those individuals out there who might care about what I'm writing more than what their pastor is saying on Sunday morning.


Here is the big surprise: it is good to have a pastor you don't like. Oh it's good to have ones you do like too, and make no mistake, we like being liked. But we're not in this business to be liked and you didn't call us to simply be likeable, you called us to lead the congregation through the preaching of God's Holy Word. But know this, if you take this counsel seriously there are many things about having a bad pastor that will actually be for the benefit of your spiritual life. Here's what to do:

1. Trust Christ. Boom! Let's start here. Don't forget who this church really belongs to. It ain't that pastor and it ain't you. It doesn't matter that the pastor is the leader or you've been there since 1937, the church was organized to God's glory and Christ's mission. And Jesus is still the same. Even when you just lost your most beloved pastor ever, those sermons are still good. Keep trusting in Jesus. When the pastor is in your eyes a failure, good news: your church, your faith, your salvation rest in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross and the continuing work of Christ through the Holy Spirit. A bad pastor breaks the common idolatry of putting pastors on the pedestal and fating everything on the pastor's inherent awesomeness. Good pastors should be good in how they teach you to trust Christ, bad pastors are good in how they make you trust Christ. More than anything else, hear this good message that Jesus builds the church and wherever one finds him the church is to be found. At worst a pastor can ruin an institution in which the Church is found, but the communion of saints, the Church Universal, that is the product of the Holy Spirit and the very Body of Christ, a union made by His work. Even a closed congregation does not undo this confession of faith. Pastor's bear Christ, but they are not Christ. 
2. Start praying. Don't just complain and moan and hate your pastor, pray for your pastor. One moment that always stuck with me was the rantings of burdened Johannes in Bo Giertz's book Hammer of God (which I regularly have in this blog and will continue to recommend to you all). At one point Johannes reflects on his attitude towards the pastor. He says, "Then the pastor came to the pulpit. Potbelly, I thought. You can play cards and fish for trout, but you cannot feed God's poor little lambs with the Word." But then he realizes his own failure, "But I had not prayed for him. Was that love?" We often are quick to criticize and slow to pray, perhaps it ought be the other way around. I thought of this with the previous Presiding Bishop of the ELCA Mark Hanson. I have thought at times of writing to him a similar confession, that I was quick to criticize him and slow to pray for him which is not how it should be. People who think less of their pastor should all the more take to prayer for their pastor's sake. You'd be surprised what prayer can do, to both you and the pastor.
3. Study and do more for yourself and your church's ministry. If you take issue with what your pastor says, or suspect the pastor is not properly preaching law and gospel, or are "getting nothing from the sermon" then study for yourself. A bad pastor can be the initiative we need to be sure we know what the Bible actually says and how to interpret it for reproof, guidance, and comfort. It can be easy to almost let a good pastor enable undisciplined lifestyle, but when one can no longer lean wholly on such a place, those who hunger and thirst will search themselves. Really, both should be happening. The gospel should be preached and sought, but a "bad" pastor can ensure there is not just preaching and no seeking. Similar to when a pastor leaves a church and people pick up the slack and thereby actually take up more of their Christian call for the church, if the pastor seems inefficient you can actually still seek to help. If you think everyone isn't being visited: a) tell your pastor this, but b) help by doing visits too. If the pastor is rubbish at administration, try to help keep things running well (get involved in church leadership). There are actually a lot of ways people can assist the pastor, and many pastors welcome the assistance (and I'm sure all would welcome assistance over just criticism).
4. Listen anyways. You may not like your pastors sermons, but keep listening. Luther points out two things that tell us we should listen on when we don't like our pastor's preaching: a) we are more apt to praise a preacher for their style more than content (use of good stories or allegories). He would note that the people would "sleep and cough when we preach the article of justification but prick up their ears to stories." Basically, don't think simply because you don't like what they say or how they say it they are not speaking the Word of God. Scripture often shows the word to be despised as well as its preachers. The second thing Luther says is you are never too good for a poor preacher. "no man," he says, "is so learned or holy that he may neglect or despise the poorest preaching; for he does not know when the hour will come in which God will perform His work in him through the preachers." I've been guilty of thinking the bad preacher cannot preach the gospel. I once listened to a man speak, walked away totally disappointed in all he had to say. Next time he came I had no real interest in listening, but alas, I was expected to. Lo! And Behold! From his lips came wonderful good news and great stories and meaningful theology. God the Holy Spirit is at work in the church, thus you are not just listening to the preacher and should not just assume your pastor is the only one working when a sermon is preached. Always be open to the Spirit and the work of the Word. Those who shut their ears or disappear completely from church when they don't like the pastor do themselves no favors.
5. Be a Christian to your pastor anyway. And by Christian, I mean a loving brother/sister in Christ, not a passive-aggressive jerk. This sounds obvious, but Christian hospitality in churches is not a given for anyone. We often take time to talk about it with visitors (be welcoming), but how about with your pastor. A visitor really you probably have little overall expectations for anyways, and so apart from them standing out, or you failing to notice them, they are actually relatively easy to be embracing of (at least initially). But a pastor is far different, because the pastor is more clearly there to serve you (although all Christians, members and visitors alike should be to some extent at one another's service), you're "paying" this "employee" (although that is not really an accurate term technically or theologically, at least in my church body). Because of this perception, it is easy to judge on those expectations over the common Christian call and identity. Just as much as the pastor can be the easiest person to see as a Christian (especially by the community) the pastor can also be the easiest to forget is a fellow Christian by the pastor-parishioner relationship (especially when that relationship is judged in consumerist ways). Therefore, if you do not like your pastor, then deal with them the way the brother is supposed to deal with the prodigal son...come to the banquet with him. Don't separate yourself from your pastor, but in Christian love by which Christ has truly removed the dividing wall love that pastor. The power of Christ compels you (just love that I got to write that) to do so, and a lack of such love is a lack of Christ himself. The Bible reminds us to support those who are leaders and servants of the Gospel.
6. Model what you want out of your pastor. Aggression towards a pastor is more likely to return aggression and discord. Be the person you want your pastor to be. Reflect Christ for them, so that as His light shines in you the pastor may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven (ever think of Jesus' command that way before?). Many of these numbers above are examples of this, but it is to say, keep extending it. As a pastor, my ministry is my engagement with the study of the Word and the sharing of it among individuals. So how that word impacts you does impact me. And giving your pastor unconditional grace is precisely what the job is about. Don't drag each other down, build each other up. Practice forgiving and being graceful.
7. Communicate displeasure with the pastor in a Christian manner. None of this is to say no beefs with pastors are not legitimate. And sometimes you need to reprove the pastor, but your issues should be handled in a Christian manner. That means sharing them with the pastor not with others about the pastor. It is unChristian to defame the pastor's reputation, and it is to the detriment of your own church to do so actually. It is helpful to point out to the pastor where you would like to see improvements/change in the pastor. That doesn't mean the pastor will listen (sometimes because it is not a realistic or necessary change, sometimes because we too are stubborn and have a hard time taking criticism and think we're always right). But the bottom line is this, if you don't tell it to your pastor, you have no reason to expect the pastor to change/amend. If you tell it in an unChristian, overly harsh, or unrealistic manner, you shouldn't be surprised when the pastor does not change. Here in the midwest, confrontation is not something we are good at. We rarely do it, and when we do we often do it poorly. But I will also say this, once the pastor knows you are making the complaints behind his/her back before going upfront to the pastor about them, you've already done a lot of damage to ever positively impacting that pastor's efforts. I will also say this: anonymous complaints are to many pastors (myself included) worth very little. If you can't stand behind your complaint, you don't seem to be taking it very seriously, and you remove any chance for conversation/defense by the pastor. And we know how the "some people have said" argument is a tactic, that often tries to give undo weight to an argument by giving the perception that more are behind it than there are, and when used that way it involves others sometimes unnecessarily. Truth, love, openness, and involving others properly are all important towards good communication.

These should be enough to get you started. But as I said in the beginning, this is good for you too. That is, these are Christian practices inserted in the time when the devil would so tempt your spirit to not be Christian. Following these means even when you don't like your pastor particularly or get much along with your pastor, the presence of the pastor will still have you: trusting in Jesus, praying, studying scripture, reading Christian literature, helping out at church, being attentive to the sermon for a good word (and trusting the Spirit to be able to give you one), embracing and treating another as a Christian, proclaiming the gospel in word/deed, and being direct and helpful in our communication. I don't guarantee this will make your pastors who you want them to be, but I believe this will benefit you both.

And pastors who are reading this, a lot of this is two-way road advice. 

Or to put this another way: the Peace of the Lord Jesus Christ, be with you all.

Some reactions to atheistic apologetics

Ever read stuff that just angers you to no end? It probably usually comes via Facebook. You encounter stuff you don't like and just get into a rampage about it. I've felt that way recently reading the works of notorious advocates of atheism such as Richard Dawkins. Today I picked up someone else at the library (name eludes me) and just walked away frustrated. Maybe I shouldn't, but allow me to share some of my reactions (and take them as that, reactions) to some of these readings.

Reading these works I noticed several things:

1. The general element of these books is not to so much convince you of atheism as to turn you off of religion. The idea is if we can disgust you enough about religion and prove that religion is the real problem in this world that's all that really matters. If you still believe in a god of some form on your own that's fine (you're wrong, but whatever). That is the general tone of the book. Which means the books are more a reaction against religions than a case against God, yet many of the books often market themselves the other way around.

2. The claim that religion is the root of problems are as equally selective of history as ones that claim secularism is. This may sound strange that I say it this way but it is true, history has borne out that cultures and peoples - religious or not - are totally capable of barbarism and regularly are! I don't claim religion is the fix, not in a moral sense. The reason I say this without qualm is my religion has not really claimed that its morals will remove evil. The reason is because the problem with the world is something we in the church have had a word for: sin. And sin is not cured by law, merely curbed and contained. And it will lead people to always try to abuse, excuse, cut, and compromise the law. Progressive thought has in no way removed the same basic elements, just the places and ways it manifests itself. The problem with the books that try to "expose" religious evil is that it is blaming religion as if people without religion have nothing to drive them to harm. But for every example of "secular freedom" there are examples of secular barbarism, just as much as every case of religious compassion can be paired with atrocities in the name of religion. 

3. Their biblical arguments are also quite interesting. They argue that most modern Christians are selective anyways of their religious book because of the shame of the other parts as though to say even Christians "know" that the Bible is not a good book. Of course, then the presentation they make of God according to the Bible is far more selective, and perhaps more importantly in what I have read there is a serious failure to understand the Christian understanding of why there is a greater emphasis of some passages over others (and to call it embarrassment would be a failure to see those interpretations and emphases throughout Christian history). It's true you can draw horrible messages from the Bible, but it should say something that to prove this they have to go outside the bounds of the religion's primary interpretation. Also, the books come from the standpoint that wherever we feel bothered or disagree with the ethical bounds of scripture it is obviously wrong. But that assumption is problematic. No doubt they say the same about the assumption of the religious that their sacred texts are always right and above reproach. But I will say personally, that you don't have to like everything about scripture to say it is scripture. Yet I do find that when one struggles with that which seems unacceptable I often find my stance to change, for when I don't discount it I eventually see new light as to why it matters (something I see more and more as I get older I would add) which often happens when I see the spirit of the text and don't get hung up on the immediate words that trouble me, or I learn something of the cultural divide that changes its meaning, or I simply come to realize I was wrong. And some I still struggle with, or I have come to some conclusion about that I do not like but am settled on. I also consider what I've learned from historical critiques that examine the morality of a time and from a distance can see what contemporaries could not, it makes me caution the assumption that my moral objections are inherently good or above reproach. 

4. Very little critique of external influence and agendas are ever present in their assessment of religious history. That is, where as in the church we may attribute too much to external influence (political agendas, colonialism, etc) the complete reverse is at work here. The idea that religion is the cause of dehumanization is as absurd as saying theology has never been used to defend dehumanization. Just like it would be historically inaccurate to attribute "humanizing" movements apart from the church when it played a great role historically in such movements as well. The relationship of religion to the world around it is a major issue. Just because the religions (like my own) will make counter-cultural claims in no way means it is not touched by the culture. And how much it is and should be is one of the biggest struggles internally and externally in the church, and that struggle and relationship is minimized in these readings.

5. One other feature seems to be a certain understanding of the purpose of religion. It usually asserts two real purposes for religion: understanding the world and morality. By this then comes the argument that it has served its purpose and no longer has one in our world. By science we can understand the world and whether by science (as the book I read today argued) or by social conscience and progressivism we can discern what is right. The culture is moral enough and we are civilized enough and smart enough to not need superstitions to explain things or scare us in line. This of course begs the question, what is the role of religion? And it operates of course under a sociological assumption rather than a theological one. That is, it argues the social purpose of religion rather than what the religions themselves argue which is revelation of the divine in order for communion with the divine. Because they assume there is no God, they cannot see a purpose beyond the social ones. But of course for one who believes in God it is the total opposite. That is, if God exists (and studies regularly show the vast majority of human beings believe so) then religion has a purpose - to know this God (or if you want to be inclusive of other religions even if I say they are wrong; to know these gods). A bigger issue that I think actually presses or concerns most individuals today is whether one can know God (and how), and to what extent that impacts one's daily life. In that case the claim of religion is absolutely relevant (the coming of God in the flesh certainly is important towards how one can know God and the impact on God has on living). And even though many have varying degrees to which they actively seek the help of religion in these things regularly, religion still serves most of them to some degree. The "secular religion" of America if broken down would amount to a universalist-deistic religion whose framework is borrowed from Christianity. Many still, even if they don't commit themselves, dabble in and seek aid from religions. And that is to say nothing of the role religions have in being the institutions of compassion and organized aid in communities. And all of this is to say the assumption of no purpose misses the mark, especially if God is real. Now add to that, if God is real then suppose a religion's paradigm is correct (since they are not all alike and do not share the same message), if the paradigm is correct then the purpose is quite real. If Jesus really did rise from the dead then the Christian church has a purpose that is more than moral or just understanding the mechanics/origins of things.

6. The three most common things attacked about the biblical story are: a) the creation account, mainly because this is the headliner in American religion-science debates and because they feel they have won this issue. It's hard to prove God didn't intervene for a specific person/people in time (beyond the argument it's hard to prove he did), it's easier to argue about something wider, in relation to cosmic history. b) the morality of Israel, usually around the treatment of women and the invasion of Canaan. See number 3. And, c) the resurrection of Jesus, because that is the central issue to the Christian faith (and while the books claim to be against religion, they usually are focused on Judeo-Christian religion and the only other real faith focused on is Islam mainly to argue the poor treatment of women and religion as the cause of war). These arguments usually attack the believer as "ignorant" and seek to show why there is no proof (or not the kind of proof they would find satisfactory). And while their arguments will perhaps sway those in the middle (kind of like political campaigns are aimed at those in the middle) those adamantly on either side kind are at an impasse on these issues. Both insist on the authority of one form over another. And this is to say nothing of the Holy Spirit, which as a Christian I believe is the giver of faith. Faith is not just a decision of persuasion but a living force of election, and what is revealed by faith is a reality skeptics are seeking via science: communion with God. The lack of "proof" of God (in quotes since only certain things constitute proof) makes them say God does not exist, while to those who have experienced and related to God, such arguments are foolish since that barrier has been crossed. As a Christian, it is God revealed in preaching by which the Holy Spirit breaks in and there lies Christ. Faith is not just a rational or irrational decision, it is a creative outcome of God.

7. There is an interesting philosophy I note in the books. They utilize the same basic principles they criticize of religion (need I say again the problem is people, not religion). For example, they say that religion is the most divisive thing in the world by creating zealous belief, but then they express their zealous beliefs about religion in an equally divisive tone. The claim that making another "infidel" "heathen" or "damned" makes it easier to dehumanize them is no different than calling them "ignorant" "barbaric" "unenlightened" or "the greatest evil in the world". Not only does such a stance equally create divides, but it also makes the religious people "less" in a way that has historically been used to categorically deny people rights: it calls them less intelligent/behind the evolutionary scheme (since society they claim has evolved to no longer need religion), which is dangerously close to the Aristotelian philosophy that dubbed women as lesser creatures because they were "less-rational" and "more emotional" and that dubbed African Americans as less human because they were "under-evolved". This is not to say they automatically look at religious individuals this way (although their language sometimes does make one wonder) but rather to say the danger of their doctrine is equally evident in history. And the anger or "danger" they see in religious groups (especially the more radical or at least devoted groups) has included in their works the desire to deny rights such as raising children. I also just find it a little ironic when they criticized proselytism when their books are essentially trying to do the same thing.

8. My last thought is that what really bothers these authors especially of religions' views of God is election. That is, that God would specifically relate in history with specific people because election is bothersome for the abstract thinking of these things as it inevitably brings questions of "why them not me" or "what about these people" and so forth. Special revelation, salvation of some not all, uniquely relating and God not just being an abstract benevolent principle is perhaps the hardest thing for them to grasp. This is why the invasion of Canaan is so bothersome. Why should God favor one people over another? Why should they be wiped out while these people get all their things? Election is unfair. Even Christians and Jews struggle with the unfairness of it. Any sense of Divine preference (even if that preference is described as gracious, undeserved) is an affront to the philosophy of God and therefore becomes the case for God not being real or good. Of course that is because it looks at God as an ideal not a person and abstraction inevitably looks from the outside gazing in, whereas from the opposite (from the inside), election is good. Election is only not good if God doesn't choose you, and they usually pair this with free will persuasion theology to be God is good to those who choose him rather than what we on the inside say: we are faithful because God has been good to us. Much is made of Boenhoeffer's idea of cheap grace, I usually am not a fan of the term or his understanding of it (although to some degree I agree/get it, I still find it a bit off the mark). But I think real cheap grace is the one that wants to rob God of any free or sovereign activity. If Bonhoeffer's view of cheap grace was that faith has no impact on life, the atheistic one is wider; grace should be automatic and there be no religious element to it (like faith), and grace should need no established story or action in history. It should be more a scientific principle than a word of action, or experience of relationship. This ultimately attacks God's ways as less desireable: Jesus should not have to die, people should not have to believe, no one should be damned, etc. The claim is if God is good the only real outcome should be to share grace with everyone automatically and that it should have no real impact (or it should act like an instant fix). In short, if they can't understand God's way, or it looks bad for someone it is unacceptable. This is as I say the problem with looking on the outside rather than in. To use a biblical metaphor, God relates to his people like a spouse. When you look at relationships that way it is totally different. It is not outrageous for me to treat my wife differently than other women, even if she is not the only woman I come in contact with, care about, or have responsibility to. It still would be absurd for some other woman to say I unfairly favor my wife, or I should have the same relationship with everyone (whether they want to or not on top of that...disturbing). Not only is such absurd, but it is absolutely good news to the wife to hear of the special relationship she alone has, especially when she hears that her husband has so chosen her to be his bride in the covenantal vows (you hear that honey, it's good news we're married!). This is the sacred bond of the covenant relationship of God and Israel, a people chosen to be God's own. And ironically the greater message of election and grace is for those on the outside looking in to be told God has chosen to bring them in through Jesus Christ (it's what they want and what they criticize simultaneously). Speaking at least again for my religion, God is both very concerned with the world at large and yet does have a special relationship with the church (which by the way, is one of the ways God shows special concern for the rest of the world, through the ministry and lives of the redeemed, particularly through how the covenant relationship will impact their relationship with others). This also explains why special revelation and the miraculous is an affront and problematic; it is unprovable precisely because it (like election in general) happens to some and not others.

Anyways, that is enough rambling. Now I should note this is reactionary, from some quick reading I have done of several books of the literature. I haven't read all of Dawkins, only one book (I want to say it was God Delusion but it may have been another one of his, there were several all out at the book store when I grabbed one to peruse). But this is my take on what I've seen looking at a couple of books in the genre of atheistic apologetics. And my feeling is that there is either misunderstandings of some of the statements they make or selectivism, which should be no surprise because that is what we do. I read a study once in Psychology that stated people are far more likely to embrace facts that support their worldview/beliefs. Interesting, right? The idea of objective fact becomes problematic when we naturally are skeptical of the ones we don't embrace, this goes for Christians and atheists alike. Is there a place for these books out there (would it be religious nut like of me to suggest a book burning)? Sure, their selective approach is a nice reminder of how easy it is to do so (and religions certainly do in our literature too), and to better understand how those outside who are hearing the message are not hearing the message. I also share some of their critiques. There are problems and beliefs in our religions that are problematic or dangerous. But before you pick up some book at Barnes and Noble (I swear over half the religion section is conspiracy theories, gnostic proponents, prosperity theologians and atheistic apologetics) and walk away saying religion is the real problem in the world and God must not be real because he doesn't fit how I would imagine him to be (let that sink in for a second), realize the arguments aren't as clear-cut as they present them.

Afterword: I should also say that Dawkins interestingly is more selective in who he attacks. He is especially hard on Catholic and American Evangelical denominations, and at times does speak a few positive things about liberal Protestants (that is of course because he sees them as having dismissed much of the superstition, but also because he sees their emphasis on social justice).