31
Your Turn / Re: The Public Role of the Pastor In The Community
« on: February 03, 2013, 08:00:26 AM »
Paul's move into the temples is one thing -- Christianity never claimed to be a "new religion," and Judaism of his day (still pre-Temple destruction in 70 AD) was for all intents and purposes a different religion entirely than it is today where the entire sacrificial system has been reinterpreted.
Though, what do we make of Paul engaging folks in the market place, where it was common practice for the "popular pseudo-prophets" of the day to stand up, and proclaim their messages (often for a fee). Should we deem it wrong that Paul went to the same place where these events occurred and spoke among them? He knew his message was vested with the power of the Holy Spirit on account of Christ, so had no fear that his message would merely "blend" in to the pantheon of various gods and philosophies churning around the Roman Empire. Is meat sacrificed to idols anything, if their idols are false? It is not a sin to eat it, but if it causes a weaker brother to stumble then it should be avoided. (In the 21st Century where mass-media makes it more difficult to discern where offense is going to occur, this become even more difficult). Prayers to false gods, or readings from false texts, are not a threat to the real Word of God... sometimes we seem, out of fear, to lend more credence to the ability of error to destroy, than we lend to the efficacy of the Word of God to create and sustain faith. That becomes not a matter of purity, but a matter of faith. Like Paul, we cannot just keep the Word behind our closed doors for fear that someone might mix it up with something else. The Word is the Word of God... our theology is not for speculation, it is for proclamation.
When one speaks of "impressions" of unity -- we have to ask, does the common person have the impression that we all actually agree? Have we not made it abundantly clear that that we don't? Or, are the only ones gleaning such an "impression" from such participation in these events... our own pastors, who have our own reasons (rightfully so, to some extent, due to our heritage) be on guard against syncretism? I get that our culture would like to exhort us all on a pluralistic road, etc., and if gathering together with other religions on a regular basis were our practice, it would be a clear case of syncretism. When, however, after having maintained our differences and unequivocally maintained and proclaimed our message that Christ is the only way to salvation... if an event comes up due to a community tragedy, and we are all a part of that community, how can we not be there in the marketplace where the Word can be heard, and offer the only hope in contrast to all the false hopes being offered there?
All those comments made -- the real heart of the issue is whether or not these events that seem to be a rather modern post-tragedy phenomena are better deemed "worshiping together" or if they are more akin to having a voice in the modern "marketplace" where we have the opportunity to proclaim hope to a people in bondage to false gods. I think FrPeters is correct in that these things don't constitute the "mass" as we understand it, so aren't "worship" in the plain sense. What we perceive as happening may or may not be what the world sees... the impressions we "think" they are getting from our participation in such things, may not be the impressions they are actually getting... and what impression would declining to participate give? Would that be a greater, or lesser offense?
I don't know. At the end of the day, I've never been faced with having to minister to people who are facing a tragedy in their communities like Sandy Hook, or 9-11. Is such a case where either participating or declining to participate puts you in the case between choosing sin, or sin? Perhaps in ministering in such situations we do our best, "sin boldly," and strive to proclaim a clear and certain hope. That said, "sinning boldly" is still sin, and we can only do so with a posture of repentance. Thus, I won't join the chorus of those who think this issue is so "black and white." I have learned in the last 7 years in ministry that ministry is rarely "black and white," and I cannot imagine how I would balance the tension if I were in such a situation. I would have to do so with some fear and trembling, for sure. So, these discussions are worth having. We need to have a more open and honest assessment of how we do engage community, particularly in exceptional times of tragedy, while remaining faithful on the one hand, but not becoming separatists on the other and isolating our voice. I've been somewhat encouraged by those who offer critical thought to this event, but have also praised Pastor Morris for how he has ministered to the community through this tragedy. It is not an easy line to walk -- and until I've really been "on the ground" in such a tragedy where ministry must happen, but it must happen with fidelity, I will not throw stones.
Though, what do we make of Paul engaging folks in the market place, where it was common practice for the "popular pseudo-prophets" of the day to stand up, and proclaim their messages (often for a fee). Should we deem it wrong that Paul went to the same place where these events occurred and spoke among them? He knew his message was vested with the power of the Holy Spirit on account of Christ, so had no fear that his message would merely "blend" in to the pantheon of various gods and philosophies churning around the Roman Empire. Is meat sacrificed to idols anything, if their idols are false? It is not a sin to eat it, but if it causes a weaker brother to stumble then it should be avoided. (In the 21st Century where mass-media makes it more difficult to discern where offense is going to occur, this become even more difficult). Prayers to false gods, or readings from false texts, are not a threat to the real Word of God... sometimes we seem, out of fear, to lend more credence to the ability of error to destroy, than we lend to the efficacy of the Word of God to create and sustain faith. That becomes not a matter of purity, but a matter of faith. Like Paul, we cannot just keep the Word behind our closed doors for fear that someone might mix it up with something else. The Word is the Word of God... our theology is not for speculation, it is for proclamation.
When one speaks of "impressions" of unity -- we have to ask, does the common person have the impression that we all actually agree? Have we not made it abundantly clear that that we don't? Or, are the only ones gleaning such an "impression" from such participation in these events... our own pastors, who have our own reasons (rightfully so, to some extent, due to our heritage) be on guard against syncretism? I get that our culture would like to exhort us all on a pluralistic road, etc., and if gathering together with other religions on a regular basis were our practice, it would be a clear case of syncretism. When, however, after having maintained our differences and unequivocally maintained and proclaimed our message that Christ is the only way to salvation... if an event comes up due to a community tragedy, and we are all a part of that community, how can we not be there in the marketplace where the Word can be heard, and offer the only hope in contrast to all the false hopes being offered there?
All those comments made -- the real heart of the issue is whether or not these events that seem to be a rather modern post-tragedy phenomena are better deemed "worshiping together" or if they are more akin to having a voice in the modern "marketplace" where we have the opportunity to proclaim hope to a people in bondage to false gods. I think FrPeters is correct in that these things don't constitute the "mass" as we understand it, so aren't "worship" in the plain sense. What we perceive as happening may or may not be what the world sees... the impressions we "think" they are getting from our participation in such things, may not be the impressions they are actually getting... and what impression would declining to participate give? Would that be a greater, or lesser offense?
I don't know. At the end of the day, I've never been faced with having to minister to people who are facing a tragedy in their communities like Sandy Hook, or 9-11. Is such a case where either participating or declining to participate puts you in the case between choosing sin, or sin? Perhaps in ministering in such situations we do our best, "sin boldly," and strive to proclaim a clear and certain hope. That said, "sinning boldly" is still sin, and we can only do so with a posture of repentance. Thus, I won't join the chorus of those who think this issue is so "black and white." I have learned in the last 7 years in ministry that ministry is rarely "black and white," and I cannot imagine how I would balance the tension if I were in such a situation. I would have to do so with some fear and trembling, for sure. So, these discussions are worth having. We need to have a more open and honest assessment of how we do engage community, particularly in exceptional times of tragedy, while remaining faithful on the one hand, but not becoming separatists on the other and isolating our voice. I've been somewhat encouraged by those who offer critical thought to this event, but have also praised Pastor Morris for how he has ministered to the community through this tragedy. It is not an easy line to walk -- and until I've really been "on the ground" in such a tragedy where ministry must happen, but it must happen with fidelity, I will not throw stones.