The Burr in the Burgh

I hereby declare that Pastor Alms in North Carolina is my kindred spirit. I hope he is not offended. You should read his blog daily. Today, he reflects on the question: "What Does a Pastor Do All Day? It's a very good post.

It reminds me of a cartoon I once saw. A pastor is in his study kneeling in prayer. And his secretary peeks around the door and says, "Oh good, you're not busy."

He's praying, but according to her, he's not doing anything really important. I hate the idea that a pastor is supposed to be "busy." It's killing the church. "Busy" does not always mean faithful. People, with the best heart, will say to me, "I know you're busy . . . " And I try to correct them. Do I have a lot to do? Yes. Is my time and energy limited? Yes. But God forbid that I ever become a busy pastor.

I read somewhere that we must make a distinction between that which is urgent and that which is important. I find I have to do this all the time. So many different things pull at me, I must sometimes discriminate. What may be urgent to someone (meaning they want me to pay attention to it right now), might not be important. And what is important, might not be urgent. Hopefully, we put our first energies toward what is both important and urgent.

Most people measure effectiveness according to output or production. Some pastors give in to the temptation to make sure they have observable things they can show others as evidence that they are doing a good job. They live by what I call the ABCs of church meetings: Attendance, Buildings, and Cash.

Other times, simply moving around a lot, always walking fast, making sure you are seen in all the right places, and having a distracted look in your eyes gives people the illusion that ministry is taking place. And many pastors derive their sense of self-esteem from having people think they are movers and shakers in the kingdom of God.

Of course, I have duties I must attend to. People to visit. Meetings to attend. Things to do. But how can I really tabulate the hours spent in prayer, in devotion, in casual pastoral conversation. How much time should I allot for sermon prep or teaching prep? I find it difficult to keep everything to a rigid schedule. Sometimes I need to crunch on a text for a long time before I can offer something meaningful. Sometimes I need to meditate (not in the Eastern empty-your-head way). Nothing kills prayer, reflection and study more than "busy."

Sphere: Related Content

Someone named Tim J. over at another blog, has given me this wise and gentle rebuke:

After re-reading the story, and considering the source (a London tabloid) I think it's possible the story is simply false.

But, to answer Scott- Directly killing people in order to alleviate suffering is wrong. Extreme circumstances don't change that. If we begin to kill people to save them from suffering, then where do we draw the line? Do we include emotional or mental suffering? How bad should the suffering be? What constitutes "terminal" illness? I know it's a slippery slope argument, but it happens to be true.

Sometimes, in order to follow God's will, we have to be willing to shoulder our cross, even if it involves great suffering. As hard as it is, sometimes we have to watch other people carry a terrible cross, and may be powerless to help.

We should always do all we can to comfort the suffering, but God is sovereign. We can't say, "Well, it would be better for them to die.". That is despair, and despair is the opposite of faith.

He is right. This is well said. Thanks for reminding me of what I already know. I let the emotion of the moment cloud my thinking.

Sphere: Related Content

Euthasia is a form of murder. I opposed what was done to Terri Schiavo on that basis. She wasn't dying. She wasn't on life support. She wasn't suffering. Please read what I wrote on that matter in these previous posts here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Yesterday's post, however, has caused some stir, understandably. That's why I want to clarify myself. I am willing to be rebuked and corrected. I may have misunderstood the facts. I may have voiced poor judgment (wouldn't be the first time). But allow me to ask a hypothetical question. Are there any scenarios - any scenarios at all - in which euthanasia may be the lesser of two evils? I'm not necessarily speaking of the case in N.O. And I'm not trying to start a flame war. I am sincerely asking the question.

Sphere: Related Content