The Burr in the Burgh

Bob Dylan sang, "You gotta serve somebody. It might be the devil. Or it might be the Lord. But you gotta serve somebody."

Well, here is a good question for us: Is a pastor the servant of the congregation? Or is he a servant of Christ Jesus? The answer is "yes."

A Christian pastor is not a lord or master over his congregation. So he is not to tyrannize them. This happens whenever a pastor tries to micromanage every sphere of congregational life and sometimes when he allows his lay leaders no opportunity to make decisions of any consequence. In other words, I don't have to impose my ideas about our new parking lot construction as if I'm the boss. I have plenty of people here who know more about that than I do.

A pastor also becomes a tyrant when he asserts his own personal opinions as the Word of God. For instance, I may have very strong political views. Would it surprise you if I do? But outside of teaching people what the Bible says about certain moral issues and the role of government, I don't have any business - as their pastor - of commanding people to vote for this candidate or another. I suppose I could envision scenarios were this would be otherwise, but not often in our democracy would this be the case.

Or a pastor can become a tryant when he tries to govern his members in ways that do not belong to the pastoral ministry. I can (must) tell someone if they are living in a sinful manner. But I can't tell them whom to marry, which house to buy, where to send their children to school, etc. I can (must) exercise church discipline with unrepentant sinners, but I have no civil authority over them.

There have been ministers who have abused their holy office in the ways mentioned above. But at the other end of the spectrum, you have congregations who want to tyrannize their pastors. That is no less ungodly. There was a fine book published a few years back called Clergy Killers. And it's about a growing tendency of congregations to adopt a "hire-and-fire" mentality. "We hired you. You work for us. Do what we say, or we'll can you."

But the fact of the matter is, I don't work for my congregation. I am not their employee. I am a servant called by God, through the congregation. But I answer to God first, my church council or board of elders second. And where those two entities may conflict, God gets my first allegiance. Now, I personally, have been blessed not to have a tyrannical congregation, not in the least. Quite the opposite. They are loving, generous, kind and willing to be taught from Holy Scripture. They have also exercised an extraordinary measure of patience for their young, relatively inexperienced pastor. And I can only pray that I will never be a harsh overlord toward them.

Sometimes pastors can be over-bearing, but an over-bearing church board can be just as pernicious to the kingdom of God. God tells us to submit one to another. It's like marriage. Without submission, mutually, there can be no love-making.

Yes, the pastor serves the congregation, but he does so as an agent of Jesus Christ. He serves Christ in the sense that he is waiting on the Body of Christ. Jesus told Peter, "feed my lambs." We are the undershepherds who answer to the chief Shepherd and bishop of our souls.

Pastor David Petersen, over at Cyberstones, has a further reflection on these sentiments.

Sphere: Related Content

In the Lutheran denomination I belong to, it is recognized that the only legitimate reasons to expell a pastor from his call are: persistence in false doctrine, openly immoral life, and physical or mental incapacitation. It's a good thing that "doing something stupid" is not one of those criteria. Every pastor, myself included, makes foolish mistakes. But sometimes you hear about something that just makes you ask "What in the world was he thinking?!?!"

CBS News reports that a 78 year old Roman Catholic priest in Austin, Texas asked a group of children to come forward during mass - I'm guessing for some kind of children's sermon or something - and he proceeded to prick each one of them with a pin.

When I read this article, I was dumbfounded. Apparently, he'd taken a single unsterilzed needle and poked, breaking skin mind you, a flock of children. The article also states that he nailed a few adults in this stupid exercise as well. He claims that this was to illustrate that suffering is part of life and that Jesus suffered for us.

So what's the big stinkin' deal, you ask? Let me count the ways:

1) It's a health risk. Especially if it's true that he poked adults as well as children. Do you trust your fellow parishoners enough to share needles with them? Anyone hear of HIV or hepatitis? I realize the risk is probably relatively small, but it was a stupid thing to do. Listen, I'd drink the blood of Christ out of a chalice in a cathedral full of AIDS patients, but I would not let someone prick my son and two dozen of our closest friends with a single needle.

2) The report says that the priest wanted to teach them about the pain that Jesus suffered on the cross and, in his words, "that suffering is a part of life." Oh come on. There are much better ways to teach children about the pain Jesus endured. How about a good scourging? And it is ridiculous, in my mind, to think that we need to give pin pricks to children to teach them a lesson most of them ALREADY know all too well. That life hurts.

Sphere: Related Content

"The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the work of the devil." - 1 John 3:8

Many of you have perhaps seen the new movie called The Exorcism of Emily Rose. It appears to be doing well at the box office as a fall release. It has attracted the attention of the media, in part, because the director is a professing Christian and the movie is based upon a true account.
This week's WORLD magazine has an interview with Scott Derrickson, the director. Today, I went to see it and in my evaluation, it is a very good movie.

As the title suggests, a girl named Emily Rose is possessed by evil spirits. This occurs while she is away for her freshman year of college. The priest who eventually performs her exorcism is on trial for negligent homicide (or something like that). I don't want to give away too much of the plot, but that is the initial setup.

The movie is a mixture of the genres of horror and courtroom drama. The trial is taking place in the present with the scenes of Emily's possession and exorcism shown as flashbacks. It has some genuinely scary moments and disturbing images. But if you go expecting to see a typical gross-out bloodfest or tons of computer generated special effects, you will be disappointed.

The cast was excellent. Laura Linney plays the agnostic defense attorney for Father Moore, played by Tom Wilkenson. Campbell Scott is the devoutly Methodist prosecutor. And Jennifer Carpenter excelled in the title role. In particular, I must single out Wilkenson and Carpenter.

It was so heartening to see a Roman Catholic priest portrayed in a major Hollywood film so sympathetically and believably. And there is nothing less secularized or rationalistic than showing a priest performing an exorcism. Wilkenson's Father Moore is intelligent, compassionate, and devout. He is also articulate and courageous.

And Jennifer Carpenter. . . what can I say? I almost wondered if she really was possessed. It was creepy, but she and the director exercised just the right amount of restraint with her character. I really felt sorry for the girl she played and then came to admire her.

I'm a fan of Billy Friedkin's 1973 film adaptation of William Peter Blatty's book The Exorcist. But I am tempted to say that this was a better movie. I really liked the less sensationalist approach. Y'know the spinning head and pea soup projectile vomiting was a bit much. Plus, honestly, this movie is just less disgusting all round. Less blaspemous language, less sexual perversity, etc. Now that may be a mark against it in terms of realism. But I think if you are trying to make a film to convince the average Joe that there is more to life than Horatio's philosophy (as Shakespeare's Dane would say), going too far with the spectacle can be distracting.

One criticism I would level at the director is that I hate it when horror movies just try to startle you with a sudden loud noise or someone jumping out from behind a door. And it's not because I don't like to be startled - because actually I kinda do - but because it's low brow. If you can't frighten me with the story, the plot or the characterizations, then forget about it. Don't jump at me and yell, "Boo!"

There are some theological deviations here and there. I wouldn't say it is a Christ-centered story. The article of justification is never articulated. Alone, it will not convert anyone.

But here is why I believe this film, and others like it, are important. It treats Christian doctrine and the Christian church with respect. And it promotes the idea that there are spiritual realities in the universe we inhabit. In an increasingly secularist age, it is helpful to instill the belief that some things cannot be explained by science or dissected under a microscope. And though it doesn't give the explanation of how, it is clearly shown that the Christian Church holds the key to salvation.

But I will go further and say that I appreciated the movie because it is about Satan. And it's not a farce or an exploitive caricature of Satan. No, this is the real deal. The two errors people can fall into with regard to the devil is to think about him too much or to think about him too little. For those who think about him too little, consider that Jesus spoke about Satan and hell quite a bit. Most of what we know about hell comes from the mouth of Jesus Christ.

If I were an average Joe, someone who generally considered himself a Christian but didn't attend church or pay much attention to religion, I think this movie would get under my skin. And that appears to have been the express intention of the director. Movies like this would make me afraid to go to hell. And that would be useful progress for many people, even some people who sit numbly in our pews week after week.

Sphere: Related Content

With the American love affair with the automobile, it is no longer seen as necessary to attend a church near one's home. I know people who drive past half a dozen churches to get to the one they choose. Well, how is this choice made?

Unfortunately, I fear, many people make a church choice based on not-so-good reasons. I am not one of those who says that all churches are basically the same or that our denominational differences do not matter any more. I think the differences do matter because truth matters. Denominational differences arose from doctrinal disputes. And while Christian history has not been free of petty arguments, legitimate doctrinal differences should not be simply glossed over.

You see, I am of the conviction that the Bible is the Word of God. Inspired and Inerrant. So differences of interpretation are not merely personal preference, opinion or whim. They are disagreements about what God has said. And since presumably all Christians care to know what God has truly said in His Word, we want to clarify and be certain that we know what we believe. For instance, when Jesus said, "This is my Body...", he either meant "This bread truly is my body," or He meant "The bread merely represents (thus 'is not') my body." Which is it? Jesus said it. I think His intention was to be understood.

My point is that doctrine should be the chief criterion by which a person or a family determines which church to join. Not the personality of the pastor. Not the beautiful architecture. Not the accomplished musicians. Not the size, the wealth or the racial makeup of the congregation.

Of course, I speak as the pastor of a small congregation. I have seen people choose a church that teaches (or tolerates) false doctrine merely because they have a bigger Sunday school or a more dynamic youth group. Hey, I'm all in favor of big and dynamic. And when the doctrine is straight, those are fine reasons to select a congregation.

What trouble me - and what I hope troubles you - is the rampant indifference to teaching.

Sphere: Related Content

A story in The Guardian earlier this week reports that cosmetic products made in China from the skin of executed prisoners is being marketed in the United Kingdom. Sounds like the nice lampshades and wallets made out of Jews in the 1940s. Only with one difference, in this case no one seems to mind that much.

There is no outrage in The Guardian's reporting. Only the briefest suggestion that this might be immoral or wrong in some way. It's not technically illegal. A "grey area" they say. I thought Europeans were generally so anti-capital punishment. But, I guess, since they're from China, the likelihood that these prisoners were Christians or champions of democracy is great. Killing such folk doesn't seem to irritate Europeans as much as it used to.

In the article, much was made of the fact that using human remains to make cosmetics is culturally acceptable to the Chinese. It's hard to miss the implication that we shouldn't be too quick to impose our benighted Western values on another culture.

But I'd bet you a coke that if these cosmetics are tested on lab animals first, there'll be picketing in the streets of London.

Sphere: Related Content

The Exorcism of Emily Rose is a new film based on a true account of a woman who is deemed to be demon possessed by the Catholic church. Something goes wrong in the course of her exorcisms and she dies. The priest who was performing the rites then faces trial. I haven't seen it yet, so I cannot comment much directly on it. But the reviews have been intriguing, though quite mixed.

Blogger Darrell at Southern Conservative loved it and recommends that all Christians go see it. Go here to Christianity Today for an overview of reviewer opinions.

Have you seen it and what did you think?

Sphere: Related Content

I have to say, I laughed when I read this.

Sphere: Related Content

A new political party in Sweden called The Feminist Initiative is running on a platform calling for the abolition of marriage. All marriage. The idea, allegedly, is that marriage "is not about love, but about ownership." Instead they propose some sort of domestic partner arrangement that would not take gender into consideration at all, nor would it be restricted to only two partners. I'm frankly shocked at their intolerant approach. They do not permit sheep and goats to become legal partners with humans! That's species-ism! Somehow this is seen as a good move for women. Well, how does this party try to appeal to male voters? A six hour work-day. I'm sure all the Mr. Mom's are miffed at the assumption that all the men out there are the bread-winners. That's sooo retro.

What's next people?!

Here's the link, since I wouldn't blame you for thinking I made this up. Someone please tell me this is a spoof. I don't think it is.

Sphere: Related Content

Not the "Great Depression," as in the stock market crash of 1929. But well written memoir type books by people who've suffered from severe depression. Right now, I'm enjoying Prozac Nation by Elizabeth Wurtzel. She's really a very good writer. Other good ones include Girl, Interrupted by Susanna Kayson and The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath. None of these come from a Christian perspective but they are very enlightening and insightful reads nonetheless.

Here is an intriguing quote from Prozac Nation:

Homesickness is just a state of mind for me. I'm always missing someone or someplace or something; I'm always trying to get back to some imaginary somewhere. My life has been one long longing.

Wow! She's on to something. Life without God is an emptiness that cannot be filled with anything the world has to offer. And we have access to God and receive fullness in Jesus Christ, the Crucified.

It makes me think of that prayer from St. Augustine: Our hearts are restless, O Lord, until they rest in Thee.

Sphere: Related Content

Help me promote my blog.

Slowly, my daily readership is increasing. It's becoming common now for me to get 100+ different visitors a day, on average. That's cool, but I'd love to reach even more.

If you read a post here that you find interesting, insightful, or even annoying, please share it with a friend. Did you know about the "email-a-post" feature? There's a little envelope image at the bottom of every post. Click that and you can send it to whomever you like. Keep coming back yourself and encourage people you know to read The Burr in the Burgh.

O.K., shameless self-promotion completed.

Sphere: Related Content

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

The British newspaper, Daily Mail, reported today that some New Orleans doctors gave lethal doses of morphine to some of their patients during the recent evacuation due to hurricane Katrina.

Was this morally wrong?

See above for my response. Here and here.

Sphere: Related Content