10 Pastors I’m Concerned About

Scott Postma ^ | 04/13/2014

[lurk]

The American church will be fine, as soon as we repent, fast, and pray.

[GeronL]

I agree, but # 8 had me a bit worried about where it was going

[2ndDivisionVet]

‘Church Rescue’ propels unlikely reality TV stars: church consultants
http://www.religionnews.com/2013/11/05/church-rescue-propels-unlikely-reality-tv-stars-church-consultants/

[melsec]

While I have my own problems or issues with the church as a whole didn’t the Bible tell us to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”. i.e. It is really up to us to question ourselves and the Bible and not blindly follow anyone but to actually do the work of believing! Putting our faith in the hands of another individual other than the Lord himself is a dangerous practice!

[RushIsMyTeddyBear]

....And get rid of the Socialists.

[Leaning Right]

My grandfather once said to never trust a preacher who owns more than one suit. I thought that good advice then, and I think it’s good advice now.

[Alex Murphy]

1. I’m concerned about the pastor who is better at managing church programs than he is at making disciples of Jesus.
2. I’m concerned about the pastor who attracts people with fancy self-help sermons instead of
3. I’m concerned about the pastor who is a chief executive instead of a contemplative sage.
4. I’m concerned about the pastor who uses the pulpit to milk members instead of minister to the saints.
5. I’m concerned about the pastor who makes growing the church the goal instead of glorifying God the goal.
6. I’m concerned about the pastor who builds his ministry with people instead of building people by his ministry.
7. I’m concerned about the pastor who cultivates a culture of dependency on himself instead of cultivating a culture of community within the church.
8. I’m concerned about the pastor who reads and teaches the Bible literally instead of literarily.
9. I’m concerned about the pastor who contributes to the culture of consumerism instead of combating idolatry.
10. I’m concerned about the pastor who sees the church as a stepping stone instead of seeing it as a custodian of Christ’s kingdom.

All in all, it's not a bad list.

[P-Marlowe]

I’m concerned about the pastor who reads and teaches the Bible literally instead of literarily.

Number 8 suggests that this guy doesn't like people who believe in Miracles, or the flood or Jonah or Creation or Adam and Eve and he wants people to take lessons from those stories without believing they are literal. He is suggesting that these stories should be read a literature (i.e., MYTH) rather than literal stories.

Unfortunately since Jesus referred to Noah, Jonah, and Adam and Eve as real people, this guy is suggesting that Jesus was a myth teller.

[fwdude]

Might be included in the above list, but a Pastor who goes out of his way to be “hip” has his priorities way out of whack.

[heartwood]

I think his objection is to people who take verses out of context. Some people use the Bible like an oracle, opening it up to a random page. Some people find a verse that seems encouraging to them, or approving of their actions, without considering, what history was being told? Who was God speaking to? Does the verse apply to a specific time and place, or to all times?

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

I’m concerned about the pastor who reads and teaches the Bible literally instead of literarily. This is not to suggest the Bible is not important or any less God’s word. It’s to say the Bible is literature, divine literature to be sure, but literature nonetheless. That means it needs to be read and understood as God’s word to us (or for us) in the context of its literary genre. Not all the Bible is prescriptive; and none of it was written to be used as a random list of verses cherry-picked capriciously to beat people up or defend our personal ideas and beliefs. The Bible is the holy canon which reveals God to us through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Pastors who mishandle God’s word are extremely dangerous.

That was a very large word salad to say that he wants to cherry pick verses that he does not want to follow.

Amazing how he accuses others of exactly what he is doing.

[RansomOttawa]

Number 8 suggests that this guy doesn't like people who believe in Miracles, or the flood or Jonah or Creation or Adam and Eve and he wants people to take lessons from those stories without believing they are literal. He is suggesting that these stories should be read a literature (i.e., MYTH) rather than literal stories.

No, what he's saying is that they have to be interpreted in light of the kind of literature they are. You don't interpret the laws of Leviticus in the same way as the poetry of the Psalms. You don't read the apocalyptic books (which are deeply couched in metaphor and symbolism) in the same way as you read the history books (which are basically straight prose). Proverbs are wise generalizations about the way the world works, and so if you treat them either as case law or promises, you're missing the point. And so forth.

[P-Marlowe]

It’s to say the Bible is literature, divine literature to be sure, but literature nonetheless.

To me that statement suggests that the stories in the Bible, you know, the ones we teach our children, such as the creation, Noah, Jonah, Adam and Eve are just "literature" and not Literal.

If Jesus referred to Noah (he did) Jonah (he did) and Adam and Eve (he did) as real people, then we best not try to treat those stories as anything other than the LITERAL truth.

This guy was not there. Jesus was.

[P-Marlowe]

No, what he's saying is that they have to be interpreted in light of the kind of literature they are.

How do you know what he meant?

He decried those who teach the bible LITERALLY instead of LITERARILY.

That is the teaching method of liberal churches.

lit·er·al·ly
In a literal manner or sense; exactly.

literarily
In a literary manner

lit·er·ar·y
Concerning the writing, study, or content of literature, esp. of the kind valued for quality of form.

His words were not explained. However, his words speak for themselves. If he meant something different he should have used different words. Perhaps he was just trying to be cute. Or perhaps he could only think of 9 good reasons and threw in this one just to make an even 10.

Personally I think people who teach the bible literarily rather than literally are the more dangerous. Most liberal churches are pastored by the former.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Don’t even get me going.

But that is covered by several of these points, really.

[P-Marlowe]

Might be included in the above list, but a Pastor who goes out of his way to be “hip” has his priorities way out of whack.

What if he is "hip" and always has been "hip"?

[Halgr]

I have only one concern....and that is that most pastors don’t teach the reality of Satan and how he’s working very hard to destroy not only the Church but the Middle class too.

These days all other concerns are moot.

[MNDude]

Ha!

That’s why I could never be a good pastor.

[RansomOttawa]

How do you know what he meant?

I interpreted his words in light of their literary genre, which is a blog post containing didactic material. ;)

He decried those who teach the bible LITERALLY instead of LITERARILY.

And he did so quite rightly, though the dichotomy between literally and literarily is not so sharp as you are representing it as.

You would not read Psalm 50:10 literally, for example, unless you wish to assert that God is literally saying that the cattle on Hills 1,001+ belong to someone else. It is not a literal statement. You properly read it literarily: as a metaphor that means everything on earth belongs to God. Read it literally, and you're abusing it.

That is the teaching method of liberal churches.

It is part and parcel of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation, which I would expect to be taught at any responsible, Bible-believing college or seminary.