BreakPoint Blog

Banner
Banner
Pastoral putdowns
Rating: 5.00

If it takes at least three examples to make a trend, as the saying goes, I've been noticing a trend lately that disturbs me. I'm speaking of the video clips that keep popping up online of pastors insulting various groups within the Christian church.

The Boundless team has a kind of genius for finding these things. Yesterday they had this gem: Pastor Phil Johnson declaring that "the typical evangelical church has become weak and womanly." (Look for comment #3 to get my take on his remark.) Before that there was Pastor Bob Thune's "If you're single, you aren't busy." And before that, there was Pastor Mark Driscoll making disparaging remarks about stay-at-home dads.

You could say that I'm isolating, and getting offended by, just little bits of longer messages, and you would have a valid point. The thing is, I have a sneaking suspicion that that's the very reason why at least some of these pastors insert these comments into their messages -- to cause offense and controversy, and thus to gain attention. Which would be all very well if they were genuinely trying to gain attention for the gospel. Yet I can't fathom how the person or teachings of Jesus Christ -- you know, the One who called Himself gentle and lowly -- could possibly be honored by these stereotypes and putdowns. Are we now supposed to rewrite the Sermon on the Mount to read "Blessed are the macho," or what?

Obviously I have no experience as a pastor to draw on, but surely there's a better way to shepherd and exhort a flock than to encourage them to play games of can-you-top-this and act holier-than-thou.



Comments:

I think this tends to be a problem with Christians ever since Paul criticized Peter (Galatians). Yet I think we all must agree Paul was correct in what he did.
However, using Christ’s criticism of the Pharisees as an example to follow scares me. Jesus was speaking as a king to a people who would reject him (Matt. 13:13-15). I must ask myself; if I am ready to criticize others, Christian or not, would I be willing to die for them.
Johnson's comments (to a shepherd's conference) are not in the same category as Thune's or Driscoll's. First, he was speaking about churches, not about individuals. He was trying to call leaders of churches to emphasize masculine qualities. Even the pairing of "weak" and "womanly" was not an insult. You're assuming that he meant that as synonyms.

Who was Jesus most firm with? The religious leadership. Who was Johnson speaking to? The religious leadership.
Which may seem an odd point for a guy to be arguing. But if I wish to delight in an aspect of my own identity I needs must concede the same priveledge to others. We do not live in Arabia where I would get to enforce my machoness by stuffing the womanfolk into a harem, nor should I wish to live in such a regime. Therefore, if I wish to say "Vive La difference", I must concede to others a reason of their own to say "vive".
My point, Gina, was that that was it's corollary, not that it was the intention. The idea might have been to urge men to be more manly(which is all very well in it's place), but the implication is that it is "weak" to be womanly.
I'm not so sure, Jason. I don't think Pastor Johnson meant to make any concessions to any type of feminism. It seems to me the pairing of "weak" and "womanly" is meant to shame men . . . regardless of how it might make women feel.
The pairing of "Weak" and "Womanly" is a concession to the "androgynist" type of femminism. If being womanly is weak then no woman will want to be womanly. Be that as it may, it can be hard to reconcile the demand to be firm and the demand to be compassionate, and to easy to stress the one at the expense of the other.