Here's the link
Now, my colleagues have seemed to be wildly supportive of Chad, and I must confess I get their points, and further I must confess I don't know him and only know the details in the article and those posted on Facebook by others who have followed the progression on his Facebook page.
First off, it's important to note that this guy was a student pastor. Thus, the process for removing him was well, hardly anything. As an ordained elder, there is a load of church law that would make it really difficult to remove me, or any elder, but Chad did not have those protections. Let's examine that. By the time you've gotten ordained, you've theoretically gone through a rigorous examination process. This includes, among other things, theological examination. That said, a good range of theological views can get you through the examine--even those staunch maintainers of some view cannot necessarily preclude your ordination since it's done by vote at the Board of Ordained Ministry and in clergy session. I know of people who have BARELY passed, but passed nonetheless. It's my understanding (and of course this is different in each conference) that it's pretty difficul to fail to pass for a theological issue or two.
At the same time, I hope we can all agree in principle that we ought to have SOME theological guidelines, otherwise how can we at all clearly define what we do (and don't believe)? And without that, Christianity, I think, means nothing. I think the question is not HAVING guidelines, then, but what they should be. And that's where it gets fuzzier. Who gets to set those and what are they.
Well, good news. The United Methodist Church has a Confession of Faith and Article of Religion. Pastors commit to teaching these. What you believe--that's one thing--what you teach in your role as a pastor, that's another. Well, in a perfect world those aren't different things, but in terms of the vows you take, it's the second they're concerned about. You shouldn't be surprised if you violate those vows and get in hot water. Is that ideal, no. Unexpected? No.
Someone in the Facebook discussion on this pointed out that our doctrinal statements say nothing about Hell. Okay...true. But here are some related things they say (in my paraphrase--you can check out the actual wording--which I encourage you to do):
- Purgatory--Nope. The Roman Catholics made that up.
- Jesus is hanging out in heaven awaiting the last day when he will judge all people
- Humans cannot, on their own, see the kingdom of God
- BUT--good news, prevenient grace, y'all
- Jesus died for all
- We become reconciled to God through new birth
- The wicked will be sent to "endless condemnation" (I think they mean what we call hell)
BUT scripture talks about judgment and punishment and Jesus says we have meaningful choices. It was upon points like this that Wesley argued predestination with Whitfield. Jesus wouldn't lie. So if he says something, there has to be something to it. I'm persuaded by writers like C.S. Lewis in The Great Divorce to ask whether God wouldn't wait indefinitely for each person to turn to God. I don't know. It's perhaps easier for me to say what I don't believe than what I do. And I think that's a theologically honest and sound position. Humility, after all, is an appropriate response in the presence of God.
All that being said, maybe it's just me, but I haven't felt the need to use my seminary education as a hammer over people's heads. So maybe I think the disciples didn't actually write the Gospels as they exist in final form today. But that's not a point to make each time I preach the Gospels. And it's fitting for me, as a pastor, I believe, to adapt my messages and teaching to my audience. Yes, that means I take into account the educational level and views of my congregation at any time. Do I say something I believe to be untrue? No. Do I avoid taking all possible opportunities to make people feel like idiots or to question the beliefs that are foundation for their faith? No.
I've been trying to really figure out how this happened, and I have to admit, I think there have been a lot of pastors with a lot of crazy beliefs (some which even I would say go beyond what our church teaches) who have maintained their pulpits--for good or bad. I think people are willing to put up with a lot of stuff, but they don't take well to arrogance. Believe me, I'm type A and I have learned that the hard way. Sometimes in our zeal as pastors, instead of trying to make a point, we drive a stake. I think we've all found ourselves in that position.
But I am not convinced that as pastor it's my job to seek out places to drive stakes. One of my college professors suggested the following as a helpful question in life, "Is this the hill you want to die on?" You cannot die on every hill--and it is unwise to try to die on too many at once.
Here is the pastor's quote on what he believes:
"I think justice comes and judgment will happen, but I don't think that means an eternity of torment," Holtz said. "But I can understand why people in my church aren't ready to leave that behind. It's something I'm still grappling with myself."Seriously? I mean I understand everyone's defense of the guy because I would say it's not dissimilar to what many UM pastors would say. And the vast majority of them could say this and there would be no threat to their job. Even in a very small, very rural, very conservative church.
There is no way (and as I said the article and even this pastor's supporters confess) he was fired because of his views on hell. It was the straw that broke the camel's back, they say. That was probably one very weigh-down camel.
Which brings me back to the whole incident. I don't think this is really about this guy's view of hell, and I have no interest in turning him into a theological martyr. I do not think a pastor who pile drives through their congregation is necessarily doing God's work. I know too many pastors (and have I done this at times? I have no doubt I have) who mistake their own ambitions or priorities for being God-ordained ones for their congregations. It happens, but that doesn't make it right.
Should pastors offer prophetic leadership? Yes. Even when they face opposition? Yes. Is it possible to lead people from where they are? Often. We cannot change people, only God can. Trying to push, pull and prod them without loving them and respecting them (even if that means doing so while in great frustration) is, I think, plain wrong.
Like I said, I don't know all the details, and on that point my words no doubt fall short of the actual situation. But as a matter of principle, sometimes as pastors we need to back off and let our people grow and learn at their own rate, or even (gasp) admit that even we see only as in a glass dimly.
Another footnote to this. I indeed know the frustration of knowing that God MUST be calling a church to more but not being able to get people there. But I have been guilty of rushing to that before just loving the people where they are first. Sometimes people are not ready to change. And that is really sad when that happens. Sometimes that means the conference leadership need to help them make some very hard decisions. And it' snot fair that new pastors get these positions so often. It's hard place to be as you're new in ministry with so much hope for the church. There are many churches who are not anywhere near being able to chance as much as they need to to move forward.
ReplyDeleteI think it's sad but perhaps true that sometimes you have to moe a lot slower than you want when in these churches, and sometimes you have to set what seem to you to be very low goals. Perhaps that's just pessimistic of me, but as Chad unfortunately seemed to discover, too many of these churches that new pastors end up at are not ripe for new and exciting things--which is just what those pastors often want to bring.
I don't know what the broader solution is to this. But it must come on both the congregation's and pastor's side. I think nearly all of us in ministry have served at least one church like this. I don't know the solution. Anyone have ideas?