okieinexile
Well-Known Member
By Bobby Neal Winters
I've just finished reading an old book, copyright 1965, entitled "How to Become a Bishop without being Religious." The book is funny, but most of the humor has a point to it as it satirizes "churchy" types.
The author, Charles Merrill Smith, himself a Methodist Minister, makes a distinction in the book between religion and piety. Religion can be an actual detriment to a clergyman's career, according to Smith, because it can make him do things that his flock might find embarrassing. On the other hand piety, which for Smith means a certain preacherly way of acting, is much more popular with a congregation because preachers are expected to act, well, preacherly.
The book does not hit far enough from the truth to be as funny to me as it might be. It looks to me like things have somehow gotten turned around opposite of what they ought to be. The congregation tells the minister how to act rather than the other way around, which is somehow uncomfortable. These days we have grown to think that it is arrogant than any one man might know a better way to live, and indeed, many would disdain that there is a right way to live. It is ironic that in these times where freedom of speech is prized and used as a means to defend such things as pornography, we would shout down those who think there is a more moral way to live. We want our preachers to dress a certain way, to act a certain way, but God forbid they suggest we live a certain way.
I suppose that it ties in with the notion of sin. I've made the discovery that people don't even like the word "sin." It makes them bristle. They get a hard expression on their faces and sit just looking at you. I suppose that I shouldn't stare at them when I say it.
On the other hand, they don't mind the word "mistake." You can say, "Everybody makes mistakes," and heads will nod in agreement, but you can say, "Everybody sins," and suddenly you are getting the hard looks, again. I find that odd, because what is a sin except a certain type of mistake. However, behind it is the idea that God has a certain Way he wants things to be, and our actions miss it.
The Apostle Paul draws a lot of fire because at one point he writes to a congregation, "Do as I do." This is taken as arrogance by some because Christians are not supposed to model themselves on Paul, after all, but on Jesus. It is Jesus who is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" not Paul. However, if we limit ourselves too strictly here, we are doomed. If we don't believe that Jesus was available through Paul, mere decades after the crucifixion, how can he be available today after millennia? Paul had the temerity to say that he had found a better way to live, Christ's Way, and wanted to show it to people. How dare he.
Preacher's today believe the same thing. They have heard a message they believe is true, is right, is better, and they desire to repeat it. This is made difficult by a handicap; they are human. Human beings sin, and if you sin yourself while warning others against it, then you're called a hypocrite. Is there anything worse?
Somehow it is better not to believe there is a better way of doing things than to believe there is a better way, and not be able to achieve it. If we thought about athletics this way, we would never even try to shoot a basket, we would never try to throw a pass, and we would never swing a bat.
I suppose that what we need to keep in mind is it's not about the man; it's about the message. The message is more important than the messenger. If we found a good message in a bottle, it doesn't matter if that bottle is a little cracked.
I've just finished reading an old book, copyright 1965, entitled "How to Become a Bishop without being Religious." The book is funny, but most of the humor has a point to it as it satirizes "churchy" types.
The author, Charles Merrill Smith, himself a Methodist Minister, makes a distinction in the book between religion and piety. Religion can be an actual detriment to a clergyman's career, according to Smith, because it can make him do things that his flock might find embarrassing. On the other hand piety, which for Smith means a certain preacherly way of acting, is much more popular with a congregation because preachers are expected to act, well, preacherly.
The book does not hit far enough from the truth to be as funny to me as it might be. It looks to me like things have somehow gotten turned around opposite of what they ought to be. The congregation tells the minister how to act rather than the other way around, which is somehow uncomfortable. These days we have grown to think that it is arrogant than any one man might know a better way to live, and indeed, many would disdain that there is a right way to live. It is ironic that in these times where freedom of speech is prized and used as a means to defend such things as pornography, we would shout down those who think there is a more moral way to live. We want our preachers to dress a certain way, to act a certain way, but God forbid they suggest we live a certain way.
I suppose that it ties in with the notion of sin. I've made the discovery that people don't even like the word "sin." It makes them bristle. They get a hard expression on their faces and sit just looking at you. I suppose that I shouldn't stare at them when I say it.
On the other hand, they don't mind the word "mistake." You can say, "Everybody makes mistakes," and heads will nod in agreement, but you can say, "Everybody sins," and suddenly you are getting the hard looks, again. I find that odd, because what is a sin except a certain type of mistake. However, behind it is the idea that God has a certain Way he wants things to be, and our actions miss it.
The Apostle Paul draws a lot of fire because at one point he writes to a congregation, "Do as I do." This is taken as arrogance by some because Christians are not supposed to model themselves on Paul, after all, but on Jesus. It is Jesus who is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life" not Paul. However, if we limit ourselves too strictly here, we are doomed. If we don't believe that Jesus was available through Paul, mere decades after the crucifixion, how can he be available today after millennia? Paul had the temerity to say that he had found a better way to live, Christ's Way, and wanted to show it to people. How dare he.
Preacher's today believe the same thing. They have heard a message they believe is true, is right, is better, and they desire to repeat it. This is made difficult by a handicap; they are human. Human beings sin, and if you sin yourself while warning others against it, then you're called a hypocrite. Is there anything worse?
Somehow it is better not to believe there is a better way of doing things than to believe there is a better way, and not be able to achieve it. If we thought about athletics this way, we would never even try to shoot a basket, we would never try to throw a pass, and we would never swing a bat.
I suppose that what we need to keep in mind is it's not about the man; it's about the message. The message is more important than the messenger. If we found a good message in a bottle, it doesn't matter if that bottle is a little cracked.
