A while back I received a letter addressed to Pastor Gary Miller. It was postmarked Shreveport, LA. (Minden no longer has its own postmark so it could have come from Minden.) It mentions my sermons and my newsletter articles, so that narrows down the possible author. We send out our newsletter weekly to over a 200 households. My sermons are published on this blog. I am not accustom to receiving unsigned letters - over thirty years in pastoral ministry this is only my third one.
I am tasked to compose an article every week for our Church's newsletter. Some of them are intended to encourage faith, some to provoke thought, some to move the reader to action, and some to inform. Some of them to highlight an upcoming event. My aim is to speak from my heart with sincerity and candor.
My corresponding critic found cause for exception in three subjects. One was stewardship - he or she felt that our congregation's, members were giving all they could possibly give and my article calling for greater commitment was thereby unfair and unreasonable. Second, dealt with my moral and spiritual qualms with the homosexual lifestyle. He or she expressed the opinion that a pastor ought to encourage homosexuals to court a spouse under the same standards as heterosexuals. They would date, find a mate, marry, and raise a family. Their ethical standard regarding sexuality would be precisely the same as heterosexual couples.
The last subject this person found offensive was my continuous point, in sermons and in writing, that our salvation is based solely on God's mercy and not at all on our personal merit. My belief is that while we are not each equal in our goodness or badness, we are each completely dependent on God's mercy to redeem us from our sinful estate. God's mercy is accomplished solely by the sacrifice of his Son and not on any remedial work we do. Our repentance is not the cause of our salvation, it is its necessary effect of God's saving work in us.
The letter writer went on to advise me to avoiding mentioning stewardship, sexual morality, and the Gospel of God's sovereign grace. I had to wonder, should I take this advice what would be left for me to teach and preach. Jesus spoke more about stewardship than just about any other subject. If I never addressed sexual morality in general or homosexuality in particular I would, without a doubt, be a happier man. It truly grieves me that so much of my energy and study has been forced to address this subject. Yet, to my defense, I have never raised the question of homosexuality in the abstract but always in response to the actions of others who relentlessly campaign for greater laxity. I have no desire to pinpoint that particular sin and beat up on these offenders to the exclusion of all other sinners. In fact, addressing a particular sin particularly is something I have always considered a dead end street. If the sinner doesn't know he or she is sinning, chances are no information will convince them they are. I cannot be the Holy Spirit.
The problem with unsigned letters is that it leaves one to consider who might have written it. If I would hand you a book and you say that there is factual error in this book but I am not telling you where it is, you would read the book expecting the error to be on any page. Each page would be suspect. You would read an assertion and ask yourself, "Could that be the error?"
The same is true with the anonymous letter. Anyone could have written it so everyone is a possible candidate. It has been months since I got this letter and I have long ago decided that it is waste of time and energy to consider it any more. Frankly, I'm over it.
I wrote this, in its unedited form, shortly after reading this unsigned letter and decided to defer posting indefinably. I stumbled upon it this afternoon. Rewrote it, removing all the nasty insulting language I used to address my masked critic, <grin> and decided to post it.
If that person may be reading this, I would ask them to accept my gratitude. It is always good to revisit one's motives and manner. Your words gave me a reason to do this very wise thing. However, it would be gracious of you add your voice to your written words so I could better understand your concerns. I would consider it a gift if you would simply call me or drop in, or, better yet, host me in your home.
8 comments:
it was me your son-n-law, and while were on the subject, here's a few more things i'd like to mention........j/k
I suspected you all along, my son (in-law). I have long wondered when the real Dan would finally come out snarling, growling and biting. Its always the quiet ones.
I would like to put your soul at rest and let you know it was not I who sent this letter. I would also remind you (as you already know) that Satan doesn't make trouble for those who don't preach the Gospel truth and are willing to change the word to fit their world view. I hope this motivates you to speak the truth louder, longer, and more often. May the Lord bless you and your ministry!
Your brother in Christ.
Chris Earnhardt
When I was a newspaper editor, I refused to print any letter that was not signed. If someone truly believes in what they are saying (in this case, writing), they should have the courage to sign their name. It leaves me to believe that the letter-writer is ashamed of their own opinion. And this is probably not true, but their credibility is certainly in question.
Marilyn
Had my most recent letter a couple of months ago, with a laundry list of the same complaints that I heard from critics several years ago. Unsigned letters are by nature vicious. They are the literary version of a sniper.
In a sermon on the opening lines of the Lord's Prayer ("Our Father..."), Walter Luthi remarked that we have a God who has not given us or done anything for us unsigned. He has revealed himself to us as the Father of Jesus Christ and through him our Father. I remember Luthi's illustration of the unsigned letter over against God revealing himself to us by his name whenever I get one of these. As a rule, I have not shared them with the Session. However, if I thought one was a part of a bigger picture, I would. I must also say that whoever writes me these letters (about once a year and a half or so)uses poor grammar. As an English major, I want to correct them and send them back for rewrite.
Walter, thank you so much for your insightful response. I am sure precisely what it means to be "passive / aggressive" or if an unsigned letter qualifies under the standard definition, but it seem like that is what such a communication is. It is the "last word" and the first first word of an argument. The saddest part of it, it seems to me, is that it is anti-social. It does not invite a heart to heart conversation - it is truly, as you put it so well, sniper attack.
That should read "I am NOT sure precisely what it means."
Hey Gary,
Got one of those letters (haven't we all) not too long after we started ministry here. It was slipped under the office door. Found it Sunday morning. It mentioned frustration with always hearing about mission (going out...). Being the cantankerous soul that I am, and given the fact that I was praching on the whiny Israelites mentioning it might be time to head back to Egypt from their wilderness wanderings, I wove the letter into the sermon and informed the anonymous author, from the pulpit, that the way back to Egypt was through that door and pointed the way out. Had a very hearty response from the congregation. I still don't know who put it there but I haven't heard anything else. And the congregation is taking more seriously its call to mission now. I sometimes think these can be character building moments. Stay close to Him. I continue to enjoy and to be personally encouraged by your blog.
Glen Hallead,
FPC, Wellsboro, PA
Post a Comment