Every one of us is a preacher, in one way or another. We all want to testify to the truth, as we see it, and to have others adopt our way of thinking.
It saddens me to see people using preaching methods that they should know don't work, because those same methods have never worked on them--and have, in fact, strengthened their resolve to promote the opposite point of view.
For example, some churches preach only to the choir. That is, their mission is not to persuade sinners of the error of their ways. Their mission is to be a social purity club, where the like-minded can rail to the like-minded about what terrible people the less enlightened are. They relish the idea that those they consider to be sinners will be sorry someday that they didn't admit that the churchgoers were right. This sort of preaching fills a need, but the need it's filling is self-esteem therapy rather than making any sort of positive difference in the world.
In contrast, some churches preach by going out into the public sphere to berate or shame sinners. This, too, seems to me to meet some sort of self-therapy need rather than converting anyone. Yelling at people for not being of your mindset does not convert them to your mindset. It just convinces them, and everyone else in earshot, that people with your mindset are nasty, vindictive, hate-filled people.
And then there are churches that try to use civil power to outlaw things they consider sinful (or to legalize things they consider virtuous), as a substitute for effective preaching. Their approach seems to be, "If you're not very good at persuading people to your point of view, no problem--just take away their choice in the matter." While imposing your rules on people against their will certainly does make a difference in the real word, the law will be changed back as soon as your group loses power, if you can't convince others to freely choose the outcome you wish. Legislating what people can and can't do physically does nothing to change their minds and hearts.
My own church practices all three of these ineffective and/or downright harmful preaching methods. I stay in my church anyway, because that's where the religious hypocrites are, and religious hypocrites are the sinners who do the most harm to themselves and others. (See Matthew 23.) If I leave, I can't keep trying to change minds and hearts to a worldview that is more in harmony with their own professed beliefs.
By staying, I may seem to be endorsing things I find repugnant, but I think I've been pretty vocal about clarifying my positions on those, and it's no secret that although I still participate very actively and visibly in my worship community, I don't receive Communion anymore because I am not in communion with my church on several matters, and I would be a hypocrite myself if I didn't follow the rules about that. I'll stick around until I'm booted out, though.
Likewise, I will continue to submit certain poems to venues with whose viewpoints I strongly disagree, because that is the only way to reach the audiences whose minds and hearts I would like to change. Anyone who reads the actual poems I've published there can see that I am not endorsing the wider editorial stance of those venues. I realize that my repeatedly saying so probably makes my publication in those venues less likely, but if so I don't begrudge the editors their right to factor that into their decision about whether to publish my stuff.
I offer the above thoughts in case anyone sees useful parallels with their own stances or situations, whether religious or political.
|