Churches are increasing their visibility online these days, but Scot McKnight is frustrated with how some choose to do it–that is, at least on pastor or staff bio pages.
McKnight argues that many of these pages reflect a trivial attitude toward the pastoral role, telling us “what’s most annoying” for Pastor So-and-So, or “what’s on the iPod.” On one staff page, each pastor named his dream job; none said pastor.
Says McKnight:
What annoyed me about these sites was the utter absence of a sense of the sacred in pastoring, of the overwhelming sense of God’s call upon a life that reaches so deep that everything becomes holy, of the profound respect and privilege of the call to lead God’s people, and of the total lack of order. The sense we hear today of being real and authentic doesn’t mean we devalue the pastoral calling of its sanctity. I couldn’t and wouldn’t call any of these folks “Reverend.” If I were a visitor, I’d go somewhere else.
How should a church portray its pastors to outsiders? In a culture that loves to “be real,” how informal is too informal?
Our Protestant understanding of the priesthood of believers may lead us to erase the line between clergy and laity, but some church offices still bear authority. And I think these positions require a corresponding level of seriousness. “Above reproach” and “respectable” come to mind (1 Tim. 3:2). Casualness should be used carefully; it does not equal authenticity, but it can convey flippancy.
Now maybe it doesn’t lower your view of what a pastor is to discover online that yours has a tattoo of a dragon on his upper right shoulder. Even so, this kind of background information encourages people to be drawn in by a pastor’s personality, not his or her heart for God and the body of Christ. The so-called “cult of personality” is a widespread problem.
All that said, I think it’s fine for pastors and other staff to present themselves as human, giving us a few glimpses of their personal life. When that becomes the focus, however…
What do you think? Does McKnight overstate the case? Do I?
UPDATE: Scot with some related remarks on Out of Ur.
