被动攻击型讲台

作者塞斯·皮尔斯，博士，联合学院（位于内布拉斯加州林肯市）沟通与传道学助理教授，现居美国 内布拉斯加州 林肯市

莎拉¹刚从一个教友的虐待中脱身，却又受到了牧师在讲台上的二次伤害，牧师不明就里地偏向施虐者，却从未听过她的只言片语。

“坐在教会的长椅上，”她说，“当牧师低头凝视我时，我感到震惊、渺小和愤怒。”

牧师在讲道中间接指出，莎拉缺乏对施虐者的饶恕之心。²

“我不能只是饶恕和忘记，假装什么都没有发生，”她说：“他似乎并没有理解事情的全貌。他没有询问，也没有听取我的观点，甚至没有就他的观点私下与我沟通，而是决定就为何应当饶恕他人做一篇异常尖锐的讲道。”

牧师在台上说道，若想得饶恕，就要先饶恕人。莎拉注意到牧师与她的眼神交流开始增多，她的朋友也感觉到了。朋友们问她是否想要离开，但她不想引起围观。她感到教会里所有人的目光仿佛都聚集在她身上。

“牧师好像在说我应当回到受虐的状态，因为耶稣也会这样做。在整个讲道过程中，我都拳头紧握。这样的不公使我愤怒。这是在滥用权柄。他在利用他牧师的地位为施虐者辩护。”

从那以后，她再也没有去过那个教会。

如此对讲台的误用应当作为一种警醒，使我们留心自己对信徒的道德义务，以及道德如何在牧师牧养职责的压力之下被侵蚀。

被动攻击型讲台

诚然，有时我们应当公开指责，像先知一样发声。³

与此同时，有太多的圣职人员死板地使用饶恕神学使虐待中的受害者再次受伤。《传道者》杂志已就此主题发表过数篇文章，其中就包括罗伊·亚当斯所写关于马太福音第18章中彼得问耶稣人应当饶恕多少次的文章。文中，亚当斯总结道：“常识告诉我们，这世上有许多危害身心的犯罪，它们是如此令人惊骇、憎恶、痛心疾首，以致无法归入耶稣所回答的范围。” ⁴ 日光之下竟有“如此令人发指的罪行，以至于人们无法想象如何再次（更不用说第七次或是第七十次）忍受它们的阴霾”。 ⁵

这篇文章直面未被牧师们正视的问题：被动攻击型讲道——即为解决集体问题，在会众面前暴露特定信徒的隐私。

传统的牧养智慧告诉我们，每当你针对特定的人写讲章时，他们从不露面。但实际并非如此——他们满怀期待地准备聆听基督的信息，但听到的却是自己的丑事或伤疤。教会中其余的人也是如此。

在讲道中使用他人经历前要经过当事人的许可，这是起码的讲台礼仪，在讲道的案例中，隐去信徒当前个人的痛苦，或作模糊处理也是基本的讲台道德。这一点十分明显，本无需赘述，但它被指出，又向我们显明了问题的严重性。

将会众带上讲台

在《传道的见证》一书中，汤玛斯·G·龙提醒我们，所有的传道人是带领会众一同学习《圣经》。“正是如此，传道人应怀着牧者的心态，带着会众与世人的疑问、需求和关切解读《圣经》，这不是一种会晤的议程，而是一种奉献。” ⁶ 信徒在其中影响着我们对经文的解读。⁷

如果我们在预备讲章时没有考虑到所面对的会众，冒险引用了他们的隐私，我们的信徒与圣工就将一同受损。当准备讲道时，我们的头脑时常被激烈的挣扎占据。然而，在许多时候，这些挣扎是关乎我们自身，而非教会的需要。

无尽的压力

传道人每周预备讲道时，都面临着无尽的压力。牧师对其家庭、教会及他们自身的态度，都被人们寄以厚望。然而，有三种压力对被动攻击性型传道影响最大。

首先是时间。崇拜聚会的周而复始可能会造成一定的消极影响。一篇讲道完成时候，马上又要预备新的讲道。预备讲章的时间可能会很局促。若是缺乏精细的时间管理和界限，传道人为了赶时间，就可能被引诱使用私人对话作为讲道内容。

第二种压力是相关性。我们希望讲道于人有益、为人所用。当我们知道个别信徒面临的某种挣扎时，会很容易地认为这些挣扎是需要全体会众共同学习的功课。这的确存在一定的相关性，但当教会的信徒感觉隐私被侵犯时，就有可能引起不良的反响。

最后，传道人也会受到会众意志的压力。教会的信徒在生活中彼此联合，并就一些问题和事件的处理方式达成共识。这些意见的声音越发响亮，直至与牧师的观点针锋相对。这使得牧师认为如果在讲道中对这些问题视而不见，就会失去信徒的支持。

这些原因都不应成为被动攻击型讲道的借口。那么，有没有一种合宜的方法能够解决教会中困扰信徒思想、与个人事务有关的重要问题呢？在这亲密的团契中，我们该如何处理那些重压在会众心头的重担呢？相比被动攻击型讲道，至少有两种可行而积极的讲道方式。

积极牧养与被动攻击

第一个方式，是对受虐待者的牧养工作。传道人要赢得对方的信任才能谈论对方的苦情。单从学术角度出发不足以解决虐待的问题。在讲道中若想明白他人痛苦的感受，就需要亲身参与他们的生活。我们若不与受伤害的人交谈，或未得到进入他们生活的许可，如何能够公正地对待他们的经历呢？

其次，有时由于未能获得许可，我们的讲道就无法做到亲身参与。我们无权评说旁人的痛苦经历，尤其是作为讲道材料。更不用说，纵然我们有意为受虐者申辩，也可能会使他们成为令人不安的焦点，受伤更甚。未能获得许可时，需要考虑采用邀请式的措辞。例如，不要谈论你认为某人应当如何饶恕，而要谈论你自己在饶恕上的挣扎，或是讲述一个有人试图轻忽地抚平你的创伤、从而寻求饶恕的经历。然后反思你在这次经历中的收获。通常，这足以使对方明白自己应当如何将这信息为其所用。

传道学学者弗雷德·克拉多克在《偶得福音》一书中，谈到了这种邀请式措辞。他建议借助个人叙事的方式来制造讲者和听者之间的距离：“相比看到我就位后，传道人匆忙炮制出与我相关的草率、肤浅的讲道内容，我更欣赏那些有自己内在生命力的、在开始讲道之前就已经预备完全的、不是特意关注到我的讲道。”⁸

这种距离是至关重要的，可以将案例从受害者的苦情中剥离出来，使它听起来更像是牧师的经历。

特别注意不要强调你（或是会众）认为受害者应当如何反应。或许你可以分享一段受到伤害、污蔑或虐待的经历，以及对创伤的敷衍回应是如何伤害你的。甚至你可以分享自己伤害别人或做出错误回应的往事。毕竟在讲道中，我们不能始终将自己塑造成正面人物。

转化式的布道

我们蒙召是为积极的牧养，而不是被动攻击的讲道。当信徒遭遇患难时，要确保我们不会因为个人面临牧养的压力在公开布道评说私事。当我们确信被指引在讲台上针砭时弊时，故事情节必须经过转化，并得到当事人的许可。如若不然，就必须使用我们的个人经历讲道，而不是挪用他人的受伤经历，使我们的讲道沦为模棱两可的流言蜚语。

莎拉的故事向我们揭示了一个要道：我们蒙召是为受虐者辩护，而不是运用讲台的权柄在他们的伤口上撒盐。

—————-

1.为了保护有关人士，作者已经更改了一些姓名和细节。

2.当说话者碰巧在谈论其面临的一般话题时，有时会有这种感觉，但这并非普遍观念。为保护匿名，一些细节已被省略。

3.参见格雷格·G·沙夫《讲台批评：它是什么？适于何时？如何有效？》，《福音布道会杂志》第15期，第1期（2015年3月）：第60-78页。

4.罗伊·亚当斯，“七十个七次：彼得与耶稣的问答已如何被我们曲解”，《传道者》，2017年7月；https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2017/07/forgiveness.

5.出处参见上条。

6.托马斯·G·龙，《传道的见证》，第3版。（肯塔基州路易斯维尔：威斯敏斯特约翰·诺克斯出版社，2016），73。

7. 托马斯·G·龙，《传道的见证》，第3版。（肯塔基州 路易斯维尔：威斯敏斯特约翰·诺克斯出版社，2016），175。

8.弗雷德·克拉多克，《偶得福音》（田纳西州 纳什维尔：圣杯出版社，2002年），第104、105页。

The Passive-Aggressive Pulpit

By Seth Pierce, PhD, an assistant professor of communication and homiletics at Union College, Lincoln, Nebraska, United States.

Sarah¹ had recently escaped an abusive situation with another church member, only to be confronted, from the pulpit, with abuse from the minister, who sided with the abuser without having ever heard her side of the story.

“Sitting there in that pew,” she said, “as the pastor stared down at me, I felt shocked, small, and angry.”

In the sermon, the pastor indirectly indicated that Sarah did not have enough forgiveness in her heart toward the abuser.²

“I could not just forgive and forget and have things return to being the same way,” she said. “He did not seem to understand. He did not ask questions or listen to my viewpoint or even take the time to confront me individually and share his viewpoint. Instead, he decided to give a very pointed sermon on why we should forgive others.”

The pastor preached that if people wanted forgiveness, then they should forgive others. Sarah noticed the elevated amount of eye contact that the pastor gave her. So did her friends. They asked her if she wanted to leave, but she did not want to make a scene. She felt as if all eyes in the church were fixed on her.

“It seemed like the pastor was saying I should return to an abusive situation because it is what Jesus would do. Throughout the entire sermon, my fists were clenched. I was infuriated by the unfairness. It was a misuse of power. He was using his position as a pastor to argue on behalf of an abuser.”

Since then, she has not returned to that church.

Such a misuse of the pulpit should serve as a reminder of the ethical obligations that we have to our congregations and how those ethics can be eroded under the pressures of pastoral ministry.

THE PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE PULPIT

No question, there are times for public rebuke and using our voices in a prophetic manner.³

At the same time, far too many clergy members have damaged victims of abuse through the poor application of forgiveness theology. Ministry magazine has produced several articles dealing with this subject, including Roy Adams’s work on Matthew 18, where Peter asks Jesus how many times one ought to forgive. In the piece, Adams concludes that “common sense tells us that a multitude of physical and psychological offenses exist that are so egregious, abhorrent, and emotionally damaging that they could not possibly fall within the purview of Jesus’ response.”⁴ There exist “offenses so ghastly that the specter of enduring them for even a second time (let alone a seventh or a seventieth) becomes unthinkable.”⁵

This article focuses on something informally discussed among ministers: passive-aggressive preaching—or addressing congregational issues that target particular members in a way that makes them feel exposed before the rest of the church.

Ministerial folk wisdom says that whenever you write a sermon for specific people, they never show up. However, they often do show up—and, although they expect to hear about Christ, they hear, instead, about their dirty laundry or personal pain. And so does everyone else in the church.

It is basic pulpit etiquette to ask people for permission to use their stories in a sermon, but it is also basic pulpit ethics to leave even vague allusions to a parishioner’s current personal/private pain out of a message. This point is so obvious that it should not need to be stated. The fact that it is stated points to the reality of this problem.

TAKING THE CONGREGATION INTO THE PULPIT

In The Witness of Preaching, Thomas G. Long reminds us that all preachers take their congregations with them into the study. “Just so, the preacher goes to the biblical text as a priest, carrying the questions, needs, and concerns of congregation and world, not as an agenda to be met but as an offering to be made.”⁶ The presence of our parishioners influences our interpretation of the biblical text.⁷

Without awareness of how the congregation’s presence impacts our preaching preparation, we risk using their deeply personal issues in ways that damage both them and our ministry. Salient struggles often occupy our minds as we prepare sermons. However, those struggles may be more about us than about what the church needs.

COUNTLESS PRESSURES

Countless pressures face preachers as they prepare to give the weekly sermon. Pastors have all manner of expectations placed upon them by their families, churches, and themselves. Yet, three specific pressures contribute most to passive-aggressive preaching.

The first is time. The endless succession of worship services can take a toll. As soon as one message is delivered, the need for another looms. Finding time to craft sermon material can be difficult. Without careful time management and boundaries, ministers can be tempted to use the content of personal conversations in a public forum in order to meet sermonic deadlines.

The second pressure is relevance. We want messages to be sensible and applicable. When we know a congregant’s specific struggles, it’s easy to assume these struggles are general ones that the congregation needs to hear about. It’s guaranteed relevant, but it risks repercussions when church members feel like privacy has been violated.

Finally, preachers can feel pressured by parish politics. Church members involve themselves in each other’s lives and develop opinions on how issues and incidents should be dealt with. These opinions have a tendency to grow louder and become directed at the pastor. It might feel as though a refusal to address issues from the pulpit will result in the loss of member support.

None of these reasons justify passive-aggressive preaching. But is there an ethical way to address important issues occupying the congregants’ minds related to personal situations within the church community? In tight-knit fellowships, how can we address those painful realities that weigh heavily on the hearts of those under our care? There are at least two possible pulpit paths under the concert of being pastorally active rather than passive-aggressive.

PASTORALLY ACTIVE VERSUS PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE

The first path involves engaging in the work of pastoral care with the abused. Preachers need to earn the right to speak to these painful realities. Addressing abuse from an academic distance is not enough. Understanding the painful rhythms of the hurting requires a participatory homiletic. If we have not spent time conversing with the hurting or been granted permission to enter their lives, how can we do justice to their experience?

Second, there are times when a participatory homiletic is not possible due to a lack of permission. We are not entitled to people’s personal pain, especially as sermon material. Not to mention, even if we intend to speak on behalf of the abused, it may put an uncomfortable spotlight on them and open them up to further abuse. In those cases where we do not have permission, consider taking an invitational rhetorical approach. For example, instead of talking about how you think someone should forgive, talk about your own struggle with forgiveness or a time when someone tried to put a band-aid on something deeply hurtful by asking you to forgive. Then, reflect on what you learned from the experience. Often this is enough for people to see how they might apply this to themselves.

In Overhearing the Gospel, homiletics scholar Fred Craddock discusses this type of invitational rhetoric. He suggests using personal narrative to create distance between speaker and audience: “I am much more inclined toward a message that has its own intrinsic life and force and that was prepared with no apparent awareness of me than toward a message that obviously did not come into being until I as a listener appeared, and then was hastily improvised with desire for relevance offered as a reason for the sloppy and shallow content.”⁸

This distance is vital to separate the narrative from the victim’s circumstances and make it appear about the pastor instead.

Especially important here is not to identify with what you think the victim should do (including what the congregation thinks the victim should do). Perhaps you can identify with a time that you felt hurt, maligned, and abused and with how the trite responses to your problem hurt you. You may even share a time when you were the one who hurt someone or failed to respond correctly. After all, it is not good to consistently cast ourselves as the hero in all our sermons.

INCARNATIONAL MINISTRY

Each of us is called to active pastoral care, not passive-aggressive preaching. When troubles come to our people, we need to make sure it is not the personal pressures of parish life that lead us to make public speeches. When we do feel led to speak to a struggle those in our congregation face, it must be born out of an incarnational experience and with permission. If not, it must be rooted in our personal experience instead of the appropriated experience of the hurting, shared as vague gossip.

The story of Sarah reveals a crucial point: we are called to speak up for victims of abuse, not to add to that abuse from the power of our pulpit.

—————-

1. 1. The name, and some details, have been changed to protect those involved. This was related directly to me. 
2. 2. This was not a case of general conviction sometimes felt when the speaker happens to be speaking on a general topic they are wrestling with. Some details have been left out to protect anonymity. 
3. 3. See Greg G. Scharf, “The Pulpit Rebuke: What Is It? When Is It Appropriate? What Makes It Effective?,” Journal of Evangelical Homiletics Society 15, no. 1 (March 2015): 60–78. 
4. 4. Roy Adams, “Seventy Times Seven”: How We Misinterpret Peter’s Question and Jesus’ Answer,” Ministry, July 2017; https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2017/07/forgiveness. 
5. 5. Adams. 
6. 6. Thomas G. Long, The Witness of Preaching, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2016), 73. 
7. 7. Long, 175. 
8. 8. Fred Craddock, Overhearing the Gospel (Nashville, TN: Chalice Press, 2002), 104, 105.

原文链接:https://www.ministrymagazine.org/archive/2021/10/The-passive-aggressive-pulpit