Pastoral approach to ...

It obviously depends on the context. Christ could be quite condemnatory when He thought it was necessary - He didn't mix His metaphors when it came to talking about the Scribes and the Pharisees. He made a whip of cords to drive out the money changers from the temple. And I get a hint of sarcasm when He addressed the man at the pool of Siloam who'd been there for 38 years - John 5:5-6 -

Now a certain man was there who had an infirmity thirty-eight years. 6 When Jesus saw him lying there, and knew that he already had been in that condition a long time, He said to him, “Do you want to be made well?”

Click to expand...

"You've been here for 38 years - how fair dinkum are you about wanting to get better, and then having to earn an honest crust?"

On the other hand He was gracious to the genuinely possessed, ill or lame.

I think, as far as possible, we are expected to try to emulate Christ. We'll stuff it up at times, being mere humans.

This could mean being supportive, but it may mean giving a warning sometimes.

It's going to depend on the context.

Xeno.of.athens said:

I do not know what sub-forum this should be in ... but read carefully and there is a theological matter here, it is what is the pastoral approach that matches your doctrinal perspective best.

substitute something important that comes to mind where the paragraph below says "in these situations", do not tell us what you had in mind, commenting on the paragraph below is the matter in discussion - do you agree or ...

Pastoral care in these situations is not about offering easy answers. It’s about being Christ’s presence—gentle, patient, and faithful. The Church’s role is not to coerce but to console, not to condemn but to carry burdens alongside the wounded.

Click to expand...

Yes, we can let Job's friends be our guide. They were a comforting presence and then they opened their mouths with answers, and it all went south, smh.

Bob Crowley said:

It obviously depends on the context.

Click to expand...

I've related this before but when I was still a new Christian and getting to know the pastor, he told me about an episode in his own church. This would be 40 or so years ago now.

There was a young parishioner who was riding his motorbike dangerously, stupidly. I know the pastor rode a motor bike himself in his own younger years.

So with due pastoral responsibility he warned the young bloke about his riding. He said it was obvious to everyone. I don't think I ever met this young fellow as I suspect it was about the same time I joined the church.

But the pastor said he felt a bit guilty about the way he warned him. He said he found that what he said happened and I can vouch that several of his predictions have occurred. I'm still waiting for a couple more.

What he said was "If you don't smarten up and start riding more carefully, you won't last two weeks!" He told me he buried the bike rider two weeks later to the day from warning him. He didn't last two weeks. Like he said, he found his words tended to happen.

He said he wished he'd used different terminology. He was correct in giving a pastoral warning, but unintentionally and prophetically predicted the result.

That's one case I can think of where a pastor regretted the exact wording.

That's not to say the pastor caused the chap's death. That was his own responsibility and the chances are he would have taken no notice either way.

It's a bit like the bloke sitting by the pool of Siloam for 38 years. He went around spreading word about his healing. Christ caught up with him and said ... “See, you have been made well. Sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you. The man departed and told the Jews that it was Jesus who had made him well."

There's an inference here that the chap may have "sinned" more and a worse thing came upon him, but Scripture is silent on the issue. Yet I think it's inferred. Otherwise why would the writer put it in there?

Christ healed him as part of His pastoral care, but he also warned him in His pastoral role.