'Cowardly pastor' problem?

Type "cowardly pastor" into Google and a surprising number of results will appear on your laptop.

Joe McKeever's name will come up quickly.

McKeever has a page on the Internet listing seven things cowardly pastors do.

At no. 5 on McKeever's list is "he will never take a courageous stand on anything."

Putting aside the empirical data showing more and more pastors these days are women, allow me to ask a question at this juncture.

Readers, what do church people want from their pastors?

In my experience, not many folks want a pastor in the model of legendary Martin Luther King Jr., who publicly took on the issues of his day from a position of nonviolence inspired by Christ and by India's Mohandas Gandhi.

King led protests, unified people and went to jail all based on a theology rooted in his understanding of Jesus of Nazareth, the man for others.

King's church members at Ebenezer Baptist in Atlanta, Georgia, gave their pastor full support and freed him to lead the civil rights movement six days a week -- asking only that he be back in their pulpit on Sundays.

King was a pioneer, a hero and a martyr.

The history of my life has taught me church folks gravitate to pastors who care for them, pray for them, support them during times of bereavement and crisis and who give broad oversight to temporal church matters.

As great as he was -- and he definitely was -- most churches are not looking for a Dr. King in their pulpits.

The stance is understandable.

We live in an increasingly litigious society and awareness of this condition causes many in the church to pull in their elbows, to be risk-averse.

Cowardly? I think not.

Pastors who take stands often lose their vocations -- and I'm well acquainted with the phenomenon.

Pastors, quite correctly, are identified as being in one of the helping professions.

It wasn't my role, in my previous career path, to take a side; in fact, if possible, this columnist tried to stay above the fray and see everybody's side in times of trouble.

The caveat, "if possible," should be noted because there were a few select moments where this writer threw caution to the winds and failed to remain removed from the fracas.

In the 1966 film, "A Man for All Seasons," the character of Sir Thomas More, now a Roman Catholic saint, advised a young man away from the political life, encouraging him to see the merits of "a quiet life," one not to be found, he felt, in politics.

When I was ordained three decades ago, the stated mission of an "elder", a term which in my tradition is reserved for the clergy, was stated in the following triad.

• Preach the Word.
• Administer the sacraments.
• Administer, or arrange, the life of the church to be in ministry.

I'm aware of a time-honored goal of preaching -- "to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

In other words, a pastor is to be a consoler but if need be, also a prophetic voice.

Mr. McKeever, if a pastor chooses to emphasize the former route, seeking mainly to comfort rather than to confront, it doesn't make him or her a coward.

Rather, the former route makes the pastor available to all sides -- a definite need in an era in which people are terribly polarized.

If you're concerned pastors don't address the issues of the day more or with enough passion, say so.

Don't use the word "coward," though. It doesn't fit.

Your adjective is misapplied here. Please pick another.