Pastors have some tricky politics to wade through in the normal duties that they perform. I've encountered more than a few who are deeply insecure with all of that stuff. I can certainly testify to have having been there and felt that.
Pastors are blamed for many things. They do things too quickly, too slowly, their sermons are too light, too deep, they don’t visit enough, they meddle too much.
I remember getting chewed out by a long time member because I didn’t preach enough hell fire and brimstone. She thought it was very uncaring to not give people a good dose of the guilts. How on earth would they toe the line without some good old fashioned guilt to motivate their sinful hearts?
Another time I was encouraging the congregation to pray together during the service. That week I was confronted by a group who had never shown any sign of vocal disapproval and was emphatically told that if I ever had them do that again (pray with each other), that they would leave the church. I chickened out and never did that blasphemous thing again.
Pastors need to demonstrate growth in the congregation and therefore, if there are no conversions, the impression is that he just ain’t got it.
“Hey, there’s sick people in the hospital, why aren’t you ministering to them.”
“Did you see what his kids were doing the other day, what kind of pastor is he?”
“He didn’t attend my second cousins engagement party and I specifically invited him. He never cares about us.”
Bob was found out doing some horrible deed, “Why did the pastor appoint him to the building committee. I guess he just doesn’t have very good discernment.”
“Did you say a raise? I say keep him poor, that’s the way to keep him on his knees.”
If he is not doing something: interpreting, planning, visiting, counseling, facilitating, final wording, praying, he is not earning his keep.
Protecting the pulpit is a major part of the job description as we couldn’t handle some differing perspective. "Why are there so many different views anyway, doesn't everyone know that we're right? And besides it's the pastor's job to do the thinking, we're just dumb sheep." I personally think that that line of protecting the pulpit is really more about not rocking the boat, than anything else.
“Church growth. Hmmph! What about the quality of the people? Keep the riff raff out and keep me comfortable." (This is actually one of the most common but unacknowledged characteristics of the small, one pastor led church)
Some guys actually do break through the average size and grow to 1,000 – 5,000 – 10,000.” For him, it’s a different problem. Who’s got the goods to speak into his life and now he’s more alone than ever.
Sometimes the toughest churches for pastors is those nice, tightly knit churches of between 60-150. Everyone has their scorecard out and has been well trained by previous pastors to not let anyone mess up the system.
And then there's the pesky competition from the large church down the street that makes him an easy target. They do everything so much better. And at the same they don’t want to lose the “closeness” that they share together.
All he knows for sure is that he has been called to the ministry. After a few years the blame game either wrecks him and his family or he becomes professionally aloof with a thick skin and a gleaming smile that no one can get past. His salary is sufficient and besides, that’s all he’s trained to do.
But the hook is in and he’s obediently right where God wants Him to be. After all, the sheep need a shepherd and a shepherd needs his sheep. It really is a wonderfully confusing, codependent relationship and since its God’s plan, who can argue with it?
Eventually a comfortable rhythym of give and take, a steady salary and enough new innovative programs are copied to satisfy the desire for "safe" change, ease in. Everyone is happy enough with the status quo and besides, they do hear his word preached every week.
This must be God’s plan since 80% of all churches are in the 100 or so range. If the Holy Spirit wanted something different then surely He would have shown us something different.
But then one day it happens. The pastor gets a visitation from God telling him to shutdown the whole kooky mess.
Not too many guys would be secure enough to be obedient to that call.
Question: Just hold on there compadre. God couldn't, I mean wouldn't, I mean...... Could He really do that?
Answer: I'm not sure if God would be secure enough to ask such a thing.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Is Christ Divided?
When I look over the vastness of the body of Christ within the world, my heart weeps over systems that demand adherents to hold onto a broken shard, thinking it is THE church. Billions of dollars have been spent to build pedestals where these fragments can be codified and idolized. I understand that this is the normal way of doing business and I have repented for being part of this mass distortion.
A friend that passed away last spring really set me on a journey to look beyond what the godless emperor Constantine established as the norm for church practices for the last 1700 years. (Constantine established the first church buildings which necessitated a paid clergy to support them.) My friend asked me two simple questions:
Why do we need a name?
Why do we need a building?
Most churches have never asked these questions. However they have asked, where and when should we build a building and what should we name ourselves? Unfathomable amounts of time, energy and resources have gone into these questions which were never asked nor answered by any New Testament writer.
A friend that passed away last spring really set me on a journey to look beyond what the godless emperor Constantine established as the norm for church practices for the last 1700 years. (Constantine established the first church buildings which necessitated a paid clergy to support them.) My friend asked me two simple questions:
Why do we need a name?
Why do we need a building?
Most churches have never asked these questions. However they have asked, where and when should we build a building and what should we name ourselves? Unfathomable amounts of time, energy and resources have gone into these questions which were never asked nor answered by any New Testament writer.
My friend's two questions are actually rooted in scripture and carry with them the inference that they are signs of rebellion and lack trust towards God. These questions began with the building of Babel, to the Jewish people's demand for a king, to Paul saying, What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul?" 1Cor 1:12,13 (NIV)
One of the greatest indictments against Christianity has been the sectarian and elitist separation that is the most easily recognized attribute for those who seriously look at the whole of Christianity. It seems that every local church creates its own subculture to define itself. For the seeker or new Christian the message is clearly that they should learn to conform to one of the models that is presented. At one group, subjective prophetic language must be accepted in order to fill fully accepted. At another group one must fully reject that approach in order to belong. Another group demands the acceptance and submission to hierarchal leadership. The list of 30,000+ denominations would be too burdensome to go on with.
Pastors and people give the impression that one must belong to one of these diverse groups, never realizing that they are forcing people to make choices that are sometimes polar opposites. Naturally, the group you choose will tell you that you have made the correct choice. I feel like I am standing on a mountain viewing these opposites and crying because Christ should not be divided this way.
Each system demands that the leadership protect it and cause people to conform to its image. The words, in Jesus name are used as a by line in every church group, making it appear that Jesus is quite schizophrenic. Within any particular group what they consider normal and vital is really just some guy’s interpretation that he has managed to enforce or convince a group to adhere to. This enforcement is said to be for the protection of the people but it is really for the protection of the system.
I used to work in a church that had a policy manual as thick as a Bible. It could be conveniently ignored or rigidly enforced in order to support whatever mood we leaders were in that day. Sometimes we mock the Pharisees of Jesus' day for their rigid enforcement of their policy manual, the Talmud. Are we any different?
When people begin to explore outside of their group’s boundaries (speaking in tongues, remarriage, women in leadership, prophetic leadings, raising of hands, styles of worship, doctrine, tithing, cultural dress, missions, care for the poor…) the only thing they can do with integrity is leave quietly. Way to often, friendships cannot survive even a quiet leaving. The travesty is that when Paul asks the question, “Is Christ divided?”, the answer is yes.
The best of those in leadership end up subjugating themselves to the system to which they are a part of and sometimes have created. I’m not saying this support is done grudgingly; in fact it is often done with naïve, idealistic passion. Nevertheless, their mission, backed by significant resources, is to support their flawed system. Eventually and inevitably idolatry is the result because no system is the whole of Christ. I don’t know any leader that thinks that what he is doing is a form of idolatry and yet if they look at other systems they can see the idols (hindrances and limits), quite easily.
With the free flow of information that we now have access to, these systems can be easily observed, but not so easily dismantled. Religion is incredibly resilient against real change. The common theme through these systems is for the seeker or new believer to change to be like us. Not quite what Jesus modeled when he humbled himself to be like ordinary folk. For the religious elite of His day, the cross was the only answer to someone who was not like them.
Many leaders still tend to think in terms of how to build a better mouse trap (there is no end to conferences and books about closing the backdoor) in order to gather people around themselves. (They would say it's not about them, it's about Jesus. Let's give Jesus a clap offering. Ugh!) But the shackles are beginning to loosen. Thankfully, keeping people ignorant and isolated is no longer an easy weapon to wield.
Pastors can still control a few but the people themselves no longer have to accept their religious intimidation. It is no longer necessary or beneficial to build beautiful sanctuaries for one man to stand on his pedestal dispensing his peculiar brand of Christianity to the adoring throng. Even so, human nature being what it is will allow this to continue: “give us a king”, is still a common cry.
When I was doing my toolmaker apprenticeship I wondered why the term journeyman was used to refer to the skilled trades. In an earlier time when a man finished his apprenticeship he was immediately fired from the company. He had to journey to find another job within his field in order to gain more experience. The point being that no singular place could ever give someone the full expression and experience that the specific trade demanded. The only way to do this in church systems is to break, vilify, cast out, leave quietly or dethrone in order for people to mature into the full expression of the body of Christ.
The one who leaves is seen as rebellious and the group condescendingly mouths the words, we'll pray for you. That's not really true: usually in an ironic twist, no one even notices when someone leaves. How shortsighted that people can talk of an infinite God that can be so easily packaged within the limits of a finite group?
Leaders don’t tend to lead for a time and then get out of the way. But the model is there in scripture for those who want it. The gilded cage of a paycheck makes it difficult for pastors to actually apply this principle.
John the Baptist said,
"He must increase, but I [must] decrease. John 3:30 (NKJV)
Jesus said,
"But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away." John 16:7a (NIV)
Jesus did not say He would build a system and call it church. He did say, He (not a pastor) would build His church. Peter defines what Jesus meant by this, (notice we are the many stones but there is only one house)
1Pet 2:4 (NIV) As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
What am I trying to say? Pause for a while to learn to from others but don’t become rooted in the limits of finite people. It really is ok to be a journeyman, learning from various and diverse members of the body of Christ, about the one pearl of great price. Jesus did promise a comforter (not a group) that will guide you into all truth.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Coinkadink Versus Faith in God
When my daughter was about 7 or 8 she used to pronounce coincidence, co-ink-a-dink. To this day I can’t get her wonderful pronunciation out of my head. In some schools of faith, coincidence, even pronounced in such a fun way, is “taboo”. For them it gives the impression that God is not at work and the person who has the presumption to use it, has no “faith”. I’ve probably even been guilty of a frown or two if I heard someone use such a faithless word.
I heard this story a few days ago from a pastor friend that sent shivers through me and made me appreciate “co ink a dinks” a whole lot more. Apparently there is a man of God who travels the world but has difficulty adjusting to the various extreme weather conditions that is par for the course for travelers. Because of his “great” faith he is able to pray and it seems that everywhere he goes the weather is moderated to give him some relief. Even the local people are thrilled when he shows up because nobody enjoys stifling 40 degree weather. A breath of fresh air always announces the arrival of the prophet and what a wonderful signal that God favours him. Wow, if people of faith got their act together, they could go around the world stopping typhoons and droughts.
Here’s the but for this story. When the prophet was visiting a desert country with extreme high heat and no rain, sure enough he prayed for a cooling rain and it came. In this particular area, rain at that time of year was almost unheard of. People were pleased that a man with his own faith thermostat for weather had shown up. Whatever he says must surely be from God, as God even accommodates the weather for this man. The apostle Paul should have taken lessons so that he could have avoided those times when he was naked and COLD. 2 Cor. 11:27. But I digress.
The next morning the newspaper was filled with stories about the unusual weather. Not so much the weather, as the circumstances that ensued from the unexpected rain. A flash flood had resulted when the baked ground could not absorb the rain and two brothers that had been hiking in the nearby foothills were killed. So as the people of God were rejoicing that their local prophet had demonstrated his faith in God, a mother was in total despair over the loss of her sons.
The most shocking part of this story is that it was repeated to me as a testimony of how God wants to work in the little details our lives and if we have enough faith, He may even manage the weather for us. No consideration was given for the glaring, monstrous absurdity that it cost a mother, two sons, so that a man of God would not have to put up with the hot weather that the local people have always endured. It would have been quite the conversation to listen in on, if the grieving mother knew this man of God.
I know it’s not proper faith talk to use the “coincidence” cop out. But when confronted with such a perplexing travesty, how important is it to continue to succumb to the overused, have faith in God mantra? Would that answer satisfy the grieving mother or any other sane person who hears this story?
I heard this story a few days ago from a pastor friend that sent shivers through me and made me appreciate “co ink a dinks” a whole lot more. Apparently there is a man of God who travels the world but has difficulty adjusting to the various extreme weather conditions that is par for the course for travelers. Because of his “great” faith he is able to pray and it seems that everywhere he goes the weather is moderated to give him some relief. Even the local people are thrilled when he shows up because nobody enjoys stifling 40 degree weather. A breath of fresh air always announces the arrival of the prophet and what a wonderful signal that God favours him. Wow, if people of faith got their act together, they could go around the world stopping typhoons and droughts.
Here’s the but for this story. When the prophet was visiting a desert country with extreme high heat and no rain, sure enough he prayed for a cooling rain and it came. In this particular area, rain at that time of year was almost unheard of. People were pleased that a man with his own faith thermostat for weather had shown up. Whatever he says must surely be from God, as God even accommodates the weather for this man. The apostle Paul should have taken lessons so that he could have avoided those times when he was naked and COLD. 2 Cor. 11:27. But I digress.
The next morning the newspaper was filled with stories about the unusual weather. Not so much the weather, as the circumstances that ensued from the unexpected rain. A flash flood had resulted when the baked ground could not absorb the rain and two brothers that had been hiking in the nearby foothills were killed. So as the people of God were rejoicing that their local prophet had demonstrated his faith in God, a mother was in total despair over the loss of her sons.
The most shocking part of this story is that it was repeated to me as a testimony of how God wants to work in the little details our lives and if we have enough faith, He may even manage the weather for us. No consideration was given for the glaring, monstrous absurdity that it cost a mother, two sons, so that a man of God would not have to put up with the hot weather that the local people have always endured. It would have been quite the conversation to listen in on, if the grieving mother knew this man of God.
I know it’s not proper faith talk to use the “coincidence” cop out. But when confronted with such a perplexing travesty, how important is it to continue to succumb to the overused, have faith in God mantra? Would that answer satisfy the grieving mother or any other sane person who hears this story?
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Scattered
In the Old Testament, the rebellious cry of God’s people was “give us a king”. In post-constantine Christianity (318 AD) that same cry has changed to, “give us a pastor”. We want to be led by others even though God says He wants to be sufficient for us. We just don’t like the way He becomes part of our lives so we opt for some authority figure to tell us what we need to know or do. The very nature of God interacting with us is so different than what we would expect. Jesus simply sat with sinners and that mystifies us to this day.
The nature of man is revealed way back in the story of the building of Babel. Gene 11:4 (NIV) Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
We don’t want to be scattered and have to rely on God for our daily bread. It’s more than interesting that God was not pleased with their desire to not be scattered. I think He knows that attitude of needing to belong eventually snuffs out our desire to be led by Him.
Gladys Aylward is a great example of someone being willing to be scattered. Her story flies in the face of formal church systems that want to wrap someone up in some form of a box prior to sending them out on the mission field. With no support whatsoever, she used her life savings to buy a one way ticket to China. Hollywood thought her story was so intriguing that they made a movie starring Ingrid Bergman, called the Inn of the Sixth Happiness.
Pastors generally instruct people to be responsive to God’s leading in their lives but what they really mean is that they want people to follow them and interpret the doing as following God.
I don’t like the feeling of being scattered and yet God has declared that not wanting to be scattered is against His desire for our lives.
Gulp.
The nature of man is revealed way back in the story of the building of Babel. Gene 11:4 (NIV) Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
We don’t want to be scattered and have to rely on God for our daily bread. It’s more than interesting that God was not pleased with their desire to not be scattered. I think He knows that attitude of needing to belong eventually snuffs out our desire to be led by Him.
Gladys Aylward is a great example of someone being willing to be scattered. Her story flies in the face of formal church systems that want to wrap someone up in some form of a box prior to sending them out on the mission field. With no support whatsoever, she used her life savings to buy a one way ticket to China. Hollywood thought her story was so intriguing that they made a movie starring Ingrid Bergman, called the Inn of the Sixth Happiness.
Pastors generally instruct people to be responsive to God’s leading in their lives but what they really mean is that they want people to follow them and interpret the doing as following God.
I don’t like the feeling of being scattered and yet God has declared that not wanting to be scattered is against His desire for our lives.
Gulp.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Tsunamis and Lost Keys
How does God intervene in the affairs of mankind? Some would have you believe that He providentially intervenes in the simplest of affairs like finding lost keys. I’ve heard testimonials given with evangelistic zeal about how a set of keys that had been lost were found after a time of prayer. The impression being that God really cares about the little things in our lives. There is always the possibility that He does help us in those trivial moments of life.
The problem is that sometimes looking for those “God” interventions becomes a way of life and witness of what it means to be loved by God. People who live on this horrible treadmill of thinking of God as the divine intervener in everyday life have no answers for the real questions about faith. If God really wants to help you find a set of lost keys why doesn’t He intervene in natural disasters like tsunamis? Why doesn’t He get you the “best” job, reveal your soulmate, supply 10 million dollars to build an edifice to his glory and most importantly, why aren’t the Blue Jays getting into the playoffs?
There are bible stories of God intervening in the everyday and the truth that is revealed is that our hearts don’t change or understand Him more for the doing of it. He intervened in the affairs of the Hebrew people who ended up in captivity in Egypt because they didn’t want to go home on their own accord. He literally gave them food, MANNA, everyday and everyday they complained about how boring His provision was. We have the story but we don’t want to learn its lesson because the truth is we don’t do well when God intervenes too much. But oh, we like to think we would want Him to, unless of course He really does. We don’t like meddling parents and we don’t like a meddling God even though we do fantasize about Him fixing flat tires from time to time.
In the defining story that reveals His passion to be with us, we find a shattering revelation of our reluctance to accept that foundational premise. He placed a couple in a perfect place, Eden. God gave them free reign to make any decision they wanted to within this setting. If they wanted to work hard they could, if they wanted to make love all day, they could. No questions, no permission, no guilt…it was whatever they chose to make it. Sure enough they fixated on the one thing they shouldn’t have and here we are today expecting God to dictate the details of our lives. Something He never relishes doing as shown in the garden story.
It’s sometimes difficult for us to enjoy His greatest promise, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you." Hebr 13:5
The tyranny of the moment overwhelms us. The cultural expectations of success and doing well, muffles out the great gift of His presence. Our childish demands to be cared for deaden us to His great love. And when tsunamis hit or cancer strikes or we run out of gas, many are left with nothing but a raised fist asking WHY? Just as Adam and Eve turned away from his presence, we, to our shame, literally blame Him for not giving us what we demand.
By the way, He has given us the answer to the day to day care that we long for by giving us the body of Christ to flesh out His love for us. Sadly, His gift is ignored, manipulated, devalued, misunderstood and abused. But that is the subject of other blogs.
The greatest thing is that God wants to be with us. Isn’t that enough?
The problem is that sometimes looking for those “God” interventions becomes a way of life and witness of what it means to be loved by God. People who live on this horrible treadmill of thinking of God as the divine intervener in everyday life have no answers for the real questions about faith. If God really wants to help you find a set of lost keys why doesn’t He intervene in natural disasters like tsunamis? Why doesn’t He get you the “best” job, reveal your soulmate, supply 10 million dollars to build an edifice to his glory and most importantly, why aren’t the Blue Jays getting into the playoffs?
There are bible stories of God intervening in the everyday and the truth that is revealed is that our hearts don’t change or understand Him more for the doing of it. He intervened in the affairs of the Hebrew people who ended up in captivity in Egypt because they didn’t want to go home on their own accord. He literally gave them food, MANNA, everyday and everyday they complained about how boring His provision was. We have the story but we don’t want to learn its lesson because the truth is we don’t do well when God intervenes too much. But oh, we like to think we would want Him to, unless of course He really does. We don’t like meddling parents and we don’t like a meddling God even though we do fantasize about Him fixing flat tires from time to time.
In the defining story that reveals His passion to be with us, we find a shattering revelation of our reluctance to accept that foundational premise. He placed a couple in a perfect place, Eden. God gave them free reign to make any decision they wanted to within this setting. If they wanted to work hard they could, if they wanted to make love all day, they could. No questions, no permission, no guilt…it was whatever they chose to make it. Sure enough they fixated on the one thing they shouldn’t have and here we are today expecting God to dictate the details of our lives. Something He never relishes doing as shown in the garden story.
It’s sometimes difficult for us to enjoy His greatest promise, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you." Hebr 13:5
The tyranny of the moment overwhelms us. The cultural expectations of success and doing well, muffles out the great gift of His presence. Our childish demands to be cared for deaden us to His great love. And when tsunamis hit or cancer strikes or we run out of gas, many are left with nothing but a raised fist asking WHY? Just as Adam and Eve turned away from his presence, we, to our shame, literally blame Him for not giving us what we demand.
By the way, He has given us the answer to the day to day care that we long for by giving us the body of Christ to flesh out His love for us. Sadly, His gift is ignored, manipulated, devalued, misunderstood and abused. But that is the subject of other blogs.
The greatest thing is that God wants to be with us. Isn’t that enough?
Friday, September 7, 2007
Empowerment?
Is it possible for a church system to empower individuals to be all that they can be? From the standpoint of leadership within any local church, this question seems almost too basic as that is what they are all about. SO THEY THINK!
But what if someone begins to deviate from the structures that have been implemented? What if boring bible studies are replaced by interesting poker nights that have lots of relationship building and meaningful discussions about life, love and God included? This is not so far fetched as this is actually occurring right now with some groups of young adults. Is the structure adaptable enough to respond to the rapid changes of what people are desiring or does the structure demand its adherents to adhere to yesterday’s program?
Repentance is a common theme within religious thinking but in reality it is a common theme of life. Repentance simply means a change of mind and action. Individuals are asked to change/repent on a regular basis and the expectation is that it should happen quickly. Use the expectation of quickly as one of the criteria for change and apply it to organizational models and it seems that organizations are extremely unwieldy in this regard. Discussion and fact finding groups begin and die with very little change ever bearing fruit. When change actually does happen people shout it from the roof top as it is such a rarity.
An example from an organization that I was involved in for 25 years expresses the difficultly of change/repentance. One of the policies that had been in place since in 1918 was that divorced and remarried men were not allowed to be board members. The problem was that as we moved into the 1980’s the number of potential candidates for the position was dwindling as divorce rates sky rocketed. There was also the stigma attached of creating second class Christians that could never be “normal” because they had violated the policy of remarriage.
When an individual leader came to the conclusion that he no longer agreed with the policy due to a different biblical interpretation he was not allowed to implement the change. Now he is in “crisis” as his conscience says it is OK for someone to remarry but his organization demands otherwise. Thus he serves the organization and the organization does not empower him to serve in the way his conscience allows. Interesting enough over a ten year period enough votes were gathered to get a two thirds majority to overturn the existing policy. Now the shoe was on the other foot with those whose conscience demanded non-remarriage to be maintained. They felt betrayed and the argument of going down the slippery slope of compromise was thrown out indiscriminately. Character assassination became the order of the day and friendships were broken over the act of “change/repentance.”
I’m coming to the conclusion that group models are probably helpful in short, manageable timeframes. But when they exist and grow beyond the possibility for personal input and without a clear ending in sight then it is inevitable that individual empowerment is swallowed up by the need to maintain the status quo. The simple truth is that as difficult and necessary it is for individuals to repent it is infinitely more difficult for organizations to do the same.
But what if someone begins to deviate from the structures that have been implemented? What if boring bible studies are replaced by interesting poker nights that have lots of relationship building and meaningful discussions about life, love and God included? This is not so far fetched as this is actually occurring right now with some groups of young adults. Is the structure adaptable enough to respond to the rapid changes of what people are desiring or does the structure demand its adherents to adhere to yesterday’s program?
Repentance is a common theme within religious thinking but in reality it is a common theme of life. Repentance simply means a change of mind and action. Individuals are asked to change/repent on a regular basis and the expectation is that it should happen quickly. Use the expectation of quickly as one of the criteria for change and apply it to organizational models and it seems that organizations are extremely unwieldy in this regard. Discussion and fact finding groups begin and die with very little change ever bearing fruit. When change actually does happen people shout it from the roof top as it is such a rarity.
An example from an organization that I was involved in for 25 years expresses the difficultly of change/repentance. One of the policies that had been in place since in 1918 was that divorced and remarried men were not allowed to be board members. The problem was that as we moved into the 1980’s the number of potential candidates for the position was dwindling as divorce rates sky rocketed. There was also the stigma attached of creating second class Christians that could never be “normal” because they had violated the policy of remarriage.
When an individual leader came to the conclusion that he no longer agreed with the policy due to a different biblical interpretation he was not allowed to implement the change. Now he is in “crisis” as his conscience says it is OK for someone to remarry but his organization demands otherwise. Thus he serves the organization and the organization does not empower him to serve in the way his conscience allows. Interesting enough over a ten year period enough votes were gathered to get a two thirds majority to overturn the existing policy. Now the shoe was on the other foot with those whose conscience demanded non-remarriage to be maintained. They felt betrayed and the argument of going down the slippery slope of compromise was thrown out indiscriminately. Character assassination became the order of the day and friendships were broken over the act of “change/repentance.”
I’m coming to the conclusion that group models are probably helpful in short, manageable timeframes. But when they exist and grow beyond the possibility for personal input and without a clear ending in sight then it is inevitable that individual empowerment is swallowed up by the need to maintain the status quo. The simple truth is that as difficult and necessary it is for individuals to repent it is infinitely more difficult for organizations to do the same.
Monday, September 3, 2007
If I Live in a Garage Do I Have to Be a Car?
The desire and need to belong is a universal idea. Belonging is the glue that holds are world together while at the same time it is the nemesis that drives war, rebellion, suicide, depression and every other ill that affects our lives.
An oft quoted idea within Christianity asks this question: If you live in a garage does that make you a car? The answer is obvious and is used to help people understand that going to church doesn’t make one a Christian. But there is a seedy underside to organized religion that subtly and sometimes not so subtly cause you to conform to a set of cultural norms in order for you to belong to whatever particular church ideology that you happen to find yourself. In other words they do want you to be the particular “car” that the local group has determined is the “right” way to live as a Christian.
In the beginning years of my Christian journey I was expected to tithe, go to church twice on Sunday in a suit, leave weddings when the dancing started, not play cards, not drink alcohol…even Wednesday nights were set aside for Bible study (as if two sermons on Sunday weren’t sufficient). This gave me the ticket to belong to the group while at the same time alienating much of my extended family with what was perceived as a “holier than thou” attitude. I’ve since come to realize that my desire to belong created religious blinders that allowed me to be blissfully unaware that other ways of approaching God were just as and probably more valid than what I was living out.
If one travels the world they will find Christians in Germany that understand fellowship with each other as having a beer together, while the mark of some Christians in Ireland is not drinking any alcohol. Wearing makeup in Eastern Europe is the sign of a worldly woman whereas a woman covering her breasts in an African tribe is the sign that she is a prostitute. The list is endless in ways where confusing messages of culture norms of belonging are confused and equated with Jesus’ words. Why do these differences occur even with people reading the same Bible around the world? The desire to belong and conform to the standard of a local group/culture explains the varied expressions.
Belonging certainly leads people to either conforming or rebelling but rarely does it create wholeness and uniqueness. The idea that we are ‘fearfully and wonderfully’ made is not the prominent axiom for social order or religious indoctrination. It is no wonder that many people have rejected churchianity leaving them thinking they have rejected Jesus as well because the local group made culture and message synonymous. Rarely is the non-conforming Jesus presented in a life giving way.
The following video excerpt from a talk by Julia Sweeney: "Letting Go of God" is a humorous unveiling of the paradox of how difficult it is for people to conform to a local set of standards and at the same time reveals the many people that happily or guiltily conform in order to belong to a particular group.
An oft quoted idea within Christianity asks this question: If you live in a garage does that make you a car? The answer is obvious and is used to help people understand that going to church doesn’t make one a Christian. But there is a seedy underside to organized religion that subtly and sometimes not so subtly cause you to conform to a set of cultural norms in order for you to belong to whatever particular church ideology that you happen to find yourself. In other words they do want you to be the particular “car” that the local group has determined is the “right” way to live as a Christian.
In the beginning years of my Christian journey I was expected to tithe, go to church twice on Sunday in a suit, leave weddings when the dancing started, not play cards, not drink alcohol…even Wednesday nights were set aside for Bible study (as if two sermons on Sunday weren’t sufficient). This gave me the ticket to belong to the group while at the same time alienating much of my extended family with what was perceived as a “holier than thou” attitude. I’ve since come to realize that my desire to belong created religious blinders that allowed me to be blissfully unaware that other ways of approaching God were just as and probably more valid than what I was living out.
If one travels the world they will find Christians in Germany that understand fellowship with each other as having a beer together, while the mark of some Christians in Ireland is not drinking any alcohol. Wearing makeup in Eastern Europe is the sign of a worldly woman whereas a woman covering her breasts in an African tribe is the sign that she is a prostitute. The list is endless in ways where confusing messages of culture norms of belonging are confused and equated with Jesus’ words. Why do these differences occur even with people reading the same Bible around the world? The desire to belong and conform to the standard of a local group/culture explains the varied expressions.
Belonging certainly leads people to either conforming or rebelling but rarely does it create wholeness and uniqueness. The idea that we are ‘fearfully and wonderfully’ made is not the prominent axiom for social order or religious indoctrination. It is no wonder that many people have rejected churchianity leaving them thinking they have rejected Jesus as well because the local group made culture and message synonymous. Rarely is the non-conforming Jesus presented in a life giving way.
The following video excerpt from a talk by Julia Sweeney: "Letting Go of God" is a humorous unveiling of the paradox of how difficult it is for people to conform to a local set of standards and at the same time reveals the many people that happily or guiltily conform in order to belong to a particular group.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
